DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 7, wherein the radiation structure is coupled to the free end of the bending actuator or coupled to the bending actuator in a region of the free end or coupled in the longitudinal direction of the bending actuator in a third closer to the free end than to the clamped end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the region of the free end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parent claim does not recites “a region of the free end”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the third closer to the free end than to the clamped end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parent claim does not recites “a third closer to the free end than to the clamped end”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least two actuators" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parent claim does not recites “at least two actuators”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the substrate plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parent claim does not recites “a substrate plane”.
Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependency to Clam 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dehe et al. (Hereinafter Dehe) DE 102012220819 (For examination purports English machine translation of Dehe would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Dehe teaches
An MEMS sound transducer (Fig. 5 shows an MEMS sound transducer) comprising:
at least one actuator (Fig. 5 shows an interlocking comb drive actuator 460);
a radiation structure (Fig. 5 shows a micro-speaker membrane 420) coupled to the actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) and configured as a separate element as shown in Fig. 5;
a structure (Fig. 5 shows a substrate 110) surrounding the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420), wherein the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) is separated from the surrounding structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) by one or more gaps as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below; and
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one screen (Fig. 5 shows an anchor 558) arranged along at least one of the one or more gaps (i.e. cavity 112) as shown in Fig. 5, wherein the at least one screen (i.e. anchor 558) is formed as part of the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 2, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) and the surrounding structure (i.e. substrate 110) are arranged in one plane as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 3, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the one or more gaps are provided circumferentially around the radiation structure (Fig. 5 shows gaps provided circumferentially around the micro-speaker membrane 420 (See annotated Fig. 5 below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein a further screen (i.e. an anchor 558) extends into a substrate plane as shown in Fig. 5; and wherein the further screen (i.e. an anchor 558) extends out of the substrate plane as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 6, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one screen is arranged to be circumferential around the radiation structure (Fig. 5 shows anchors 558 provided circumferentially around the micro-speaker membrane 420).
Regarding claim 7, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a bending actuator (The intermeshing comb drive structure 460 is made as a structure in the plane and can be operated near the self-resonance. A slight initial displacement of the movable comb 464 against the stator crest 462 is sufficient to start the operation. Such displacements may be due to initial bending or a slight asymmetry of the comb structure caused during fabrication 460 be generated….Pg. 8, Para. 2, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 7, wherein the radiation structure (micro-speaker membrane 420) is coupled to the free end of the bending transducer (i.e. intermeshing comb drive structure 460) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 9, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises an electrostatic actuator (Fig. 5 shows the interlocking comb drive actuator 460 has a first set of comb fingers 462 and the second set of comb fingers 464 engage each other and are configured to effect an electrostatic force that drives the body in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate….Pg. 1, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) is arranged alongside of the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 12, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least two actuators (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) are coupled to the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5, and wherein the at least two actuators (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) are arranged to be opposite as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 13, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one further screen (i.e. an anchor 558) extends along a gap between the at least one actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) and an edge of the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Dehe teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the radiation structure is configured to perform, when actuated by the actuator, a stroke movement in a direction out of the substrate plane (the micro-speaker membrane becomes 420 by in-mesh electrodes of the comb drive 460 operated to cause a piston movement approximately at a mechanical resonance frequency of the diaphragm 420 perform performing resonant system….Pg. 7, Para. 7, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 because the apparatus of Claim 1 can be used to practice the method steps of Claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Dehe teaches
An MEMS sound transducer (Fig. 5 shows an MEMS sound transducer) comprising:
at least one actuator (Fig. 5 shows an interlocking comb drive actuator 460);
a radiation structure (Fig. 5 shows a micro-speaker membrane 420) coupled to the actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) and configured as a separate element as shown in Fig. 5;
a structure (Fig. 5 shows a substrate 110) surrounding the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420), wherein the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) is separated from the surrounding structure (i.e. substrate 110) by one or more gaps as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below; and
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one screen (Fig. 5 shows an anchor 558) arranged along at least one of the one or more gaps as shown in Fig. 5 annotated above, wherein the at least one screen (i.e. anchor 558) is formed as part of the surrounding structure and by a cavity (Fig. 5 shows a cavity 112) of the surrounding structure (i.e. substrate 110) as shown in Fig. 5 annotated above; and
wherein the at least one screen (i.e. anchor 558) extends out of a substrate plane as shown in Fig. 5, and wherein the at least one screen (i.e. anchor 558) extends an edge of the cavity (i.e. cavity 112) as shown in Fig. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Rusconi et al (Hereinafter Rusconi) KR 20160149284 (For examination purports English machine translation of Rusconi would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 5, Dehe teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Dehe fails to teach that the radiation structure is pre-deflected relative to the surrounding structure in an idle state.
Rusconi teaches that a membrane is bent, when the actuator structure is inactive (Pg. 4, Para. 4, Lines 1-3).
Dehe and Rusconi each disclose a MEMS sound transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS sound transducer of Dehe with the membrane is bent, when the actuator structure is inactive as taught by Rusconi. The resulting modification would yield predictable results of providing a built-in curve or angle to counteract the expected deflection that occurs under load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS sound transducer of Dehe with the membrane is bent, when the actuator structure is inactive as taught by Rusconi to yield the predictable result of making the radiation structure more stable.
11. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Rusconi et al (Hereinafter Rusconi ‘5125) US-PAT No. 10,045,125.
Regarding claim 11, Dehe teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Dehe fails to teach that the radiation structure comprises two or more regions, wherein a central region is arranged between the two or more regions.
Rusconi ‘5125 teaches that a membrane structure 5 comprises has several recesses 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d, a central spot 36 is arranged between the several recesses as shown in Fig. 7.
Dehe and Rusconi ‘5125 each disclose a MEMS sound transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS sound transducer of Dehe with a central region is arranged between the two or more regions as taught by Rusconi ‘5125. The resulting modification would yield predictable results of reinforcing the radiation structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS sound transducer of Dehe with a central region is arranged between the two or more regions as taught by Rusconi ‘5125 to yield the predictable result of making the radiation structure more stable.
Regarding claim 14, Dehe teaches all the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above.
Dehe fails to teach that the radiation structure comprises four regions arranged as quadrants, wherein the four regions arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four suspension elements or actuators.
Rusconi ‘5125 teaches that a membrane structure 5 comprises has four recesses 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d arranged as quadrants, wherein the four recesses arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four piezoelectrically active areas 25 as shown in Fig. 8.
Dehe and Rusconi ‘5125 each disclose a MEMS sound transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS sound transducer of Dehe with four regions arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four actuators as taught by Rusconi ‘5125. The resulting modification would yield predictable results of reinforcing the radiation structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS sound transducer of Dehe with four regions arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four actuators as taught by Rusconi ‘5125 to yield the predictable result of making the radiation structure more stable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7574. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694