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 Amendments
Applicant's response of 08/24/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 5 and 10 have been amended. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/24/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10, paragraph 2, that “because Suvanto' s principle of operation depends on the housing and its embedded, movable control device sharing
a common material and a common fabrication process. The control device in Suvanto must be capable of movement (e.g., a rotating assembly, a flap, or a movable membrane) to tune the MEMS sensor between directional and omni-directional modes.”
Suvanto (US 20170369305 A1 – hereinafter Suvanto) Fig. 5 shows a MEMS device that comprises a chip and a housing. The housing comprises the top and the sides. The chip mounted on the top of the housing and a control device is mounted to a bottom. Making the housing out of the material as specified in the instant application does not affect the bottom or the control chip of Suvanto. The type or movement of the control device is not within the independent claims 1 and 10 therefore, is not persuasive.
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvanto (US 20170369305 A1 – hereinafter Suvanto) in view of Holzmann et al. (US 20100271787 A1 – hereinafter Holzmann) and Harney et al. (US 20040041248 A1 – hereinafter Harney).
Regarding independent claim 1, Suvanto teaches:
(Currently Amended) A MEMS component (500 – Fig. 5 – [0022] –
“MEMS device package 500”) comprising:
a MEMS chip (570 – Fig. 5 – [0022] – “MEMS sensor 570” – this is interpreted
as a chip) and a housing ([0016] – “sensor devices may be provided that include a package or an enclosure for housing one or more sensors, internal components, or combination thereof” – element 512 can be referred to as housing or enclosure or package) that forms an enclosure (512 – Fig. 5 – [0022] – “package housing 512”) for the MEMS chip (570), wherein:
the enclosure (512) has a top (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘502T’) and a bottom (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘506B’),
the housing (512) includes an upper unit (502 – Fig. 5 – {[Claim 1] – “a package housing having a top member”}, {[0021] – “the MEMS device package 400 includes a control device 450 embedded within an opening 408 formed on a top member 402”} – 502 is not specifically disclosed but equates to 450 that is disclosed), a lower unit (506 – Fig. 5 – [0022] – “bottom member 506”) and sidewalls (504 – Fig. 5 – [0018] – “MEMS device package 200 comprises a package housing 212 having a top member 202, a bottom member 206, and a spacer 204” - 504 is not specifically disclosed but equates to a sidewall) that extend between the upper unit (502) and the lower unit (506 – Fig. 5 shows this),
the upper unit (502) of the housing (512) delimits the top (502T) of the enclosure (512), and the lower unit (506) of the housing (512) delimits the bottom (502B) of the enclosure (512 – Fig. 5 shows this),
the lower unit (506) or the sidewalls (504) of the housing (512) form an external bottom surface (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘506E’) of the housing (512),
the external bottom surface (506E) lies on a contacting side (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – [0018] – “pad 210 mounted on back side of the bottom member 206” – this is interpreted as having a contacting side, hereinafter ‘506con’) of the MEMS component (500), wherein the housing (512) further includes a ceramic package structure (hereinafter ‘512cer’ and will include the Holzman reference), the ceramic package structure is configured to be made of aluminium oxide, beryllium oxide or aluminium nitride,
wherein the MEMS component (500) further comprises electrical connections (ET – Fig. 5 – [0018] – “electrically interconnected by wire bonding MW to transmit signal via embedded traces ET formed within the package housing”) that extend from the MEMS chip (570) through the ceramic package structure (512cer) to the contacting side (506con) of the MEMS component (500 – Fig. 5 shows this), and
wherein the ceramic package structure (512cer) forms at least the upper unit (502) of the housing (512) and the MEMS chip (570) is mounted to the top (502T) of the enclosure (512 – Fig. 5 shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
1117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suvanto does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Holzmann teaches
ceramic ([0007] – “In order to avoid malfunctions caused by stress, sensors that are particularly mechanically sensitive, such as low-g sensors or rotation rate sensors, are not packaged in the cost-effective mold housing. Instead, more expensive ceramic substrates or premold housings are used for these sensors” – hereinafter ‘CPS’) package structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic structure as taught by Holzmann into Suvanto.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Holzmann in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] – “In order to avoid malfunctions caused by stress, sensors that are particularly mechanically
sensitive, such as low-g sensors or rotation rate sensors, are not packaged in the cost-effective mold housing. Instead, more expensive ceramic substrates or premold housings are used for these sensors.”
Suvanto and Holzmann does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Harney teaches
the ceramic package (12 – Fig. 2 – [0021] – “package 12 is formed from a
ceramic material, such as aluminum oxide”) structure is configured to be made of aluminium oxide, beryllium oxide or aluminium nitride [0021] – “package 12 is formed from a ceramic material, such as aluminum oxide”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic material structure as taught by Harney into Suvanto and Holzmann.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Harney in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to prevent [0004] – “Problems can arise, however, when the temperatures of the two surfaces change. In
particular, because both surfaces typically have different coefficients of thermal expansion, the package can apply a mechanical stress to the substrate of the die. This stress (referred to in the art as "linear stress," which, in this case, is thermally induced) undesirably can bend or flex the substrate to an unknown curvature. Substrate bending or flexing consequently can affect movement of the die structures and the functioning of the electronics, thus causing the output data representing the property being measured (e.g., acceleration) to be erroneous. In a similar manner, mechanically induced linear or
torsional stress applied to the package also can be translated to the die, thus causing the same undesirable effects.”
Regarding claim 2, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 1, further
comprising a ceramic floor structure (Fig. 5 annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘506F’) forms at least a part of the lower unit (506) of the housing (512).
Regarding claim 3, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 2, wherein the
ceramic floor structure (506F) forms the external bottom surface (506E).
Regarding claim 4, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 3, wherein the
ceramic floor structure (512F) forms the part of the lower unit (506) that delimits the bottom (506B) of the enclosure (512).
Regarding claim 6, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches claim 2 from which claim 6 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 2, wherein the
ceramic floor structure (506F) forms the part of the lower unit (506) that delimits the bottom (506B) of the enclosure (512).
Regarding claim 8, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 1, wherein the
MEMS component (500) is a gyroscope ([0016] – “sensors may be such as MEMS transducers, speakers, receivers, microphones, pressure sensors, thermal sensors, optical sensors, imaging sensors, chemical sensors, gyroscopes, humidity sensors, accelerometers, gas sensors, environmental sensors, motion sensors, navigation sensors, or proximity sensors, or bolometers”).
Regarding claim 9, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches
claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 1, wherein the
MEMS component (500) is an accelerometer ([0016] – “sensors may be such as MEMS transducers, speakers, receivers, microphones, pressure sensors, thermal sensors, optical sensors, imaging sensors, chemical sensors, gyroscopes, humidity sensors, accelerometers, gas sensors, environmental sensors, motion sensors, navigation sensors, or proximity sensors, or bolometers”).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvanto in view of Holzmann, Harney, and Lorenz et al. (US 20190359481 A1 – hereinafter Lorenz).
Regarding claim 5, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches
claim 4 from which claim 5 depends. Suvanto, Holzmann and Harney do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Lorenz teaches
(Currently Amended) The MEMS component according to claim 4, further
comprising a control chip (114 – Fig. 1 – [0060] – “support chip 114”) inside the enclosure (102 – Fig. 1 – [0064] – “the joining together of the package 102, i.e. of the lid 106 with the substrate 104”) and that [[is]] is mounted to the bottom (104 – Fig. 1 – [0064] – “the joining together of the package 102, i.e. of the lid 106 with the substrate 104” – this is considered the bottom of the enclosure when the cover is places on it) of the enclosure (106 – Fig. 1 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the control chip structure as taught by Lorenz into Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lorenz in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result providing electrical control and support to the MEMS component.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 7, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann and Harney, teaches
claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Suvanto further teaches
the bottom (506B) of the enclosure (512).
Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Lorenz teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 1, wherein the lower
unit comprises a metallic or plastic floor structure (104-1 – Fig. 1 – [0033] – “substrate 104 can optionally comprise one or more metallization planes 104-1, which can be configured for example as a ground plane and furthermore as one or more signal line planes”) that delimits the bottom of the enclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the floor structure as taught by Lorenz into Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lorenz in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0029] – “such that parasitic capacitances, e.g. with respect to ground, which are brought about by the first and second electrical connection lines 116, 118, in particular, can be significantly reduced or even avoided.”
Claims 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvanto in view of Holzmann, Harney, and Lee at al. (US 20200385263 A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding independent claim 10, Suvanto teaches:
(Currently Amended) A MEMS component (500 – Fig. 5) comprising:
an enclosure ([0016] – “sensor devices may be provided that include a package
or an enclosure for housing one or more sensors, internal components, or combination thereof” – element 512 can be referred to as housing or enclosure or package) including an upper unit (502 – Fig. 5 – {[Claim 1] – “a package housing having a top member”}, {[0021] – “the MEMS device package 400 includes a control device 450 embedded within an opening 408 formed on a top member 402”} – 502 is not specifically disclosed but equates to 450 that is disclosed), a lower unit (506 – Fig. 5 – [0022] – “bottom member 506”), a first sidewall (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – [0018] – “MEMS device package 200 comprises a package housing 212 having a top member 202, a bottom member 206, and a spacer 204” - 504 is not specifically disclosed but equates to a sidewall, hereinafter ‘504-1’) and a second sidewall (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – [0018] – “MEMS device package 200 comprises a package housing 212 having a top member 202, a bottom member 206, and a spacer 204” - 504 is not specifically disclosed but equates to a sidewall, hereinafter ‘504-2’), wherein:
the upper unit includes a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side, and
the lower unit includes a first side and a second side that is opposite the first side;
a MEMS chip (570 – Fig. 5 – [0022] – “MEMS sensor 570” – this is interpreted
as a chip) mounted to the first side (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘502T’) of the upper unit (502 – Fig. 5 – {[Claim 1] – “a package housing having a top member”}, {[0021] – “the MEMS device package 400 includes a control device 450 embedded within an opening 408 formed on a top member 402”} – 502 is not specifically disclosed but equates to 450 that is disclosed);
a control chip (560 – Fig. 5 – [0022] – “sensor circuit 560” – this is considered a
chip) mounted to the first side (502T) of the upper unit (502) or the second side of the lower unit; and
an electrical connection (ET – Fig. 5 – [0018] – “electrically interconnected by wire bonding MW to transmit signal via embedded traces ET formed within the package housing”) that extends from the MEMS chip (570) to an electrode (510 – Fig. 5 – [0018] – “pad 210 mounted on back side of the bottom member 206” – this is considered an electrode, 510 is not specifically disclosed but equates to 210 that is disclosed) located on the first side (504-1) of the lower unit (506),
wherein the upper unit (502), the lower unit (506), and at least one of the first sidewall (504-1) and the second sidewall (504-2) form a ceramic package structure (hereinafter ‘512cer’ and will include the Holzman reference), the ceramic package (12 – Fig. 2 – [0021] – “package 12 is formed from a ceramic material, such as aluminum oxide”) structure is configured to be made of aluminium oxide, beryllium oxide or aluminium nitride [0021] – “package 12 is formed from a ceramic material, such as aluminum oxide”).
Suvanto does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Holzmann teaches
ceramic ([0007] – “In order to avoid malfunctions caused by stress, sensors that are particularly mechanically sensitive, such as low-g sensors or rotation rate sensors, are not packaged in the cost-effective mold housing. Instead, more expensive ceramic substrates or premold housings are used for these sensors” – hereinafter ‘CPS’) package structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic structure as taught by Holzmann into Suvanto.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Holzmann in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] – “In order to avoid malfunctions caused by stress, sensors that are particularly mechanically
sensitive, such as low-g sensors or rotation rate sensors, are not packaged in the cost-effective mold housing. Instead, more expensive ceramic substrates or premold housings are used for these sensors.”
Suvanto and Holzmann do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
the upper unit (212 – Fig. 9 – [0042] – “cap structure 212”) includes a first side
(Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘UFS’) and a second side (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘USS’) that is opposite the first side (UFS), and
the lower unit (200 – fig. 9 – [0042] – “substrate 200”) includes a first side
(Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LFS’) and a second side (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LSS’) that is opposite the first side (LFS),
the second side (LSS – Fig. 9 annotated, see below, shows element 206 –
[0031] – “integrated circuit 206” – this is considered a chip) of the lower unit (200 – Fig 9 shows this).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
1145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the upper and lower unit structure as taught by Lee into Suvanto and Holzmann.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0007] – “a package structure, which may not include solder paste to join the cap structure onto the packaging substrate. The contamination from solder paste may be avoided.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Suvanto, Holzmann, and Lee do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Harney teaches
the ceramic package (12 – Fig. 2 – [0021] – “package 12 is formed from a
ceramic material, such as aluminum oxide”) structure is configured to be made of aluminium oxide, beryllium oxide or aluminium nitride [0021] – “package 12 is formed from a ceramic material, such as aluminum oxide”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic material structure as taught by Harney into Suvanto, Holzmann, and Lee.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Harney in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 12 depends. Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
(Original) The MEMS component of claim 10, wherein the upper unit (212),
the lower unit (200), the first sidewall (Fig. 9 annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘FSW’), and the second sidewall (Fig. 9 annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘SSW’) are joined to create the enclosure (Fig. 9 annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘ENC’) that contains the MEMS chip (208 – Fig. 9 annotated, see above – [0031] – “MEMS microphone die 208”) and the control chip (206 – [0031] – “integrated circuit 206” – this is considered a chip – Fig. 9 annotated shows this).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
1145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the upper and lower unit structure as taught by Lee into Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 12 from which claim 13 depends. Suvanto, Lee, and Harney do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Holzmann teaches
(Original) The MEMS component of claim 12, wherein the enclosure (Fig. 8
annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘ENC’)
PNG
media_image3.png
533
813
media_image3.png
Greyscale
further comprises a support structure (230 – Fig. 8 – [0042] – “spacer tubes 230” – these are interpreted as support structure) that is configured to be formed around the enclosure (ENC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic structure as taught by Holzmann into Suvanto, Lee, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Holzmann in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 14 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component of claim 10, wherein the first side
(Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘506E’) of the lower unit (506) is mounted to a surface (pads 510 are meant to be mounted to a surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
1117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 16 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 10wherein the
MEMS (500) is a gyroscope ([0016] – “sensors may be such as MEMS transducers, speakers, receivers, microphones, pressure sensors, thermal sensors, optical sensors, imaging sensors, chemical sensors, gyroscopes, humidity sensors, accelerometers, gas sensors, environmental sensors, motion sensors, navigation sensors, or proximity sensors, or bolometers”).
Regarding claim 17, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 17 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 10, wherein the
MEMS (500) component is an accelerometer ([0016] – “sensors may be such as MEMS transducers, speakers, receivers, microphones, pressure sensors, thermal sensors, optical sensors, imaging sensors, chemical sensors, gyroscopes, humidity sensors, accelerometers, gas sensors, environmental sensors, motion sensors, navigation sensors, or proximity sensors, or bolometers”).
Regarding claim 18, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 18 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 10, wherein a
ceramic floor structure (506F) forms at least a portion of the lower unit (506).
Suvanto, Lee, and Harney do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Holzmann teaches
ceramic ([0007] – “In order to avoid malfunctions caused by stress, sensors that are particularly mechanically sensitive, such as low-g sensors or rotation rate sensors, are not packaged in the cost-effective mold housing. Instead, more expensive ceramic substrates or premold housings are used for these sensors” – hereinafter ‘CPS’) floor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic structure as taught by Holzmann into Suvanto, Lee, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Holzmann in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 18 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 18, wherein a
ceramic floor structure (506F) forms the first side (506E) of the lower unit (506).
Suvanto, Lee, and Harney do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Holzmann teaches
ceramic ([0007] – “In order to avoid malfunctions caused by stress, sensors that are particularly mechanically sensitive, such as low-g sensors or rotation rate sensors, are not packaged in the cost-effective mold housing. Instead, more expensive ceramic substrates or premold housings are used for these sensors” – hereinafter ‘CPS’) floor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the ceramic structure as taught by Holzmann into Suvanto, Lee, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Holzmann in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 20 depends. Suvanto further teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 10wherein the
electrical connection (ET) extends from the MEMS chip (570) to a second electrode located on the first side (506E) of the lower unit (506).
Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
a second electrode (lee (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – these are interpreted as electrodes).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
1145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the electrode structure as taught by Lee into Suvanto, Holzmann, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvanto in view of Holzmann, Lee, Harney, and Kakizaki et al. (US 5548999 A – hereinafter Kakizaki).
Regarding claim 11, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Suvanto, Holzmann, Lee, and Harney do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Kakizaki teaches
(Original) The MEMS component of claim 10, wherein the first sidewall (Fig.
5 annotated, see below – [5:28] – “housing 18” – hereinafter ‘FSW’) and the second sidewall (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘SSW’) extend past the lower unit (20 – Fig. 5 – [5:38] – “bottom portion 20” – Fig. 5 shows sidewall extending past the top surface of 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sidewall structure as taught by Kakizaki into Suvanto, Holzmann, Lee, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kakizaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [2:1-6] – “to provide a semiconductor type acceleration sensor in which a detector chip thereof is suitably protected from excess input and damping of movement wherein a movable portion of the detector chip is effected in a consistent non-temperature dependent manner without the use of damping fluid.”
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvanto in view of Holzmann, Lee, Harney, and Lorenz.
Regarding claim 15, Suvanto as modified by Holzmann, Lee, and Harney,
teaches claim 10 from which claim 15 depends. Suvanto, Holzmann, Lee, and Harney do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Lorenz teaches
(Original) The MEMS component according to claim 10, wherein the lower
unit includes a metallic or plastic structure (104-1 – Fig. 1 – [0033] – “substrate 104 can optionally comprise one or more metallization planes 104-1, which can be configured for example as a ground plane and furthermore as one or more signal line planes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the floor structure as taught by Lorenz into Suvanto, Holzmann, Lee, and Harney.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lorenz in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 7.
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 GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights