DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the present application on 4/11/2024. The present application is a DIVISIONAL of 17/342,442 filed on 6/8/2021, now US Patent 11,981,560.
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.
Claim(s) 8 – 11, 13 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schelling et al. (US 2014/0084349).
Regarding claim 8, Schelling et al. teaches a stress-isolated microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device, comprising (Figures 1a – 1b, Paragraph 0034 – 0046):
a substrate 1 comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion M of the substrate is:
separated from the second portion of the substrate by a stress isolation gap K; and
connected to the second portion of the substrate by one or more tethers F1/F2;
a MEMS device on the first portion of the substrate M; and
an electrical connection (Paragraph 0046), wherein the electrical connection:
spans the stress isolation gap (see Figure 1b, where connections from A1 – A4 do not overlap F1/F2); and
does not align with any tether F1/F2 of the one or more tethers,
wherein the stress isolation gap K comprises a cavity in the substrate below the first portion of the substrate 1.
Regarding claim 9, Schelling et al. teaches that the cavity K in the substrate comprises a backside cavity (is backside to platform M).
Regarding claim 10, Schelling et al. teaches the stress isolation gap K further comprises one or more trenches in the substrate 1.
Regarding claim 11, Schelling et al. teaches that the electrical connection comprises polysilicon (Paragraphs 0019, 0046, 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Schelling et al. teaches that the first portion M of the substrate comprises a suspended platform (Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 14, Schelling et al. teaches a stress-isolated microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) semiconductor device, comprising (Figures 1a – 1b, Paragraphs 0034 – 0046):
a peripheral region P;
a platform M separated from the peripheral region by a stress isolation gap K;
at least one tether F1/F2 suspending the platform M from the peripheral region P;
a MEMS device (Paragraphs 0034) disposed on the platform M; and
an electrical jumper (Paragraph 0046) spanning the stress isolation gap K,
wherein the stress isolation gap K comprises a cavity K in a bulk semiconductor material 1, the cavity K disposed below the platform M.
Regarding claim 15, Schelling et al. teaches that the peripheral region P and the platform M are portions of the bulk semiconductor material 1.
Regarding claim 16, Schelling et al. teaches that the cavity K in the bulk semiconductor material 1 comprises a backside cavity (backside to platform M).
Regarding claim 17, Schelling et al. teaches that the stress isolation gap K further comprises one or more trenches in the bulk semiconductor material 1 (trenches shown on periphery of platform M, Figure 1a – 1b).
Regarding claim 18, Schelling et al. teaches that the electrical jumper comprises a polysilicon connection between the MEMS device and the peripheral region (Paragraphs 0019, 0046, and 0051).
Regarding claim 20, Schelling et al. teaches that the bulk semiconductor material 1 comprises a bulk silicon substrate (Paragraph 0034).
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schelling et al. (US 2014/0084349).
Regarding claim 1, Schelling et al. teaches a stress-isolated microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device, comprising (Figure 1a – 1b, Paragraphs 0035 - 0046):
a substrate 1;
a suspended platform M defined at least in part within the substrate 1; and
a MEMS device (see Paragraph 0034) disposed on the suspended platform M.
Schelling et al. does not teach that the MEMS device and suspended platform M have a combined thickness of less than approximately 500 microns, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a combined thickness of less than approximately 500 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, 1980). It should be noted that MEMS devices as taught by Schelling et al. are commonly within 20 microns to 1 millimeter, and that less than 500 microns would not be out of the ordinary. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result- effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)).
Regarding claim 2, Schelling et al. teaches that the MEMS device comprises a movable sensing mass M (sensing indicated by inertial sensor teaching of Paragraph 0034). Schelling et al. does not teach that the movable sensing mass has a thickness of approximately 8 microns or greater, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing mass M to have a thickness of 8 microns or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, 1980). It should be noted that MEMS devices as taught by Schelling et al. are commonly within 20 microns to 1 millimeter, and that more than 8 microns for a component would not be out of the ordinary. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result- effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)).
Regarding claim 3, Schelling et al. teaches a plurality of tethers F1 and F2 (Paragraph 0035) connecting the suspended platform M to a peripheral region of the substrate 1, and further comprising an electrical connection (from 10 and including A1 – A4) between the suspended platform M and the peripheral region that does not align with any of the plurality of tethers F1 and F2 (see Figure 1b and Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 4, Schelling et al. teaches that the electrical connection is formed of polysilicon (Paragraph 0051 at least a portion of the electrical connection includes polysilicon, also see Paragraph 0019 re polysilicon).
Regarding claim 5, Schelling et al. teaches a cavity K formed under the suspended platform M, wherein the substrate comprises a first substrate 1, where cavity K is disposed between the suspended platform M and the substrate. The feature of wherein the stress-isolated MEMS device further comprises a second substrate bonded to the first substrate such that the cavity is disposed between the suspended platform and the second substrate is a product-by-process feature. It has been held that "[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, 227 USPQ 964, 966, 1985, also MPEP § 2113). The final structure resulting from the claimed processes is taught by Schelling et al.
Regarding claim 6, Schelling et al. teaches a trench encircling the platform M (Figures 1a and 1b) .
Regarding claim 7, Schelling et al. teaches that the suspended platform M is:
separated from a peripheral region of the substrate P by a stress isolation gap;
connected to the peripheral region of the substrate by one or more tethers F1 and F2; and
the stress-isolated MEMS device further comprises an electrical connection (Paragraph 0046), wherein the electrical connection: spans the stress isolation gap; and does not align with any tether of the one or more tethers F1/F2 (Figure 1b does not show F1/F2 vertically aligned with the connections from A1 – A4); and the stress isolation gap comprises a cavity K in the substrate below the suspended platform M.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Schelling et al. does not teach that the stress-isolated MEMS device has a thickness of less than approximately 500 microns, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a device thickness of less than approximately 500 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, 1980). It should be noted that MEMS devices as taught by Schelling et al. are commonly within 20 microns to 1 millimeter, and that less than 500 microns would not be out of the ordinary. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result- effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights