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
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (2021/0047175).
Re claim 1, Chu et al. disclose providing a substrate (103) having a first substrate surface and an opposite second substrate surface; depositing a material layer (111) onto the first substrate surface, the material layer having a different etch characteristic than the substrate (Fig. 7); creating a microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure (Figs. 5 and 7 show filter stack 104) on top of the material layer by applying a microstructuring process (the filter stack 104 is form using a microstructuring process because the process for forming the filter stack 104 includes removing material from the substrate to create the desired microstructures~ [0039]); applying an anisotropic etching process comprising at least one etching step for anisotropically etching through the substrate (103) until reaching the material layer (111) to create a first cavity (101~ Fig. 10) opposite the micromechanical environmental barrier structure; and removing the material layer located inside the first cavity to expose the environmental barrier structure (filter stack 104).
Re claim 7, Chu et al. disclose wherein the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure (i.e. filter stack 104) is formed as at least one of a perforated air permeable membrane (Fig. 11 shows a particle filter 106) (The particle filter 106 comprises a plurality of filter openings 107 configured to pass air from the carrier substrate opening 101 to the air volume space 113 Para. [0024], Lines 13-16) as shown in Fig. 11.
Re claim 8, Chu et al. disclose wherein the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure (filter stack 104) is configured to let a first amount of air pass through the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure while preventing a second amount of at least one of moisture, liquids, oil or solid environmental particles from passing through the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure (the filter stack 104 includes a particle filter 106 comprises a plurality of filter openings 107 configured to pass air from the carrier substrate opening 101 to the air volume space 113. As the air passes from the carrier substrate opening 101 to air volume space 113, the particle filter 106 is configured to block and/or remove particles from the air that may adversely affect the movement of the diaphragm 110~ [0024]).
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) 2, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. as applied to claims 1, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 20210018093).
Re claim 2, Chu et al. does not disclose further comprising applying nanofibers onto the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure, such that the nanofibers combine to form an air permeable nanofibrous membrane structure.
Jung et al. teaches that applying nanofibers onto a waterproof filter 140, wherein the nanofibers combine to form an air permeable nanofibrous membrane structure (Pg. 4, Lines 17-20) as shown in Fig. 3. Chu et al. and Jung et al. each disclose a method for manufacturing a MEMS microphone device.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS microphone device of Chu et al. with the applying nanofibers as taught by Jung et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS microphone device of Chu with the applying nanofibers as taught by Jung. The motivation is to use the nanofiber hydrophobic properties in order to prevent moisture and dust in air from passing through the MEMS microphone device.
Re claim 3, Jung et al. teaches the nanofibers (Fig. 3 shows nanofibers 142) are applied on at least one of a first side or a second side of the microstructure micromechanical environment barrier structure (waterproof filter 140) as shown in Fig. 3.
Re claim 9, the use of wafer level method and singulating the plurality of micromechanical chips from the wafer was well know before the effective date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known method for its own intended purpose.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. as in view of Jung et al. applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Kameoka et al. (2006/0068668).
Re claim 4, the combination does not disclose wherein applying the nanofibers comprises at least one of:arranging an adhesion promotion layer between the nanofibers and the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure; increasing a surface roughness of the micromechanical environmental barrier structure; or applying a three-dimensional modification to the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure for improving an adhesion between the nanofibers and the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure.
Kameoka et al. teaches that applying adhesive to held together a nanofiber and a microfiber membrane (Para. [0044], Lines 4-12). The combination of Chu et al. and Jung et al. and Kameoka et al. each disclose nanofibers.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have couple the nanofibers and the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure of the combination of Chu and Jung with the adhesion as taught by Kameoka. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the nanofibers and the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure of the combination of Chu and Jung with the adhesion as taught by Kameoka. The motivation is to couple the nanofibers and the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure by using a suitable adhesive.
Claim(s) 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. as applied to claims 1, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Tai et al. (6,598,750).
Re claim 10, Chu et al. disclose wherein: the first cavity (101) comprises a lateral extension that is equal to or smaller than an outer contour of the micromechanical environmental barrier structure (Fig. 9); and applying the anisotropic etching process further comprises: applying an anisotropic etching step for anisotropically etching a second cavity into the substrate, the second cavity comprising a larger lateral extension than the first cavity (Fig. 10), and applying a further anisotropic etching step for anisotropically etching a plurality of discontinuous trenches into the substrate, the plurality of discontinuous trenches laterally surrounding the micromechanical environmental barrier structure and vertically extending between the first surface of the substrate and the second cavity (Fig. 11).
Chu et al. does not disclose wherein the etching step to form the second cavity and the third etching step to form a plurality of discontinuous trenches is an anisotropic etching.
Tai et al. teaches of an anisotropic etching process etching a plurality of perforations into the base substrate as shown in Figs. 1A-1E. Chu and Tai each disclose a method for manufacturing a microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the method for manufacturing the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure of Chu by including the anisotropic etching process as taught by Tai. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for manufacturing the microstructured micromechanical environmental barrier structure of Chu by including the anisotropic etching process as taught by Tai. The motivation is to use the anisotropic etching process to provide precise dimensions and well- defined profiles of the plurality of perforations in the base substrate.
Re claim 11, Chu et al. disclose wherein the plurality of discontinuous trenches defines a lateral size of the micromechanical environmental barrier chip (Fig. 11).
Re claim 12, Chu et al. disclose wherein etching the plurality of discontinuous trenches into the substrate comprises: leaving portions of substrate material (103) between the plurality of discontinuous trenches (between portions 106), such that the left portions form micro beams that structurally connect the micromechanical environmental barrier chip (104) on one side of the plurality of discontinuous trenches to the substrate on an opposite other side of the plurality of discontinuous trenches (Fig. 10).
Re claim 13, breaking micro beams and singulating the plurality of micromechanical chips from the wafer was well know before the effective date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known method for its own intended purpose.
Re claim 14, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thicknesses through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thicknesses, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thicknesses or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thicknesses are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 11,498,097 B2, US 11,053,117 B2, US 2020/0194659 A1 and US 2009/0061578 A1 disclose a similar method for manufacturing micromechanical systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights