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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 7, 2026 was filed after the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13 and 15 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 13 recites the limitation “the lower surface of the main body portion is formed on an extension surface of a boundary surface between the first layer and the second layer,” on page 5 lines 8-9. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because is unclear how the lower surface of the main body portion is formed on an extension surface when the extension surface is a projection the boundary surface and not a physical surface. See fig. 5 ref. no. 45 and paragraph 32 of the specification. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as reciting the lower surface of the main body portion is formed coplanar with a boundary surface between the first layer and the second layer.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the lower surface of the main body portion is formed on an extension surface of a boundary surface between the first layer and the second layer,” on page 5 lines 19-20. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because is unclear how the lower surface of the main body portion is formed on an extension surface when the extension surface is a projection the boundary surface and not a physical surface. See fig. 5 ref. no. 45 and paragraph 32 of the specification. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as reciting the lower surface of the main body portion is formed coplanar with a boundary surface between the first layer and the second layer.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al. (US 6,388,300) in view of Hattori (US 2010/0162823).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8:
Kano discloses MEMS sensor comprising:
a semiconductor chip (acceleration sensor, See figs. 27-29 and col. 16 lines 13-23) that has a first principal surface (top surface of the acceleration sensor, See fig. 27) and a second principal surface (bottom surface of the acceleration sensor, See fig. 27) on a side opposite to the first principal surface and that has a cavity (hallow area, See figs. 28-29, ref. no. 2 and col. 16 lines 24-43) formed in an inside of the semiconductor chip;
a frame portion (rectangular frame portion and buried oxide film, See figs. 27-29, ref. no. 5, 202, and col. 16 lines 16-43) that is formed on the side of the second principal surface of the semiconductor chip and that forms a bottom portion and a side portion of the cavity (the rectangular frame portion and the buried oxide film define the bottom portion and the side portion of the hollow area, See fig. 27, ref. no. 5 and figs. 28-29, ref. nos. 2, 5); and
a movable portion (beam structure, See fig. 27-29, ref. no. 6 and col. 16 lines 24-43) that is formed on the side of the first principal surface of the semiconductor chip and that is supported by the frame portion in a floating state with respect to the cavity (the beam structure is supported in a floating state with respect to the hallow area by two anchor portions that are protruded from the rectangular frame portion, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 6-8, figs. 28-29, ref. no. 6, and col. 16 lines 23-53), and
the movable portion includes a main body portion (mass portion, See figs. 27-29, ref. no. 11 and col. 16 lines 23-53) facing the cavity in a first direction that is a thickness direction of the semiconductor chip.
Kano does not disclose the frame portion has a stepped surface formed at a height position between the bottom portion of the cavity and the first principal surface, an extension portion that extends from the main body portion toward an upper region of the stepped surface in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that faces the stepped surface in the first direction, and a level difference being formed between a lower surface of the main body portion and a lower surface of the extension portion such that the extension portion is thinner than the main body portion in the first direction.
Hattori discloses the frame portion has a stepped surface (stepped surface formed by the support body and the rise stopper, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. S, 30a, and paragraphs 99-101) formed at a height position between the bottom portion of the cavity and the first principal surface (the stepped surface is formed at a height between the bottom the support body and the top of the rise stopper, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. S, 30), an extension portion (a fall stopper that extends from a mass body, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. M, 30a, 30c, and paragraph 100) that extends from the main body portion toward an upper region of the stepped surface in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (the fall stopper that horizontally extends from the mass body toward a side surface of the rise stopper, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. M, 30a, 30c, and paragraph 100) and that faces the stepped surface in the first direction (a bottom surface of the narrow portion of the fall stopper faces the support substrate, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. S, 30c), and a level difference being formed between a lower surface of the main body portion and a lower surface of the extension portion (a bottom surface of the mass body is lower than the bottom surface of the narrow portion of the fall stopper, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. M, 30c) such that the extension portion is thinner than the main body portion in the first direction (the narrow portion of the fall stopper is thinner than the mass body in the vertical direction, See fig. 4B, ref. nos. M, 30c and paragraph 101. The examiner also notes that Hattori discloses the fall stopper 30c is made of the support material layer 30 and that the passivation layer 40 above the support material layer 30 is not the support material layer 30.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MEMS sensor of Kano to include the frame portion has a stepped surface formed at a height position between the bottom portion of the cavity and the first principal surface, an extension portion that extends from the main body portion toward an upper region of the stepped surface in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that faces the stepped surface in the first direction, and a level difference being formed between a lower surface of the main body portion and a lower surface of the extension portion such that the extension portion is thinner than the main body portion in the first direction as taught by Hattori in order to prevent excessive displacement of the mass portion along the negative z-axis. (See Hattori paragraphs 101-102.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Kano discloses wherein the main body portion of the movable portion has an opening portion (empty space movable electrodes 13b and 13c of the mass portion, See fig. 27, ref. no. 11, 13b, 13c), which is between a pair of side surfaces (side surface of movable electrode 13b facing movable electrode 13c and side surface of movable electrode 13c facing movable electrode 13b, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 13b, 13c) formed by an outer peripheral portion of the main body portion (the movable electrodes are an outer portion of the mass portion, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 11, 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d and col. 16 lines 44- 53), and is open in an outer peripheral surface of the main body portion (opening portion is open in front of the surface of the mass portion between movable electrodes 13b and 13c, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 11, 13b, 13c)
and the frame portion includes a second projection portion (fixed electrode 22c extends from the rectangular frame portion, See fig. 27, ref. no. 22c and col. 16 lines 54-59) that is housed in the opening portion while selectively protruding toward the opening portion and that has a side surface facing a side surface (the fixed electrodes has a side surface facing a side surface of movable electrode 13c, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 13c, 22c) of the opening portion at a distance from the side surface of the opening portion.
Regarding Claim 7:
Kano discloses a fixed electrode (fixed electrodes, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 16a-16d, 17a-17d, 22a-22d, and 23a-23d, See col. lines 54-59) having a cantilever structure formed integrally with the frame portion,
wherein the movable portion includes a movable electrode (movable electrodes, See fig. 27, ref. nos. 12a-12d and 13a-13d, and col. 16 lines 44-53) that has a cantilever structure extending from the main body portion in parallel with the fixed electrode and that is displaced with respect to the fixed electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 12-16 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. In particular, the examiner notes that Kano is not being relied on for teaching a level difference being formed between a lower surface of the main body portion and a lower surface of the extension portion such that the extension portion is thinner than the main body portion in the first direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-6, 12, 14, and 16 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. Claims 13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to dependent claim 2, the disclosures and illustrations of Kano and Hattori as discussed above fail to teach and/or suggest wherein the frame portion has a concave portion that has a bottom surface formed of the stepped surface and a side surface extending from the bottom surface toward the first principal surface and that is open toward the side of the main body portion of the movable portion, and the extension portion includes a first projection portion that is housed in the concave portion while selectively protruding from the main body portion and that has a side surface facing the side surface of the concave portion at a distance from the side surface of the concave portion. Further, the prior art also fails to provide other relevant disclosures which are properly combinable with Kano and Hattori to teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 2 includes allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 5, the disclosures of Kano and Hattori disclose wherein the semiconductor chip includes a first layer (support substrate made of monocrystalline silicon, See fig. 27, ref. no. 201 and col. 16 lines 17-23) made of a first semiconductor material and a second layer (semiconductor layer made of monocrystalline silicon, See fig. 27, ref. no. 201 and col. 16 lines 17-23) that is formed on the first layer and that is made of a second semiconductor material. The disclosures and illustrations of Kano and Hattori as discussed above fail to teach and/or suggest the stepped surface of the frame portion is formed by an upper surface of the first layer that is continuous with a boundary surface between the first layer and the second layer, and the movable portion is formed by the second layer, and the extension portion of the movable portion is formed thinner than the main body portion of the movable portion in the first direction, and faces the stepped surface at a distance from the stepped surface. Further, the prior art also fails to provide other relevant disclosures which are properly combinable with Kano and Hattori to teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 5. Claims 6 and 14-15 depend from claim 5, and thus, include the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore claims 5-6 and 14-15 include allowable subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the disclosures and illustrations of Kano and Hattori as discussed above fail to teach and/or suggest wherein an upper surface of the main body portion and an upper surface of the extension portion are flatly continuous with each other. Further, the prior art also fails to provide other relevant disclosures which are properly combinable with Kano and Hattori to teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 includes allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 13, the disclosures of Kano and Hattori disclose wherein the semiconductor chip includes a first layer (support substrate made of monocrystalline silicon, See fig. 27, ref. no. 201 and col. 16 lines 17-23) made of a first semiconductor material and a second layer (semiconductor layer made of monocrystalline silicon, See fig. 27, ref. no. 201 and col. 16 lines 17-23) that is formed on the first layer and that is made of a second semiconductor material. The disclosures and illustrations of Kano and Hattori as discussed above fail to teach and/or suggest he lower surface of the main body portion is formed on an extension surface of a boundary surface between the first layer and the second layer, and the lower surface of the extension portion is formed on the side of the first principal surface of the semiconductor chip with respect to the boundary surface. Further, the prior art also fails to provide other relevant disclosures which are properly combinable with Kano and Hattori to teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 includes allowable subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the disclosures and illustrations of Kano and Hattori as discussed above fail to teach and/or suggest wherein a plurality of open holes that pass through the main body portion in the first direction is formed in an inner region of the main body portion, and the opening portion is further open in at least one of the open holes adjacent to the outer peripheral surface of the main body portion. Further, the prior art also fails to provide other relevant disclosures which are properly combinable with Kano and Hattori to teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 includes allowable subject matter.
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 BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights