Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/427,760

MEMS DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
JOSHI, SUNITA
Art Unit
2691
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Aac Technologies Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
888 granted / 1102 resolved
+18.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1132
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
64.0%
+24.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1102 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 1. Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Boyd (US20230388711) in view of Strasser et al. (US20190071305A1). As to Claim 1, Boyd teaches a MEMS device ( abstract, Figure 3), comprising: a base( substrate 10), wherein a back cavity( back cavity 11) passes through the base( substrate 10, [0042]); a diaphragm( diaphragm 20) connected to the base(substrate 10.,[0043]) and covering the back cavity( 11), wherein the diaphragm( 20) comprises an upper diaphragm part and a lower diaphragm part that are arranged opposite to each other ( the diaphragm 20 includes a first membrane 22 and a second membrane 23 that are arranged opposite to each other. [0043], Figure 3), and a receiving space is formed between the upper diaphragm part and the lower diaphragm part ( a predetermined gap is maintained between the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23 to form an accommodating space 24. [0043]) ; a counter electrode located in the receiving space( counter electrode 40 is arranged in the accommodating space 24, [0045]); and support members( support 30 including plurality of support members 31, [0009]) arranged concentrically( [0009]) and located between the upper diaphragm part ( first membrane 22) and the lower diaphragm part ( second diaphragm 23), wherein the support members(31) are spaced apart from one another( Figure 2) and spaced apart from the counter electrode ( counter electrode 40, Figure 2-4) two opposite ends of each of the support members are connected to the upper diaphragm part and the lower diaphragm part, respectively (the support 30 is arranged in the accommodating space 24, and opposite ends of the support 30 are respectively connected to the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23. The function of the support 30 is to keep the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23 flat, or at least limit/control the bending/deformation of the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23 between the supports 30 ); wherein the diaphragm( first membrane 22 and second membrane 23) comprises a first zone( first region 26) and a second zone( second region 27, Figure 2) located at an outer circumference of the first zone( first region 26), and in the first zone( first region 26), a surface of the upper diaphragm part facing away from the lower diaphragm part is covered with a first electrode( electrode region 21), a surface of the lower diaphragm part facing away from the upper diaphragm part is covered with a second electrode , and the first electrode is arranged opposite to the second electrode [0046] teaches the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23 both includes a first region 26 and a second region 27. For example, the first region 26 refers to an electrode region 21 on the second region 27. The electrode region 21 refers to the portion inside the solid circle shown in FIG. 2. The second region 27 is formed by a semiconductor material without doping conductive ions, and the first region 26 is formed by doping conductive ions in the semiconductor material, so that the compliance performance is improved and thus is not easily peeled off.) Boyd does not explicitly teach in the second zone a surface of the upper diaphragm part facing away from the lower diaphragm part and a surface of the lower diaphragm part facing away from the upper diaphragm part are each covered with a reinforcement layer. However, Strasser in related field (MEMS) teaches the first membrane structure 224 can have a so-called “segmentation” 232, wherein the term segmentation denotes a subdivision or demarcation of two regions of the membrane structure by means of an insulating layer arrangement. By means of a segmentation arranged e.g. in a manner extending circumferentially in the membrane structure, the membrane structure of a MEMS microphone can be electrically isolated, wherein the deflectable region of the membrane is arranged in a first region and the second region is situated for example in the holding structure situated at the edge. Parasitic effects, such as e.g. parasitic capacitances, can be significantly reduced by means of the segmentation of the membrane structures. However, the segmentation 232 illustrated in FIG. 1a should be regarded merely as optional. [0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to segment the diaphragm such that the second zone is covered with a reinforcement layer such as an insulator layer to electrically isolate the segmented portion and reduce the effect of parasitic capacitance. As to Claim 2, Boyd in view of Strasser teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and regarding the following: wherein in the second zone, first cavities are formed in one of the support members; wherein an upper ventilation slot penetrating through the upper diaphragm part is formed corresponding to the first cavities, and a lower ventilation slot penetrating through the lower diaphragm part is formed corresponding to the first cavities; and wherein the upper ventilation slot, the first cavities and the lower ventilation slot are connected, Boyd teaches [0048] the ventilation slot 25 successively penetrates through the first membrane 22, the supports 30 and the second membrane 23. That means a vent is provided between the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23. Therefore, the compliance of the membrane in the area where the ventilation slot 25 is located can be significantly increased. For example the ventilation slots 25 may only be provided at periphery of the diaphragm 20. Several ventilation slots 25 may be located in the circumferential area of the electrode region 21 at an intervals. The ventilation slots 25 on the first membrane 22 and the second membrane 23 may have the same or different size and shape, which is not limited herein. See at least Boyd on Figure 3. As to Claim 8, Boyd in view of Strasser teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and wherein the reinforcement layer is made of an insulating material, Strasser teaches the first membrane structure 224 can have a so-called “segmentation” 232, wherein the term segmentation denotes a subdivision or demarcation of two regions of the membrane structure by means of an insulating layer arrangement. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA JOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7227. The examiner can normally be reached 8-3. 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 5712727503. 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. /SUNITA JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598429
LOUDSPEAKERS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593188
DIAPHRAGM FOR SOUND GENERATING DEVICES AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND SOUND GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587794
LOUDSPEAKER STRUCTURE AND LOUDSPEAKER DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581242
SPEAKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581241
LOUDSPEAKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+7.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1102 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month