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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-11 remain withdrawn.
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(s) 1 is/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 Classen et al. (DE 102020202277 A1, hereinafter Classen3) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (in the instant specification, see fig. 3 and pg. 8 at lines 3-15, hereinafter “AAPA”).
As to claim 1, Classen3 teaches a micromechanical sensor (fig. 9, ¶52), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 10 (¶16);
a micromechanical structure (comprising at least proof mass 70 and fixed electrodes 72) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity (see fig. 9) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (a surface of the proof mass 70 facing one of electrodes 72);
a cap substrate 12, 30 disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity (see fig. 9); and
a capacitive electrode 18b disposed on an inner side of the cap structure, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 16 on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element (¶23), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated sensor signal - ¶53);
wherein the cap substrate 12, 30 is a semiconductor substrate (¶16 teaches that layer 12 is silicon, so the cap substrate 12, 30 is at least substantially a semiconductor substrate; optionally and additionally, ¶18 teaches that “electrical contact 22 can…be manufactured relatively easily by fabricating…the substrate 12 with its coatings on the substrate surface 12a using standard semiconductor methods (e.g. B. CMOS processes) are produced and then vertically connected to each other by the metallic bonding process, in which at least one electrical contact 22 is formed”; accordingly, layer 30, lying between layer 12 and contact 22, is made via the described CMOS processes, indicating that layer 30 is substantially made of a semiconductor material – see the first paragraph on pg. 7 of the attached evidentiary reference “CMOS = Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor” which teaches “A complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) is a semiconductor that has complementary symmetry.”) which includes an integrated circuit 20.
If Applicant argues that Classen3’s layer 30 containing the circuit 20 is not a CMOS structure,
AAPA teaches an “an integrated circuit (IC), namely an ASIC with CMOS layers 400.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 such that the integrated circuit is formed as an ASIC with CMOS layers as taught by AAPA since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing an integrated circuit for another for the predictable result that sensing is still successfully carried out.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen3 in view of Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1), or alternatively over Classen3 in view of AAPA as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1).
As to claim 12, Classen3 teaches evaluation circuitry (comprised by the integrated circuit 20 – see fig. 9 and ¶65).
Classen3 does not explicitly teach wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance (while ¶53 teaches the stress measurement M is used to compensate the signal from the sensor, Classen3 is silent as to the evaluation circuitry being what performs the compensation).
Reinmuth teaches evaluation circuitry (not illustrated - ¶44), wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance (¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 or the modified Classen3 such that the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance as taught by Reinmuth for convenience since the compensation will not have to be done by a separate device or by a user.
As to claim 13, Classen3 teaches wherein the sensor signal (compensated sensor signal - ¶53 of Classen3) is ascertained at least in part from a sensor capacitance between the sensor electrode (on proof mass 70 of Classen3) and another part of the micromechanical structure (a second of the fixed electrodes 72 of Classen3 - ¶52).
If Applicant argues that the compensated sensor signal is not formed from a sensor capacitance between the sensor electrode and another part of the micromechanical structure,
Reinmuth teaches compensating a sensor signal (compensated sensor signal - ¶43-44) that is formed from a sensor capacitance C1A between a sensor electrode (of proof mass 130) and another part (one of fixed electrodes 210, 215) of the micromechanical structure (¶43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 as modified such that the signal of the sensor is formed with a capacitance formed with the sensor electrode and another part of the micromechanical structure as taught by Reinmuth since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of detecting deflection of the proof mass for another, and of correcting the raw sensor signal, for another for the predictable result that sensor accuracy is still successfully improved by the compensation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen3 in view of Reinmuth as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa (US 20190233279 A1), or alternatively over Classen3 in view of AAPA and Reinmuth as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa (US 20190233279 A1).
As to claim 17, Classen3 as modified teaches wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance to correct the sensor signal of a sensor channel (¶53 – Classen3).
Classen3 as modified does not teach wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance to correct the sensor signals of a plurality of sensor channels.
Yanagisawa teaches wherein compensation data (temperature information from sensor 145 - ¶12) is used for compensating the sensor signals for a plurality of sensor channels (of X, Y and Z axis accelerometers - ¶143 and fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 as modified to have accelerometers for each of the X-Z axes and to compensate each of their signals with the compensation data as taught by Yanagisawa so as to increase the usefulness of the apparatus, due to the ability to accurately sense in three axes.
Classen3 teaches wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance (of Classen3) to correct the sensor signals of a plurality of sensor channels (in view of Yanagisawa).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20140007685 A1, hereinafter Zhang) and Merassi (US 20140252509 A1).
As to claim 1, Reinmuth teaches a micromechanical sensor (figs. 1-3; ¶20-22), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 110;
[AltContent: textbox (MS )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
226
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a micromechanical structure 210 (fig. 3), MS (fig. 1 above) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity (the cavity is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the micromechanical sensor of Reinmuth is capable of being placed in a cavity) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130); and
a capacitive electrode 260, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance C2B with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 160 on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element 160 (¶40), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated value signal - ¶44).
Reinmuth does not explicitly teach a cap substrate disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity;
wherein the capacitive electrode 260 is disposed on an inner side of the cap structure,
wherein the cap substrate is a semiconductor substrate which includes an integrated circuit.
Zhang teaches a rocker proof mass 104 supported by two substrates 101-102 forming a cavity 117 (fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth to support the proof mass with two substrates forming a cavity, as taught by Zhang so as to better protect the sensor structures.
Regarding the cap substrate including an integrated circuit,
Merassi teaches wherein compensation operations are performed by an ASIC 30 (¶77) that is integrated (¶78) in a semiconductor substrate 3 (¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified such that compensation operations are performed by an ASIC that is integrated in the semiconductor substrate, as taught by Merassi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a circuit for performing the compensation operations for another for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed.
Reinmuth as modified teaches a MEMS substrate 101 (Zhang),
a micromechanical structure 210, MS (Reinmuth) that (a) is disposed (substantially) on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity 117 (Zhang) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130 of Reinmuth); and
a capacitive electrode 260 (Reinmuth), the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance C2B (Reinmuth) with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 160 (Reinmuth) on the MEMS substrate (substantially on the MEMS substrate via at least cavity sidewalls shown in fig. 1B of Zhang) for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element (¶40 of Reinmuth), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated value signal - ¶44 of Reinmuth),
a cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth) disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity;
wherein the capacitive electrode 260 (Reinmuth) is disposed on an inner side of the cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth),
wherein the cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth) is a semiconductor substrate (¶30 - Reinmuth) which includes an integrated circuit 30 (Merassi).
As to claim 3, Reinmuth teaches wherein the micromechanical structural element 160 is configured such that it cannot move (fig. 4 and ¶42 teach that the element 160 cannot move in response to Z-axis acceleration).
As to claim 4, Reinmuth as modified teaches a further capacitive electrode 265 (Reinmuth ) configured to produce a further measuring capacitance C1B (¶40 - Reinmuth) with a further adjacent micromechanical structural element 165 (Reinmuth) for measuring a further distance between the further capacitive electrode and the further micromechanical structural element (¶40 - Reinmuth), the further capacitive electrode being disposed on the inner side of the cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth).
As to claim 12, Reinmuth as modified teaches evaluation circuitry (comprised by the ASIC 30 of Merassi), wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance (¶44 of Reinmuth and/or ¶77 of Merassi).
As to claim 13, Reinmuth as modified teaches wherein the sensor signal (corrected sensor signal) is ascertained (via compensation – see ¶44 of Reinmuth and/or ¶77 of Merassi) at least in part from a sensor capacitance between the sensor electrode (of proof mass 130 of Reinmuth) and another part 210 (Reinmuth) of the micromechanical structure 210, MS (Reinmuth).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Zhang and Merassi, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Classen et al. (DE 102019218326 A1, hereinafter Classen2).
As to claim 14, Reinmuth as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the correcting includes subtracting a correction contribution, which is formed from the measuring capacitance and at least one correlation factor, from the sensor signal.
Classen2 teaches the concept of capacitively measuring stress (¶22) and performing a correction by subtracting (¶11) a correction contribution (being a value associated with “the signal of the stress compensation electrodes” that is “multiplied by a gain factor” - ¶11), which is formed from the measuring capacitance (a value associated with the “signal of the stress compensation electrodes” - ¶11) and at least one correlation factor (“gain factor” - ¶11), from the sensor signal (¶11 also teaches “In this method, the signal of the stress compensation electrodes is measured via a time average or strong low-pass filtering” and “Due to the strong temporal averaging, the noise level in the evaluation path of the stress compensation electrodes can be reduced to a very low level despite their limited size”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified to perform the correction wherein the correcting includes strong temporal averaging and subtracting a correction contribution, which is formed from the measuring capacitance and at least one correlation factor, from the sensor signal, as taught by Classen2, to reduce noise (¶11 of Classen2).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Zhang, Merassi and Classen2, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kabasawa et al. (US 20190265034 A1, hereinafter Kabasawa).
As to claim 15, Reinmuth as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the at least one correlation factor has a temperature dependence and the correction of the sensor signal is carried out as a function of temperature.
Classen2 further teaches “the compensation device is particularly advantageous in that the correction of the first measured value can be…carried out automatically…when temperature changes occur” (¶9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified to carry out correction automatically when temperature changes occur as further taught by Classen2, for convenience since the correction is performed automatically and not by the intervention of a user (¶9 – Classen2).
Kabasawa teaches wherein temperature compensation is performed with correlation factors N, M with a temperature dependence depending on the service temperature of the sensor 1 (¶181).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified such that the correlation factors have a temperature dependence depending on the service temperature of the sensor so as to compensate measurements more appropriately according to the service temperature in which the sensor will be used (alternatively, such a modification would have been obvious for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed).
Reinmuth as modified teaches wherein the at least one correlation factor has a temperature dependence (in view of Kabasaw) and the correction of the sensor signal is carried out as a function of temperature (in view of Classen2).
As to claim 16, Reinmuth as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the correction of the sensor signal also includes terms of at least second order of the measuring capacitance.
Classen2 further teaches wherein the correction of the sensor signal also includes terms of at least second order of the measuring capacitance (¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the modified Reinmuth such that the correction of the sensor signal also includes terms of at least second order of the measuring capacitance, as taught by Classen2, for the predictable result that corrections are still successfully performed.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen (DE 102019200843 B4) in view of Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20140007685 A1, hereinafter Zhang) and Merassi (US 20140252509 A1).
As to claim 1, Classen teaches a micromechanical sensor (fig. 5 and ¶30), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 1;
[AltContent: textbox (MS2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
366
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a micromechanical structure MS2 (fig. 5 above) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode 31; and
wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (the acceleration sensor of Classen is a capacitive acceleration sensor, with an improved signal-noise ratio - ¶24).
Classen does not teach wherein the micromechanical structure MS2 is disposed in a cavity,
a cap substrate disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity; and
a capacitive electrode disposed on an inner side of the cap structure, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element,
wherein the cap substrate is a semiconductor substrate which includes an integrated circuit.
Reinmuth teaches a micromechanical sensor (figs. 1-3; ¶20-22), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 110;
a micromechanical structure 210, MS (fig. 1 above) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity (the cavity is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the micromechanical sensor of Reinmuth is capable of being placed in a cavity) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130); and
a capacitive electrode 260, the capacitive electrode being attached to the substrate and configured to produce a measuring capacitance C2B with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 160 (being a fixed electrode) on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element 160 (¶40), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated value signal - ¶44; Reinmuth further teaches second capacitive electrode 265 attached to the substrate and configured for measuring a capacitance based on a distance to another fixed electrode 165 - ¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen to have a capacitive electrode and a second capacitive electrode attached to the substrate and configured to be used for measuring a capacitance with respective fixed electrodes as taught by Reinmuth for the benefit of compensating for stress in the substrate (¶39 and ¶44 - Reinmuth).
Regarding the cap and cavity,
Zhang teaches a rocker proof mass 104 supported by two silicon substrates 101-102 forming a cavity 117 (fig. 1B), wherein substrate 102 is a cap substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen as modified to support the proof mass with two substrates forming a cavity, as taught by Zhang so as to better protect the sensor structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen as modified such that the cap substrate is made of silicon as taught by Zhang since silicon is a well-known, affordable and/or widely available substrate material.
Regarding the cap substrate including an integrated circuit,
Merassi teaches wherein compensation operations are performed by an ASIC 30 (¶77) that is integrated (¶78) in a semiconductor substrate 3 (¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen as modified such that compensation operations are performed by an ASIC that is integrated in the semiconductor substrate, as taught by Merassi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a circuit for performing the compensation operations for another (i.e. from Reinmuth) for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed.
Classen as modified teaches a micromechanical sensor, comprising:
a MEMS substrate 101 (Zhang);
a micromechanical structure MS2 (Classen) that (a) is disposed (substantially) on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity 117 (Zhang) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130);
a cap substrate 1 (Classen) disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity; and
a capacitive electrode 260 (Reinmuth) disposed on an inner side of the cap structure 1 (Classen), the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 11 (Classen) on the MEMS substrate (substantially on the MEMS substrate via at least cavity sidewalls shown in fig. 1B of Zhang) for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element (as taught in ¶40 - Reinmuth), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (which is compensated in view of Reinmuth),
wherein the cap substrate 1 (Classen; note that Classen’s cap substrate 1 was modified in view of Zhang to be made of silicon) is a semiconductor substrate which includes an integrated circuit (in view of Merassi).
As to claim 5, Classen as modified teaches wherein micromechanical sensor is a z-acceleration sensor (¶44 - Classen), wherein the adjacent micromechanical structural element 11 (Classen) is a fixed sensor electrode 11 (fig. 5 of Classen shows the fixed sensor electrode 11 anchored to the cap substrate via an anchor 2a) for measuring an acceleration (¶24 and ¶44 - Classen).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen in view of Reinmuth, Zhang and Merassi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (in the instant specification, see fig. 3 and pg. 8 at lines 3-15, hereinafter “AAPA”).
As to claim 18, Classen as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except external electrical contacts of the integrated circuit, wherein external electrical contacts of the integrated circuit are fed outward by through-silicon vias to a rear side of the integrated circuit.
AAPA teaches wherein an integrated circuit can be provided in the form of an ASIC with CMOS layers 400, and wherein the apparatus further comprises external electrical contacts of the integrated circuit, wherein external electrical contacts of the integrated circuit are fed outward by through-silicon vias 410 to a rear side of the integrated circuit (fig. 3 and pg. 8 at lines 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen as modified such that the integrated circuit is provided in the form of an ASIC with CMOS layers, and wherein the apparatus further comprises external electrical contacts of the integrated circuit, wherein external electrical contacts of the integrated circuit are fed outward by through-silicon vias to a rear side of the integrated circuit, as taught by AAPA, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing an integrated circuit for another for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed.
As to claim 19, Classen as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except external electrical contacts, wherein the external electrical contacts are routed through a redistribution layer and contacted by solder beads on an application circuit board.
AAPA teaches wherein an integrated circuit can be provided in the form of an ASIC with CMOS layers 400, and wherein the apparatus further comprises external electrical contacts, wherein the external electrical contacts are routed through a redistribution layer 420 (fig. 3 and pg. 8 at lines 3-15) and contacted by solder beads on an application circuit board (the solder beads and application circuit board are not positively recited as parts of the claimed apparatus and are directed to an intended use of the external contacts; accordingly, the prior art external contacts are capable of being contacted by such solder beads as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen as modified such that the integrated circuit is provided in the form of an ASIC with CMOS layers, and wherein the apparatus further comprises external electrical contacts, wherein the external electrical contacts are routed through a redistribution layer and contacted by solder beads on an application circuit board, as taught by AAPA, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing an integrated circuit for another for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “Merassi does not disclose that the cap substrate is a semiconductor substrate including an integrated circuit,” “Merassi is a separate component or co-integrated in the MEMS die, not in the cap substrate with its inner-surface electrode facing the MEMS structural elements” and “Merassi does not disclose an integrated circuit in a cap substrate carrying a capacitive electrode on its inner side facing MEMS structural elements.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The teaching of a “cap substrate” comes from Zhang.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “Moving the ASIC into the cap substrate specifically to carry a capacitive electrode on its inner side facing MEMS top electrodes is not taught or motivated by Merassi.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The substrate of Merassi corresponds with the substrate of Reinmuth, which becomes a cap substrate after the application of the Zhang reference. Accordingly, there is no need for an explicit teaching in Merassi for having the ASIC in a “cap substrate.”
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “Since Reinmuth's own architecture requires no integrated circuit in the substrate to function, there is no motivation arising from Reinmuth to integrate a circuit into the cap substrate.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the PHOSITA would recognize that such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a circuit for performing the compensation operations for another for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “The combination thus requires integrating a circuit into a cap substrate, which would go against Reinmuth's design. Hence, there is no motivation to combine.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Just because integrating a circuit into a cap substrate is different from Reinmuth’s design does not mean that it goes against Reinmuth’s design. This is at least because Reinmuth does not teach away from such a configuration.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “Furthermore, Merassi does not teach "a cap substrate disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity; and a capacitive electrode disposed on an inner side of the cap substrate, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element, wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal," as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Merassi's semiconductor substrate is unrelated to the cap substrate of the claimed invention, and the combination is motivated entirely by hindsight.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Zhang was relied on for the concept of a cap substrate.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “Furthermore, Classen3, Reinmuth, Yanagisawa, Zhang, Classen2, Kabasawa, and Classen do not, and the Office Action has not shown they would, cure the deficiencies of Merassi.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for at least the reasons above.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “For at least the reasons above, Reinmuth, Zhang, and Merassi fail to disclose each and every element of amended claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is patentable. Claims 3-5 and 12-17 are likewise patentable, at least by virtue of depending from a patentable claim. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for at least the reasons above.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “Furthermore, in rejecting claim 5, the Office Action maps element 11 of Classen as the "adjacent micromechanical structural element [which] is a fixed sensor electrode for measuring an acceleration." However, in Classen, elements 11 and 12 are the bottom electrodes on the substrate side, while elements 31 and 32 are the top electrodes near the seismic mass. The cap- substrate capacitive electrode, per the Office Action's combination, would face the top of the MEMS structure, not element 11 at the bottom. There is no teaching in Reinmuth, Zhang, or Classen that places a cap-substrate electrode so that it faces a bottom electrode of the inertial sensor on the MEMS substrate. The combination is internally inconsistent. Therefore, Reinmuth, Zhang, or Classen fail to disclose "wherein the micromechanical sensor is a z-acceleration sensor, wherein the adjacent micromechanical structural element is a fixed sensor electrode for measuring an acceleration."”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In the rejection of claim 5, Classen (DE 102019200843 B4) is the primary reference, and the substrate of Classen corresponds with the claimed cap substrate after the application of the Zhang reference. Therefore, Classen’s element 11 (at the bottom in Classen) reads on the adjacent micromechanical structural element.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “Moreover, Classen aims to decouple the electrodes from substrate stress by making them freestanding and centering their anchors; it teaches away from the idea of using additional cap- substrate electrodes to measure substrate stress, favoring a structural approach instead. See Classen at [0032].”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Classen does not teach that the device is 100% immune to substrate stress. Accordingly, adding the feature of compensation would have been helpful and obvious. Furthermore, ¶32 of Classen teaches “[0032] Also in the arrangement of Fig. 5 The first electrodes 11, 12 formed in the first functional layer 10 are flexible with respect to their lateral extension and, in extreme cases, can also cover the entire underside of the movable structure (not shown).” There is nothing in ¶32 teaching away from the use of cap substrate electrodes. Accordingly, Applicant fails to provide persuasive evidence that Classen teaches away from using cap substrate electrodes.
In the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8, Applicant argues “Furthermore, in rejecting claim 14, the Office Action cites portions of Classen2. The claimed invention teaches a signal correction formula which requires the measuring capacitances from the cap-side electrodes to be used directly as the correction inputs, with correlation factors V1 and V2. See Specification at p. 13, 11. 8-18. However, Classen2 teaches multiplying the stress electrode signal by a gain factor and subtracting it from the raw data. Classen2 at [0011].”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a signal correction formula which requires the measuring capacitances from the cap-side electrodes to be used directly as the correction inputs, with correlation factors V1 and V2) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pg. 8, Applicant argues “Moreover, Classen2's calculation is in the context of MEMS-side stress electrodes, not cap- substrate electrodes facing MEMS structural elements. Therefore, Classen2 fails to disclose "wherein the correcting includes subtracting a correction contribution, which is formed from the measuring capacitance and at least one correlation factor, from the sensor signal," as recited in claim 14.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Before the application of the Classen2 reference, Reinmuth as modified already teaches the use of cap substrate electrodes for stress compensation. Accordingly, Classen2 was not relied on for cap substrate electrodes. Furthermore, Reinmuth as modified and Classen2 both teach stress compensation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the modified Reinmuth in view of Classen2.
On pg. 8, Applicant argues “Furthermore, in rejecting claim 17, the Office Action cites portions Yanagisawa. Yanagisawa teaches compensation data, temperature information from a sensor, used for compensating signals of a plurality of sensor channels (accelerometers). See Yanagisawa at [0012] and [0043]. However, using Yanagisawa's multi-channel compensation in a stress- measurement context requires recognizing that the stress measurement from one location, the measuring capacitance, is relevant to multiple sensor channels. This is a non-trivial step that Yanagisawa does not specifically teach or suggest in the context of a cap-substrate capacitive electrode facing MEMS inertial sensing electrodes. Therefore, the combination of Classen3, Reinmuth, and Yanagisawa fails to disclose "wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance to correct the sensor signals of a plurality of sensor channels," as recited in claim 17.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references already teaches the concept of a cap-substrate capacitive electrode facing MEMS inertial sensing electrodes, prior to the application of Yanagisawa. Furthermore, Classen3 as modified teaches compensation for one sensor, and Yanagisawa teaches applying the compensation to a plurality of sensors. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify the modified Classen3 in view of Yanagisawa so as to increase the usefulness of the apparatus, due to the ability to accurately (due to the compensation of multiple sensors) sense in three axes, regardless of the use of cap substrate electrodes being present in the combination prior to applying Yanagisawa.
As to claim 18, Applicant argues on pg. 8 that “Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 1, which Applicant has shown to be patentable. Hence, claims 18 and 19 are patentable, at least by virtue of depending from a patentable claim. Furthermore, claims 18 and 19 are additionally patentable in their own right, at least for the additional features they recite.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since all pending elected claims are properly rejected, as shown above.
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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights