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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added limitations include the protrusions being arranged “in a lattice pattern when seen in plan view” however it is not clear as to what is meant by this pattern as the only description which would match is that of fig. 5 which is not a “lattice” in the accepted sense of the word which would require a sort of crisscross or overlapping pattern of elements. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, a pattern similar to that of fig. 5 will be applied.
All claims which depend from claim 1 are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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) 1, 2, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. US 2022/0340407 and Rivas et al. US 2017/0134002.
Regarding claim 1, Teng teaches, as seen in fig. 28, a sensor 300 comprising a substrate 203 wherein a cavity 207 is formed in the substrate, the substrate includes a membrane 214 spaced from and facing a bottom surface of the cavity, and a plurality of protruding portions 223 are formed on one of the bottom surface and an inner surface of the membrane.1 Teng does not explicitly teach the plurality of protruding portions arranged in a lattice pattern as seen in a plan view of the sensor. Rivas discloses a sensor device including a cavity 52, a cap layer 46 and plurality of protruding portions 60b formed on a bottom surface and arranged in a lattice pattern when seen in a plan view of the sensor (fig. 9a, paragraph 0093). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Rivas with those of Teng in order to provide a similar arrangement of protrusions located uniformly across the bottom surface to ensure that stiction does not occur in any of the gaps between the protrusions by minimizing the distance between protrusions. Additionally, the specification does not provide any details or advantages to such an arrangement of protrusions in a lattice form, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have arranged them in any desired pattern such as a grid, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 2, the plurality of protruding portions of Teng are formed on the bottom surface of the cavity as seen in fig. 27 for example.
Regarding claim 5, Teng discloses protrusions 225 formed on the inner surface 224 as claimed (fig. 28, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 7, Teng discloses the substrate as formed of a first substrate 203 with a cavity formed therein, and the membrane is part of the first substrate that is spaced away from and faces the bottom surface as claimed since is it combined and attached in a similar manner to what is described in the present invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng and Rivas as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of and Chang US 2010/0207484.
Regarding claim 3 and 6, Teng and Rivas teaches the claimed invention including protrusions which appear to be spaced around a central portion, however are not explicitly disclosed as so. Chang teaches a transducer in which a membrane 3 is disposed above a cavity 10 and protrusions 5 are provided to prevent contact between the membrane and the lower layer 6. Paragraph 0024 of Chang teaches the protrusions arranged in a ring shape which would be around a central portion of the bottom surface (and the inner surface) as seen in plan view (fig. 1B). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Chang with those of Teng in order to allow for uniform distribution of the forces when the membrane flexes, thereby ensuring accuracy and preventing damage.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng and Allen US 7,111,518.
Regarding claim 4, Teng discloses the substrate as including a first substrate 200 and a second substrate 203 wherein the first substrate has a first surface (bottom) and a second surface (top) that is opposite to the first surface, the section substrate 203 disposed on the second surface and the cavity is formed in the second surface. Teng does not explicitly disclose the membrane as being part of the second substrate that is spaced from and faces the bottom surface.
Allen teaches, as seen in fig. 1B, a pressure sensor which comprises a first substrate 180, and a membrane 165 which is part of a second substrate (elements 160 and 170 combine to form the second substrate) which faces a cavity 190. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Allen with those of Teng in order to provide a membrane with an insulator layer 170 between the lower connection 180 to electrically isolate the membrane from the first substrate during operation to avoid interference.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng and Tseng et al. US 2019/0062153.
Regarding claim 8, Teng discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the protruding portions formed as a curved surface at a distal end. Tseng teaches a MEMS sensor including a movable element 122 and an anti-stiction element 128 comprising protruding portions 132 which are formed as a curved surface as seen in fig. 3E and 3F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have combined the teachings of Tseng with those of Teng in order to form the protruding portions with a curved surface which would minimize the contact surface and help prevent damage and sticking of the membrane during operation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 In the broadest interpretation of the claim, the claim only requires that the protruding portions are arranged on one of the bottom surface and inner surface which is being interpreted as “at least one of” the surfaces. It is further noted that Teng teaches an embodiment in fig. 27 which includes the protruding portions only on the bottom surface.
Prosecution Insights