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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220170958 (herein Enjalbert) in view of US 11641711 (herein Dogiamis).
Regarding claim 16, Enjalbert teaches An accelerometer device (sensor die 22 is a capacitive transducer, and more specifically, a capacitive accelerometer, [0018]) comprising:
a substrate (silicon 92, [0031]);
a first proof mass coupled to the substrate that includes a first movable electrode electrically coupled to a first fixed electrode having a first potential and is electrically coupled to a second fixed electrode having a second potential (first movable mass 36, fixed electrodes 40, 42, [0021]); and
a second proof mass coupled to the substrate that includes a second movable electrode that is electrically coupled to a third fixed electrode having a third potential and is electrically coupled to a fourth fixed electrode having a fourth potential (second movable mass 38, fixed electrodes 44, 46, [0021]),
wherein the second proof mass is electrically coupled to the fixed ground potential ([0030] teaches die 22, where mass 38 resides, is coupled to polysilicon ground plane).
Additionally regarding claim 16, Enjalbert teaches a shield structure coupled to the substrate and formed adjacent the first proof mass, wherein the shield structure is electrically coupled to a fixed ground potential (shield 28 is in the form of a polysilicon ground plane, [0030]). However, Enjalbert does not teach, “a shield structure separate from and coupled to the substrate.” However, Dogiamis teaches EMI shield layer 40 coupled to substrate 110 (Fig. 1) and coupled with ground plane (Col. 6, Lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate shield 40 of Dogiamis onto the substrate of Enjalbert.
Regarding claim 24, Enjalbert teaches a charge-to-voltage amplifier (amplifiers of C2V 64, [0029]) having a first input and a second input (first and second inputs 66, 68, [0029]), wherein the first input is at a first input potential and electrically coupled to the first movable electrode of the first proof mass, and wherein the second input is at a second input potential and electrically coupled to the second movable electrode of the second proof mass (Fig. 1 teaches masses 36, 38 coupled to inputs 66, 68).
Regarding claim 25, Enjalbert teaches wherein the charge-to-voltage amplifier is electrically coupled to a level-shifting circuit (box 70 and may include a gain stage, [0023]).
Regarding claim 26, Enjalbert teaches wherein the level-shifting circuit shifts the first input potential at the first input and the second input potential at the second input to a ground potential at the first movable electrode and at the second movable electrode (excitation signal 50 drops from the rest level to a low level (e.g., from 0.8V to 0V), [0020]).
Regarding claim 27, Enjalbert teaches wherein the level-shifting circuit includes a first capacitor that electrically couples the first input of the charge-to-voltage amplifier to the first movable electrode (first capacitances 60, [0022]).
Regarding claim 28, Enjalbert teaches wherein the level-shifting circuit includes a switched capacitor circuit, wherein the switch capacitor circuit is configured to apply the fixed ground potential to the first movable electrode and to the second movable electrode in a first state and is further configured to electrically couple the first movable electrode to the first input of the charge-to-voltage amplifier and the second movable electrode to the second input of the charge-to-voltage amplifier in a second state (first and second coupling capacitors 142, 154 may be programmable capacitor arrays. A programmable capacitor array is typically configured with an array of switches each connected in series to one of an array of capacitors which in turn are connected to an input. Each switch of the array may be switched on to load a capacitor on the input of the array or switched off to remove the capacitor from the input, [0044]).
For the above claims 16 and 24-28, one would have been motivated to combine Enjalbert with Dogiamis for at least the purpose of reduce or eliminate EMI interference (i.e., crosstalk) between elements within a MEMS package (Col. 6, Lines 18-22).
Claim(s) 17-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjalbert and Dogiamis as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20230146711 (herein Peng).
Regarding claim 17, Enjalbert does not teach, “a charge pump circuit electrically coupled to the first fixed electrode and to the second fixed electrode.” However, Peng teaches it is known in the art to corporate charge pump 604 ([0064]) into a bias circuit 102 of an accelerometer 104 ([0033]) and implemented as shown in Fig. 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the charge pump 604 of Peng into the excitation circuitry 30 of Enjalbert. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of avoiding quantization error and improving voltage precision ([0064]).
Regarding claim 18, Enjalbert does not teach, “wherein the charge pump circuit is configured to generate a negative supply rail.” However, Peng teaches negative charge pump 604 ([0064]).
Regarding claim 19, Enjalbert in view of Peng teaches “wherein the first fixed electrode and the second fixed electrode are electrically coupled to the charge pump circuit by driver circuitry that is electrically coupled to the charge pump circuit.” One may incorporate charge pump 604 of Peng into the excitation circuitry 30 of Enjalbert as presented in the rejection of claim 17, above, and Fig. 1 of Enjalbert teaches excitation circuitry 30 is correspondingly connected to electrodes 40, 42, 44, 46, which are driven by excitation signals 48, 50 ([0024]).
Regarding claim 20, Enjalbert teaches wherein the driver circuitry is configured to change the first potential and the second potential from a value of the first potential from a ground potential to a first excitation voltage at the first fixed electrode and a second excitation voltage at the second fixed electrode (excitation signals 48, 50 provided by excitation circuitry 30 to enable capacitance measurement. Fixed electrodes 40, 44 receive excitation signal 48 in the form of a voltage step, labeled Y1, relative to a rest voltage. Fixed electrodes 42, 46 receive excitation signal 50 in the form of a voltage step, labeled Y2, relative to the rest voltage, [0020]; Note that ground potential is not explicitly stated, but ‘rest voltage’ is its equivalent).
Regarding claim 22, Enjalbert does not teach, “wherein the first excitation voltage has a polarity opposite the polarity of the second excitation voltage.” However, Peng teaches bias circuit 102 is capable of supplying both positive and negative bias voltage ([0028]) to a motion sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to apply both positive and negative biases taught by Peng into the signals 48, 50 since steps Y1 and Y2 respectively oppose each other ([0020]).
Regarding claim 23, Enjalbert teaches wherein a magnitude of a difference between a magnitude of the first excitation voltage and a magnitude of the second excitation voltage is less than twenty percent of the magnitude of the first excitation voltage (high voltage of 1.6V and low voltage of 0 V, [0020]).
For the above claims 17-20 and 22-23, one would have been motivated to combine the as described for at least the purpose of avoiding quantization error and improving voltage precision ([0064]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjalbert, Dogiamis, and Peng as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 20100194235 (herein Tsuboi).
Regarding claim 21, Enjalbert, Dogiamis, and Peng do not teach, “wherein the driver circuitry is configured to maintain the first potential and the second potential at a ground potential.” However, Tsuboi teaches it is known in the art to maintain driving electrodes 32 constantly at ground potential ([0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use the method taught by Tsuboi to maintain constant ground potential of electrodes 40, 42, 44, and 46 using excitation circuitry 30. One would have been be motivated to combine as described for at least the purpose of generating a desired electrostatic attraction between electrodes ([0012]).
Claim(s) 29, 30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjalbert in view of Dogiamis and Peng.
Regarding claim 29, Enjalbert teaches An apparatus (package 20, [0018, Fig. 1]) comprising:
a capacitive transducer (sensor die 22 is a capacitive transducer, [0018]), the capacitive transducer comprising:
a substrate (silicon 92, [0031]);
a first proof mass coupled to the substrate that includes a first movable electrode that is electrically coupled to a first fixed electrode and is electrically coupled to a second fixed electrode (first movable mass 36, fixed electrodes 40, 42, [0021]);
a second proof mass coupled to the substrate that includes a second movable electrode that is electrically coupled to a third fixed electrode and is electrically coupled to a fourth fixed electrode (second movable mass 38, fixed electrodes 44, 46, [0021]);
an integrated circuit coupled to the first proof mass, second proof mass, and the shield structure (ASIC die 24, [0018]), the integrated circuit comprising:
driver circuitry electrically coupled to the first fixed electrode, the second fixed electrode, the third fixed electrode, and the fourth fixed electrode (excitation circuitry 30, [0018]);
a voltage source having a reference voltage value coupled to the driver circuitry, wherein the voltage source is configured to amplify the reference voltage value to a maximum voltage value (voltage steps Y1, Y2, maximum voltage 1.6 V, [0020]);
a charge-to-voltage amplifier having a first input and a second input, wherein the first input is at a first input potential and electrically coupled to the first movable electrode of the first proof mass, and wherein the second input is at a second input potential and electrically coupled to the second movable electrode of the second proof mass (amplifiers of C2V 64, [0029]; Fig. 1 teaches corresponding configuration, and inherently have input potentials).
Additionally regarding claim 29, Enjalbert teaches a shield structure coupled to the substrate, the first proof mass, and the second proof mass, wherein the shield structure is electrically coupled to a ground potential (shield 28 is in the form of a polysilicon ground plane, [0030]). However, Enjalbert does not teach, “a shield structure separate from and coupled to the substrate.” However, Dogiamis teaches EMI shield layer 40 coupled to substrate 110 (Fig. 1) and coupled with ground plane (Col. 6, Lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate shield 40 of Dogiamis onto the substrate of Enjalbert.
Further regarding claim 29, Enjalbert not teach, “a charge pump electrically coupled to the driver circuitry and the voltage source, wherein the charge pump is configured to generate a voltage opposite in polarity to that of the maximum voltage value.” However, Peng teaches it is known in the art to corporate charge pump 604 that can provide both positive and negative reference voltage ([0064]) into a bias circuit 102 of an accelerometer 104 ([0033]) and implemented as shown in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 30, Enjalbert teaches wherein the charge-to-voltage amplifier is coupled to a level-shifting circuit and wherein the level-shifting circuit shifts the first input potential at the first input and the second input potential at the second input to the reference voltage value (excitation signal 48 may rise from a rest level (e.g., the rest voltage) to a high level (e.g., from 0.8V to 1.6V) while excitation signal 50 drops from the rest level to a low level (e.g., from 0.8V to 0V), [0020]).
Regarding claim 32, Enjalbert teaches a package having a flange portion (package 20, [0018]) and one or more bond pads (bond pads 104, 106, [0033]), wherein the capacitive transducer and the integrated circuit are coupled to the flange portion (see sensor die 22 positioned on package 20 flange in Fig. 4).
For the above claims 29, 30, and 32, one would have been motivated to combine Enjalbert with Dogiamis for at least the purpose of reduce or eliminate EMI interference (i.e., crosstalk) between elements within a MEMS package (Col. 6, Lines 18-22). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the charge pump 604 of Peng into the excitation circuitry 30 of Enjalbert. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of avoiding quantization error and improving voltage precision ([0064]).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjalbert, Dogiamis, and Peng as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of US 6501282 (herein Dummermuth).
Regarding claim 31, Enjalbert teaches wherein the voltage source includes a voltage regulator circuit with an input electrically coupled to a reference voltage and an output that produces a voltage at a maximum voltage value (voltage regulator 34, [0018], Fig. 1). Enjalbert does not teach, “wherein a magnitude of a difference between maximum voltage value and two times the reference voltage is less than twenty percent of a magnitude of the maximum voltage value.” Instead, Enjalbert teaches rest voltage is typically half of the voltage between maximum and minimum, with values at 0.8V, 1.6V, and 0V, respectively. However, Dummermuth teaches it is known in the art that reference voltage does not have to be one-half of the supply/maximum (Col. 4, Lines 16-18). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize reference, maximum, and minimum voltages for the sake of optimizing the swing balance of a mass (Col. 4, Lines 16-18). Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjalbert, Dogiamis, Peng, and Dummermuth.
Regarding claim 33, Enjalbert teaches a method comprising: providing
a substrate (silicon 92, [0031]),
a first proof mass coupled to the substrate that includes a first movable electrode that is electrically coupled to a first fixed electrode and a second fixed electrode (first movable mass 36, fixed electrodes 40, 42, [0021]),
a second proof mass coupled to the substrate that includes a second movable electrode that is electrically coupled to a third fixed electrode and to a fourth fixed electrode (second movable mass 38, fixed electrodes 44, 46, [0021]);
electrically coupling the shield structure to a ground potential (shield 28 is in the form of a polysilicon ground plane, [0030]);
providing a reference voltage at a voltage source (rest voltage, [0020]);
amplifying the reference voltage to a maximum regulated voltage (excitation signal 48 may rise from a rest level (e.g., the rest voltage) to a high level (e.g., from 0.8V to 1.6V), [0020]);
electrically coupling driver circuitry to the first fixed electrode, second fixed electrode, third fixed electrode, and fourth fixed electrode (excitation circuitry 30, [0020]; Fixed electrodes 40, 44 receive excitation signal 48 and fixed electrodes 42, 46 receive excitation signal 50, [0020]);
electrically coupling a charge-to-voltage amplifier having a first input and a second input to the first movable electrode and to the second movable electrode (amplifiers of C2V 64, [0029]; Fig. 1 teaches corresponding configuration and inputs);
maintaining, by the driver circuitry, a ground potential at the first fixed electrode, the second fixed electrode, the third fixed electrode, and the fourth fixed electrode in a first state (excitation signals 48, 50 provided by excitation circuitry 30 to enable capacitance measurement. Fixed electrodes 40, 44 receive excitation signal 48 in the form of a voltage step, labeled Y1, relative to a rest voltage. Fixed electrodes 42, 46 receive excitation signal 50 in the form of a voltage step, labeled Y2, relative to the rest voltage, [0020]; Note that ground potential is not explicitly stated, but ‘rest voltage’ is its equivalent);
applying, by the driver circuitry, a first excitation voltage at the first fixed electrode and the third fixed electrode at the maximum regulated voltage (signal 48 may rise from a rest level (e.g., the rest voltage) to a high level (e.g., from 0.8V to 1.6V), [0020]) and a second excitation voltage at the second fixed electrode and fourth fixed electrode (excitation signal 50 drops from the rest level to a low level (e.g., from 0.8V to 0V), [0020]); and
detecting, by the charge-to-voltage amplifier, a first capacitance at the first movable electrode at the first input of the charge-to-voltage amplifier and a second capacitance at the second movable electrode at the second input of the charge-to-voltage amplifier during the second state (excitation results (e.g., a first capacitance 60), labeled C.sub.M1 (as a first differential charge component), and a second capacitance 62), labeled C.sub.M2 (as a second differential charge component), from sensor die 22 to processing circuitry 32 to yield a signal representative of the acceleration force imposed upon sensor die 22, [0022]).
Additionally regarding claim 33, Enjalbert teaches coupling a shield structure to the substrate, the first proof mass, and the second proof mass. However, Enjalbert does not teach, “wherein the shield structure is formed, separately from the substrate, from one or more substantially conductive materials.” However, Dogiamis teaches EMI shield layer 40 coupled to substrate 110 (Fig. 1) and coupled with ground plane, and made of electrically conductive material such as copper (Col. 6, Lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate shield 40 of Dogiamis onto the substrate of Enjalbert.
Further regarding claim 33, Enjalbert does not teach, “electrically coupling a charge pump to the driver circuitry” or “producing, by the charge pump, a voltage opposite to in polarity to the maximum regulated voltage” or “having a value opposite to in polarity of the first excitation voltage during a second state.” However, Peng teaches it is known in the art to corporate charge pump 604 ([0064]) into a bias circuit 102 of an accelerometer 104 ([0033]) and implemented as shown in Fig. 6, as well as a bias circuit 102 capable of supplying both positive and negative bias voltage ([0028]) to a motion sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to apply both positive and negative biases taught by Peng into the signals 48, 50 since steps Y1 and Y2 respectively oppose each other ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the charge pump 604 of Peng into the excitation circuitry 30 of Enjalbert.
Still regarding claim 33, Enjalbert does not teach, “wherein a difference in a magnitude of the voltage and the magnitude of the maximum regulated voltage is less than twenty percent of the magnitude of the voltage.” Instead, Enjalbert teaches rest voltage is typically half of the voltage between maximum and minimum, with values at 0.8V, 1.6V, and 0V, respectively. However, Dummermuth teaches it is known in the art that reference voltage does not have to be one-half of the supply/maximum (Col. 4, Lines 16-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize reference, maximum, and minimum voltages of Enjalbert for the sake of optimizing the swing balance of a mass (Col. 4, Lines 16-18). Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 34, Enjalbert teaches wherein a level shifting circuit is used to shift the voltage of the first movable electrode and the second movable electrode from a ground potential to the reference voltage at the first input of the charge-to-voltage amplifier during the first state (excitation signal 48 may rise from a rest level (e.g., the rest voltage) to a high level (e.g., from 0.8V to 1.6V) while excitation signal 50 drops from the rest level to a low level (e.g., from 0.8V to 0V). These voltage steps create charge transfers in the sensor capacitance. Additionally, the voltage at first and second movable masses 36, 38 is regulated to the rest voltage (e.g., 0.8V), [0020]).
Further regarding claim 35, Enjalbert does not teach, “wherein the magnitude of the difference between the maximum regulated voltage and two times the reference voltage is less than twenty percent of the magnitude of the maximum regulated voltage and wherein a difference in a magnitude of the first excitation voltage and a magnitude of the second excitation voltage is less than twenty percent of the magnitude of the first excitation voltage.” Instead, Enjalbert teaches rest voltage is typically half of the voltage between maximum and minimum, with values at 0.8V, 1.6V, and 0V, respectively. However, Dummermuth teaches it is known in the art that reference voltage does not have to be one-half of the supply/maximum (Col. 4, Lines 16-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize reference, maximum, and minimum voltages of Enjalbert for the sake of optimizing the swing balance of a mass (Col. 4, Lines 16-18). Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
For the above claims 33-35, one would have been motivated to combine Enjalbert with Dogiamis for at least the purpose of reduce or eliminate EMI interference (i.e., crosstalk) between elements within a MEMS package (Col. 6, Lines 18-22). Additionally, one would have been motivated to combine Enjalbert with Peng for at least the purpose of avoiding quantization error and improving voltage precision ([0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Enjalbert remains relevant, along with the secondary references, as applied in Office Action filed 9/17/2025. As the present claimset has been amended to include particulars regarding the shield structure, the Office has presented Dogiamis to teach an equivalent shield structure which may be coupled to substrate of Enjalbert to teach the present limitations.
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 PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights