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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention of Group I, Embodiment 1 of Figs. 1-6, Claims 16-21 and 28-33 in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupnik et al. (US 2009/0122651).
Regarding claim 16, Kupnik et al. discloses, as shown in Figures 1(i)-10, a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (micromachined ultrasonic transducer (CMUT), [0040]) comprising:
a first solid body (136) including signal-processing circuitry ([0085]);
a second solid body (118) including a membrane ([0085]) having a first side and a second side opposite to one another in a direction, the first side of the membrane facing the first solid body, the first and second solid bodies being fixed with respect to one another;
a plurality of transducer devices (100,102, Fig. 2(d), [0085]) which extend on the first side of the membrane; and
a plurality of coupling elements (108) which extend between the first and second solid bodies and are configured to electrically couple each transducer device to the signal-processing circuitry;
wherein said membrane has a thickness that is uniform in said direction ([0089]); and
wherein the second side of the membrane is planar throughout its extension (Figs. 1(h), 2(g),6(h)).
Regarding claim 17, Kupnik et al. discloses the plurality of transducer devices share a same membrane.
Regarding claim 19, Kupnik et al. discloses said MEMS device is an ultrasonic transducer device
Regarding claim 20, Kupnik et al. discloses MEMS device is a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT).
Regarding claim 21, Kupnik et al. discloses the thickness of said membrane has a value ranging between 2 and 50 µm [0089].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupnik et al. (US 2009/0122651) in view of Shaw et al. (US 2023/0028024).
Regarding claim 18, Kupnik et al. discloses the claimed invention including the MEMS device as explained in the above rejection. Kupnik et al. does not disclose the first and second solid dies are coupled together by a through silicon via (TSV) wafer that extends between the first and second solid bodies. However, Shaw et al. discloses a device having the first and second solid dies are coupled together by a through silicon via (TSV) wafer (82 has 302) that extends between the first and second solid bodies. Note Figures 1-19 of Shaw et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the device of Kupnik et al. having the first and second solid dies are coupled together by a through silicon via (TSV) wafer that extends between the first and second solid bodies, such as taught by Shaw et al. in order to integrate a plurality of devices to perform the desired function.
It is noted that the term “the first solid body is a wafer manufactured using fan out water level packaging (FOWLP) technology” is method recitation in a device claimed. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 28, Kupnik et al. and Shaw et al. disclose the plurality of coupling elements comprise conductive pillars (34,50) electrically coupled to conductive through vias of the TSV wafer.
Regarding claim 29, Kupnik et al. and Shaw et al. disclose the first solid body comprises a redistribution structure (26, [0028]) including conductive paths electrically coupled to the signal-processing circuitry and to the conductive through vias.
Regarding claim 30, Kupnik et al. and Shaw et al. disclose the device further comprising a stiffening structure (102) surrounding each transducer of the plurality of transducer devices, wherein the conductive pillars extend on the stiffening structures.
Regarding claims 31-33, Kupnik et al. and Shaw et al. do not disclose the shape of conductive pillars has a cross-section, in a plane orthogonal to the direction, or the patterned shape of the plurality of transducer device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the conductive pillars, or the pattern of the plurality of transducer device, since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPTO 47 (CCPA 1996).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am - 5pm.
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, JACOB CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/HUNG K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights