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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Considering [0047] of the Specification filed on 6/24/2024, the phrase “first portion of the diaphragm 302” should be rewritten as --first portion of the diaphragm 402--.
Considering [0058] of the Specification filed on 6/24/2024, the phrase “a way that diaphragms 1602 and 1604 move out-of-phase relative to one another” appears to be an inadvertent insertion or remnant from other pending applications. Elements 1602 and 1604 are not found in the current application. Applicant is requested to review the corresponding section of the Specification to ensure accuracy and completeness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 12, 16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Considering claim 1, line 8, the phrase “the MEMS transducer is subject to an external” should be rewritten as --the MEMS transducer is subjected to an external--.
Considering claim 4, line 2, the phrase “the substrate on a first sides of the substrate” should be rewritten as --the substrate on a first side of the substrate--.
Considering claim 5, lines 1-2, the phrase “is configured to attached the first portion” should be rewritten as --is configured to attach the first portion--.
Considering claim 7, line 4, the phrase “configured to reduce stress gradient” should be rewritten as --configured to reduce a stress gradient--.
Considering claim 12, line 9, the phrase “vibrate when subject to an external” should be rewritten as --vibrate when subjected to an external--.
Considering claim 12, line 13, the phrase “the plurality of holes the plurality of holes” should be rewritten as --the plurality of holes--.
Considering claim 12, line 17, the phrase “as compared holes in the first set” should be rewritten as --as compared to the holes in the first set--.
Considering claim 16, line 4, the phrase “moved away from an edge of substrate” should be rewritten as --moved away from an edge of the substrate--.
Considering claim 19, line 2, the phrase “the substrate on a first sides of the substrate” should be rewritten as --the substrate on a first side of the substrate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-20 are 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 12 recites the limitation "the surface of the plate closer to an interface” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Considering claims 13-20, they are rejected based on their dependency upon claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles (US 2011/0150260 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0095057 A1).
Considering claim 1, Miles discloses an acoustic sensor device, comprising:
- a substrate 300;
- a cavity 308 formed in the substrate 302; and
- a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer having a diaphragm 310 supported by the substrate,
- the diaphragm including:
- a first portion configured to be fixed to the substrate (Anchor supports labelled as 207 in Figure 2, same position in Figure 4; [0049]),
- a second portion 404 extending from the first portion and suspended over the cavity, the second portion configured to vibrate when the MEMS transducer is subject to an external stimulus (Figures 3-4; [0060-66]), and
- an anchor portion (Figure 4 lateral anchor portions) that attaches the first portion of the diaphragm to the substrate on at least two sides of the substrate such that an interface between the first portion of the diaphragm (Figures 3-4; [0049]; [0060-66]).
The invention by Miles discloses that the diaphragm is anchored to the substrate, but fails to explicitly disclose that the second portion of the diaphragm is moved away from an edge of the substrate along the cavity.
However, Wu suggests the use of a looped recess (“undercut”) positioned above the substrate, at the anchoring locations, thus moving any anchored material to a position that is moved away from an edge of the substrate along the cavity (Figures 3-5; [0042-44]; [0051-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the second portion of the diaphragm moved away from an edge of the substrate along the cavity, as suggested by Wu, in the invention by Miles. The motivation for doing so, as understood in the art, is to provide a diaphragm with increased diameter/sensitivity without increasing the overall size of the device.
Considering claim 2, Miles discloses the substrate comprises an insulator layer 302 (Silicon Oxide; [0060-61]) disposed on a surface of the substrate; the first portion of the diaphragm is attached to the substrate through the insulator layer (Figures 3A-3E,4; [0060-66]), but fails to disclose that the cavity formed in the substrate includes a portion that extends into the insulator layer forming an undercut in the insulator layer between the diaphragm and the substrate.
However, Wu suggests the use of a looped recess (“undercut”) in an insulator positioned above the substrate, at the anchoring locations, thus moving any anchored material to a position that is moved away from an edge of the substrate along the cavity (Figures 3-5; [0042-44]; [0051-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an undercut in the insulator at the anchoring point, as suggested by Wu, in the invention by Miles. The motivation for doing so, as understood in the art, is to provide a diaphragm with increased diameter/sensitivity without increasing the overall size of the device.
Considering claim 3, Miles fails to explicitly disclose that the anchor portion is configured to attach the first portion of the diaphragm to the substrate on at least two sides such that the interface between the first portion of the diaphragm and the second portion of the diaphragm is moved away from an edge of the undercut in the insulator layer.
However, Wu teaches that the anchor portion is configured to attach the first portion of the diaphragm 102 to the substrate 104 on at least two sides such that the interface between the first portion of the diaphragm and the second portion of the diaphragm 102 is moved away from an edge 105b of the undercut in the insulator layer 103 (Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an anchor portion that is configured to attach the first portion of the diaphragm to the substrate on at least two sides such that the interface between the first portion of the diaphragm and the second portion of the diaphragm is moved away from an edge of the undercut in the insulator layer, as suggested by Wu, in the invention by Miles. The motivation for doing so is to provide stability and more satisfactory performance by configuring the cross-sectional area of the diaphragm at the interface with the substrate to be larger than a cross-sectional area of the undercut (Figures 5 and 10; [0052] and [0056]).
Considering claim 4, Miles discloses that the anchor portion is configured to attach the first portion of the diaphragm to the substrate on a first sides of the substrate and a second side of the substrate, wherein the first side of the substrate and the second side of the substrate are opposing sides of the substrate that are separated by a third side of the substrate (Figures 2-3E).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles (US 2011/0150260 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0095057 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Considering claim 9, Miles, as modified by Wu, fails to disclose that the diaphragm comprises a plate having a plurality of holes distributed over a surface of the plate.
However, AAPA teaches that it was known in the art to utilize a porous plate-shaped cantilever structure in acoustic sensor devices ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of holes distributed over a surface of the plate, as suggested by AAPA, in the invention by Miles, as modified by Wu. The motivation for doing so, as understood in the art, is to promote a desired mechanical compliance of the plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Considering claim 12, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of an acoustic sensor device having a MEMS transducer supported by a substrate, with a diaphragm comprising a plate having a plurality of holes distributed over a surface of the plate, and the plurality of holes includes a first set of holes distributed in the second portion of the diaphragm, and one or more additional sets of holes disposed on the surface of the plate closer to an interface between the first portion of the diaphragm and the second portion of the diaphragm as compared to holes in the first set of holes, and wherein the one or more additional sets of holes include holes that are different from holes in the first set of holes.
Claims 5-8, 10-11 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.
Considering claim 5, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of the anchor portion configured to attached the first portion of the diaphragm to the substrate further along the third side of the substrate, in combination with the remainder of the proceeding claim limitations. The invention by Miles and the invention by Wu both require pivoting of the diaphragm and utilizes anchors placed on two opposing sides of the membrane. Miles does offer an alternative embodiment where the diaphragm is only anchored on the third side, but even still, there is no suggestion or combination that would allow the Miles invention to function, according to its respective requirements, in each embodiment.
Considering claim 6, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of an anchor portion of a diaphragm including an anchor extension portion that extends along at least one side of the substrate over a length of the cavity along the at least one side of the substrate in a direction of extension of the diaphragm from the substrate over the cavity, the anchor extension portion configured to reduce an air gap along the at least one side between the substrate and the diaphragm.
Considering claim 10, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a first set of holes distributed in a first region on the surface of the plate, a second set of holes distributed in a second region on the surface of the plate, wherein the second region on the surface of the plate is disposed closer to the interface between the first portion of the diaphragm and the second portion of the diaphragm as compared to the first region, and wherein the second set of holes comprises holes of a second size that is smaller than the holes of the first set.
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.
Bonne et al. (US 5082242 A) discloses a diaphragm formed over an insulator, substrate and cavity, the diaphragm having an undercut away from the cavity wall, is anchored in two directions/sides and has a plurality of holes therein.
Xu et al. (US 2015/0304777 A1) discloses an oppositely anchored diaphragm having interdigitated electrode fingers thereon in an acoustic transducer.
Duan et al. (US 2020/0213771 A1) discloses cantilever anchored diaphragm sections of a microphone that extend over cavity.
Chen et al. (US 2023/0127983 A1) discloses the use of an undercut in an insulating layer that separates a substrate and a diaphragm.
Ata et al. (US 8692340 B1) discloses a pivoting MEMS diaphragm in an acoustic sensor, whereby the plate diaphragm has a plurality of holes therein.
Meier et al. (US 9798132 B2) discloses supporting a diaphragm plate with anchor extension of a diaphragm, whereby the extension arms are perpendicular to each of the first and second sides/directions in which the diaphragm plate is being anchored.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights