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 11/11/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2013/0070951A1) in view of Pang et al (CN 203193895 U) and further in view of Zou (US 2020/0186939 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka et al disclose a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) microphone (Tanaka et al; Fig 26), comprising: a substrate (Tanaka et al; Fig 26; substrate Z1); a housing enclosing a receiving space together with the substrate (Tanaka et al; Fig 26; substrate Z2 encloses receiving space together with substrate Z1); a MEMS chip enclosing a back cavity together with the substrate (Tanaka et al; Fig 26; Para [0121]; MEMS chip Z5 encloses a back cavity together with the substrate Z1); and an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip fixed to the substrate (Tanaka et al; Fig 26; chip Z6 fixed to the substrate Z1; Para [0121]), wherein the substrate is provided with a sound inlet channel communicating the receiving space with the outside, and the MEMS chip comprises a diaphragm located on a sound inlet path of the sound inlet channel (Tanaka et al; Fig 26; Para [0121]; MEMS chip Z5 comprises diaphragm located on a sound inlet path of the sound inlet channel Z3), wherein the sound inlet channel comprises a buffering cavity located in the substrate, a first sound inlet hole provided in the substrate and communicating the buffering cavity with the outside, and a second sound inlet hole provided in the substrate and communicating the buffering cavity with the back cavity (Tanaka et al; , Fig 26;
PNG
media_image1.png
275
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) but do not expressly disclose and wherein the second sound inlet hole comprises at least two sub-holes spaced apart from one another; the buffering cavity filled with a buffering material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein the second sound inlet hole comprises at least two sub-holes spaced apart from one another (Pang et al; Fig 5; Para [0027]; subhole 4a). 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 holes size taught by Pang as hole size in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to prolong the service life of the MEMS microphone (Pang et al; Para [0030]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses a MEMS microphone wherein the buffering cavity filled with a buffering material (Zou; Fig 1; Para [0016]; [0023]; buffering material 107 filling cavity 106). 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 buffering material taught by Zou to fill the buffering cavity in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to provide benefits with little or no performance degradation (Zou; Para [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, wherein, in a thickness direction of the substrate, orthographic projections of the first sound inlet hole and the second sound inlet hole do not overlap with each other (Tanaka et al; Fig 26; orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole does not overlap with second sound inlet hole;
PNG
media_image2.png
283
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 3, wherein, in the thickness direction of the substrate, the orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole is located outside the back cavity (Tanaka et al; Fig 26;
PNG
media_image3.png
285
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; orthographic projection of first sound inlet hole is located outside of the back cavity).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein, in the thickness direction of the substrate, the orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole is located in the back cavity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein, in the thickness direction of the substrate, the orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole is located in the back cavity (Pang et al; Fig 1; orthographic projection of first sound inlet hole 5a in the thickness direction of the substrate is located in the back cavity comprises of MEMS 3 and substrate 1). 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 sound inlet hole position taught by Pang as inlet sound hole position in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to prolong the service life of the MEMS microphone (Pang et al; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 5, but do not expressly disclose wherein, in the thickness direction of the substrate, the orthographic projections of the at least two sub-holes are encircled on an outer periphery of the orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein, in the thickness direction of the substrate, the orthographic projections of the at least two sub-holes are encircled on an outer periphery of the orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole (Pang et al; Fig 1; orthographic projections of the at least two sub-holes 4a are encircled on an outer periphery of the orthographic projection of the first sound inlet hole 5a). 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 sound inlet hole position taught by Pang as inlet sound hole position in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to prolong the service life of the MEMS microphone (Pang et al; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the substrate comprises: a first substrate enclosing the receiving space together with the housing; and a second substrate fixed to a side of the first substrate away from the housing; wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart to form the buffering cavity, the first sound inlet hole is provided in the second substrate, and the second sound inlet hole is provided in the first substrate. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein the substrate comprises: a first substrate enclosing the receiving space together with the housing (Pang et al; Fig 6; first substrate 11a); and a second substrate fixed to a side of the first substrate away from the housing (Pang et al; Fig 6; second substrate 11c fixed to a side away from housing 2); wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart to form the buffering cavity (Pang et al; Fig 6; first substrate 11a is spaced from second substrate 11c to form buffering cavity 6c), the first sound inlet hole is provided in the second substrate (Pang et al; Fig 6; first sound inlet hole5c is provided in second substrate 11c), and the second sound inlet hole is provided in the first substrate (Pang et al; Fig 6; second sound inlet hole 4b is provided in first substrate 11a). 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 holes size taught by Pang as hole size in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to prolong the service life of the MEMS microphone (Pang et al; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the substrate further comprises a fixing member fixed between the first substrate and the second substrate, and the first substrate, the second substrate, and the fixing member jointly enclose the buffering cavity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein the substrate further comprises a fixing member fixed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Pang et al; Fig 6; fixing member 12), and the first substrate, the second substrate, and the fixing member jointly enclose the buffering cavity (Pang et al; Fig 6; first substrate 11 a second substrate 11c fixing member 12 jointly enclose buffering cavity 6c). 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 holes size taught by Pang as hole size in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to prolong the service life of the MEMS microphone (Pang et al; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 8, wherein the buffering cavity directly faces the receiving space (Tanaka et al; Fig 6; buffering cavity which is horizontal part of Z3 faces receiving space comprising of space between substrate Z1 and housing Z2), but do not expressly disclose and a junction between the housing and the first substrate directly faces the fixing member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein a junction between the housing and the first substrate directly faces the fixing member (Pang et al; Fig 6; junction between housing 2 and first substrate 11 faces fixing member 12). 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 holes size taught by Pang as hole size in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to prolong the service life of the MEMS microphone (Pang et al; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the buffering material is a soft porous material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses a MEMS microphone wherein the buffering material is a soft porous material (Zou; Fig 1; Para [0044]). 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 buffering material taught by Zou to fill the buffering cavity in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to provide benefits with little or no performance degradation (Zou; Para [0053]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2013/0070951A1) in view of Pang et al (CN 203193895 U) and further in view of Zou (US 2020/0186939 A1) and further in view of Wang et al (CN203225885U).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka et al in view of Pang et al and further in view of Zou disclose the MEMS microphone as described in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the sub-holes is smaller than 30% of a cross-sectional area of the first sound inlet hole. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang et al disclose a MEMS microphone wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the sub-holes is smaller than 30% of a cross-sectional area of the first sound inlet hole (Wang et al; Fig 4; Page 5; lines 7-15; sum of cross-sectional areas of the sub-holes 40 is smaller than 30% of a cross-sectional area of the first sound inlet hole 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 holes size taught by Wang as hole size in the microphone device taught by Tanaka. The motivation to do so would have been to ensure the performance of the device (Wang et al; Page 5; lines 7-15).
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