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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species 1B in the reply filed on Jun. 19th 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are examined in this office action. Claims 6 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dehe et al. (US 20180317021 from IDS), hereinafter Dehe.
Regarding claim 1, Dehe teaches a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (Abstract) comprising:
a substrate (fig. 6, housing 1 and/or bottom substrate below 2; para. 0015) having a through-hole (hole for sound port 13; para. 0016) extending vertically;
a membrane structure (MEMS structure 2; para. 0015) extending horizontally to cover the through-hole (13); and
a plurality of upright nanostructures (hydrophobic structure 23; para. 0018) located at the membrane structure (2), the upright nanostructures (23) forming a liquid repellent membrane surface (23 prevent liquid; para. 0018).
Regarding claim 2, Dehe further teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1,
wherein the upright nanostructures (fig. 5, 23) are configured as three-dimensional geometric structures (cylindrical pillars; para. 0023) extending from the membrane structure (2), and extending in a direction (vertical direction) away from the membrane structure (2).
Regarding claim 3, Dehe further teaches The MEMS device according to claim 1, wherein the upright nanostructures (fig. 5, 23) comprise at least one of:
a diameter of≤1 μm;
a pitch (distance between 23) defined by a distance (distance between 23) between centers of two adjacent ones of the upright nanostructures (centers of 23), a ratio of pitch:diameter (higher than 2 from the fig.) is at least 2:1; or
a width-to-height aspect ratio between 1:3 and 1:40.
Regarding claim 4, Dehe further teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of upright nanostructures (fig. 6, 23) provided on the membrane structure (23) form a membrane surface (surface 22; para. 0018) having at least one of a hydrophobic surface characteristic (hydrophobic structure of 23; para. 0018) or an oleophobic surface characteristic.
Regarding claim 5, Dehe further teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1, wherein the upright nanostructures (fig. 5, 23) comprise at least one of the following geometrical shapes:
a cylinder shape (cylindrical pillars; para. 0023);
a frustum cone shape;
an inverted frustum cone shape;
a T-shape; or
a multifaceted T-shape.
Regarding claim 8, Dehe further teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1, wherein the membrane structure (fig. 6, 2) comprises a first membrane surface (22) facing the through-hole (13) and a second membrane surface (top surface) facing away from the through hole (13); and
wherein the upright nanostructures (23) are arranged on at least one of the first membrane surface (22) or the second membrane surfaces.
Regarding claim 12, Dehe further teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of upright nanostructures (fig. 5, 23) has an area density (10^6 to 4*10^6 based on pitch 5-10μm; para. 0024) of about 106 to about 1010 upright nanostructures per cm2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Ziglioli et al. (US 20140061892 from IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Dehe teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1 including n the upright nanostructures (fig. 5, 23).
Dehe fails to explicitly teach inorganic nanodots or nanowires extending from an outer surface of the upright nanostructures.
However, Ziglioli teaches inorganic nanodots or nanowires (Ziglioli: fig. 2a, rough nanostructure 16 of silicon; para. 0026, 0032) extending from an outer surface of the upright nanostructures (Ziglioli: outer surface of microreliefs 20; para. 0026, similar to 23 of Dehe).
Ziglioli and Dehe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MEMS devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add inorganic nanodots or nanowires as taught by Ziglioli.
Doing so would realize a nanostructures to prevent water or other liquids from penetrating into the chamber and damaged by external humidity (Ziglioli: para. 0036). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 20200087139).
Regarding claim 9, Dehe teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1, wherein the membrane structure (fig. 6, 2) forms a microphone sound transducer membrane (2 is MEMS structure for the sound transducer; para. 0015), and wherein the upright nanostructures (23) are located at the microphone sound transducer membrane (2 of sound transducer).
Dehe fails to explicitly teach the MEMS device is configured as a MEMS microphone.
However, Shiraishi teaches the MEMS device (Shiraishi: fig. 1, MEMS microphone 100 including ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) package 91; para. 0066, similar to 2 of Dehe add 91 of Shiraishi) is configured as a MEMS microphone (Shiraishi: MEMS microphone 100; para. 0066).
Shiraishi and Dehe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MEMS devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ASIC for configured as a MEMS microphone as taught by Shiraishi.
Doing so would realize a microphone for more functions (Shiraishi: para. 0003).
Regarding claim 10, Dehe teaches the MEMS device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a microphone sound transducer membrane (fig. 6, 2 is MEMS structure for the sound transducer; para. 0015),
wherein the MEMS device includes an environmental barrier membrane or mesh structure (2 has a top mesh portion) for protecting the microphone sound transducer membrane (sound transducer) from moisture (liquid) and/or environmental particles, and
wherein the membrane structure (2) forms the environmental barrier membrane or mesh structure (2 with top mesh portion).
Dehe fails to explicitly teach the MEMS device comprising a MEMS microphone.
However, Shiraishi teaches the MEMS device (Shiraishi: fig. 1, MEMS microphone 100 including ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) package 91; para. 0066, similar to 2 of Dehe add 91 of Shiraishi) comprising a MEMS microphone (Shiraishi: MEMS microphone 100; para. 0066).
Shiraishi and Dehe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MEMS devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ASIC as a MEMS microphone as taught by Shiraishi.
Doing so would realize a microphone for more functions (Shiraishi: para. 0003).
Regarding claim 11, Dehe in view of Shiraishi further teaches the MEMS device according to claim 9, further comprising:
a sound port (Dehe: fig. 6, sound port 13; para. 0016), located in the MEMS microphone (Shiraishi: 100), wherein acoustic waves (Dehe: along 13) reach the membrane structure (Dehe: 2) through the sound port (Dehe: 13), wherein the membrane structure (Dehe: 2) is positioned such that the upright nanostructures (Dehe: 23) face the sound port (Dehe: 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights