DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 2, corresponding to claims 1-3 and 5-9, in the reply filed on 4/13/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1-3, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 11,697,588, in view of Yang, US 7,651,888, and Shu et al., US 9,365,416.
Regarding claim 1, Wang (figure 2) teaches a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) package, comprising:
a wafer 102;
an interconnect structure 104, disposed on the wafer 102;
a passivation layer 204, disposed on the interconnect structure 102;
a device substrate 124 comprising a first MEMS device 134, disposed on the wafer 102 and bonded to the interconnect structure 104;
the device substrate 124 also comprising a second MEMS device 138, disposed on the wafer 102 and bonded to the interconnect structure 104;
a cap substrate 128 with a first cavity 136, bonded to the device substrate 124 and a second cavity 140, bonded to the device substrate 124; and
a getter 116a, disposed in an opening of the passivation layer 204, on the interconnect structure 104 and directly under the second MEMS device 138,
wherein the first cavity 136 has a first pressure, and the second cavity 140 has a second pressure lower than the first pressure (column 2, line 62-column 3, line 2).
Wang fails to teach the device substrate comprises a first device substrate comprising the first MEMS device; and a second device substrate comprising the second MEMS device laterally spaced apart from the first device substrate.
Yang (see marked up figure 6b below) teaches the device substrate comprises a first device substrate 3 comprising the first MEMS device; and a second device substrate 4 comprising the second MEMS device laterally spaced apart from the first device substrate 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the first and second device substrates of Yang in the invention of Wang because Yang teaches and known alternative equivalent device substrate. Whether one uses one device substrate with two regions or two separate device substrates is within the ordinary level of skill to skilled artisans. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Also, Wang, which teaches a wafer type cap substrate 125 bonded to a wafer type device substrate 124, and Yang, which teaches the cap substrates bonded to the wafer, both fail to teach the cap substrate comprises a first cap substrate with a first cavity, bonded to the first device substrate; and a second cap substrate with a second cavity, bonded to the second device substrate.
Shu (figure 2) teaches a first cap substrate 118 with a first cavity, bonded to the first device substrate 110. When this teaching is combined with Yang’s teaching of a separate cap substrate for each device substrate would result in a cap structure having a cavity for each device substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the separate device substrate bonded to the device substrate of Shu in the invention of Yang because Shu teaches the equivalence of bonding the cap substrate to the device substrate (figure 2) with bonding the cap substrate to the wafer (figure 1). The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 2, Wang (column 1, lines 14-27) teaches the first MEMS device comprises an accelerometer and the second MEMS device comprises a gyroscope.
As to claim 3, Wang (figure 2) teaches the interconnect structure 104 comprises a top electrode layer 114a, the passivation layer 204 is disposed on the top electrode layer 114a, and the getter 116a is in contact with the top electrode layer 114a.
In re claim 5, Wang (figure 2) teaches the getter is electrically 116a connected to the interconnect structure 104 (through 114a).
Concerning claim 6, Wang (figure 2) teaches a vertical projection area of the getter 116a is overlapped with a vertical projection area of the second cavity 140.
Pertaining to claim 7, Wang (figure 2) teaches the second MEMS device 138 comprises a plurality of trenches (openings through 124), and though Wang fails to teach the getter 116a has a pattern corresponding to the plurality of trenches of the second MEMS device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use trenches in the getter in the invention of Wang (figure 2) because changes in shape or proportion are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
In clam 8, Wang teaches the getter 116a comprises Ti (column 5, lines 22-23), a Ti based alloy, a Zr based alloy, a Zr-V based alloy or a Zr-Co based alloy.
Regarding claim 9, though Wang fails to teach the getter 116a is configured to be a conductive stopper for the second MEMS device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the getter as a conductive stopper in the invention of Wang because this is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 6/10/26
Prosecution Insights