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 in the reply filed on 06/22/26 is acknowledged.
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) 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al., US 2012/0261830.
Chu et al. shows the invention as claimed including a micromechanical component, comprising:
A substrate 702 (see fig. 7a and paragraph 0043);
At least one first oxide layer 704 arranged on the substrate 702 (see fig. 7B and paragraph 0044);
An etch stop layer 712a arranged directly on the at least one first oxide layer (see paragraph 0046); and a further wiring level 714 (see paragraph 0046) arranged on a bottom side of the etch stop layer (see figure 7J-1 and its description)
Concerning dependent claims 17-18, note that Chu et al. discloses that the further wiring level is used to electrically connect electrical parts or components and is located in cavity produced by etching (see fig. 7J-1).
With respect to dependent claim 19, note that one element of the wiring level is formed directly on a bottom side of the etch stop layer (see, for example, figs. 7d-7e).
Concerning dependent claims 20-21, note that in Chu et al. and when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, a portion of the further wiring level in combination with a partially removed etch stop layer can be considered a reference capacitance (see, for example, figs. 7d-7f).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Chu et al. discloses wherein the further wiring level is formed at least partially in a planar manner within a lateral etch channel (see fig. 7E where the further wiring layer is formed underlying raised edge portions of the etch stop layer 712).
As to dependent claims 23-25, note that when giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation note that the reference capacitance is at least partially arranged within a cavern region (see region below underlying sides of etch stop layer 712), at least a portion of the wiring level extends below a cavern region (see further wiring layer disposed in figs. 7E-7F) and the thickness of the etch stop layer is defined.
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.
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(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al., US 2012/0261830 in view of Romo et al., U.S. Patent 6,516,671.
Chu et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose where the mems device is a pressure, acceleration, or rotation rate sensor. However, Romo et al. discloses that typical MEMS devices can include acceleration or pressure sensors (see, for example, col. 1-lines 14-24). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Chu et al. to be used as either a pressure or acceleration sensor, for example, because Romo et al. shows that these sensors are conventional mems devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0360937 and US 2019/0002277 disclose the state of the art in MEMS sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights