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 Group I, claims 1-13 in the “Response To Restriction Requirement” filed on July 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on May 28, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0382261 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses, A MEMS device (FIG. 2) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
431
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a device wafer (device wafer (102); FIG. 2; [0026]) having a first principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) and a second principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) that is on an opposite side of the first principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above);
a cap wafer (cap wafer (104); FIG. 2; [0026]) facing the first principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) of the device wafer (102); and
a bonding layer (bonding layer (135, 136, 138, and 140) FIG. 2; [0029]) that bonds the device wafer (102) and the cap wafer (104),
wherein the device wafer (102) includes:
a device substrate (device substrate (108); FIG. 2; [0026]) that has a cavity (cavity 114); FIG. 2; [0026]) recessed in a first direction1 (first annotated FIG. 2, above) from the first principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) toward the second principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above);
a sensor unit (first annotated FIG. 2, above) that is positioned inside the cavity (114) and including a fixed electrode (fixed electrode (128); FIG. 2; [0027] and a movable electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above) facing the fixed electrode (128); and
a bump stopper (bump stopper (148); FIG. 2; [0032]) that is disposed on a surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) of the movable electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above), the surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) being on a side of the first principal surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above), and that restricts displacement of the movable electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above) in a direction moving closer to the cap wafer (104) in the first direction (first annotated FIG. 2, above).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses, The MEMS device (FIG. 2) according to claim 1, wherein the bump stopper (148) has a width (second annotated FIG. 2, below) smaller than a width (second annotated FIG. 2, below) of the movable electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above), in a short direction (second annotated FIG. 2, below) of the movable electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above) in a view in the first direction (first annotated FIG. 2, above and second annotated FIG. 2, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2015/0331066 A1 (Nakatani).
Regarding claim 2, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose how to solve the design need of, wherein, in a view in the first direction, two edges of the bump stopper are matched with two edges of the movable electrode, respectively, the edges being edges in a short direction of the movable electrode.
However, in analogous art, Nakatani discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a MEMS device (MEMS device (3); FIG. 2; [0062]) may be predicably fabricated such that, in a first direction (annotated FIG. 2, below), two edges of a bump stopper (bump stopper (28); annotated FIG. 2, below; [0081]) are matched with two edges of a movable electrode (moveable electrode (29); annotated FIG. 2, below; [0081]), respectively, the edges being edges in a short direction (annotated FIG. 2, below) of moveable electrode (29).
PNG
media_image3.png
525
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Lee and Nakatani before him/her would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding two edges of the bump stopper (148) of Lee with respect to two edges of the movable electrode (Lee, first annotated FIG. 2, above) of Lee in a short direction of the moveable electrode—i.e., the two edges of the bump stopper: (i) are not matched to two edges of the moveable electrode or (ii) can be matched to two edges of the move electrode, as taught by Nakatani—and, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Lee and Nakatani before him/her to try each of these predicable solutions, one of which is recited by claim 2. Please see, MPEP 2143(E).
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2014/0353774 A1 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the bump stopper has a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of a first principal surface of the device substrate.
However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bump stopper (bump stopper (400); FIG. 4; [0027]) may be predicably fabricated to have a roughened surface (roughened surface (110); FIG. 4; [0027]). Zhang also discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that roughened surface (110) has less contact area which reduces stiction because stiction is proportional to contact area ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Lee and Zhang before him/her to design bump stopper (148) to have a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of a first principal surface of the device substrate (108) of Lee, as taught by Zhang, so that the roughed surface of bump stopper (148) has less contact area thereby reducing its stiction, as also taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the bump stopper is made of an inorganic material having conductivity.
However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bump stopper (bump stopper (104); FIG. 2; [0018]) of a MEMS device (MEMS device (200); FIG. 2; [0024]) may be predicably fabricated to be made of a suitable conductive material ([0023]). Zhang also discloses that bump stopper (104) may also be predicably fabricated to include a conductive material layer (conductive material layer (105); FIG. 2; [0027]) thereon to provide a conductive path to an electrode (electrode (103); FIG. 2; [0022]). Zhang also discloses that conductive material layer (105) may be made of an inorganic material having conductivity (e.g., Titanium Nitride (TiN); [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Lee and Zhang before him/her that bump stopper (148) of Lee can be predicably made of an inorganic material having conductivity, as taught by Zhang, thereby providing a conductive path, as additionally taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Zhang discloses, The MEMS device (Lee, FIG. 2) according to claim 5, wherein the cap wafer (104) includes a passivation layer (Lee, passivation layer (122); FIG. 2; [0027]) that comes into contact with bump stopper (148) when the movable electrode (Lee, first annotated FIG. 2, above) is displaced in the direction moving closer to the cap wafer (104) in the first direction (Lee, first and second annotated FIGs. 2, above).2
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Zhang discloses, The MEMS device (Lee, FIG. 2) according to claim 5, wherein the bump stopper (148) is made of a conductive material selected from the group consisting of polysilicon, a polycide alloy, a titanium nitride alloy (Zhang, [0020]), and a titanium tungsten alloy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 13 are allowed. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee in view of Nakatani does disclose, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a device wafer (102) may be predicably fabricated to further include a device wiring (Nakatani, device wiring 33; FIG. 3; [0084]) that is electrically connected to sensor unit (Lee, first annotated FIG. 2, above), and that is disposed on the sensor unit (Lee, first annotated FIG. 2, above) on a side (Nakatani, annotated FIG. 3, below) of the first principal surface (Lee, first annotated FIG. 2, above).
PNG
media_image4.png
500
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Lee in view of Nakatani, in combination with the other recited elements of claim 1, does not appear to explicitly disclose, the bump stopper is positioned in a same layer as the device wiring, and is made of a material that is same as a material of the device wiring. Therefore, claim 7 and claims 8-11 and 13 which depend directly or indirectly therefrom appear to be allowable over the combination of Lee in view of Nakatani.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0296919 A1 (Reinmuth)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a micro-electromechanical system (MEMs) device (FIG. 16) may include an electrode (130), a vertical spring (1300), and a bump stopper (160).
US 2004/0188785 A1 (Cunningham)—Discloses that is was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a tri-layered beam micro-electromechanical system (MEMs) device (FIG. 2) may include a movable electrode (146) and a conductive bump stopper (106).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see paragraph [0006] of Applicant’s specification regarding the meaning of direction.
2 Please see MPEP 2114(II) regarding the recited limitation “that comes into contact with bump stopper when the movable electrode is displaced in the direction moving closer to the cap wafer in the first direction”—Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art.
Prosecution Insights