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 of Group I (claims 1-11) without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-14 are cancelled. Claims 1-11 and new claim 15 will be examined.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba – US 20140102217 and in view of Petelenz – US 20110162451.
As to claim 1, Inaba teaches an inertial MEMS device 100 ([0153]), comprising:
an inertial element responsive to movement ([0077]: MEMS oscillator 3 oscillate in response to deformation when an external force is applied to substrate of the MEMS oscillator 3; MEMs oscillator 3 corresponds to “an inertial element”; thus “an inertial element responsive to movement”), the inertial element including a movable structure 13 e formed in a first structural layer made of semiconductor material ([0063]: flexure of the wafer substrate 1 causes the lower electrode 13 e (or movable structure) and a fixed portion of the upper electrode 14 e to flex; [0059]: A MEMS oscillator having a movable electrode made of a semiconductor material; [0052 and 0055-0056]: Each of the first conductive layer 13 and the second conductive layer 14 is made of a conductive polysilicon, which is a semiconductor material; the lower electrode 13 e and the first conductive layer 13 are formed as an integrated portion; thus “the inertial element including a movable structure 13 formed in a first structural layer made of semiconductor material”);
a suspended structure (or upper electrode 14 e) extending above the movable structure 13 e, at a distance (or air gap 13g) therefrom (fig.1A and fig.2B and [0063-0064]), the suspended structure 14 e being formed in a second structural layer made of semiconductor material ([0059]: A MEMS oscillator having a movable electrode made of a semiconductor material; [0052 and 0055-0056]: Each of the first conductive layer 13 and the second conductive layer 14 is made of a conductive polysilicon, which is a semiconductor material; the upper electrode 14 e and the second conductive layer 14 are formed as an integrated portion, thus “the suspended structure being formed in a second structural layer made of semiconductor material”); and
Inaba does not explicitly teach a piezoelectric structure arranged on the suspended structure; wherein the suspended structure and the piezoelectric structure form a wake-up element configured to generate an activation signal in response to vibrations or shocks.
Petelenz teaches cantilever beam 36 configured with a piezoelectric sensor 40 can together form an electromechanical resonator 34 which produces an electric charge proportional to the magnitude of bending of the cantilever beam 36 which occurs during vibration ([0033-0034 and 0024-0026] and fig.2: Flexing of the cantilever beam, and therefore the simultaneous flexing of the piezoelectric sensor, causes an electric charge to be produced in the piezoelectric material which is captured and carried away by the electrodes; As no batteries or external source of power are needed to generate this signal, the array of piezoelectric cantilever beam sensors can be self-powered).
Petelenz further teaches no additional power supply or battery is required, and the memory devices can be placed in an active state (or “an activation signal is generated”) only upon occurrence of a ballistic impact event which exceeds a pre-defined threshold ([0048]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and/or combine upper electrode 14e of Inaba with teachings of Petelenz to include a piezoelectric structure arranged on the suspended structure; wherein the suspended structure and the piezoelectric structure form a wake-up element configured to generate an activation signal in response to vibrations or shocks, because it successfully removes the requirements for an external power source ([0026]).
As to claim 2, Inaba further teaches the suspended structure 14 e is one of a cantilever or a membrane ([0053]).
As to claim 4, claim 4 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5, Petelenz further teaches the piezoelectric structure comprises: a piezoelectric stack overlying the suspended structure and made of: a first conductive material providing a first electrode region; a piezoelectric region overlying the first electrode region and made of piezoelectric material; and a second electrode region overlying the piezoelectric region and made of a second conductive material providing a second electrode region ([0033]: electrode layers can be platinum, which is conductive material); wherein at least one of the first electrode region and the second electrode region is coupled to an external connection region ([0042-0044]: electronic circuit 130 corresponds to “an external connection region”, connected with the piezoelectric stack of shock sensor 110).
As to claim 7, Inaba further teaches the inertial element comprises one or more of an accelerometer and a gyroscope ([0107]: MEMS device 100 and the MEMS sensors 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 151, and 152 are collectively called a MEMS sensor 500; [0141]: The MEMS sensor 500 mounted on a substrate that flexes in accordance with acceleration can be used as an acceleration sensor).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba and Petelenz and further in view of Zuniga-Ortiz – US 20110156178.
As to claim 8, modified Inaba does not explicitly teach the inertial element is of capacitive type.
Zuniga-Ortiz teaches a MEMS of the inertial sensor family, which operates as a capacitive accelerometer ([0062]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Inaba with teachings of Zuniga-Ortiz to include the inertial element is of capacitive type, because capacitive accelerometers exhibit high sensitivity, good DC response and noise performance, low drift, and low power dissipation and temperature sensitivity ([0062]).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba and Petelenz and further in view of Yang – US 20230004303.
As to claim 9, modified Inaba teaches an inertial MEMS system, comprising: an inertial MEMS device comprising: an inertial element responsive to movement, the inertial element including a movable structure formed in a first structural layer made of semiconductor material; a suspended structure extending above the movable structure, at a distance therefrom, the suspended structure being formed in a second structural layer made of semiconductor material; and a piezoelectric structure arranged on the suspended structure; wherein the suspended structure and the piezoelectric structure form a wake-up element configured to generate an activation signal in response to vibrations or shocks (see reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1).
Petelenz further teaches devices can be placed in an active state only upon occurrence of a ballistic impact event which exceeds a pre-defined threshold ([0048]); microprocessor (or a control circuit) 250 can be configured to wake up within 1.0 ms of receiving the electric signals 242 generated by the microcantilever beams ([0050]); as this electric signal is generated simply by the flexing of the piezoelectric layers of the microcantilever beam, no external power source for the sensor is required ([0026]).
However, Inaba and Petelenz do not explicitly teach a control circuit that is electrically coupled to the inertial MEMS device; wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive the activation signal; compare the activation signal with a first threshold and a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; activate the inertial MEMS device from a rest condition where the inertial MEMS device is turned off to a low-consumption operation mode in response to the activation signal being greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold; and activate the inertial MEMS device to a high-consumption operation mode in response to the activation signal being greater than the second threshold.
Yang teaches a concept of: a power manager 216 control processor(s) (i.e. core) to operate in sleep mode, low power mode, and high-power mode by comparing detected IO intensity by workload detector 218 with one or more thresholds ([0056-0057]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Inaba with teachings of Yang to include a control circuit that is electrically coupled to the inertial MEMS device; wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive the activation signal; compare the activation signal with a first threshold and a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; activate the inertial MEMS device from a rest condition where the inertial MEMS device is turned off to a low-consumption operation mode in response to the activation signal being greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold; and activate the inertial MEMS device to a high-consumption operation mode in response to the activation signal being greater than the second threshold, to improve power-efficiency ([0057]).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 10, and 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.
As to claim 3, claim 3 includes wherein the first structural layer extends on the substrate and comprises first fixed portions rigid with the substrate; wherein the second structural layer comprises second fixed portions in direct contact with the first fixed portions, when in combination with all other elements in claim 3 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 6, claim 6 includes the second structural layer further has a thinned zone having a third thickness less than the second thickness, the thinned zone forming the suspended structure and extending at a distance from the first structural layer, when in combination with all other elements in claim 6 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 10, claim 10 includes deactivate the inertial MEMS device to the rest condition when the one or more of the activation signal and the electric measurement signals are not representative of predetermined movements, when in combination with all other elements in claim 10 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 15, claim 15 includes deactivating the inertial MEMS device to the rest condition when the one or more of the activation signal and the electric measurement signals are not representative of predetermined movements, when in combination with all other elements in claim 15 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights