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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/12/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi et al (JP 2021/040255 A) in view of Cai et al (CN 102932724 A) and further in view of Suzuki et al (US 2008/0019543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shinichi et al Cai et al disclose a MEMS microphone (Shinichi et al; Fig 1), comprising: a substrate with a back cavity (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; Para [0011]; substrate 2 with cavity 1); and a capacitive system arranged on the substrate (Shinichi et al; Para [0011]; Fig 1; capacitive system 6-7 arranged on substrate 2), comprising a back plate (Cai et al; Fig 2; back plate 4-5) (Shinichi et al; Para [0011]; Fig 1; back plate 6) and a diaphragm opposite to the back plate (Shinichi et al; Para [0011]; Fig 1; diaphragm 7 opposite back plate 6), the diaphragm located between the substrate and the back plate (Shinichi et al; Para [0011]; Fig 1; diaphragm 7 located between substrate 2 and back plate 6); the diaphragm is provided with a through hole (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; diaphragm 7 has through hole), the back plate comprises a body portion, an extension post extending from the body portion towards the substrate and penetrating the through hole (Shinichi et al; Fig 1;
PNG
media_image1.png
231
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and a spacer connected to the extension post (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; stopper at lower end of post 8 interpreted as spacer), the spacer is located between the diaphragm and the substrate (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; Para [0012]; stopper at lower end of post 8 interpreted as spacer is located between diaphragm 7 and substrate 2), one end of the extension post is connected to the body portion of the back plate (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; one end of extension post 8 is connected to body portion of back plate 6), the other end of the extension post is connected to the spacer (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; the other end of extension post 8 is connected to stopper located under diaphragm); but do not expressly disclose a periphery of the diaphragm is fixed to the substrate via a supporting member, the supporting member is sandwiched between the diaphragm and the substrate, a width of the extension post is smaller than an aperture of the through hole throughout its entire length, the spacer is used to limit the movement of the diaphragm toward the substrate to prevent it from colliding with the substrate. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein a width of the extension post is smaller than an aperture of the through hole throughout its entire length (Cai et al; Fig 2; width of extension post 5 is smaller than an aperture of the through hole of diaphragm 6 through entire length of the extension post) the spacer is used to limit the movement of the diaphragm toward the substrate to prevent it from colliding with the substrate (Cai et al; Fig 2; projection of spacer 13 along vibration direction is at least partially located on the substrate; thus the spacer prevent movement of diaphragm towards substrate). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the position of the extension post taught by Cai as extension post location in the device taught by Shinichi et al. The motivation to do so would have been improve the sensitivity of the MEMs device (Cai et al; Para [0100]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein a periphery of the diaphragm is fixed to the substrate via a supporting member, the supporting member is sandwiched between the diaphragm and the substrate (Suzuki et al; Fig 12; supporting member 14 sandwiched between the diaphragm 21 and the substrate 11). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the supporting member taught by Suzuki to support the diaphragm in the device taught by Shinichi et al. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the distortion in the outputted signals (Suzuki et al; Para [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Shinichi et al in view of Cai et al and further in view of Suzuki et al disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein a projection of the spacer along a vibration direction of the diaphragm is at least partially located on the substrate. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein a projection of the spacer along a vibration direction of the diaphragm is at least partially located on the substrate (Cai et al; Fig 2; projection of spacer 13 along vibration direction is at least partially located on the substrate). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the position of the extension post taught by Cai as extension post location in the device taught by Shinichi et al. The motivation to do so would have been improve the sensitivity of the MEMs device (Cai et al; Para [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, Shinichi et al in view of Cai et al and further in view of Suzuki et al disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, wherein a width of the spacer is larger than that of the extension post (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; width of stopper 8A under the diaphragm is larger than width of extension post 8).
Regarding claim 4, Shinichi et al in view of Cai et al and further in view of Suzuki et al disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, wherein a width of the spacer is larger than an aperture of the through hole (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; width of stopper 8A under the diaphragm is larger than width of the through hole of the diaphragm for the extension post 8).
Regarding claim 5, Shinichi et al in view of Cai et al and further in view of Suzuki et al disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, wherein the extension post is integral with the body portion (Shinichi et al; Fig 1; extension post 8 is integral with body portion of back plate 6).
Regarding claim 6, Shinichi et al in view of Cai et al and further in view of Suzuki et al disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the spacer is made of an insulating material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein the spacer is made of an insulating material (Cai et al; Fig 2; Para [0036]; spacer 13 is made of silicon nitride). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the position of the extension post taught by Cai as extension post location in the device taught by Shinichi et al. The motivation to do so would have been improve the sensitivity of the mems device (Cai et al; Para [0100]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi et al (JP 2021/040255 A) in view of Cai et al (CN 102932724 A) and further in view of Suzuki et al (US 2008/0019543 A1) and further in view of Inoue (US 2017/0289702 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shinichi et al in view of Cai et al and further in view of Suzuki et al disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, but so not expressly disclose wherein the extension post and spacer are hollow annular structures. However, in the same field of endeavor, Inoue discloses a MEMS microphone wherein the extension post; and spacer are hollow annular structures (Inoue; Fig 10; extension of back plate through hole of diaphragm 15; Fig 13A; hollow annular structure). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the extension post taught by Inoue as extension post in the device taught by Shinichi. The motivation to do so would have been to stabilized the frequency characteristics (Inoue et al; Para [0100]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692