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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicant’ amendment filed 06/25/26 has been acknowledged.
Applicant amended Abstract to overcome its objection presented by the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/25/26, and cancelled Claims 1-11 and 16.
Status of Claims
Claims 12-15 and 17-23 are pending in the application.
In view of newly found prior arts for the amendment, earlier declared allowability of Claims 12-15, has been vacated.
Claims 12-15 are examined as belonging to the invention chosen for examination, and Claims 17-23 are withdrawn from consideration as belonging to inventions not chosen for initial examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electrostatic vias voltage between the backplate and diaphragm”, cited by Claim 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2023/0319450).
In re Claim 12, Chen teaches a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) die (Abstract), comprising (Figs. 1A-1C):
a substrate 11 having an opening 11A (paragraph 0050);
a diaphragm 14 attached to the substrate 11 around a periphery of the opening 11A so as to cover the opening 11A, the diaphragm 14 having an aperture 14A (paragraphs 0050-0055); and
a backplate 13 separated from the diaphragm 14 and disposed on a side of the diaphragm 14 opposite the substrate 11, the backplate 13 comprising a plug 133 that extends toward the aperture 14A from an attached end to a free end (paragraph 0058);
wherein the free end of the plug 133 has a larger area than the aperture 14A (as shown in Fig. 1B, paragraph 0063, and as shown in multiple other embodiments and paragraphs of the application, including Fig. 5B, paragraph 0079).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
In re Claim 13, Chen teaches the MEMS die of Claim 12 as cited above, including the diaphragm in the rest position (Figs. 1A-1C): since Chen does not teach that any signal is applied to a structure as it is presented in Figs. 1A-1C.
Describing the embodiment of Figs. 1A-1C, Chen teaches (paragraph 0059) that a distance between the (free end of the) plug 133 and the diaphragm is less than 0.5 µm, which obviously includes a disposition in which the diaphragm is in contact with the free end of the plug (paragraph 0043).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Guo (US 2022/0210580).
In re Claim 14, Chen teaches the MEMS die of Claim 13 as cited above, but does not teach, at least, explicitly, that in response to a negative pressure the diaphragm moves away from the free end (of the plug) allowing fluid communication across the diaphragm through the aperture.
Guo teaches (Figs. 2 and 4, paragraphs 0014, 0018-0019, 0026) that in response to a negative pressure a diaphragm 120 moves away from a backplate 138 (while a diaphragm 118 moves towards a backplate 136).
Chen and Guo teach analogous arts directed to MEMS dies comprising a flexible diaphragm, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Chen device in view of the Guo teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Guo created a successfully functioning device.
Since the Chen structure comprises a diaphragm that is movable (towards and away) with respect to the free end of the plug, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the MEMS die such that its diaphragm would be moving away from the free end of the plug in response to the negative pressure (per Guo), if such operation of the MEMS die is desirable for the manufacturer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Tsai et al. (US 2016/0091378).
In re Claim 15, Chen teaches the MEMS die of Claim 13 as cited above, but does not teach that the rest position of the diaphragm relative to the backplate is achieved by application of an electrostatic bias voltage between the backplate and diaphragm.
Tsai teaches (Figs. 4 and 6, paragraphs 0046, 0053, 0057) that any position of a MEMS system (including the rest position) is influenced by a predetermined (paragraph 0092, which could, obviously, be electrostatic) bias voltage between a backplate 440 and a diaphragm 440.
Chen and Tsai teach analogous arts directed to a MEMS die comprised a flexible diaphragm, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Chen MEMS die operation in view of the Tsai teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Tsai created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the MEMS die of Chen such that the rest position of the diaphragm relative to the backplate would be achieved by application of an electrostatic bias voltage between the backplate and the diaphragm – per Tsai – when such operation of the MEMS device is desired by the manufacturer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (REMARKS, filed 06//25/26) have been fully considered.
Examiner agrees with the amendment of the Abstract (REMARKS, page 1).
Examiner did not find any other amendments in the Specification (REMARKS, pages 1-2).
Since the current Office Action is a Non-Final Rejection, no consideration of non-chosen for examination claims was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 07/07/26
Prosecution Insights