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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Acceleration Micro-Electromechanical Device.
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 1-2, 4-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al US8955382 (hereinafter “Dwyer”) in view of Rinaldi et al US9954512 (hereinafter “Rinaldi”).
Regarding claim 1, Dwyer discloses a micro-electromechanical device (DETF’s-20) comprising a first resonator tine and a second resonator tine (Tines 46 and 48) configured to resonate in-plane and out-of-phase with each other (abstract, Col 4 line 1-18, Fig 6).
However, Dwyer fails to disclose a graphene layer deposited over at least a portion of the first resonator tine. Rinaldi discloses a graphene layer deposited over at least a portion of the first resonator tine (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer deposited over the first resonator tine, Col 15 line 28-Col 16 line 33, Col 18 line 55- Col 19 line 20, Figs 20-30, claims 8-9 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Regarding claim 2, Dwyer discloses the device according to claim 1.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose the graphene layer contacts a surface defined by the portion of the first resonator tine. Rinaldi discloses the graphene layer (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer) contacts a surface defined by the portion of the first resonator tine (Col 17 line 40-Col 18 line 31, claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Regarding claim 4, Dwyer in view of Rinaldi discloses the device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Dwyer discloses a first bond pad and a second bond pad (pads-50), the first resonator tine and the second resonator tine extending between the first bond pad and the second bond pad (See Fig 6, Col 2 line 29-53, Col 4 line 1-18).
Regarding claim 5, Dwyer discloses the device according to claim 1.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose the graphene layer extends along the first resonator tine between the first bond pad and the second bond pad. Rinaldi discloses the graphene layer (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer) extends along the first resonator tine between the first bond pad and the second bond pad (pads-214). (See Fig 7, Col 10 line 1-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Regarding claim 6, Dwyer discloses the device according to claim 5.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose the graphene layer defines an electrical trace extending between the first bond pad and the second bond pad. Rinaldi discloses the graphene layer (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer) defines an electrical trace extending between the first bond pad and the second bond pad (pads-214) (Col 15 line 64- Col 16 line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased electrical conductivity by allowing electrons to move at a higher rate of speed with reduced resistance.
Regarding claim 7, Dwyer discloses the device according to claim 5.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose the first bond pad comprises a gold coating partially overlaying the graphene layer. Rinaldi discloses the first bond pad (pad-214) comprises a gold coating partially overlaying the graphene layer (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer). (Col 10 line 1-27, Col 18 line 40-54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing the life of the device. The modification would allow for increasing corrosion resistance and increasing frequency conductivity.
Regarding claim 8, Dwyer in view of Rinaldi discloses the device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Dwyer discloses a double-ended tuning fork comprising the first resonator tine and the second resonator tine (DETF’s-20 includes tines 46 and 48). (Col 4 line 1-18, Fig 6)
Regarding claim 9, Dwyer in view of Rinaldi discloses the device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Dwyer discloses the first resonator tine and the second resonator tine each comprise a piezoelectric material. (Tines 46 and 48). (Abstract, Col 4 line 1-18, Fig 6)
Regarding claim 10, Dwyer in view of Rinaldi discloses the device according to claim 9.
Furthermore, Dwyer discloses the piezoelectric material comprises quartz. (Col 4 line 1-18, Fig 6)
Regarding claim 11, Dwyer in view of Rinaldi discloses the device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Dwyer discloses a vibrating beam accelerometer (accelerometer-12) comprising the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Dwyer discloses a method for fabricating a micro-electromechanical device (DETF’s-20 implements the method) comprising a first resonator tine and a second resonator tine (Tines-46 and 48) configured to resonate in-plane and out-of-phase with each other (abstract, Col 4 line 1-18, Fig 6),
However, Dwyer fails to disclose forming a graphene layer over at least a portion of the first resonator tine. Rinaldi discloses forming a graphene layer over at least a portion of the first resonator tine. (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer deposited over the first resonator tine, Col 15 line 28-Col 16 line 33, Col 18 line 55- Col 19 line 20, Figs 20-30, claims 8-9 and 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Regarding claim 13, Dwyer discloses the method according to claim 12.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose forming the graphene layer comprises chemical vapor deposition of the graphene layer from a carbon source. Rinaldi discloses forming the graphene layer comprises chemical vapor deposition of the graphene layer from a carbon source. (Col 15 line 64-Col 16 line 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Regarding claim 19, Dwyer discloses the first resonator tine and the second resonator tine (Tines 46 and 48) extend between a first bond pad and a second bond pad (pads-50) of the micro-electromechanical device. (See Fig 6, Col 2 line 29-53, Col 4 line 1-18).
However, Dwyer fails to disclose wherein the graphene layer extends along the first resonator tine between the first bond pad and the second bond pad. Rinaldi discloses the graphene layer (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer) extends along the first resonator tine between the first bond pad and the second bond pad (pads-214). (Fig 7, Col 10 line 1-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Regarding claim 20, Dwyer discloses the method according to claim 19.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose depositing a conductive coating partially overlaying the graphene layer on the first bond pad. Rinaldi discloses depositing a conductive coating partially overlaying the graphene layer on the first bond pad. (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer). (Col 10 line 1-27, Col 18 line 40-54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing the life of the device. The modification would allow for increasing corrosion resistance and increasing frequency conductivity.
Claims 3 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al US8955382 (hereinafter “Dwyer”) in view of Rinaldi et al US9954512 (hereinafter “Rinaldi”) in further view of Sinitskii et al US20220333234 (hereinafter “Sinitskii”).
Regarding claim 3, Dwyer discloses the device according to claim 1.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose an intermediate layer between the graphene layer and the portion of the first resonator tine, wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more of copper, nickel, or molybdenum. Rinaldi discloses an intermediate layer (macroscopic sheet) wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more of copper, nickel, or molybdenum. (Col 18 line 55-Col 19 line 13 discloses forming the graphene layer on a copper foil but the foils is removed after forming the graphene layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance by providing high electrical and thermal conductivity.
However, the combination fails to disclose a intermediate layer between the graphene layer and the portion of the first resonator tine. Sinitskii discloses a intermediate layer (copper foil) between the graphene layer and the portion of the first resonator tine (Paragraphs 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sinitskii into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance by increasing sensitivity.
Regarding claim 15, Dwyer discloses the method according to claim 12.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose forming the graphene layer comprises: depositing an intermediate layer comprising a metal or an alloy over at least the portion of the first resonator tine; and depositing carbon atoms on the intermediate layer to form the graphene layer on the intermediate layer. Rinaldi discloses disclose forming the graphene layer comprises: depositing an intermediate layer comprising a metal or an alloy over at least the portion of the first resonator tine. (Col 18 line 55-Col 19 line13 discloses forming the graphene layer on a copper foil but the foil is removed after forming the graphene layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance by providing high electrical and thermal conductivity.
However, the combination fails to disclose depositing carbon atoms on the intermediate layer to form the graphene layer on the intermediate layer. Sinitsakii discloses depositing carbon atoms on the intermediate layer to form the graphene layer on the intermediate layer. (Paragraph 0061, 0076-0078)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sinitskii into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance by increasing sensitivity.
Regarding claim 16, Dwyer discloses the method according to claim 15.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose the intermediate layer comprises one or more of copper, nickel, or molybdenum. Rinaldi discloses the intermediate layer comprises one or more of copper, nickel, or molybdenum. (Col 18 line 55-Col 19 line 13 discloses forming the graphene layer on a copper foil but the foils is removed after forming the graphene layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance by providing high electrical and thermal conductivity.
However, the combination fails to using the intermediate layer. Sinitsakii discloses using the intermediate layer (copper foil). (Paragraph 0053-0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sinitskii into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance by increasing sensitivity.
Regarding claim 17, Dwyer in view of Rinaldi disclose the method according to claim 15.
However, the combination fails to disclose forming an antioxidative layer between the intermediate layer and the graphene layer. Sinitskii discloses forming an antioxidative layer (metal substrate including Gold/Au) between the intermediate layer and the graphene layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sinitskii into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing the life of the device. The modification would allow for increasing corrosion resistance and increasing frequency conductivity.
Regarding claim 18, Dwyer discloses the method according to claim 15.
However, Dwyer fails to disclose after depositing the carbon atoms, etching away the intermediate layer to allow the graphene layer to contact the portion of the first resonator tine. Rinaldi discloses after depositing the carbon atoms, etching away the intermediate layer to allow the graphene layer to contact the portion of the first resonator tine (AIN Resonator-200 includes a graphene layer). (Col 17 line 40-Col 18 line 31, claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Rinaldi into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing device accuracy. The modification would allow for increased device performance and reduced noise during operational use.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al US8955382 (hereinafter “Dwyer”) in view of Rinaldi et al US9954512 (hereinafter “Rinaldi”) in further view of Wang et al US11515163 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 14, Dwyer sets forth that the first resonator tine comprises quartz. (Col 4 line 1-18, Fig 6)
However, the combination of Dwyer in view of Rinaldi fails to disclose the carbon source comprises methane, and wherein the first resonator tine is maintained at a temperature less than 750º C during chemical vapor deposition of the graphene layer. Wang discloses the carbon source comprises methane (carbon containing precursor is mixed with hydrogen-containing precursor forming methane, which is a standard practice in the art of forming graphene), and wherein the first resonator tine is maintained at a temperature less than 750º C during chemical vapor deposition of the graphene layer. (Abstract, Col 6 line 54-67, Col 9 line 23-49, claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Wang into Dwyer for the purpose of increasing the life of the device. The modification would allow for lowering manufacturing cost, and preventing damage during the forming of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cullinan et al US11228294 discloses a method of manufacturing a nanoelectromechanical resonator allows for uniform tuning of a resonant frequency. The nanoelectromechanical resonator can be mass produced and used to sense the presence of a selected gas.
Zhang US10732198 discloses an electromechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer is described. The MEMS accelerometer may be configured to sense linear acceleration along one, two or three axes, and to sense angular acceleration about one, two or three axes. As such, the MEMS accelerometer may serve as 2-axis, 3-axis, 4-axis, 5-axis or 6-axis inertial accelerometer. In some embodiments, the MEMS accelerometer may comprise a single mass connected to at least one anchor via a plurality of tethers. In other embodiments, the MEMS accelerometer may comprise a proof mass connected to at least one anchor via a plurality of tethers and one or more shuttle masses connected to the proof mass via a second plurality of tethers. Rotational and linear motion of the MEMS accelerometer may be sensed using capacitive sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/
Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights