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 without traverse of Group I, claims 13-22 in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 23-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 13-22 as followings:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter as representing in claim 1 entirely, (e.g., first silicon wafer, sense plate, and TSVs , a second silicon wafer) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: -- A tuning fork gyroscope sensor” --.
Abstract should be revised to reflect product (sensor) invention elected.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“A tuning fork gyroscope” (claim 1, line 1) appears to be: --" A tuning fork gyroscope sensor” --, (see in light discussion of ¶¶ [0006, 0018] of the instant specification).
“The tuning fork gyroscope” (claims 14-22, line 1) should be updated to: -- “The tuning fork gyroscope sensor” --, to reflect changes as suggested above. 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 13-22 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.
A number of transition term: “comprising” is/are occurrence in claim 13 which made scope of the claim unclear. Therefore, the recites of:” a first silicon wafer comprising a sense plate, the first silicon wafer comprising through- silicon-vias (TSVs) penetrating therethrough” (claim 13, lines 2-3) should be updated to: -- a first silicon wafer includes a sense plate, and through- silicon-vias (TSVs) penetrating therethrough” --. For clarity of the structure invention feature.
Similar to the above: “a second silicon wafer bonded to the first silicon wafer, the second silicon wafer comprising a proof mass” (claim 13, lines 4-5) should be updated to: --"a second silicon wafer includes a proof mass, and wherein the second silicon wafer is directly bonded to the first silicon wafer” --, for clarity of the structure claim formats.
“comprises” (claim 18, line 1) should be updated to: -- “further comprises”--
It is unclear as to what being referring as” the proof mass is a vacuum” (claim 18, line 3) appears to be “the proof mass is vacuum sealed”, for clarity of the claim.
Claim 19 is awkwardly worded and should be rewritten to reflect structure limitation. It is suggested the use of: -- wherein the sense plate includes an insulation layer which is a polysilicon layer” --.
Claim 22 also recites a number of “comprising” term should be updated to:
-- further comprising a third silicon wafer includes a third sense plate connectively bonded to the second silicon wafer, and wherein the second silicon wafer is bonded and disposed between the first silicon wafer and the third silicon wafer” --, for clarity of the structure claim formats.
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.
Claim(s) 13-15, 19-22 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg et al (US 7172919) and/or alternatively in view of Sawyer (US 6548321).
Weinberg et al discloses the claimed tuning fork gyroscope sensors, comprising:
a first silicon wafer 16 comprising a sense plate 26/28 (see Fig. 3), the first silicon wafer 16 comprising through- silicon-vias (TSVs) penetrating therethrough, and the TSVs having conductive material therein (see Fig. 3 as reproduced below); and
a second silicon wafer 30 bonded to the first silicon wafer, the second silicon wafer comprising a proof mass 12/14 (see Figs. 2-3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the limitation of claim 13 is met by the above applied reference.
Further, if argues that the Weinberg et al does not teach the TSVs then refers to the Sawyer for such above TSVs (64c/48c) formed on the first silicon wafer substrate 12c (see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Sawyer’s teaching as mentioned above onto the Weinberg invention in order to form a device which meet manufacturing requirement for various known benefits includes economically and efficiency.
As applied to claim 14 regarding to the material of the first silicon wafer is a silicon on insulator (SOI) wafer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate such material above onto the modified Weinberg /Sawyer, since SOI material are selected based on design considerations and trade-offs between cost, mechanical properties, and dielectric properties. Therefore, SOI material is not inventive when departing from modified Weinberg /Sawyer and common general knowledge.
Limitations of claim 15 is also met by the above since no further structure feature existed thereto (noting Fig. 5 of the Sawyer discloses the interconnection between proof mass 18 and the TSVs, 64c/48c respectively.
As applied to claim 19, refer to similar to discussion of claim 14 above for claim 19.
As applied to claims 20-21 applicant refers to discussion in light of ¶ [0084] for the metal bonded and silicon bonded between the two wafers, respectively.
As applied to claim 22, refer to embodiment of Fig. 8G for the teaching of third silicon wafer interconnected to the second silicon wafer and where the second silicon wafer 250 is between the first silicon wafer 230 and the third wafer 240, respectively.
Claim(s)16-17 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg et al (US 7172919) in view of Huang (US 6189381).
The Weinberg et al does not teach the feature as recited in claim 16 wherein the first silicon wafer comprises a handle layer and the TSVs penetrate through the handle layer. Regarding to this, the Huang discloses the above feature, refer to Fig. 3L of Huang depict handle layer 51/52 as noted above, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to employ the Huang ‘s teaching onto the modified Weinberg above in order to obtain a device having the above configurations feature facilitate operation would result.
PNG
media_image3.png
150
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 17, refer to Fig. 3L of the Huang for such teaching of where “the TSVs 68 is metal contact pad 69/70, respectively.
Potential Allowable claim
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
8/4/26
Prosecution Insights