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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rombach et al. (US 2021/0306727).
Regarding claim 1, Rombach discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (¶ 0026), comprising:
a substrate (110) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 110), a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 110) opposite the top surface, a bottom surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 110 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 110), and a top surface aperture (portion of one of the through-holes of 110 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 110);
an acoustic cavity (through-hole of 110) comprising a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 2);
an electroacoustic structure (320) formed at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 3), wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises an acoustic layer (¶ 0054: 320 is a microphone diaphragm which means it is an acoustic layer), and wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (see Fig. 4); and
a mechanical overstress protection structure (310) formed over the acoustic layer (see Fig. 3) and positioned to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate (see Fig. 4: 450), wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure comprises a plurality of cantilevered stoppers (140a) (¶ 0075) extending over the top surface aperture (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Rombach discloses a method of fabricating a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (¶ 0026), comprising:
forming a substrate (110) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 110) and a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 110) opposite the top surface (see Fig. 2);
forming an acoustic cavity (through-hole of 110) in the substrate to create a top surface aperture (portion of the through-hole of 110 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 110) and a bottom surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 110 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 110), wherein the acoustic cavity comprises a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 2);
forming electroacoustic structure (320) including an acoustic layer (¶ 0054: 320 is a microphone diaphragm which means it is an acoustic layer) at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 3), wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (see Fig. 4); and
forming a mechanical overstress protection structure (310) comprising a plurality of cantilevered stoppers (140a) extending over the top surface aperture (see Fig. 3), the mechanical overstress protection structure positioned over the acoustic layer to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate (see Fig. 4: 450).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rombach in view of Littrell et al. (US 2019/0289405).
Regarding claim 3, Rombach discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 1, wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises a
Rombach is not relied upon to disclose wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises a piezoelectric MEMS microphone, and wherein the acoustic layer comprises a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams.
In a similar field of endeavor, Litrell discloses wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises a piezoelectric MEMS microphone (¶ 0031), and wherein the acoustic layer comprises a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams (30) (¶ 0034 and see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises a piezoelectric MEMS microphone, and wherein the acoustic layer comprises a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams,
the motivation being to make the microphone reflow-compatible and mountable to a PCB using lead-free solder processing (Litrell - ¶ 0004), and to implement a preferable stress free structure (Litrell - ¶ 0032).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 5-9, 11, 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 5, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein the electroacoustic structure is coupled to the substrate in a first area surrounding the top surface aperture; and
wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is coupled to the substrate in a second area surrounding the first area.”
In regard to claim 11, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein each cantilevered stopper comprises a linearly tapered stopper positioned over a corresponding gap between MEMS beams of the electroacoustic structure.”
In regard to claim 19, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams coupled to the substrate in a perimeter area around the acoustic cavity and extending into or over the acoustic cavity;
a mechanical overstress protection structure formed over the plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams and coupled to the substrate in a second area surrounding the perimeter area, wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure comprises a plurality of cantilevered stoppers extending over the top surface aperture”
Claims 6-9, 14-15 is/are dependent upon base claims having allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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 FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights