DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed 9/3/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Lim, US 9,718,679, in view of Yang, US 7,651,888
Regarding claim 1, Lim (see marked up figure 3 below) teaches a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) package, comprising:
a wafer 302;
an interconnect structure 1, disposed on the wafer 302;
a passivation (column 3, lines 42-46) layer 2, disposed on the interconnect structure 1;
a first device substrate 314 comprising a first MEMS device 3, disposed on the wafer 302 and bonded to the interconnect structure 1;
the device substrate comprising a second MEMS device 4, laterally spaced apart from the first device substrate 3, disposed on the wafer 1 and bonded to the interconnect structure 2;
a first cap substrate 304 with a first cavity 308a, bonded to the first device substrate 314;
a second cap substrate 304 with a second cavity 308b, bonded to the second device substrate 314; and
a getter 306, disposed in an opening of the passivation layer 3, on the interconnect structure 1 and directly under the second MEMS device 4, wherein a material layer of the getter is not disposed directly under the first MEMS device 3 and no portion of the getter is covered by the passivation layer 2, and
wherein the first cavity 308a has a first pressure, and the second cavity 308b has a second pressure lower than the first pressure (column 7, lines 29-42).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lim, which teaches one device substrate 314 and one caps structure 304, 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; and a first cap substrate and a second cap structure.
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; and a first cap substrate 5 and a second cap structure 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
584
media_image2.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 and first and second cap structures of Yang in the invention of Lim because Yang teaches and known alternative equivalent device substrate and cap structure. 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).
With respect to claim 2, Lim (column 1, lines 38-43) teaches the first MEMS device comprises an accelerometer and the second MEMS device comprises a gyroscope.
As to claim 3, though Lim fails to specifically teach the interconnect structure comprises a top electrode layer, the passivation layer is disposed on the top electrode layer, and the getter is in contact with the top electrode layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Lim 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).
In re claim 5, though Lim fails to specifically teach the getter is electrically connected to the interconnect structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Lim 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).
Concerning claim 6, Lim (figure 3) teaches a vertical projection area of the getter 306 is overlapped with a vertical projection area of the second cavity 308b.
Pertaining to claim 7, Lim (see marked up figure 3 above) teaches the second MEMS device 4 comprises a plurality of trenches (openings in 314), and though Lim fails to teach the getter 306 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 this configuration in the invention of Lim because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 8, though Lim fails to teach the getter comprises Ti, a Ti based alloy, a Zr based alloy, a Zr-V based alloy or a Zr-Co based alloy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these materials in the invention of Lim because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 9, though Lim fails to teach the getter 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 this configuration in the invention of Lim because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
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 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 9/11/26
Prosecution Insights