CTNF 18/421,837 CTNF 90618 Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1-20 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 1 Lines 1-2: states: “the die including a MEMS mirror that is suspended by torsional flexures”. It is unclear which die the claim is referring to (a die carrier substrate or a silicon die). For purpose of examination, claim 1 will be treated as follows: “a silicon die disposed on the die-bonding surface of the die carrier substrate, the die including a MEMS mirror that is suspended by torsional flexures”. Claim 12 Lines 2-5 states: “a die-bonding material forming a layer between the die carrier substrate and the die , the layer providing a mechanical connection between the die and the die carrier substrate, and the die-bonding material further functioning as a standoff that elevates the free end of the die ”. It is unclear which die the claim is referring to (a die carrier substrate or a silicon die). For purpose of examination, claim 12 will be treated as follows: “ a die having a fixed end that is fixedly die-attached to the die carrier substrate and a free end that is unattached to the die carrier substrate; and a die-bonding material forming a layer between the die carrier substrate and the die , the layer providing a mechanical connection between the die and the die carrier substrate, and the die-bonding material further functioning as a standoff that elevates the free end of the die above the die-attach surface of the die carrier substrate”. Claim 17 Lines 5-7 states: “providing a silicon die supporting a MEMS function, the die having a top surface including bond pads that are electrically coupled to internal circuits within the die , and further having a substantially planar bottom surface; and die-attaching a portion of the bottom surface of the die to the die carrier substrate”. For purpose of examination, claim 17 will be treated as follows: “providing a die supporting a MEMS function, the die having a top surface including bond pads that are electrically coupled to internal circuits within the die , and further having a substantially planar bottom surface; and die-attaching a portion of the bottom surface of the die to the die carrier substrate”. Proper corrections for all claims is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Suppelsa et al. (US 5280,139 A) . Regarding independent claim 12: Suppelsa teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and Fig. 4, top view) a cantilevered semiconductor die package, comprising: a die carrier substrate (Col. 2, Lines 39-44: #12) having a die-attach surface (upper surface); a semiconductor die (Col. 2, Lines 32-44: #22) having a fixed end that is fixedly die-attached to the die carrier substrate (left side die attach of die carrier substrate 12) and a free end that is unattached to the die carrier substrate (distal end, right side, away from the fixed end on the left side); and a die-bonding material (Col. 2, Lines 32-45: #14) forming a layer between the die carrier substrate (12) and the die (22), the layer providing a mechanical connection between the die (22) and the die carrier substrate (12), and the die-bonding material (14) further functioning as a standoff that elevates the free end of the die (Fig. 2) above the die-attach surface of the die carrier substrate (Fig. 2; #12); the die-bonding material inherently functions as standoff. Applicant is reminded that when a product structure is recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent; MPEP 2112.01 (I). Regarding claim 14: Suppelsa teaches the claim limitation of the cantilevered semiconductor die package of claim 12, on which this claim depends; in which the elevated free end of the die (22) at least partially decouples the die and the die carrier substrate (12) when the die and the die carrier substrate undergo thermal expansion during electrical operation of the die (inherent function); the limitation: “in which the elevated free end of the die at least partially decouples the die and the die carrier substrate when the die and the die carrier substrate undergo thermal expansion during electrical operation of the die” is drawn on how the MEMS device functions; this does not differentiate the device structure of the instant application from prior art. Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent, MPEP 2112.01 (I). Regarding claim 15: Suppelsa teaches the claim limitation of the cantilevered semiconductor die package of claim 12, on which this claim depends; in which the die-bonding material functioning as the standoff has a “C” shape in plan view (Fig. 14; adhesive 14 represented as #114; the die-bonding material 114 functioning as the standoff has a “C” shape in plan view). Regarding claim 16: Suppelsa teaches the claim limitation of the cantilevered semiconductor die package of claim 12, on which this claim depends; in which the die-bonding material comprises one of adhesive bonding material, eutectic bonding material, or solder (Col. 2, Lines 40-44; the die-bonding material 14 comprises an adhesive bonding material) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudrle et al. (US 2002/0146200 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2005/0104478 A1) . Regarding independent claim 1: Kudrle teaches (e.g., Figs. 23A-24 and Annotated Fig. 24 and Fig. 2) a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) mirror module, comprising: a die carrier substrate (Annotated Fig. 24; [0150]) including a die-bonding surface (upper surface of die carrier substrate); a die (Annotated Fig. 24; MEMS die, see [0132], [0135] and [0141]-[0143]) disposed on the die-bonding surface of the die carrier substrate, the die including a MEMS mirror ([0150]) that is suspended by torsional flexures (see Fig. 2; [0116] and claim 1; Fig. 2); and a die-bond adhesive layer, disposed between a proximal end of the die and the die-bonding surface of the die carrier substrate, that fixedly attaches the proximal end of the die to the die-bonding surface of the die carrier substrate ([0143] and [0151]), and in which a distal end of the die is free-floating above the die-bonding surface of the die carrier substrate ([0143], [0150]-[0151] and claim 1; the hinges are used to fixedly attaches the proximal end of the MEMES mirror). Kudrle does not expressly teach a die-bond adhesive layer. PNG media_image1.png 894 1534 media_image1.png Greyscale Xu teaches (e.g., Fig. 28B) a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) comprising: a die-bond adhesive layer ([0100] and [0106]: 420). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the MEMS device of Kudrle, the die-bond adhesive layer, as taught by Xu, for the benefits of enhancing the bonding strength of the cantilever and the substrate, thus improving device reliability. Regarding claim 4: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends, Kudrle as modified by Xu teaches in which the die-bond adhesive layer (Xu: [0100] and [0106]: 420) is disposed around a portion of a perimeter of the proximal end of the die (Kudrle: annotated Fig. 24). Regarding claim 7: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends. Kudrle does not expressly teach that the device further comprises one or more piezoelectric actuators. Xu teaches (e.g., Fig. 28B) a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) comprising one or more piezoelectric actuators ([0105]-[0106]: 202/204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kudrle as modified by Xu, the one or more piezoelectric actuators, as taught by Xu, for the benefits of controlling effectively the orientation of the optical mirrors in the desired direction for robust optical communication. Regarding claim 8: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends. in which the MEMS mirror is configured as a uniaxial scanning mirror (Kudrle: [0150] and [0154]: the mirror is capable of being a uniaxial scanning mirror). Regarding claim 9: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends, as used in an optical scanning display system of a head-mounted display (HMD) device (Kudrle: see [0036]; the intended use does not distinguish the device structure of the instant application from the prior art). Regarding claim 10: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends, in which the die has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) that is different from a CTE of the die carrier substrate (Kudrle: [0150]-[0151: the die is made of a material from the die carrier substrate). Regarding claim 11: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 10, on which this claim depends, the MEMS mirror includes a principal torsional mode of operation (see Fig. 2; [0116] and claim 1; Fig. 2), and a plurality of ancillary operation modes (see Fig. 2; [0116] and claim 1; Fig. 2), and in which the free-floating distal end of the die provides for thermally-stable ancillary operation modes (see Fig. 2; [0116] and claim 1; Fig. 2). The mode of operation of the MEMS mirror is drawn to a method of operating the device. Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent, MPEP 2112.01 (I) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudrle et al. (US 2002/0146200 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2005/0104478 A1) as applied above and further in view of Gaynes et al. (US 2006/0255442 A1) . Regarding claim 2 : Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends, a stiffener (Kudrle: Annotated Fig. 24; [0150]: structure below carrier substrate) is affixed to the die carrier substrate (Kudrle: Annotated Fig. 24). Kudrle as modified by Xu does not expressly teach that the die carrier substrate includes a printed circuit and in which a stiffener is affixed to the die carrier substrate using an adhesive. Gaynes teaches (e.g., Fig. 6) a device comprising a die carrier substrate ([0025]: substrate 104 carries die stack 110; thus, meets the claim limitation requirement) including a printed circuit (see PCB, [0005], [0007], [0016] and [0025]) and in which a stiffener ([0025]: 302) is affixed to the die carrier substrate (104) using an adhesive ([0025]: 303). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kudrle as modified by Xu, the die carrier substrate including a printed circuit and in which a stiffener is affixed to the die carrier substrate using an adhesive, as taught by Gaynes, for the benefits of enhancing the mechanical strength of the integrated circuit, thus, enhancing the durability and reliability of the device. Regarding claim 3: Kudrle, Xu and Gaynes teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 2, on which this claim depends, Kudrle as modified by Xu and Gaynes teaches that the device further includes wire bonds (Kudrle: Annotated Fig. 24; [0151]) between the die (Annotated Fig. 24; MEMS die, see [0132], [0135] and [0141]-[0143]) and the printed circuit (Gaynes: PCB, see [0005], [0007], [0016] and [0025]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudrle et al. (US 2002/0146200 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2005/0104478 A1) as applied above and further in view of Ruf et al. (US 5,465,611 A) . Regarding claim 5: Kudrle and Xu teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 1, on which this claim depends, Kudrle as modified by Xu does not expressly teach that the die-bond adhesive layer is disposed along a portion of a perimeter edge of the proximal end of the die, the perimeter edge being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the torsional flexures. Ruf teaches (e.g., Figs. 2-3) a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) module comprising a die-bond adhesive layer (Col. 6, Lines 20-37: 5b coated with adhesive layer) is disposed along a portion of a perimeter edge of a proximal end of a die (Col. 6, Lines 43-59: elements 7 and 9), the perimeter edge being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the flexures (Col. 4. Lines 47-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kudrle as modified by Xu, the die-bond adhesive layer is disposed along a portion of a perimeter edge of the proximal end of the die, the perimeter edge being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the flexures, as taught by Ruf, for the benefits of reinforcing the adhesion of the cantilever structure to the anchor, and thus avoid delamination of the cantilever during operation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudrle et al. (US 2002/0146200 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2005/0104478 A1) as applied above and further in view of Yen et al. (US 2019/0207581 A1) . Regarding claim 6: Kudrle, Xu and Ruf teach the claim limitation of the MEMS mirror module of claim 5, on which this claim depends, Although, Kudrle as modified by Xu and Ruf does not expressly teach that a length of the die-bond adhesive layer that is disposed along a portion of a perimeter edge of the proximal end of the die is between approximately 50 and 75 percent of a length of the die carrier substrate, Yen teaches (Figs. 2-3) a MEMS device comprising a die-bond adhesive layer ([0023]: 221) and a die carrier substrate ([0024]: 220); Yen further teaches that a length of the die-bond adhesive layer ([0023]: 221) that is disposed along a portion of a perimeter edge of the proximal end of the die ([00231]: 200) is between approximately 50 and 75 percent (the length of die-bond adhesive layer as seen in Fig. 3, shows a ratio of the length of die-bond adhesive layer being greater than 50 percent but less than 3 quarter of the length of the carrier substrate 200) of a length of the die carrier substrate ([0024]: 220). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Kudrle as modified by Xu and Ruf, the ratio of the length of the die-bond adhesive layer to the length of the die carrier substrate, as taught by Yen, and arrive at “a length of the die-bond adhesive layer that is disposed along a portion of a perimeter edge of the proximal end of the die is between approximately 50 and 75 percent of a length of the die carrier substrate” for the benefits of substantially increasing the bonding strength between the die and the die carrier substrate and avoiding delamination and thus increase stability of the integrated circuit device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suppelsa et al. (US 5280,139 A) in view of Kudrle et al. (US 2002/0146200 A1) . Regarding claim 13: Suppelsa teaches the claim limitation of the cantilevered semiconductor die package of claim 12, on which this claim depends, Suppelsa does not expressly teach that the die is a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) die providing functions including one of sensor, oscillator, scanner, or actuator. Kudrle teaches (e.g., Figs. 23A-24 and Annotated Fig. 24 and Fig. 2) a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) mirror module, comprising a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) die (Annotated Fig. 24); Kudrle further teaches that the die is a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) die providing functions including one of sensor, oscillator, scanner, or actuator ([0066]: actuator). PNG media_image1.png 894 1534 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Suppelsa, the MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) die providing functions including one of sensor, oscillator, scanner, or actuator, as taught by Kudrle, for the benefits of actuating the MEMS device to radiate light in the desired direction for optical communication of similar functions . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suppelsa et al. (US 5280,139 A) in view of Rajan et al. (US 2003/0169962 A1) . Regarding independent claim 17: Suppelsa teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and Fig. 4, top view) a method for packaging a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) module, comprising: providing a die carrier substrate (Col. 2, Lines 39-44: #12); providing a die (Col. 2, Lines 32-44: #22) supporting a MEMS function, that are electrically coupled to internal circuits within the die (Col. 2, Lines 32-44: #22), and further having a substantially planar bottom surface (Fig. 2; the die 22 has a substantially planar bottom surface); and die-attaching (Col. 2, Lines 32-45: #14) a portion of the bottom surface of the die (22) to the die carrier substrate (12), in which the non-attached portions of the bottom surface (left side die attach of die carrier substrate 12) are exposed and mechanically decoupled from the die carrier substrate (12). Suppelsa does not expressly teach printed circuits having bond connecting pads to circuits in the printed circuit; the die having a top surface including bond pads. Rajan teaches (e.g., Figs. 11-12) a method for packaging a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) module, comprising a die ([00385]: MEMS chip); Rajan further teaches providing a die carrier substrate ([0038]: 90) including printed circuits ([0037]) having bond connecting pads ([0037]: 96/94) to circuits in the printed circuit ([0037]) the die having a top surface including bond pads ([0038]: 100) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Suppelsa, the method of providing printed circuits having bond connecting pads to circuits in the printed circuit; the die having a top surface including bond pads, as taught by Rajan for the benefits of increasing the integration of the device and allowing the capability of processing the electrical signals. Regarding claim 20: Suppelsa and Rajan teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 17, on which this claim depends, Suppelsa as modified by Rajan teaches that the MEMS function includes optical scanning using a mirror that is included in the die (Rajan: [0041]-[0043]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suppelsa et al. (US 5280,139 A) in view of Rajan et al. (US 2003/0169962 A1) as applied above and further in view of Kudrle et al. (US 2002/0146200 A1) . Regarding claim 18: Suppelsa and Rajan teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 17, on which this claim depends, Suppelsa as modified by Rajan does not expressly teach that the die includes flexures and the mechanical decoupling of non-attached portions from the die carrier substrate decouples stress in the flexures from thermally-induced strain in the die carrier substrate and die. Kudrle teaches (e.g., Figs. 2-3 and Fig. 24 and Annotated Fig. 24) a method comprising providing a die including flexures ([0038]-[0039]) and a mechanical decoupling of non-attached portions (distal ends of MEMS mirror, see annotated Fig. 24) from a die carrier substrate (annotated Fig. 24) decouples stress in the flexures from thermally-induced strain in the die carrier substrate and die (annotated Fig. 24; the limitation: “decouples stress in the flexures from thermally-induced strain in the die carrier substrate and die” is considered result from the method of forming the structure, this is thus inherent for the final structure). PNG media_image1.png 894 1534 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Suppelsa as modified by Rajan, the method of providing a die including flexures and the mechanical decoupling of non-attached portions from the die carrier substrate decouples stress in the flexures from thermally-induced strain in the die carrier substrate and die, as taught by Kudrle, for the benefits of avoiding excessive mechanical stress and avoiding mechanical damage of the device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suppelsa et al. (US 5280,139 A) in view of Rajan et al. (US 2003/0169962 A1) as applied above and further in view of Ghahremani et al. (US 2019/0293923 A1) . Regarding claim 19: Suppelsa and Rajan teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 17, on which this claim depends, Suppelsa as modified by Rajan does not expressly teach that the method further includes performing wire bonding between respective bond pads on the die and printed circuit to create electrical interconnections between the die and the printed circuits. Ghahremani teaches (e.g., Fig. 2A) a method comprising performing wire bonding ([0055]: using wires 207) between respective bond pads ([0055]) on a die ([0054]-[0055]: 205) and printed circuit ([0055]: PCB) to create electrical interconnections between the die (205) and the printed circuits ([0055]: PCB). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Suppelsa as modified by Rajan, the method of performing wire bonding between respective bond pads on the die and printed circuit to create electrical interconnections between the die and the printed circuits, as taught by Ghahremani, for the benefits of effectively powering and driving the MEMS mirror device and increasing integration and, thus, more capabilities. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 PM. 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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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. /HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 2 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 3 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 4 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 5 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 6 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 7 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 8 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 9 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 10 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 11 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 12 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 13 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/421,837 Page 14 Art Unit: 2812
Prosecution Insights