DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the response filed 5/12/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rombach et al. (U. S. Pat. No. – 8,295,528).
Regarding claim 1, Rombach et al. disclose a microphone package (Fig. 1a), comprising: an integrated circuit (IC) (1, col. 6, lines 32-36); a substrate (5); and a transducer (8) disposed between the substrate and the IC, wherein the IC or the substrate comprises a perforation (11) above or below the transducer (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 2, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, comprising dielectric material (col. 6, line 33) disposed adjacent to the substrate, wherein the transducer is coupled to one or more traces (3) in the dielectric material.
Regarding claim 4, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, comprising one or more passive elements (col. 6, line 33) disposed adjacent to the substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, comprising dielectric material (col. 6, line 33) adjacent to the substrate, wherein the passive elements (capacitors are also passive elements) are disposed in the dielectric material.
Regarding claim 9, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, comprising one or more other passive elements disposed (col. 6, line 33) adjacent to the substrate, wherein the IC (1) is disposed between the one or more passive elements and the one or more other passive elements (capacitors).
Regarding claim 11, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, wherein the substrate (5) comprises the perforation below the transducer (8) (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 13, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, wherein the transducer comprises a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) device (8) configured to convert sound waves into electrical signals (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 14, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, comprising one or more pillars (15, 16) supporting the substrate above the IC.
Regarding claim 15, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, wherein a top side of the transducer (8) is disposed adjacent to the substrate (5) and wherein a bottom side of the transducer is coupled to a trace of the IC (1) via a solder bump (3).
Regarding claim 16, Rombach et al. further disclose the microphone package, wherein a top side of the transducer (8) is disposed adjacent to the IC (1) and wherein a bottom side of the transducer (8) is coupled to a via of the substrate via a solder bump (15, 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rombach et al. (U. S. Pat. No. – 8,295,528).
Regarding claim 3, Rombach et al. may not specially teach that the substrate comprises a glass substrate or a silicon substrate as claimed. Since Rombach et al. do teach the substrate is a PCB and providing suitable substrate or PCB for a microphone means is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable substrate or PCB, such as silicon nitride PCB, for the microphone means taught by Rombach et al., in order to effectively and efficiently manufacture the microphone package.
Regarding claim 5, Rombach et al. may not specially teach that the passive elements comprise an inductive element and wherein the inductive element is implemented using one or more vias through the substrate or the IC as claimed. Since Rombach et al. do teach a portable communication device (PCD) and providing suitable inductive element for a PCD is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable inductive element, such as an antenna coil or an inductive charging coil, for the PCD taught by Rombach et al., in order to effectively and efficiently utilize the microphone package for desirable applications.
Regarding claims 6-7, Rombach et al. may not specially teach that the one or more passive elements are disposed between a portion of the substrate and the one or more passive elements are adjacent to a lateral side of the transducer as claimed. Since Rombach et al. do teach a portable communication device (PCD) and providing suitable passive elements for a PCD is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable passive elements, such as an antenna coil, an inductive charging coil, and/or capacitors (as suggested by Rombach et al.) in a suitable location, for the PCD taught by Rombach et al., in order to effectively and efficiently utilize the microphone package for desirable applications.
Regarding claim 10, Rombach et al. may not specially teach that the substrate comprises the perforation above the transducer as claimed. Since Rombach et al. do not restrict the depth of the MEMS (transducer) and providing suitable MEMS for a microphone package is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable MEMS, such as the height of the MEMS is less than the perforation, for the PCD taught by Rombach et al., in order to effectively and efficiently utilize suitable MEMS to manufacture the microphone package for desirable applications.
Regarding claim 12, Rombach et al. may not specially teach that the IC comprises the perforation below the transducer as claimed. Since Rombach et al. do teach that IC (1) is a carrier, for carrying electric elements and providing suitable perforation for receiving suitable electric element for a microphone package is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable perforation, for receiving electric elements, such as capacitors, for the microphone package taught by Rombach et al., in order to effectively and efficiently manufacture the microphone package.
Regarding claim 17, Rombach et al. may not specially teach that comprising an opening extending from a lateral side of the microphone package to a back volume of the transducer configured to provide ventilation for the transducer as claimed. Since providing suitable venting duct for a microphone package is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable venting duct in a desirable location, such as on a lateral and/or frontal side, for the microphone package taught by Rombach et al., in order to effectively and efficiently manufacture the microphone package with enhanced feature for desirable applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The cited reference (U. S. Pat. No. – 8,295,528) does clearly show all the limitation as claimed in claim 1: a microphone package (Fig. 1a), comprising: an integrated circuit (IC) (1, col. 6, lines 32-36); a substrate (5); and a transducer (8) disposed between the substrate and the IC, wherein the IC or the substrate comprises a perforation (11) above or below the transducer (Fig. 3a).
Furthermore, regarding to the limitation of “an integrated circuit (IC)” in claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants. The cited reference (U. S. Pat. No. – 8,295,528) states:
“Naturally additional electronic elements, such as amplifiers or decoupling capacitors, may be provided on the carrier 1 and within the ring 2, in order to take advantage of electrical connection to e.g. the microphone 8 while being within the shielded area (col. 6, lines 32-36)”; and
“In FIGS. 1a and b, a mobile terminal assembly comprises a mobile terminal printed circuit board 5 disposed inside a casing or housing 10 of a mobile terminal (not shown). A Chip-Scale-Packaged (CSP) MEMS microphone 8 is mounted onto and electrically coupled to a first surface of an intermediate carrier 1 that preferably comprises a printed circuit board.
The CSP packaged MEMS microphone assembly 8 comprises a semiconductor or ceramic substrate 12 that holds a MEMS transducer element 13 in form of a MEMS condenser transducer. The semiconductor substrate 12 may advantageously comprise an indentation or cut-out 14 aligned with and positioned beneath a diaphragm/back plate assembly of the MEMS transducer element 13. The indentation 14 functions as a back chamber for the MEMS transducer element 13. The MEMS transducer element 13 is adjacently positioned to an electronic circuit die 16 that preferably comprises a low-noise preamplifier, and optionally and A/D converter and/or a voltage regulator and a voltage multiplier, electrically coupled to the MEMS transducer element 13 through interconnections supplied on the semiconductor substrate 12, or alternatively, directly between respective bonding pads on the MEMS transducer element and the electronic circuit die 16 (col. 5, lines 15-38)”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUHAN NI whose telephone number is (571)272-7505. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10:00 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a PTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/SUHAN NI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights