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 .
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) 1-4, 12, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederik et., DE 2017203381 in view of Bryzek et al., US 2007/0125161.
Regarding claim 1, Frederik discloses (Figs. 6A-6C and related text) a method comprising: etching a vertical spring in a substrate (10, figs. 6A-6C), the vertical spring encompassing a device (1/2, 6A) formed on a front side (11) of the substrate (10).
Frederik does not disclose bonding a cap to the front side of the substrate, the cap disposed over the device and the vertical spring.
Bryzek teaches (fig. 7 and related text) bonding a cap/wafer (500) to the front side of the substrate (300) over the device or MEMS device (fig. 7A) to protect the device [0071].
Frederik and Bryzek are analogous art because they both are directed to MEMS device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Frederik with specified features of Bryzek because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Frederik to include the bonding cap to the frontside of the substrate as taught by Bryzek to protect the device [0071].
Regarding claim 2, Frederik as modified by Bryzek discloses etching the vertical spring includes etching a first trench (20, Frederik 6A) in the front side (11, fig. 6A) of the substrate (10) and etching a second trench (20) in a back side (12) of the substrate (10).
Regarding claim 3, Frederik as modified by Bryzek discloses etching the vertical spring includes etching a cavity (trench formed on the right side of ½, Frederik) in a back side (12) of the substrate (10) opposite the device; and the second trench (20 on the side of 12) encompasses the cavity (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 4, Frederik as modified by Bryzek discloses the front side of the substrate is isolated from a back (12) side of the substrate (fig. 6B, Frederik).
Regarding claim 12, Frederik does not disclose forming a cap structure on the first surface and over the device.
Bryzek teaches (fig. 7 and related text) forming a cap structure (500) to the front side of the substrate (300) and over the device (fig. 7A) to protect the device [0071].
Frederik and Bryzek are analogous art because they both are directed to MEMS device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Frederik with specified features of Bryzek because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Frederik to include the bonding structure to the frontside of the substrate and the device as taught by Bryzek to protect the device [0071].
Regarding claim 19, Frederik does not disclose forming a cap structure on the first surface over the MEMS device.
Bryzek teaches (fig. 7 and related text) forming a cap structure (500) on the front side of the substrate (300) and over the device (fig. 7A) to protect the device [0071].
Frederik and Bryzek are analogous art because they both are directed to MEMS device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Frederik with specified features of Bryzek because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Frederik to include the bonding structure to the frontside of the substrate and the device as taught by Bryzek to protect the device [0071].
Regarding claim 21, Frederik as modified by Bryzek does not disclose the MEMS device is a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator.
Bryzek discloses a MEMS based gyroscope that uses bulk acoustic wave resonators [0024].
Frederik and Bryzek are analogous art because they both are directed to MEMS device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Frederik with specified features of Bryzek because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Frederik to include the BAW device as taught by Bryzek to use the combined device in an application that requires it.
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) 5-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frederik et al., DE 2017203381.
Regarding claim 5, Frederik discloses (figs. 6A-6C and related text) a method comprising: forming a first trench (20, fig. 6A) on a first surface (11) of a semiconductor substrate (10), the first trench having a first bottom (bottom of 20) surface in the semiconductor substrate (fig. 6A); and forming a second trench (20) on a second surface (12) into the semiconductor substrate (10) opposing the first surface (12), the second trench (20) having a second bottom surface in the semiconductor substrate (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 6, Frederik discloses the semiconductor substrate (10) includes a portion extending between the first and second surfaces (fig. 6B), and the portion is adjacent to the first trench (20 on 11) and the second trench (20 on 12).
Regarding claim 7, Frederik discloses the portion forms at least part of a spring (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 8, Frederik discloses forming a device (1/2, fig. 6B) on the semiconductor substrate and adjacent to at least one of the first or second trenches (20, on 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 9, Frederik discloses forming the device (1/2) includes forming the device (1/2) on the first surface (11), and forming the first trench (20) includes forming the first trench around at least a part of the device (1/2), and forming the second trench (20, on 12) includes forming the second trench around at least a part of a footprint of the device (1/2) on the second surface (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 10, Frederik discloses forming the second trench (20 on 12) includes forming the second trench around at least a part of a footprint of the first trench on the second surface (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 11, Frederik discloses forming the first trench (20 on 11) includes forming the first trench around at least a part of a footprint of the second trench on the first surface (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 13, Frederik discloses the device includes at least one of: a microelectromechanical system (MEMS, 1, fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 14, Frederik discloses a method, comprising: forming a micromechanical system (MEMS) device (1, fig. 6B) on a first surface (11) of a semiconductor substrate (10); forming a first trench on the first surface (20), the first trench having a first bottom surface in the semiconductor substrate (fig. 6B); and forming a second trench (20 on 12) on a second surface (12) opposing the first surface (11), the second trench having a second bottom surface in the semiconductor substrate (10, fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 15, Frederik discloses the semiconductor substrate (10) includes a portion extending between the first (11) and second surfaces (12) and the portion abuts the first trench and the second trench (20, fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 17, Frederik discloses forming the first trench includes forming the first trench (20, on side of 11) around at least a part of the MEMS device (1), and forming the second trench includes forming the second trench (20, on the side of 12) around at least a part of a footprint of the MEMS (1) device on the second surface (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 18, Frederik discloses forming the second trench (20 on the side of 12) includes forming the second trench around at least a part of a footprint of the first trench on the second surface (refer to fig. 6B, where the trenches on the side of 12 are formed around the trenches 20 formed on the first side 11).
Regarding claim 20, Frederik discloses the first trench (20 on 11) includes forming the first trench around at least a part of a footprint of the second trench on the first surface (two of the top trenches formed on 11 are formed around trenches 20 formed on the of 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1653. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights