DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
As of the amendment filed 5/18/26, no claims have been added, claim 2 has been canceled, and claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending, with claim 1 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive using the original interpretation of the Pahl reference. However, the Pahl reference has another embodiment (see figs. 10-11) that read on the claims. Therefore, the amendment is not persuasive over the entire reference, just over the embodiment used in the non-final rejection.
Particularly, the added limitation that the hard member is directly connected to the substrate and directly connected to the semiconductor chip is present in fig. 11 of the Pahl reference (as detailed below).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pahl (US 2021/0139317).
As to claim 1, Pahl teaches a MEMS module (fig. 10) comprising:
a substrate (1, [0027]);
a semiconductor chip (2) in which a MEMS including a mechanical movable portion is formed ([0027]);
a soft member (3) that is interposed between the substrate (1) and the semiconductor chip (2) and has a lower hardness than the substrate ([0031]); and
a hard member (40) configured to have a higher hardness than the soft member ([0035], hard member 40 is about 100 mPa and [0031] soft member 3 is about 30 mPa) and mechanically connect the substrate and the semiconductor chip by the hard member being directly connected to the substrate and directly connected to the semiconductor chip (fig. 11, hard member 40 is directly contacting both the substrate and the chip),
wherein the soft member is disposed in a partial region of a first main surface (bottom) of the semiconductor chip (2) facing the substrate (1, any one of the configurations shown in fig. 14A-14D), and
wherein when the MEMS module is viewed from a normal direction of the first main surface, the hard member is disposed at one of a plurality of corner portions of a periphery of the first main surface (Fig. 14A, opening 32 contains the hard member 40).
As to claim 4, Pahl further teaches the hard member is a bump electrode (“conductive pillar”) configured to electrically connect the substrate and the semiconductor chip ([0036]), and wherein the soft member is disposed in a region other than the one corner portion where the bump electrode is disposed (any of figures 14A-14D).
As to claim 5, Pahl further teaches the soft member (3) is disposed at another corner portion diagonal to the one corner portion where the bump electrode is disposed (fig. 14B, the soft member 3 is in all corners, as are the hard members 24, thus, they are also in diagonal corners from each other).
As to claims 8-10, Pahl further teaches the soft member (3) is disposed in a corner portion and/or an intermediate portion of a peripheral region of the first main surface, which is a region located within a predetermined distance from a periphery toward a center of the semiconductor chip (figs. 14A-14D, the central portion is the hole 6 for the MEMS device. Soft member 3 is located along the entirety of the periphery region – including the corner and the intermediate area).
As to claim 11, Pahl further teaches the soft member includes a portion disposed outside a periphery of the semiconductor chip (fig. 14A, soft member 3 is beyond the periphery region containing the bumps 24).
As to claim 12, Pahl further teaches the soft member is disposed in a central region that is separated by a predetermined distance from a periphery toward a center of the semiconductor chip (fig. 14D).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahl.
As to claim 3, Pahl further teaches the semiconductor chip includes a plurality of electrode pads that are formed on at least one selected from the group of the first main surface and a second main surface opposite the first main surface and configured to obtain an electrical connection with an outside (24, [0036], obvious, if not inherent, that the stud bump is connected to an electrode/bonding/landing pad within the chip so as to pass electrical signals to and from the active devices within the chip), and
wherein when the MEMS module is viewed from a normal direction of the first main surface, the plurality of electrode pads are arranged at one of a plurality of corner portions of the first main surface or the second main surface (figs. 14A-14D).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pahl, as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Pahl (US 2016/0345106, herein “Pahl2”).
As to claim 6, Pahl does not teach the plurality of electrode pads are formed on the second main surface of the semiconductor chip, wherein the MEMS module further comprises a metal wire electrically connected to the plurality of electrode pads, and wherein the semiconductor chip is mounted on the substrate via the soft member.
However, Pahl2 does teach a semiconductor MEMs device on a substrate and having electrode pads/terminals on both sides of the chip (figs. 7 and 8, [0043] – [0048], there are multiple types of chips and connections).
Having a wire bonding electrode on the second main surface of the chip would have been obvious so as to form multiple different types of devices.
As to claim 7, Pahl2 further teaches the MEMS module is viewed from the normal direction of the first main surface, the soft member overlaps with the plurality of electrode pads (Pahl2, fig. 7).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
5/26/26
Prosecution Insights