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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “each capacitively coupled to a respective of the movable masses” which should read “each capacitively coupled to a respective one of the movable masses”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the movable mass and the test structure are each electrically to a respective one of the contact pads; and testing the first microelectron mechanical device” which should read “the movable mass and the test structure are each electrically coupled to a respective one of the contact pads; and testing the first microelectromechanical device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a control integrated circuit connected to the pads" and "the at least one microstructure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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) 1-2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080150554 to Wang in view of US 20060150745 to Lang.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a microelectromechanical device (Figs. 3-7, micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) capacitance sensing structure 2; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]), comprising: a support body (Figs. 3-7, substrate 20; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to oscillate along one or more axes (Figs. 3-7, CMOS conductive body 23 with flexible members 24 connected to conductive body 23 and fixing end 25; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); fixed detection electrodes rigidly connected to the support body and capacitively coupled to the at least one movable mass (Figs. 3-7, sensing electrode layers 21; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); and at least one test structure of semiconductor material, rigidly connected to the support body and distinct from the fixed detection electrodes (Figs. 3-7, CMOS test electrode layer 27; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); wherein the at least one test structure is capacitively coupled to the at least one movable mass and is configured to apply electrostatic forces to the at least one movable mass in response to a voltage between the at least one test structure and the at least one movable mass (Figs. 3-7, CMOS test electrode layer 27; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033], Claim 5).
However, although Wang discloses flexible members 24 connected to conductive body 23 and fixing end 25, Wang is silent regarding the at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to the support body. Lang discloses the at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to the support body (Figs. 1-4, movable part 100 fastened to substrate 200 via vibratory springs 120 and suspension 110; ¶¶ [0034]-[0042]; Note also that Lang discloses when drive unit 300 has a test query signal 305 conducted to it, it generates an electrical test drive signal 311, which is conducted to test drive structure 100, 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Wang by providing the at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to the support body as in Lang in order to provide for a well-known alternative suspension arrangement. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the at least one test structure is electrically isolated from the movable mass and from the substrate (Figs. 3-7, CMOS test electrode layer 27 not electrically connected with the sensing electrode layer 21; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses a method for manufacturing a microelectromechanical device (Figs. 3-7, micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) capacitance sensing structure 2; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]), comprising: forming a support body (Figs. 3-7, substrate 20; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); forming at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to oscillate along one or more axes (Figs. 3-7, CMOS conductive body 23 with flexible members 24 connected to conductive body 23 and fixing end 25; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); forming fixed detection electrodes rigidly connected to the support body and capacitively coupled to the at least one movable mass (Figs. 3-7, sensing electrode layers 21; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); forming at least one test structure of semiconductor material rigidly connected to the support body, capacitively coupled to the at least one movable mass, and distinct from the fixed detection electrodes (Figs. 3-7, CMOS test electrode layer 27; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]); and applying, with the at least one test structure, electrostatic forces to the at least one movable mass in response to a voltage between the at least one test structure and the at least one movable mass (Figs. 3-7, CMOS test electrode layer 27; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033], Claim 5).
However, although Wang discloses flexible members 24 connected to conductive body 23 and fixing end 25, Wang is silent regarding the at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to the support body. Lang discloses the at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to the support body (Figs. 1-4, movable part 100 fastened to substrate 200 via vibratory springs 120 and suspension 110; ¶¶ [0034]-[0042]; Note also that Lang discloses when drive unit 300 has a test query signal 305 conducted to it, it generates an electrical test drive signal 311, which is conducted to test drive structure 100, 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Wang by providing the at least one movable mass of semiconductor material, elastically constrained to the support body as in Lang in order to provide for a well-known alternative suspension arrangement. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20110041609 to Clark.
Regarding Claim 11, Wang in view of Lang discloses the device according to claim 1, and Wang further discloses the movable mass and test structures of semiconductor material (Figs. 3-7, CMOS conductive body 23 with CMOS test electrode layer 27; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]), but does not disclose a plurality of movable masses, elastically constrained to the support body to oscillate with respective relative degrees of freedom; and a plurality of test structures, rigidly connected to the support body, distinct from the fixed detection electrodes and each capacitively coupled to a respective one of the movable masses. Clark discloses a plurality of movable masses, elastically constrained to the support body to oscillate with respective relative degrees of freedom (Figs. 1-2 and 7, two rotationally-dithered masses (shuttles) 102 and 104 suspended via spokes from a central hub that is movably coupled to substrate via a post and suspension flexures 101; ¶¶ [0039]-[0043]); and a plurality of test structures, rigidly connected to the support body, distinct from the fixed detection electrodes and each capacitively coupled to a respective one of the movable masses (Figs. 1-2 and 7, test signal applied to quadrature-compensating electrodes, in-phase compensating electrodes, and/or to separate test electrodes to modulate the distance between the resonator and the underlying substrate,; ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Wang in view of Lang by providing a plurality of movable masses, elastically constrained to the support body to oscillate with respective relative degrees of freedom; and a plurality of test structures, rigidly connected to the support body, distinct from the fixed detection electrodes and each capacitively coupled to a respective one of the movable mass as in Clark in order to provide for well-known alternative device using multiple masses in lieu of a single mass. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 12, Clark discloses the movable masses and the respective test structures are arranged in specularly symmetrical pairs around a center (Figs. 1-2 and 7, two rotationally-dithered masses (shuttles) 102 and 104 and quadrature-compensating electrodes, in-phase compensating electrodes, and/or separate test electrodes in mirror symmetry about central hub; ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], [0076]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210002126 to Alessi.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang in view of Lang discloses the device according to claim 1, but do not disclose pads accessible from the outside, wherein the at least one movable mass and the at least one test structure are electrically coupled to respective pads. Alessi discloses pads accessible from the outside (Figs. 1 and 7, elements for electrical connection towards the outside (for example, in the form of electrical contact pads); ¶¶ [0004]-[0008], [0031]), the at least one movable mass and the at least one test structure are electrically coupled to respective pads (Figs. 1 and 7, testing electrodes and dedicated electrical contact pads for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus), the contact pads being provided in the same micromechanical structure as that of the MEMS sensor (i.e., in inertial mass, mobile detection electrodes associated with the inertial mass, and fixed detection electrodes; ¶¶ [0004]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Wang in view of Lang by providing pads accessible from the outside, wherein the at least one movable mass and the at least one test structure are electrically coupled to respective pads. Alessi discloses pads accessible from the outside as in Alessi in order to provide simpler access to test the device externally.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alessi and Clark.
Regarding Claim 14, Wang in view of Lang discloses the device according to claim 1, but do not disclose a control integrated circuit connected to pads, and configured to set a zero voltage between the at least one microstructure and the at least one test structure. Alessi discloses a control integrated circuit connected to the pads (Figs. 1 and 7, electronic testing stage incorporated in ASIC, for control and execution of the test procedure; ¶¶ [0004]-[0008]), and Clark discloses control configured to set a zero voltage between the at least one microstructure and the at least one test structure (¶¶ [0032], [0045]-[0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Wang in view of Lang by providing a control integrated circuit connected to pads, and configured to set a zero voltage between the at least one microstructure and the at least one test structure as in Alessi and Clark in order to provide for error compensation.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alessi in view of Wang and further and in view of Clark.
Regarding Claim 17, Alessi discloses a method (Figs. 1-4 and 7, diagnostic system 1 and method for MEMS sensor 2; ¶¶ [0025]-[0031]), comprising: coupling a test machine of test equipment to contact pads of a first microelectromechanical device (Figs. 1-4 and 7, stimulation device 4, control unit 5, and MEMS sensor 2 coupled to electronic board 8 which defines corresponding elements for electrical connection towards the outside (for example, in the form of electrical contact pads); ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]), the first microelectromechanical device including: a movable mass of semiconductor material elastically constrained to a support body to oscillate along one or more axes (Figs. 1-4 and 7, MEMS sensor 2 with inertial mass, suspended above substrate by means of elastic suspension elements comprising micromechanical structure made in a die of semiconductor material; ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]); fixed detection electrodes rigidly connected to the support body and capacitively coupled to the movable mass (Figs. 1-4 and 7, MEMS sensor 2 with inertial with fixed detection electrodes, which are fixed with respect to the substrate and are coupled capacitively to the mobile electrodes; ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]); and a test structure of semiconductor material rigidly connected to the support body, capacitively coupled to the movable mass, distinct from the fixed detection electrodes, and configured to apply electrostatic forces to the movable mass in response to a voltage between the test structure and the movable mass (Figs. 1-4 and 7, further testing electrodes and dedicated electrical contact pads for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus), these contact pads being provided in the same micromechanical structure as that of the MEMS sensor, in order to generate a test movement of the inertial mass; ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]), wherein the movable mass and the test structure are each electrically coupled to a respective one of the contact pads (Figs. 1-4 and 7, further testing electrodes and dedicated electrical contact pads for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus), the contact pads being provided in the same micromechanical structure as that of the MEMS sensor (i.e., in inertial mass, mobile detection electrodes associated with the inertial mass, and fixed detection electrodes; ¶¶ [0004]-[0008]); and testing the first microelectromechanical device by applying, with a test signal generator of the test machine, a test voltage between the movable mass and the test structure via the contact pads (Figs. 1-4 and 7, further testing electrodes and dedicated electrical contact pads for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus), these contact pads being provided in the same micromechanical structure as that of the MEMS sensor, in order to generate a test movement of the inertial mass; ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]).
Assuming arguendo that Alessi does not sufficiently disclose a test structure of semiconductor material rigidly connected to the support body, Wang discloses a test structure of semiconductor material rigidly connected to the support body (Figs. 3-7, CMOS test electrode layer 27; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033]). Assuming further that Alessi does not sufficiently disclose a movable mass elastically constrained to a support body to oscillate along one or more axes, Clark discloses a movable mass elastically constrained to a support body to oscillate along one or more axes (Figs. 1-2 and 7, two rotationally-dithered masses (shuttles) 102 and 104 suspended via spokes from a central hub that is movably coupled to substrate via a post and suspension flexures 101; ¶¶ [0039]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Alessi by providing a test structure of semiconductor material rigidly connected to the support body as in Wang and a movable mass elastically constrained to a support body to oscillate along one or more axes as in Clark in order to provide for a well-known alternative suspension arrangement relative to the fixed/test elecyodes . See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 18, Clark discloses the microelectromechanical device is implemented in a wafer that includes a second microelectromechanical device substantially identical to the first microelectromechanical device (Figs. 1-2 and 7, two rotationally-dithered masses (shuttles) 102 and 104 suspended via spokes from a central hub that is movably coupled to substrate via a post and suspension flexures 101; ¶¶ [0039]-[0043]), and Alessi discloses the method comprising: coupling the test machine to contact pads of the second microelectromechanical device (Figs. 1-4 and 7, stimulation device 4, control unit 5, and MEMS sensor 2 coupled to electronic board 8 which defines corresponding elements for electrical connection towards the outside (for example, in the form of electrical contact pads); ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]); and testing the second microelectromechanical device by applying, with the test signal generator of the test machine, the test voltage between the at least one movable mass and the at least one test structure of the second microelectromechanical device via the contact pads of the second microelectromechanical device (Figs. 1-4 and 7, further testing electrodes and dedicated electrical contact pads for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus), these contact pads being provided in the same micromechanical structure as that of the MEMS sensor, in order to generate a test movement of the inertial mass; ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031]).
Regarding Claim 19, Alessi discloses the test voltage includes a sinusoidal voltage with a frequency that varies over time (Figs. 1-4 and 7, further testing electrodes and dedicated electrical contact pads for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus with a frequency sweep), in order to generate a test movement of the inertial mass; ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0025]-[0031], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 20, Alessi discloses receiving, with a test control unit of the test machine via input contact pads, sense signals from the detection electrodes based on movements of the movable mass responsive to the test voltage (Figs. 1-4 and 7, testing electrodes for supplying appropriate excitation signals (which constitute a testing stimulus with a frequency sweep), in order to generate a test movement of the inertial mass with control unit or circuit 5 of ASIC for receiving electrical detection signals; ¶¶ [0006]-[0014], [0025]-[0031], [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-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, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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 J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852