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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 18-20) in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Further, Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/26.
Specification
Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately. For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’.
In particular, ‘Figs. 5-12B’ in the paragraph [0002] in the paragraph [0012] is objected.
See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18-27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites "patterning the top electrode layer into at least a first top electrode, a second top electrode, and a mirror."
The limitation is unclear because the claim recites patterning a top electrode layer into a first top electrode, a second top electrode, and a mirror. It is not clear whether the recited "mirror" is:
• a mirror electrode,
• a reflective layer,
• a mirror region,
• or another structure.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because the structure formed from the top electrode layer is not positively identified.
The specification describes the reflective mirror as being implemented by an electrode formed from the top electrode layer:
"The reflective mirror (i.e., the top electrode 158)..."
and
"The top electrode 158 may serve as a reflective mirror."
Therefore, it is unclear whether the recited "mirror" corresponds to the disclosed mirror electrode.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to positively recite the structure formed from the top electrode layer, for example:
"...patterning the top electrode layer into at least a first top electrode, a second top electrode, and a mirror electrode...".
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because they depend from claim 18, which is indefinite for the reasons set forth above. Specifically, claim 18 recites "patterning the top electrode layer into at least a first top electrode, a second top electrode, and a mirror," wherein it is unclear whether the recited "mirror" is a mirror electrode, a reflective layer, a mirror region, or another structure. Accordingly, claims 19-27 incorporate the indefinite limitation of claim 18 and likewise fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 18 to clarify the structure formed from the top electrode layer, for example, by replacing "mirror" with "mirror electrode," and making corresponding amendments to the dependent claims as appropriate.
Regarding claim 32, "wherein the first shock buffer region and the second shock buffer region extend along a rotation axis of the mirror region."
However, the limitations "the first shock buffer region" and "the second shock buffer region" lack proper antecedent basis. Parent claim 28 recites only:
"...a plurality of shock buffer regions..."
and does not previously introduce a "first shock buffer region" or a "second shock buffer region."
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the recited "first shock buffer region" and "second shock buffer region" correspond to particular members of the recited plurality of shock buffer regions, thereby rendering the scope of claim 32 indefinite.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 32 to provide proper antecedent basis, for example:
"wherein the plurality of shock buffer regions comprise a first shock buffer region and a second shock buffer region extending along a rotation axis of the mirror region".
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-31 and 33-37 are allowed. The claim 32 would be allowable if overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record, including Carminati et al. (US 20220350134) and Guo et al. (US 20240262678), has been carefully considered.
Carminati teaches formation of a piezoelectric actuator stack over a semiconductor layer. In particular, Carminati teaches a semiconductor layer 51, a bottom electrode layer 55, a piezoelectric layer 56, and a top electrode layer 57, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 and described in paragraph [0042]. Carminati further teaches formation of a mirror structure including micro-mirror 7, plate 5, cantilever structures 9, command elastic elements 11, and piezoelectric actuators 10, as shown in Fig. 1 and described in paragraphs [0038]-[0040]. Carminati additionally teaches semiconductor etching processes used to define movable MEMS structures, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11 and described in paragraph [0045].
Guo teaches a piezoelectric MEMS fabrication process including a bottom electrode layer 52, a piezoelectric layer 53, and a top electrode layer 54, over a layer 51, as shown in Fig. 5. Guo further teaches patterning and etching processes for forming movable MEMS structures and openings through actuator-stack materials, as shown in Figs. 10 and 20.
However, neither Carminati nor Guo, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests etching the piezoelectric layer and the bottom electrode layer to form openings exposing portions of the semiconductor layer in a plurality of connection regions and a plurality of shock buffer regions, followed by etching the exposed portions of the semiconductor layer through the openings to define the plurality of connection regions and the plurality of shock buffer regions as recited.
Further, neither Carminati nor Guo teaches or suggests connection regions that comprise semiconductor material and are free of the bottom electrode layer, the piezoelectric layer, and the top electrode layer, while shock buffer regions connect opposite ends of the mirror region to a frame region and are in contact with the connection regions.
In particular, Carminati utilizes cantilever structures 9, command elastic elements 11, and plate 5 to provide mirror actuation, but does not disclose shock buffer regions connected between opposite ends of a mirror region and a frame region, nor connection regions formed by first removing actuator-stack materials and subsequently etching the semiconductor layer. Guo likewise does not disclose shock buffer regions or connection regions having the claimed relationship to the mirror region and frame region. Neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed architecture comprising semiconductor connection regions and shock buffer regions formed through the recited sequence of stack-layer etching followed by semiconductor-layer etching.
Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the particular combination of (i) openings exposing semiconductor material in connection regions and shock buffer regions, (ii) connection regions comprising semiconductor material and being free of actuator-stack materials, and (iii) shock buffer regions connected between the mirror region and frame region and contacting the connection regions.
Therefore, claims 28-31 are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art of record, including Carminati et al. (US 20220350134) and Guo et al. (US 20240262678), has been carefully considered.
Carminati teaches fabrication of a MEMS mirror device including a semiconductor layer 51, a bottom electrode layer 55, a piezoelectric layer 56, and a top electrode layer 57, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 and described in paragraph [0042]. Carminati further teaches formation of a mirror structure including micro-mirror 7, plate 5, cantilever structures 9, and piezoelectric actuators 10, as shown in Fig. 1 and described in paragraphs [0039]-[0045]. Carminati additionally teaches semiconductor etching processes used to define movable MEMS structures, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
Guo teaches a piezoelectric MEMS fabrication process including a bottom electrode layer 52, a piezoelectric layer 53, and a top electrode layer 54, over a layer 51, as shown in Fig. 5. Guo further teaches patterning and etching processes for forming movable MEMS structures and openings through actuator-stack materials.
However, neither Carminati nor Guo, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests forming a backside metal layer on a backside of a base substrate such that the backside metal layer covers a frame region and exposes a portion of the base substrate corresponding to a mirror region; performing a first backside etching process to form a rib pattern under the mirror region; subsequently performing a second backside etching process using the backside metal layer as an etch mask to expose a dielectric layer while retaining a rib structure under the mirror region; and thereafter removing a portion of the dielectric layer from the backside to suspend the mirror region relative to the frame region.
In particular, neither Carminati nor Guo teaches or suggests a fabrication sequence in which a backside metal layer is first formed and patterned to define a frame-region mask, a first backside etching process is performed to create a rib pattern beneath the mirror region, and a second backside etching process is subsequently performed using the backside metal layer as an etch mask to expose the dielectric layer while preserving the rib structure beneath the mirror region.
Further, neither Carminati nor Guo teaches or suggests a resulting structure in which a rib structure remains beneath the mirror region after exposure of the dielectric layer and before removal of the dielectric layer to release the mirror region. Neither reference teaches or suggests controlling the backside release process through the claimed combination of a backside metal mask, a rib-forming backside etch, and a subsequent dielectric-release step.
Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the particular combination of (i) forming a backside metal layer corresponding to the frame region, (ii) performing a first backside etching process to form a rib pattern beneath the mirror region, (iii) performing a second backside etching process using the backside metal layer as an etch mask while retaining the rib structure, and (iv) subsequently removing the dielectric layer to suspend the mirror region relative to the frame region.
Therefore, claim 33 is considered allowable.
Claims 18-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, The prior art of record, including Carminati et al. (US 20220350134) and Guo et al. (US 20240262678), has been carefully considered.
Carminati teaches a MEMS mirror device including a semiconductor layer 51, a bottom electrode layer 55, a piezoelectric layer 56, and a top electrode layer 57, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 and described in paragraph [0042]. Carminati further teaches a mirror structure including micro-mirror 7, plate 5, cantilever structures 9, and piezoelectric actuators 10, as shown in Fig. 1 and described in paragraphs [0039]-[0045]. Carminati also teaches etching the semiconductor structure to define movable MEMS structures.
Guo teaches a piezoelectric MEMS fabrication process including a bottom electrode layer 52, a piezoelectric layer 53, and a top electrode layer 54, over a layer 51, as shown in Fig. 5. Guo further teaches patterning and etching processes for forming movable MEMS structures.
However, neither Carminati nor Guo, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests removing portions of the piezoelectric layer and bottom electrode layer from first and second connection regions of a semiconductor layer and subsequently etching the semiconductor layer to define first and second connection regions connecting respective cantilever regions to a mirror region as recited.
In particular, Carminati utilizes command elastic elements 11 to couple cantilever structures 9 to plate 5, while Guo teaches vibrating MEMS structures and openings formed through actuator-stack materials. Neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed fabrication sequence in which portions of the actuator stack are first removed from designated connection regions and the semiconductor layer is subsequently etched to define connection regions connecting respective cantilever regions to a mirror region.
Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the particular connection-region architecture and fabrication sequence recited in claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights