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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species 5 without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-21 are examined.
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.
Claims 7-9 ,11-17
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.
Claim 7 recites “electrode can be tilted”, Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention (MPEP 2173), therefore, terms such as “can be” make claim indefinite. because it is not clear if the limitation after that is required or just optional (see MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)). For examination it is interpreted as not required limitation. Claims 9 and 11 also are using term “can be” and are rejected for the same reason and interpreted in a similar way.
Claim 15 is reciting:” wherein the device has a plurality of first electrodes and/or one or more second electrodes that are arranged symmetrically in relation to a cavity center in the cavity.” It is not clear from the claim alone, if claim requires a plurality of first electrodes and the symmetry of the first electrodes also is claimed or it is optional, rendering claim indefinite. For examination, and based on BRI of claim it is interpreted as not required and rejection is considered based on teachings of Loeppert, US20220194780A1 in this action.
Claims 8, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected because of their dependency to claims 7 and 15.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2, 7-9,18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reinmuth, US20220155168A1.
Claim 1
Reinmuth in e.g., fig.1 teaches:
A microelectromechanical device for capacitive fluid pressure measurement (e.g., ¶0021), the device comprising:
a first electrode 20;
a second electrode 28 forming a counter-electrode (counter electrode 28 e.g., ¶0026); and
a cavity 44, formed between a first boundary layer (12 ¶0022-0023,0031) and a substrate (42 on 10 via 29a,29b), in which the first electrode 20 is arranged and movably mounted (e.g., ¶0031: inner volume 44 enclosed by frame structure 42 on substrate 10 via insulating layers 29a/29b and diaphragm 12; rocker structure 32 ,lever 18 + electrode 20, situated between substrate surface 10a and diaphragm inner side 14a, ¶0024–0027);
wherein the first boundary layer 12 is deflectable by a fluid pressure (see e.g., fig.1: ¶0022–0023, ¶0031 warping by physical pressure p vs. reference pressure p0), and wherein the first boundary layer 12 is coupled (via 18) to the first electrode 20 by a first coupling element 18 configured to transmit a deflection movement to the movably mounted first electrode 20 (¶0023: lever element 18 connected to diaphragm; warping sets lever 18 into rotation, which sets electrode 20 into adjustment movement 22).
Claim 2
Reinmuth teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the second electrode 28 is arranged in the cavity 44.
Claim 7
Reinmuth teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode 20 can be tilted at least sectionally about a tilt axis by a deflection movement of the first boundary layer 12.
Claim 8
Reinmuth teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein the tilt axis is formed by a torsion spring (50,52,54 e.g., ¶0034).
Claim 9
Reinmuth teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein the first electrode 20 can be tilted about a plurality of tilt axes spaced apart from each other (e.g., fig.1 for elements 18).
Claim 18
Reinmuth in e.g., fig.1 teaches:
A microelectromechanical pressure sensor, comprising:
a microelectromechanical device (e.g., ¶0021), including:
a first electrode 20,
a second electrode 28 forming a counter-electrode (28 e.g., ¶0026), and
a cavity 44, formed between a first boundary layer 12 and a substrate (42 on 10 via 29a,29b), in which the first electrode 20 is arranged and movably mounted (e.g., ¶0031: inner volume 44 enclosed by frame structure 42 on substrate 10 via insulating layers 29a/29b and diaphragm 12; rocker structure 32 ,lever 18 + electrode 20, situated between substrate surface 10a and diaphragm inner side 14a, ¶0024–0027),
wherein the first boundary layer 12 is deflectable by a fluid pressure (see e.g., fig.1: ¶0022–0023, ¶0031 warping by physical pressure p vs. reference pressure p0), and wherein the first boundary layer 12 is coupled (via 18) to the first electrode 20 by a first coupling element 18 configured to transmit a deflection movement to the movably mounted first electrode 20 (¶0023: lever element 18 connected to diaphragm; warping sets lever 18 into rotation, which sets electrode 20 into adjustment movement 22); and
a signal processing unit configured to apply and processing signals of the microelectromechanical device (not shown but described in e.g., ¶0044).
Claim 19
Reinmuth teaches the microelectromechanical pressure sensor according to claim 18, wherein the micromechanical pressure sensor is an absolute or relative pressure sensor (Reinmuth's device measures pressure relative to a sealed reference pressure p₀ — which functionally makes it an absolute-pressure-type sensor, though the claims/spec don't pin down what p₀ actually is/Reinmuth's structure — a single diaphragm separating an airtight sealed reference cavity 44, containing p0, from the external/ambient pressure (p) — matches the absolute pressure sensor architecture; ¶0004 explicitly emphasizes eliminating a through-hole (which the related art needed) as one of the invention's core advantages — reinforcing that cavity 44 is meant to stay sealed with an internal reference, not fluidically connected to a second external pressure).
Claim 21
Reinmuth teaches the microelectromechanical pressure sensor according to claim 18, wherein the micromechanical pressure sensor is a microelectromechanical combination sensor element that includes a microphone for capacitive sound pressure measurement (e.g., ¶0030), and/or an absolute pressure sensor, and/or a relative pressure sensor (e.g., ¶0031,0028-0029,0044-0045).
Claims 1-2, 5,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohms, US20040237658A1.
Claim 1
Ohms in figs.1b to 3b teaches:
A microelectromechanical device for capacitive fluid pressure measurement (e.g., Abstract), the device (figs.1b to 3b) comprising:
a first electrode 330;
a second electrode 130 forming a counter-electrode (e.g., ¶0014); and
a cavity 200, formed between a first boundary layer 120 and a substrate (100,¶0015), in which the first electrode 330 is arranged and movably mounted (¶0018);
wherein the second boundary layer (100 in the region 170 ) is deflectable by a fluid pressure (¶0013,0016: Steel diaphragm 170 "bends" under external pressure), and wherein the second boundary layer is coupled to the first electrode 330 by a first coupling element 300 configured to transmit a deflection movement to the movably mounted first electrode (330: Punch 300: "a punch... is provided for transferring the position changes of steel diaphragm 170 to electrode 330. When steel diaphragm 170 bends, the position change is directly transferred to electrode 330 via punch 300," ¶0018).
Claim 2
Ohms teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the second electrode 130 is arranged in the cavity 200 (fig.3a).
Claim 5
Ohms teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the second electrode (i) is arranged on the first boundary layer (¶0018 and Fig. 1/2 embodiments) "one electrode of the plate capacitor was designed for capacitive pressure measurement by steel substrate 100" , i.e., the diaphragm itself functions as the electrode).
Claim 18
Ohms in figs.1b to 3b teaches:
A microelectromechanical pressure sensor, comprising:
a microelectromechanical device (e.g., ¶0012), including:
a first electrode 330,
a second electrode 130 forming a counter-electrode (e.g., ¶0014), and
a cavity 200, formed between a first boundary layer 120 and a second boundary layer (100 in the region 170 ) or a substrate 100, in which the first electrode 330 is arranged and movably mounted (e.g., ¶0018),
wherein the first boundary layer 120 and/or the second boundary layer (100 in the region 170 ) is deflectable by a fluid pressure (e.g., ¶0018), and wherein the first boundary layer 120 and/or the second boundary layer (100 in the region 170 ) is coupled to the first electrode 330 by a first coupling element 300 configured to transmit a deflection movement to the movably mounted first electrode 330; and
a signal processing unit 150 configured to apply and processing signals of the microelectromechanical device (e.g., ¶0014).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohms, US20040237658A1 in view of Dagher, US20210292158A1.
Claim 10
Ohms teaches the device according to claim 1, Ohm does not teach wherein: (i) the first coupling element is arranged on a section of the first electrode facing a cavity center (¶0018, "due to the deflection of the diaphragm center, the entire electrode 330 is displaced in parallel" , and punch 300 is described as transferring "the position changes of steel diaphragm 170" generally, without an explicit statement that punch 300 sits at a defined cavity center or that it's positioned on a section of electrode 330 that faces that center) but It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first coupling element on a section of the first electrode facing the cavity center, as suggested by the combination of Ohms and Dagher. Ohms teaches a punch (300) positioned at the center of the diaphragm structure, where deflection is greatest, to transfer the diaphragm's position change directly to the movably mounted electrode (330), such that 'due to the deflection of the diaphragm center, the entire electrode 330 is displaced in parallel' (Ohms ¶0018). This teaches that positioning a coupling element at the central region of a deflectable boundary layer , where deflection is maximized and the resulting motion of the coupled electrode is most uniform , provides a direct, efficient mechanical transfer path between the boundary layer and the movable electrode.
Dagher reinforces the benefit of centering a mechanical coupling point relative to a movable electrode's geometric center, teaching that locating the hinge/coupling point of a transmission mechanism at the center of a movable electrode causes the electrode to pivot about an axis located in its middle, yielding 'a differential measurement... because there is both an increasing capacitance and a decreasing capacitance,' which Dagher expressly identifies as 'the advantage of a balanced movable electrode' (Dagher ¶0092), i.e., centering a mechanical coupling element relative to the geometric center of a movable/deflectable structure is a known, art-recognized technique for achieving balanced, symmetric displacement and improved differential capacitive measurement in MEMS sensing structures. One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to optimize the coupling between a deflectable boundary layer and a movably mounted electrode in a capacitive MEMS pressure sensor , as in the combined Reinmuth/Ohms structure, would therefore have been motivated to position the coupling element on the section of the electrode facing the cavity center, consistent with Ohms' teaching of center-positioned deflection transfer and Dagher's confirmation that center-oriented coupling promotes balanced, symmetric mechanical response and differential capacitive sensing. This represents the application of a known technique (center-positioned mechanical coupling) to a known structure (a deflectable-boundary-layer-to-electrode coupling element) to yield the predictable result of uniform, balanced displacement transfer, with a reasonable expectation of success given the shared field (capacitive MEMS transducers) and functional similarity between the referenced coupling mechanisms." See MPEP 2143 (D).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth, US20220155168A1 in view of Dehe, US20150256913A1.
Claim 11
Reinmuth teaches the device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the cavity is formed between the first boundary layer and the second boundary layer, and wherein the second boundary layer spans a substrate recess introduced into a substrate of the device, wherein the first boundary layer and the second boundary layer are mechanically connected to one another by a connecting element in such a way that they can be deflected together by a fluid pressure acting on the first boundary layer and/or on the second boundary layer.
In the similar field of endeavor, Dehe in Figs. 2-4B,6 teaches:
wherein the cavity 203 is formed between the first boundary layer 202 and the second boundary layer 204, and wherein the second boundary layer 204 spans a substrate recess 212 introduced into a substrate 210 of the device 200, wherein the first boundary layer 202 and the second boundary layer 204 are mechanically connected to one another by a connecting element 208 in such a way that they can be deflected together by a fluid pressure acting on the first boundary layer and/or on the second boundary layer (e.g., ¶0063-0066,0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dehe’s second boundary layer and substrate recess and structure for Reinmuth‘s device. One of ordinary skill in the art knows MEMS technique (Dehe's second-diaphragm/pillar-coupling structure is a known MEMS technique for coupling two deflectable membranes so they move together (or oppositely) under pressure) would have been motivated to make this modification in order to convert pressure to electrode motion; Dehe's second diaphragm converts pressure to coordinated membrane motion; combining them predictably yields a device with an added deflectable boundary spanning a substrate recess) and Dehe's structure (¶0063) explains that a rigid second diaphragm spanning the substrate recess, mechanically tied to the first via pillars, helps manage unwanted deflection caused by chamber pressure differentials and stabilizes the sensing structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth, US20220155168A1 in view of Dehe, US20150256913A1 and Reinmuth-2 US 20160023890 A1.
Claim 12
Reinmuth in view of Dehe teaches the device according to claim 11, but the combination does not teach wherein the device has a pressure equalization channel running through the first boundary layer and the second boundary layer and opening into the substrate recess.
In the similar field of endeavor, Reinmuth-2 teaches wherein the device has a pressure equalization channel (Access channel(s) 14/51/52 — explicitly described as fluidic pressure-access structures: "A pressure access through buried polysilicon layer 3, epi-polysilicon layer 2, and cap wafer 8 which fluidically connects cavity 11 to the outside atmosphere" ¶0045) running through the first boundary layer (¶0052: "access channels 51 may be formed in buried polysilicon layer 3" — layer 3 carries polysilicon diaphragm 12, the deflectable pressure-sensing membrane:¶0041–0044, directly analogous to a "first boundary layer") and the second boundary layer (¶0052: "access channels 52 may be formed in epi-polysilicon layer 2" — layer 2 carries the second counter electrode structure 13, situated above the diaphragm ¶0043) and opening into the substrate recess (¶0047: "one or multiple access channels 14 may... be formed in an inner wall of a cavity 50 of substrate 1, which connect(s) an access opening 20 to cavity 50"; ¶0052: "In both cases, access opening 20 is thus separated from substrate cavity 50..."/ ¶0053: "access channels 14, 51, or 52 may also be curved or angled along their course in buried polysilicon layer 3, epi-polysilicon layer 2, or inner wall of cavity 50" — confirming the channel geometry can traverse multiple of these layers route to the substrate cavity).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Reinmuth/Dehe combination to include a pressure equalization channel running through the first boundary layer and the second boundary layer and opening into the substrate recess, as taught by Reinmuth-2, because that Reinmuth-2 expressly teaches forming access channels through the diaphragm-bearing layer (buried polysilicon layer 3) and/or the counter-electrode-bearing layer (epi-polysilicon layer 2), connecting an access opening to the substrate cavity, in order to protect the sensitive diaphragm from moisture and debris particles during wafer singulation and subsequent operation while still ensuring rapid pressure compensation (¶0046, 0051, 0054). A skilled artisan modifying the Reinmuth/Dehe dual-diaphragm structure — which similarly requires protecting sensitive diaphragm surfaces while maintaining a defined pressure relationship for accurate differential sensing (Reinmuth ¶0004; Dehe ¶¶0027, 0032) — would have recognized the same known need for a protected, dimensionally-controlled (≤5 μm) access channel through the boundary layers, with a reasonable expectation of success given that both are MEMS capacitive pressure-sensor structures employing compatible layer-deposition and etch fabrication techniques.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth, US20220155168A1 in view of Dehe, US20150256913A1 and Loeppert, US20220194780A1.
Claim 13
Reinmuth in view of Dehe teaches the device according to claim 11, the combination does not teach wherein the first electrode and/or the second electrode has a plurality of electrode bars extending substantially parallel to one another.
In the similar field of endeavor, Loeppert teaches wherein the first electrode and/or the second electrode (110,120,130—1410,1420,1430: arranged as an array¶0030 (Fig. 3): "the first electrode can be a plurality of first electrodes 110-x... arranged in a two-dimensional array in a plane perpendicular to the axis 160) has a plurality of electrode bars extending substantially parallel to one another (Since each elongated electrode 110-x is oriented lengthwise parallel to the same axis 160 (¶0021, ¶0031), and multiple such electrodes are arranged in an array (¶0030–0031), the individual bar-shaped electrodes necessarily extend parallel to one another — they're all elongated members running along the same axis/ ¶0064: "a first plurality of electrodes 1410... extend through a first subset 1510... a second plurality of electrodes 1420... extend partially into a second subset 1520... a third plurality of electrodes 1430... extend partially into a third subset 1530" — same pin/bar-in-aperture geometry as 110-x/120-x/130-x, confirmed identical by ¶0071/¶0074 correspondence).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first electrode 20 of the modified Reinmuth to comprise a plurality of electrode bars extending substantially parallel to one another, as taught by Loeppert, because Loeppert teaches that such a multi-electrode arrangement provides increased capacitance sensitivity while addressing the known MEMS tradeoff between bias voltage/sensitivity and electrostatic collapse/stiffening (Loeppert ¶0002, 0018–0019), and because substituting a known array of parallel bar-shaped electrodes for a known single-plate electrode, where both perform the identical capacitive-sensing function relative to a counter electrode, amounts to a simple substitution of known elements yielding predictable results and both references employ compatible semiconductor deposition/etch fabrication techniques (Reinmuth ¶0025, 0056; Loeppert ¶0034, 0064), supporting a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the modification to increased capacitance and higher sensitivity per unit displacement (e.g., Loeppert ¶0016–0017,0044) ." based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). And in this case, Reinmuth's first electrode 20 is a plate-type electrode performing a capacitive-sensing function relative to counter electrode 28. Loeppert's plurality of parallel elongated electrodes (110-x/1410, etc.) perform the identical function — forming a variable capacitance with a counter electrode as a function of relative displacement (¶0026: "first capacitance exists between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120... values... change... when there is motion"). Substituting a known array of parallel bar/pin electrodes for a known single-plate electrode, where both perform the same capacitive-sensing function and the substitution yields nothing more than the predictable result of an electrode with more surface area/edges, is a textbook "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" rationale.
Claim 14
Reinmuth in view of Dehe and Loeppert teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein the electrode bars 1410 of the first electrode 1410 extend at least sectionally into gaps between the electrode bars of the second electrode 1430 (¶0030,0031 (Fig. 3, carried to Fig. 14–16 via ¶0071/¶0074): "The plurality of second and third electrodes 120-x and 130-x can be staggered on either side of the plurality of first electrodes 110-x." ¶0064–0065 confirms the same first/second/third plurality structure for device 1400, and ¶0071/¶0074 confirms the explicit correspondence: "electrodes 110-x, 120-x, and 130-x can correspond to respective electrodes 1410, 1420, and 1430"), and It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further arrange the electrode bars of the first electrode to extend at least sectionally into gaps between the electrode bars of the second electrode, as taught by Loeppert, because Loeppert expressly teaches that staggering/interspersing the pluralities of electrode bars relative to one another allows for more capacitance and an increase in the change of capacitance with displacement (Loeppert ¶0030), directly furthering the differential-sensing and sensitivity goals already motivating the Reinmuth/Dehe combination (Reinmuth ¶¶0044–0045). This is a predictable arrangement of known elements (parallel electrode bars) using a known configuration (interdigitation/staggering) to achieve the known, expressly-stated benefit of increased capacitance sensitivity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth, US20220155168A1 in view of Loeppert, US20220194780A1.
Claim 15
Reinmuth teaches the device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the device has a plurality of first electrodes and/or one or more second electrodes that are arranged symmetrically in relation to a cavity center in the cavity.
In the similar field of endeavor, Loeppert teaches wherein the device has a plurality of first electrodes 1410,1430 and/or one or more second electrodes 1420 that are arranged symmetrically in relation to a cavity center 1450 in the cavity 1490 (¶0064–0065: first plurality 1410 extends through the dielectric, coupled to both support layers spanning the full cavity, symmetric about center by construction; second plurality 1420 coupled to the first support layer, extending partially into a subset of apertures; third plurality 1430 coupled to the second support layer, extending partially into the same subset of apertures :¶0065: "the second subset 1520 can be the same as the third subset 1530... each electrode of the second plurality... coaxial with each electrode of the third plurality).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first electrodes and/or second electrode symmetrically relative to the cavity center, as taught by Loeppert, because Loeppert expressly teaches that a relatively symmetric structure, combined with equal-magnitude opposing bias voltages, produces equal and opposing forces F1 and F2 such that a net zero force is exerted between the dielectric and the electrodes (Loeppert ¶0022).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth, US20220155168A1 in view of Loeppert, US20220194780A1 and Chan, US20140267443A1.
Claim 16
Reinmuth in view of Loeppert teaches the device according to claim 15, the combination does not teach wherein the device has a rigid frame dividing the cavity into a plurality of segments, wherein the device includes a plurality of first electrodes, and wherein a first electrode of the plurality of first electrodes is arranged in each segment and is tiltable at least sectionally about a tilt axis defined by a torsion spring, wherein the torsion spring is connected to the rigid frame. Although Reinmuth teaches each electrode 20 is tiltable at least sectionally about a tilt axis defined by a torsion spring 50,52,54.
In the similar field of endeavor, Chan teaches the device has a rigid frame dividing the cavity into a plurality of segments (four segments e.g., ¶0068: "four symmetrical electrode segments 240a-240d" — matches target's four-segment cruciform layout almost exactly/"the electrode segments are segmented along two perpendicular axes of rotation... A strip 254 of the dielectric material 252 isolates electrode segments 240a and 240b from electrode segments 240c and 240d... a strip 256... isolates electrode segments 240a and 240c from electrode segments 240b and 240d. The strips 254 and 256 are generally perpendicular to one another"), wherein the device includes a plurality of first electrodes (electrode segments 240a,240b in ¶0068), and wherein a first electrode … is arranged in each segment (¶0068 as cited above) and is tiltable at least connected to the rigid frame (¶0068). Chan's segments are electrically isolated portions of a single floating electrode on one continuous movable mirror , the whole mirror tilts as one unit; although the segments don't each have their own independent torsion spring or their own independent tilt axis. There's no "first electrode in each segment, individually tiltable", it's one movable layer with a segmented electrode pattern underneath it, no torsion spring is mentioned Chan's tilting is an unwanted, parasitic effect being mitigated, not a designed torsion-hinge mechanism, Reinmuth already teaches (torsion springs 50/52/54, individually rotating lever/electrode mechanism, ¶0033). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chan‘s rigid frame dividing the cavity into a plurality of segments for the modified Reinmuth‘s device wherein the device has a rigid frame dividing the cavity into a plurality of segments, wherein the modified Reinmuth’s device includes a plurality of first electrodes, and wherein a first electrode of the plurality of first electrodes is arranged in each segment and is tiltable at least sectionally about a tilt axis defined by a torsion spring, wherein the modified Reinmuth’s torsion spring is connected to the modified Reinmuth’s rigid frame. One of ordinary skill in the art modifying Reinmuth's multi-electrode diaphragm structure (Fig. 4a/4b, ¶0042) would recognize the same tilting-instability problem Chan identifies , i.e., uneven/asymmetric mechanical response across multiple electrodes sharing one continuous structure can cause imbalance and cross-talk between electrode regions. Chan expressly teaches that dividing the structure along two perpendicular axes into isolated segments (¶0030: "dividing a movable electrode along two perpendicular axes provides a significant increase in the stable range... without a substantial reduction in the total electrode area") is a known solution to this exact class of problem , i.e., isolating each electrode's mechanical/electrical region from its neighbors to prevent one segment's tilting behavior from adversely affecting another. Applying this known cross-shaped partitioning technique to Reinmuth's frame 42/cavity 44 structure, using a rigid internal frame (rather than Chan's dielectric strips, adapted to Reinmuth's structural/mechanical context) to physically separate each of Reinmuth's individually torsion-spring-mounted electrodes into its own segment would be a predictable combination of known elements (Reinmuth's torsion-tilt electrode array + Chan's segmenting technique) yielding the predictable result of reduced inter-electrode mechanical/electrical interference, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17
Reinmuth in view of Loeppert and Chan teaches the device according to claim 16, "Reinmuth discloses, for each first electrode (20), a dedicated, adjacently-positioned counter electrode (first counter electrode 28, or in the differential embodiment, second electrode 34 with second counter electrode 36), such that each electrode pair is spatially associated with its own discrete position along the sensing structure (Reinmuth ¶0026, 0028, 0042). Reinmuth further discloses that the second electrode 34 is arranged on the first boundary layer (diaphragm 12) via a reinforcing structure suspended from the diaphragm inner side (Reinmuth ¶0029).
As established with respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reinmuth's cavity structure to incorporate a rigid frame dividing the cavity into a plurality of segments, as taught by Chan, in order to isolate the tilting response of each individually torsion-spring-mounted first electrode from adjacent electrodes and thereby increase the stable range of mechanical motion of the device, consistent with Chan's teaching that segmenting a movable/electrode-bearing structure along perpendicular dividing axes constrains unwanted mechanical and electrical interaction between segments without a substantial reduction in total electrode area (Chan ¶0040, 0078, 0080–0081).
Having already incorporated Chan's frame-divided segment structure into the Reinmuth device for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16, a person of ordinary skill would have been further motivated to apply Reinmuth's own established design principle, providing a discrete, adjacently-positioned counter electrode dedicated to each first electrode (Reinmuth ¶0026, 0028), on a per-segment basis within the newly-introduced frame-divided cavity structure. Because Chan's segmenting structure already isolates each first electrode's mechanical region from its neighbors via dividing strips/frame elements, extending Reinmuth's known per-electrode counter electrode arrangement into each of Chan's discrete segments is the predictable and straightforward result of combining these two teachings: each segment, already isolated by the rigid frame for mechanical/tilting purposes, would naturally also carry its own isolated (segmented) portion of the second electrode dedicated to the first electrode within that same segment, consistent with Reinmuth's teaching that a counter electrode is positioned adjacent to its associated electrode (Reinmuth ¶0026, 0028) and consistent with Chan's teaching that dividing strips/frame structures provide effective electrical isolation between adjacent segmented regions (Chan ¶0068: 'each individual isolated electrode segment can be surrounded on all sides by dielectric material').
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth, US20220155168A1 in view of Dagher, US20210292158A1.
Claim 20
Reinmuth teaches the microelectromechanical pressure sensor according to claim 18, but does not teach wherein the micromechanical pressure sensor is a microelectromechanical microphone for capacitive sound pressure measurement (Reinmuth in e.g., ¶0030 teaches the micromechanical component can also be realized as a microphone).
Dagher teaches the micromechanical pressure sensor is a microelectromechanical microphone for capacitive sound pressure measurement (e.g., ¶0001-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dagher‘s microelectromechanical microphone for Reinmuth‘s microelectromechanical pressure sensor wherein the micromechanical pressure sensor is a microelectromechanical microphone for capacitive sound pressure measurement. Reinmuth in e.g., ¶0030 teaches the micromechanical component can also be realized as a microphone. One of ordinary skill in the art knows a MEMS microphone comprises an element sensitive to a pressure difference (Dagher ¶0003) and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a more efficient and less of overall size (Dagher ¶0002). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights