Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Noted that examiner Fan Tsang had tried multiple time to call the attorney Mr. Holt for proposing an Examiner’s Amendment but no return call was received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections were made.
Objection
Claim 31/31/28, is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a duplicate of claim 26/24/21.
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.
Claims 17-19, 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17-19 depended on the cancelled claim 16.
Claim 21, line 6, “the resistor” lacks antecedent basis. Its dependent claims 22-27 were rejected because they depended on a reject claim.
Claims 28, line 6, “the voltage source” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 29-33 are rejected because they depend on the rejected 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.
Claims 21-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Dehe et al, US 2014/0270271 (hereinafter Dehe) in view of Yakura US 2014/0254835 (hereinafter Yakura) and further in view of Toncich , US 2004/0196121 (hereinafter Toncich)
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Dehe teaches a MEMS acoustic transducer
which is a microphone (any one of Figs. 2-5) including a graphene membrane (120, Fig.
2) and a first electrode (either 122 or 124, Fig.2).
What Dehe fails to disclose in that a circuit to measure the velocity of vibration of
the membrane.
Yakura teaches a MEMS microphone (Figs. 1-5) includes a circuit (see
paragraph 54) that measures the velocity of the diaphragm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microphone of Dehe to incorporate the teachings of Yakura's circuit of measuring the velocity of vibration of the membrane for achieving a better acoustic response.
The combined Dehe and Yakura failed to disclose that the claimed device has one megaohms resistor.
However, Toncich taught an electronic device with a filter using megaohms resistor (Fig.3A and Table 1, item #7, 1 megaohms resistor 117). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified microphone of Dehe with Yakura's circuit of measuring the velocity of vibration of the membrane as stated above, further arrange the speaker of Dehe (either Fig.9 or Fig. 10) to include a filter of Toncich with a one megaohms resistor for enabling the speaker of Dehe to receive wireless signal.
Regarding claim 22, see paragraph 55 and Fig.8 of Dehe for the claimed “substantial circular” shape.
Regarding claim 27, the Dehe’s MEMS microphone/speaker inherently will respond to one of the frequences between 20Hz to 10GHz.
8. Claims 28-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Dehe et al, US 2014/0270271 (hereinafter Dehe) in view of Yakura US 2014/0254835 (hereinafter Yakura) and further in view of Berger et al US 2016/0142829 (hereinafter Berger).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Dehe teaches a MEMS acoustic transducer
which is a microphone (any one of Figs. 2-5) including a graphene membrane (120, Fig.
2) and a first electrode (either 122 or 124, Fig.2).
What Dehe fails to disclose in that a circuit to measure the velocity of vibration of
the membrane.
Yakura teaches a MEMS microphone (Figs. 1-5) includes a circuit (see
paragraph 54) that measures the velocity of the diaphragm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microphone of Dehe to incorporate the teachings of Yakura's circuit of measuring the velocity of vibration of the membrane for achieving a better acoustic response.
The combined Dehe and Yakura failed to disclose a voltage source to apply a voltage of about 20 to 1000 volts to the membrane.
However, Berger taught (see para 51) a MEMS microphone having a voltage source to apply more than 15 volts to the MEMS diaphragm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified microphone of Dehe with Yakura's circuit of measuring the velocity of vibration of the membrane as stated above, further arrange the speaker of Dehe (either Fig.9 or Fig. 10) to include a voltage source as taught by Berger for achieving a better resonant peak frequency.
Regarding claim 29, see paragraph 55 and Fig.8 of Dehe for the claimed “substantial circular” shape.
Regarding claim 33, the Dehe’s MEMS microphone/speaker inherently will respond to one of the frequences between 20Hz to 10GHz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 20 are allowed. Allowable Subject Matter
10.
Regarding claims 16-19, they 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
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 Fan Tsang whose telephone number is (571)272-7547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/FAN S TSANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights