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 .
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 (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 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, 8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0225204).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a method for manufacturing of a stress-isolated microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device, comprising:
providing a substrate (Fig. 14, substrate 42) having a first side (top side) and a second side opposite the first side (bottom side);
forming a MEMS platform (MEMS platform made up of all parts above substrate 42) on the first side of the substrate;
subsequent to forming the MEMS platform, etching a trench in the second side of the substrate (Fig. 14B, trench 76); and
subsequent to etching the trench, processing the MEMS platform to form a MEMS structure on the first side of the substrate (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein etching the trench comprises exposing a portion of the MEMS platform to air (Fig. 14B).
Regarding claim 11, Nakagawa teaches a method for manufacturing a stress-isolated device, comprising:
providing a substrate (Fig. 14A, substrate 42) having a first side (top side) and a second side opposite the first side (bottom side);
forming a precursor of a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (everything above substrate 42) on the first side of the substrate, the precursor including at least one MEMS structure (MEMS structure 43);
subsequent to forming the precursor of the MEMS device, etching a trench in the second side of the substrate (Fig. 14B, trench 76); and
subsequent to etching the trench, processing the at least one MEMS structure to form a MEMS device, from the precursor, on the first side of the substrate (Fig. 16-17).
Regarding claim 15, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 11, wherein processing the at least one MEMS structure comprises etching a portion of the at least one MEMS structure (see paragraph [0080]).
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 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0138923).
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising thinning the second side of the substrate prior to etching the trench.
However, Kang teaches that the substrate is thinned prior to forming the trench (see Kang Fig. 7-8). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the substrate could have been thinned prior to forming the trench because this allows for a thicker substrate to provide structural stability during the formation of the MEMS platform, but a thinned substrate to allow for a smaller aspect ratio trench to be formed.
Regarding claim 3 Nakagawa in view of Kang teaches the method of claim 2, wherein thinning the second side of the substrate is performed prior to forming the MEMS structure (inherent that a step prior to forming the trench is also prior to forming the MEMS structure).
Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach further comprising thinning the second side of the substrate prior to etching the trench.
However, Kang teaches that the substrate is thinned prior to forming the trench (see Kang Fig. 7-8). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the substrate could have been thinned prior to forming the trench because this allows for a thicker substrate to provide structural stability during the formation of the MEMS platform, but a thinned substrate to allow for a smaller aspect ratio trench to be formed.
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Zhang et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0380403).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising forming a bottom cap on the second side of the substrate subsequent to etching the trench.
However, Zhang teaches a similar method in which a bottom cap is formed on the second side of the substrate after etching (see Zhang Fig. 2C-D, bottom cap 116). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that a bottom cap could have been bonded in the method of Nakagawa because Zhang teaches that this allows for the cavity to be sealed (Zhang paragraph [0047])
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 4, wherein forming the bottom cap is performed prior to processing the MEMS platform (Zhang Fig. 2C-D and paragraph [0047], the bottom cap is formed immediately after the trench is etched and used as a handle wafer for further processing of the MEMS structure; therefore under the combination it would be formed prior to processing the MEMS platform into the MEMS structure).
Regarding claim 13, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach further comprising forming a bottom cap on the second side of the substrate subsequent to etching the trench.
However, Zhang teaches a similar method in which a bottom cap is formed on the second side of the substrate after etching (see Zhang Fig. 2C-D, bottom cap 116). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that a bottom cap could have been bonded in the method of Nakagawa because Zhang teaches that this allows for the cavity to be sealed (Zhang paragraph [0047])
Claims 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Li et al. (CN 110182753).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising forming a top cap on the first side of the substrate subsequent to processing the MEMS platform.
However, Li teaches a similar method in which a top cap is formed after processing the MEMS platform (Li Fig. 15-16, MEMS structure is processed in Fig. 15, and top cap 24 is formed after). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that a top cap could have been formed after forming the MEMS structure because this allows the MEMS structure to be protected and sealed.
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein processing the MEMS platform comprises forming a suspended proof mass.
However, Li teaches that a similar method can be used to form a suspended proof mass (Li Fig. 16, proof mass 22/23). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the diaphragm cantilever of Nakagawa could have been replaced by a suspended proof mass cantilever design instead to for an accelerometer instead of an acoustic sensor.
Regarding claim 14, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach further comprising forming a top cap on the first side of the substrate subsequent to processing the at least one MEMS structure.
However, Li teaches a similar method in which a top cap is formed after processing the MEMS platform (Li Fig. 15-16, MEMS structure is processed in Fig. 15, and top cap 24 is formed after). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that a top cap could have been formed after forming the MEMS structure because this allows the MEMS structure to be protected and sealed.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 9-10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein etching the trench in the second side of the substrate comprises forming a precursor a tether configured to mechanically couple the MEMS structure to a remainder of the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights