DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10, 19-20 in the reply filed on 05/27/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025, 12/15/2023 were filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salmon et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/04079927.
Regarding claims 1, 19, Salmon discloses a MEMS device, comprising (See Fig. 3A):
a substrate 308,
a MEMS die 314 mounted on the substrate 308, the MEMS die including a functional structure and an outer frame structure (shield carrier and side wall, Figs. 3A-3B),
a sealing structure 318, and
a conductive shielding structure 302 and 310 over the substrate and covering the MEMS die and the sealing structure, wherein the conductive shielding structure, the sealing structure, and the substrate define an inner space of the MEMS device ([0032]-[0036]),
wherein the sealing structure is figured to block movement of air (material 318 is solid that can block movement of air) or a molding compound from the inner space to the functional structure of the MEMS die.
Regarding claim 2, Salmon discloses wherein the sealing structure 318 has a round shape, a rounded square shape, a square shape (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claims 3-4, Salmon discloses wherein the sealing structure is coupled to the outer frame structure to define an access channel through which the structure is accessible from inside or from outside of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Salmon discloses wherein the sealing structure is coupled to the substrate and configured to cover the MEMS die and at least a portion of the substrate (EMI shield, Fig. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 7, Salmon discloses wherein the sealing structure comprises one or more sealing foils or one or more sheet molding layers [0007].
Regarding claim 20, Salmon discloses the electronic device comprises at least one of: a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit etc… [0147].
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 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 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmon et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/04079927, in view of Ahmed et al., U.S. Pub No. 2024/0327201.
Regarding claim 5, Salmon fails to disclose an IC die disposed over the MEMS die and wherein the sealing structure is coupled to the outer frame structure of the MEMS die and the IC die. Ahmed et al. discloses an IC die 220 disposed over the MEMS die 130 (Fig. 2). Salmon discloses the sealing structure cover the die and the substrate surrounding the die. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the IC die over the MEMS die in order to reduce package footprint, shorten electrical interconnections, and the protect the device. It would have been well known in the art that the sealing structure in Salmon would have coupled to both dies if an IC die is present in order to enhance environmental protection against moisture, contaminants, dust, and mechanical damage, thereby improving device reliability. It also can reduce stress on interconnections and simplify packaging process.
Regarding claim 8, Salmon fails to disclose an IC die disposed over the MEMS die and wherein the sealing structure cover the IC die and the MEMS die and a portion of substrate surrounding the dies.
Ahmed et al. discloses an IC die 220 disposed over the MEMS die 130 (Fig. 2). Salmon discloses the sealing structure cover the die and the substrate surrounding the die. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the IC die over the MEMS die and to have to sealing material cover both the IC die and MEMS die and portion of the substrate surrounding the dies in order to reduce package footprint, shorten electrical interconnections, and to protect the device. Doing so would also reduce the overall package footprint, thereby enabling a more compact device, and reduce the number of processing steps and the amount of protective material required, thereby simplifying the manufacturing process of forming the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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, since the prior made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations having an IC die disposed on the substrate, wherein the IC die is electrically coupled to the MEMS die through, first one or more solder bumps or copper pillar bumps between the MEMS die and the substrate, second one or more solder bumps or copper pillar bumps between the IC die and the substrate, and one or more conductive patterns in the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights