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 .
Status of Claims
This is response to application 18828564 filed on 09/09/2024, which is a Division of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/499,297, filed Oct. 12, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 12,084,341,
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for examination on merits.
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
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (200; Fig 10(a); [0020]) = (element 200; Figure No. 10(a); Paragraph No. [0020]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The primary reference citation, in this case, Hamanaka may not be preceded by the inventor tag, wherein the other reference citation. For example Foncellino, will carry inventor tag.These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Applicant submitted prior art in IDS HAMANAKA HITOSHI et al., (JP 2013051748 A) hereinafter referenced as Hamanaka.
Regarding Claim 1. Hamanaka teaches a Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) device, comprising (see the entire document, Figs 1-2, along with other Figs and text descriptions, specifically, as cited below):
PNG
media_image1.png
291
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hamanaka. Figure 1 Figure 2
a body (100; Fig 3(a)) of semiconductor material ( Fig 3(a); [0018] a SOIC wafer 100) defining a support structure (an outer frame 2);
a pass-through cavity defined (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2) in the body of semiconductor material and surrounded by the support structure (2);
a movable structure (4) suspended in the pass-through cavity;
an elastic structure (3) extending in the pass-through cavity between the support structure (2) and the movable structure (4), the elastic structure (3) comprising a first portion (insulating layer 12 of portion 7; Fig. 2) and a second portion (Layers 3,10 in the portion 7) and being subject to mechanical stress (portion 7 is a torsion bar which gets twisted, [0015]); and
a metal region (the hatched part of portion 7 in Fig 2 is a metal interconnect,; Fig 3(d); [0020]) extending on the first portion of the elastic structure ( 3’ [0020]);
wherein the elastic structure (3) has a buried cavity (the bright rectangle below layer 12 in Figs 2,4(f); [0021]) defined therein; and
wherein the buried cavity extends between the first and the second portions of the elastic structure (Fig. 2; [0021]) and communicates laterally with the pass-through cavity (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2).
Regarding Claim 5. Hamanaka as applied to the device according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein the elastic structure (3) has a length along a first direction (left<>right; Fig 2) and the buried cavity (the bright rectangle below layer 12 in Figs 2,4(f); [0021]) extends for an entirety of the length of the elastic structure (3) along the first direction (left<>right; Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 8. Hamanaka as applied to the device according to claim 1, further disclose, wherein the metal region (the hatched part of portion 7 in Fig 2 is a metal interconnect; Fig. 3(d) and [0020]) has a width, along a second direction, which is smaller than a width of the buried cavity (the bright rectangle underlying 12; Figs 2,4(f); [0021]).
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 of this title, 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 2-4, 6-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant submitted prior art in IDS Applicant submitted prior art in IDS HAMANAKA HITOSHI et al., (JP 2013051748 A) hereinafter referenced as Hamanaka; in view of FONCELLINO; Francesco et al., (US 20180178251 A1) hereinafter referenced as Foncellino.
Regarding Claim 2. Hamanaka as applied to the device according to claim 1, does not expressly disclose, wherein the first portion (insulating layer 12 of portion 7; Fig. 2) of the elastic structure (3) has a smaller thickness than the second portion (Layers 3,10 in the portion 7) of the elastic structure (3).
However, in the analogous art, Foncellino teaches a PMUT ([0002]), wherein (Fig 1; [0022,0040]) the first portion (10) of the elastic structure (8) has a smaller thickness than the second portion (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Hamanaka’s device by teaching of Foncellino’s teaching, and thereby the combination of (Hamanaka and Foncellino)’ s device comprises the first portion (insulating layer 12 of portion 7; Fig. 2, in view of Foncellino 10 ) of the elastic structure (3) has a smaller thickness than the second portion (Layers 3,10 in the portion 7, in view of Foncellino 12) of the elastic structure (3), since this modification, at least, provides a function of operating specifications, for example the desired frequency of oscillation, the acoustic impedance, and the gain prevents collapsing of elastic structure (Foncellino [0022]).
Regarding Claim 3. The combination of (Hamanaka and Foncellino) as applied device according to claim 2, wherein the (Foncellino [0040]) first portion of the elastic structure (3 in view of Foncellino 6; fig 6) has a thickness comprised between 1 µm and 10 µm; and wherein the second portion of the elastic structure has a thickness comprised between 10 µm and 400 µm (construed from Foncellino [0023, 0040]).
Regarding Claim 4. Hamanaka as applied to the device according to claim 1, does not expressly disclose, wherein a height of the buried cavity (the bright rectangle below layer 12 in Figs 2,4(f); [0021]) is comprised between one fiftieth and one fifth of a thickness of the elastic structure (3).
However, in the analogous art, Foncellino teaches a PMUT ([0002]), wherein (Fig 1; [0023,0040]) a height of the buried cavity (6) is comprised between one fiftieth and one fifth of a thickness of the elastic structure (8) as stated in [0023] The membrane 8 has thickness t.sub.1, in the central region 8b, of a few micrometers, for example comprised between 4 and 12 μm. The thickness t.sub.1 of the membrane 8, as well as the extension d.sub.1 of the cavity 6, are chosen as a function of the desired vibrational frequencies, in a per se known manner, and do not form the subject of the present disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Hamanaka’s device by teaching of Foncellino, and thereby the combination of (Hamanaka and Foncellino)’ s device comprises a height of the buried cavity (the bright rectangle below layer 12 in Figs 2,4(f); [0021] in view of Foncellino 6) is comprised between one fiftieth and one fifth of a thickness of the elastic structure (3 in view of Foncellino 8), since this modification, at least, provides a function of operating specifications, for example the desired frequency of oscillation, the acoustic impedance, and the gain prevents collapsing of elastic structure (Foncellino [0022]).
Regarding Claim 6, 7. Hamanaka as applied to the device according to claim 1, does not expressly disclose, wherein
For claim 6: the buried cavity also extends partially inside the movable structure and partially inside the support structure.
For claim 7: the buried cavity has a width, along a second direction, which is equal to a width of the elastic structure.
However, in the analogous art, Foncellino teaches a PMUT ([0002]), wherein (Fig 1; [0022,0040]) a buried cavity (6; fig 1) to partially enter the movable structure (8) and the support structure (2) and the buried cavity has a width, along a second direction, which is equal to a width of the elastic structure (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Hamanaka’s device by teaching of Foncellino, and thereby, the combination of (Hamanaka and Foncellino)’ s device as claimed, since this modification, at least, provides a function of operating specifications, for example the desired frequency of oscillation, the acoustic impedance, and the gain prevents collapsing of elastic structure (Foncellino [0022]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant submitted prior art in IDS Applicant submitted prior art in IDS HAMANAKA HITOSHI et al., (JP 2013051748 A) hereinafter referenced as Hamanaka; in view of in further view of SUZUKI; Daiki et al. (US 20200249463 A1; hereinafter Suzuki)
Regarding Claim 9. Hamanaka as applied to the device according to claim 1, further disclose, wherein the device is configured to define a micromirror; and further comprising a reflective region arranged on the movable structure (3), on an opposite side with respect to the pass-through cavity (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2).
However, in the analogous art, Suzuki teaches a mirror device configured as, for example, a Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) device ([0001]), wherein (Fig 3 detailing of Fig 1; [0034, 0037]) discloses a width of the metal region (14, [0037]) along an axis (X) transverse to both the rotation axis and an axis perpendicular to the rotation axis is less (depicted in Fig 3 below) than a width of the elastic structure (7) along the axis perpendicular to the rotation axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
288
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Suzuki Figure 3 as a portion of Figure 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to incorporate Suzuki’s into Hamanaka, and thereby the combination of (Hamanaka and Suzuki)’s device is being configured to define a micromirror (Suzuki); and further comprising a reflective region arranged on the movable structure (3), on an opposite side with respect to the pass-through cavity (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2), since this inclusion, at least, avoids metal fatigue (i.e., hardly occurs) in each of the wires 14 and 15 on each of the torsion bars 7 and 8 (Sujuki [0037]).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant submitted prior art in IDS Applicant submitted prior art in IDS HAMANAKA HITOSHI et al., (JP 2013051748 A) hereinafter referenced as Hamanaka; in view of Schelling; Christoph et al., (US 20200048072 A1) hereinafter referenced Schelling.
Regarding Claim 15. Hamanaka teaches a Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) device, comprising (see the entire document, Figs 1-2, along with other Figs and text descriptions, specifically, as cited below):
a body (100; Fig 3(a)) of semiconductor material (Fig 3(a); [0018] a SOIC wafer 100) defining a support structure (an outer frame 2);
a pass-through cavity defined (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2) in the body of semiconductor material and surrounded by the support structure (2);
a movable structure (4) suspended in the pass-through cavity (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2) and coupled to the support structure (2) through a plurality of elastic elements, the plurality of elastic elements being formed in the body of semiconductor material (Fig 3(a); [0018] a SOIC wafer 100);
an elastic structure (3) extending in the pass-through cavity between the support structure (2) and the movable structure (4), the elastic structure (3) comprising a first portion (insulating layer 12 of portion 7; Fig. 2) and a second portion (Layers 3,10 in the portion 7) and being subject to mechanical stress (portion 7 is a torsion bar which gets twisted, [0015]); and
a metal region (the hatched part of portion 7 in Fig 2 is a metal interconnect,; Fig 3(d); [0020]) extending on the first portion of the elastic structure ( 3; [0020]); and
at least one insulating layer (7) disposed on the body of semiconductor material;
But, Hamanaka does not expressly disclose “wherein the movable structure (4) is formed by a platform within the body of semiconductor material, the platform being carried by stiffening structures formed within an additional substrate.
However, in the analogous art, Schelling teaches a micromechanical sensor that is improved with regard to external mechanical stress ([0007]), wherein (Fig 4; [0040-0044]) the movable structure (30) is formed by a platform (100) within the body of semiconductor material, the platform (100) being carried by stiffening structures (Vertical anchorings of “diaphragm”) formed within an additional substrate (80).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schelling Figure 4
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to incorporate Schelling’s into Hamanaka, and thereby the combination of (Hamanaka and Schelling)’s device comprises the movable structure (4) is formed by a platform (100) within the body of semiconductor material, the platform being carried by stiffening structures (Schelling Vertical anchorings of “diaphragm”) formed within an additional substrate (Schelling 80), since this inclusion, at least, the described vertical anchoring of the diaphragm on substrate 10 has the advantage that no in-plane-stress is coupled into movable micromechanical structures (Sujuki [0044]).
Regarding claim 16. the combination of (Hamanaka and Schelling) as applied to the MEMS device of claim 15, further teaches, wherein the stiffening structures (Schelling 80) are bonded to the platform through a bonding element (Schelling 50).
Regarding claim 17. the combination of (Hamanaka and Schelling) as applied to the MEMS device of claim 15, further teaches, wherein the stiffening structures extend from the platform through the pass-through cavity (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2).
Regarding claim 18. the combination of (Hamanaka and Schelling) as applied to the MEMS device of claim 15, further teaches, wherein the platform has defined therein trenches (Fig 1; delimited by 2-3-2) extending from a bottom surface of the platform (Schelling 100) up to a superficial portion on sides of the stiffening structures (Schelling 80).
Regarding claim 19. the combination of (Hamanaka and Schelling) as applied to the MEMS device of claim 18, further teaches, wherein the trenches have a smaller depth than a thickness of the platform (obvious from Fig 2 and Schelling Fig 4) .
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant submitted prior art in IDS Applicant submitted prior art in IDS HAMANAKA HITOSHI et al., (JP 2013051748 A) hereinafter referenced as Hamanaka; in view of Schelling; Christoph et al., (US 20200048072 A1) hereinafter referenced Schelling, and in further view of FONCELLINO; Francesco et al., (US 20180178251 A1) hereinafter referenced as Foncellino
Regarding claim 20. the combination of (Hamanaka and Schelling) as applied to the MEMS device of claim 19, does not expressly disclose, wherein the depth of the trenches is between 1 µm and 50 µm.
However, in the analogous art, Foncellino teaches a PMUT ([0002]), wherein (Fig 1; [0023,0040]) a height of the buried cavity (6) is comprised between one fiftieth and one fifth of a thickness of the elastic structure (8) as stated in [0023] The membrane 8 has thickness t.sub.1, in the central region 8b, of a few micrometers, for example comprised between 4 and 12 μm. The thickness t.sub.1 of the membrane 8, as well as the extension d.sub.1 of the cavity 6, are chosen as a function of the desired vibrational frequencies, in a per se known manner, and do not form the subject of the present disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Hamanaka’s device by teaching of Foncellino, and thereby the combination of (Hamanaka and Foncellino)’ s device, wherein the depth of the trenches is between 1 µm and 50 µm, since this modification, at least, provides a function of operating specifications, for example the desired frequency of oscillation, the acoustic impedance, and the gain prevents collapsing of elastic structure (Foncellino [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. . The statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why claims are allowed and should not be written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding independent claim 10. the references of the Prior Art of record in attached “PTO-892”and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure in further searches and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: a Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) device, comprising: inter alia, the elastic structure (3) comprising a first portion (insulating layer 12 of portion 7; Fig. 2) with a first work cavity defined therein; .. wherein the at least one insulating layer (12) has defined therein a pair of trenches extending therethrough into at least a portion of a thickness of the body of semiconductor material, the pair of trenches extending on opposite sides of the metal region; wherein the first work cavity communicates laterally with the pass-through cavity to thereby form a buried cavity” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11-14, these are allowed because these inherit the allowable subject matter from claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights