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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/10/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 18-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 16-17 filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that the combination of Chen and Song would alter Chen pillar structure because the pillar is opposite and away from the substrate, the examiner argues that Song disclose another embodiment of pillar structure in Fig 6 where the pillar 621 is not in a opposite and away from the substrate 51. Therefore, the pillar structure taught by Song would not alter the additional layer facing the substrate of Chen.
Regarding the argument that "the pillar structure is formed as a sandwich structure that comprises two insulating layers and a conductive layer between the insulating layers." the examiner argues that Song discloses in Para [0031] a plurality of conductive layers separated from each other by dielectric layers. Therefore, the pillar structure taught by Song read on two insulating layers and a conductive layer between the insulating layers.
Moreover, the applicant argues that one of the ordinary skills in the art would not use the sandwiched pillar structure of Song with the insulating layer pillar structure taught by Chen. The examiner argues that the combination is proper because Song disclose pillar for vibrating element and Chen also disclose pillar for a vibrating element. Therefore one of the ordinary skills in the art can substitute the pillar of Song as pillar for Chen to protect the vibrating element.
Furthermore, regarding the argument that the combination of Chen and Song fails to align with the positioning and functional effects of the present application, the examiner argues that Chen in view Song disclose each feature of claim 16, but does not recite positioning and functional effects which are not features recited in the claim.
In addition, the applicant argues that Song relies on a CMOS process and it is limited to protrusions or support located on the far side. The examiner argues that Song disclose in Para [0023] that CMOS process or other suitable process can be used. Therefore one of the ordinary skills in the art can use another process of pillar production without undue experimentation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al disclose a micro-electro-mechanical system structure (Wang et al; Fig 6; MEMS 10), comprising: a substrate having an opening portion (Wang et al; Fig 6; substrate 100 having opening 143); a backplate disposed on one side of the substrate (Wang et al; Fig 6; MEMS 10; backplate 400), wherein the backplate comprises a backplate conductive layer (Wang et al; Fig 6; MEMS 10; Para [0031] layer 400b) and a backplate insulating layer stacked with each other (Wang et al; Fig 6; MEMS 10; Para [0031]; layer 400); a diaphragm disposed between the substrate and the backplate and extending across the opening portion of the substrate (Wang et al; Fig 6; MEMS 10; diaphragm 200); a pillar structure connected with the backplate (Wang et al; Fig 6; pillar coming out of backplate 400), but do not expressly disclose wherein the pillar structure comprises a pillar conductive layer and a pillar insulating layer stacked with each other. However, in the same field of endeavor, Walther et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the pillar structure comprises a pillar conductive layer and a pillar insulating layer stacked with each other (Walther et al; Fig 1A; Para [0029]; pillar 107 include conductive layers 109 stacked with second dielectric layers). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Walther as pillar structure taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to provide immunity to failure, e.g., due to particle damage (Walther et al; Para [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al in view of Walter et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a top view, the pillar structure is formed as a complete or non-complete closed pattern (Wang et al; Fig 6; pillar formed from backplate 400 is formed as a complete closed pattern around support 600).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al in view of Walter et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a cross-sectional view, the pillar structure is formed in a concave shape (Wang et al; Fig 6; pillar formed from backplate 400 is formed in a concave shape).
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al in view of Walter et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein an air gap is formed between the diaphragm and the backplate (Wang et al; Fig 6; air gap is formed between backplate 400 and diaphragm 200), and the pillar structure extends from the backplate into the air gap (Wang et al; Fig 6; pillar structure extends from the backplate 400 into the air gap).
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al in view of Walter et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pillar structure is separated from the diaphragm when there is no external force applied on the diaphragm (Wang et al; Fig 6; pillar structure separated from the diaphragm when there is no external force applied).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Song et al (US 2009/0086999 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al in view of Walter et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the pillar insulating layer is divided into a first pillar insulating layer and a second pillar insulating layer, and the pillar conductive layer is disposed between the first pillar insulating layer and the second pillar insulating layer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Song et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the pillar insulating layer is divided into a first pillar insulating layer and a second pillar insulating layer, and the pillar conductive layer is disposed between the first pillar insulating layer and the second pillar insulating layer (Song et al; Para [0031]; support 522 include conductive layers separated by dielectric layers). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar conductive layer taught by Song to stack with the pillar insulating layer taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid electrical contact that may result in short- circuiting (Song et al; Para [0003]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Song et al (US 2009/0086999 A1) and further in view of Pedersen et al (US 2020/0196065 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al in view of Walther et al and further in view of Song et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 2, but do not expressly disclose wherein the backplate insulating layer is divided into a first backplate insulating layer and a second backplate insulating layer, and the backplate conductive layer is disposed between the first backplate insulating layer and the second backplate insulating layer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the backplate insulating layer is divided into a first backplate insulating layer and a second backplate insulating layer, and the backplate conductive layer is disposed between the first backplate insulating layer and the second backplate insulating layer (Pedersen; Para [0025] [0044]; insulating layer 446 on each surface of layer 440). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the layer composition taught by Pedersen as layer composition in the device taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to provide good performance (Pedersen et al; Para [0078]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Song et al (US 2009/0086999 A1) and further in view of Pedersen et al (US 2020/0196065 A1) and further in view of Klein et al (US 2016/0340173 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al in view of Walther et al and further in view of Song et al and further in view of Pedersen et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first pillar insulating layer, the second pillar insulating layer, the first backplate insulating layer, and the second backplate insulating layer comprise the same material, while the pillar conductive layer and the backplate conductive layer comprise same material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Klein et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the first pillar insulating layer, the second pillar insulating layer, the first backplate insulating layer, and the second backplate insulating layer comprise the same material (Klein et al; Para [0046]), while the pillar conductive layer and the backplate conductive layer comprise same material (Klein et al; Para [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the layer composition taught by Klein as layer composition in the device taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the mechanical stability (Klein et al; Para [0039]).
Claim(s) 6, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Klein (US 2018/0352337 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al in view of Walter et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose but do not expressly disclose wherein in a top view, the pillar structure is divided into a plurality of discontinuous segments. However, in the same field of endeavor, Klein discloses a MEMS device wherein in a top view, the pillar structure is divided into a plurality of discontinuous segments (Klein; Fig 5b; Fig 5c; pillar 32 surrounds a center of the backplate and a center of the diaphragm). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Klein to as pillar in the device taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce or prevent mechanical damage to the membrane (Klein et al; Para [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al in view of Walther et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the pillar structure is disposed on or surrounds a center of the backplate and a center of the diaphragm. However, in the same field of endeavor, Klein discloses a MEMS device wherein the pillar structure is disposed on or surrounds a center of the backplate and a center of the diaphragm (Klein; Fig 5c; pillar 32 surrounds a center of the backplate and a center of the diaphragm). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Klein to as pillar in the device taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce or prevent mechanical damage to the membrane (Klein et al; Para [0040]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Chen et al (US 2019/0210866 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al in view of Walther et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backplate has acoustic holes (Wang et al; Fig 6; backplate 400 has acoustic holes), but do not expressly disclose and in a top view, at least one of the acoustic holes is disposed inside the pillar structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen et al disclose a MEMS device wherein and in a top view, at least one of the acoustic holes is disposed inside the pillar structure (Chen et al; Fig 9; hole H inside pillar 211). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Chen as the pillar structure for the pillar taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve high AOP and high sensitivity simultaneously (Chen et al; Para [0006]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Buck et al (US 2016/0029126 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al in view of Walther et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a protection post structure connected with the backplate, wherein in a top view, the protection post structure surrounds the pillar structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Buck et al disclose a MEMS device further comprising: a protection post structure connected with the backplate (Buck et al; Para [0048]; support post 240), wherein in a top view, the protection post structure surrounds the pillar structure (Buck et al; Para [0048]; support post structure 240 surrounds pillars structure). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Buck as the pillar structure for the pillar taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to accommodate this wide variation without compromising the structural integrity of the anchor (Buck et al; Para [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al in view of Walther et al a not further in view of Buck et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein in the top view, the protection post structure is formed as a complete or non- complete closed pattern. However, in the same field of endeavor, Buck et al disclose a MEMS device wherein in the top view, the protection post structure is formed as a complete or non- complete closed pattern (Buck et al; Para [0051]; Fig 15; protection post structure formed as a complete closed pattern). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Buck as the pillar structure for the pillar taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to accommodate this wide variation without compromising the structural integrity of the anchor (Buck et al; Para [0051]).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Buck et al (US 2016/0029126 A1) and further in view of Hsieh et al (US 2022/0127134 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al in view of Walther et al a not further in view of Buck et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the protection post structure is separated from the diaphragm when there is no external force applied on the diaphragm. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hsieh et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the protection post structure is separated from the diaphragm when there is no external force applied on the diaphragm (Hsieh et al; Fig 2; protection post structure 106 is separated from the diaphragm when there is no external force applied on the diaphragm). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Hsieh as the pillar structure for the pillar taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to provide the mechanical strength (Hsieh et al; Para [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al in view of Walther et al and further in view of Buck et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 11, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a support post structure connected with the backplate, wherein in the top view, the support post structure is disposed outside the protection post structure with respect to the pillar structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hsieh et al disclose a MEMS device further comprising: a support post structure connected with the backplate (Hsieh et al; Fig 2; support post structure 108’), wherein in the top view, the support post structure is disposed outside the protection post structure with respect to the pillar structure (Hsieh et al; Fig 2; support post structure 108’ is disposed outside protection post structure 108). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Hsieh as the pillar structure for the pillar taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to provide the mechanical strength (Hsieh et al; Para [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al in view of Walther et al a not further in view of Buck et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the backplate has acoustic holes, and in the top view, at least one of the acoustic holes is disposed between the protection post structure and the support post structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hsieh et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the backplate has acoustic holes, and in the top view, at least one of the acoustic holes is disposed between the protection post structure and the support post structure (Hsieh et al; Fig 4; acoustic hole 102 disposed between supports 106 and 108). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Hsieh as the pillar structure for the pillar taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to provide the mechanical strength (Hsieh et al; Para [0018]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2014/0299948 A1) in view of Walther et al (US 2021/0044905 A1) and further in view of Buck et al (US 2016/0029126 A1) and further in view of Hsieh et al (US 2022/0127134 A1) and further in view of Klein (US 2018/0352337 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Wang et al in view of Walther et al and further in view of Buck et al and further in view of Hsieh et al disclose the micro-electro-mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the pillar structure is closer to the diaphragm than the support post structure and the protection post structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Klein disclose a MEMS device wherein the pillar structure is closer to the diaphragm than the support post structure and the protection post structure (Klein; Fig 2; pillar 32 is closer to diaphragm than post structure 28). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar structure taught by Klein to as pillar in the device taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce or prevent mechanical damage to the membrane (Klein et al; Para [0040]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2019/0210866 A1) in view of Song et al (US 2009/0086999 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al disclose a micro-electro-mechanical system structure (Chen et al; Fig 10), comprising: a substrate having an opening portion (Chen et al; Fig 10; substrate 11 with opening 11A); a backplate disposed on one side of the substrate (Chen et al; Fig 10;backplate 13); a diaphragm disposed between the substrate and the backplate (Chen et al; Fig 10; diaphragm 14 between substrate 11 and backplate 13), wherein the opening portion of the substrate is under the diaphragm (Chen et al; Fig 10; opening 11A is under diaphragm 14), and an air gap is formed between the diaphragm and the backplate (Chen et al; Fig 10; air gap 12 between diaphragm 14 and backplate 13); a pillar structure connected with the backplate (Chen et al; Fig 10; pillar 17 connected with backplate 13), but do not expressly disclose wherein the pillar structure is formed as a sandwich structure that comprises two insulating layers and a conductive layer between the insulating layers. However, in the same field of endeavor, Song et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the pillar structure is formed as a sandwich structure that comprises two insulating layers and a conductive layer between the insulating layers (Song et al; Para [0031]; support 522 include conductive layers separated by dielectric layers). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar conductive layer taught by Song to stack with the pillar insulating layer taught by Chen. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid electrical contact that may result in short-circuiting (Song et al; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al in view of Song et al disclose the micro-electro- mechanical system structure as claimed in claim 16, but do not expressly disclose wherein the backplate is also formed as a sandwich structure that comprises two insulating layers and a conductive layer between the insulating layers. However, in the same field of endeavor, Song et al disclose a MEMS device wherein the backplate is also formed as a sandwich structure that comprises two insulating layers and a conductive layer between the insulating layers (Song et al; Para [0031]; support 522 include conductive layers separated by dielectric layers). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the pillar conductive layer taught by Song to stack with the pillar insulating layer taught by Chen. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid electrical contact that may result in short-circuiting (Song et al; Para [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692