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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12126960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims a broader version of the same device claimed in the patent.
Examiner’s Comments
The TD filed 7-22-2026 has been approved.
The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
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) 1-7,9-16, 18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hsieh et al (US 20050254673 A1).
As per claim 1, Hsieh discloses an assembly for a condenser microphone comprising:
a backplate (the element with the parylene C label in fig. 7); and a diaphragm (membrane fig. 7),
wherein at least one of the diaphragm or the backplate comprises a coating of a vapor-deposited parylene electret material (the membrane and backplate each comprise parylene/parylene electret material per fig. 7, where the parylene can be vapor deposited per para 53: Parylene is particularly preferred because of its good adhesion characteristics, its ability to be deposited uniformly at room temperature from the vapor phase).
As per claim 2, the assembly of claim 1, wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material is configured to help to ensure a uniform charge distribution across the assembly (para. 38: Parylene C is particularly preferred because of its good adhesion characteristics, its ability to be deposited uniformly; where a uniform deposition of the material contributes towards uniform charge distribution of any charges in the material).
As per claim 3, the assembly of claim 1, wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material is configured to have a flatness deviation across a diameter of the assembly measuring 10 percent or less of a height of an air gap intermediate the diaphragm and the backplate (the thickness of the parylene coating is less than 10% the thickness of the air gap as shown in figs. 4 and 7).
As per claim 4, the assembly of claim 1, wherein the backplate has a flatness deviation, across a diameter of the backplate, configured to help prevent the diaphragm from collapsing onto the backplate (the parylene coating on the diaphragm helps prevent the diaphragm from collapsing, noting its good mechanical properties per para 53).
As per claim 5, the assembly of claim 1, wherein the backplate comprises the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least one of: a top side of the backplate; or a bottom side of the backplate (per the vapor coating cited above).
As per claim 6, the assembly of claim 1, wherein the backplate comprises the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least one edge of the backplate, wherein the at least one edge is perpendicular to a top side of the backplate and is perpendicular to a bottom side of the backplate (per the vapor coating of the backplate cited above, noting that a coating on a plane is adjacent to/on the tip of the edge that is perpendicular to said plane).
As per claim 7, the assembly of claim 1, wherein the diaphragm comprises the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least one of: a top side of the diaphragm; or a bottom side of the diaphragm (per the vapor deposited parylene cited above).
As per claim 9, an assembly for a condenser microphone comprising: a diaphragm; and a backplate, wherein the backplate comprises a coating of a vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least a portion of:
a bottom side of the backplate; or an edge of the backplate, wherein the edge is perpendicular to the bottom side of the backplate (per the claim 1 rejection via the vapor deposited parylene and per para 38).
As per claim 10, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the backplate further comprises a coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on a top side of the backplate (per the claim 1 rejection via the vapor deposited parylene and per para 38).
As per claim 11, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the backplate comprises the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on the bottom side of the backplate and on a top side of the backplate (per para 38).
As per claim 12, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the diaphragm further comprises a coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least one of: a top side of the diaphragm; or a bottom side of the diaphragm (para. 53: membrane formed from polymeric material (Parylene C), noting para. 53: Parylene is particularly preferred because of its good adhesion characteristics, its ability to be deposited uniformly at room temperature from the vapor phase ).
As per claim 13, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material is on both of: at least a portion of the bottom side of the backplate; and at least a portion of the edge of the backplate (since the coating covers at least both sides of the backplate as cited above, it will cover a portion of the edge, ie, the edge of the edge by nature of it covering the perpendicular plane).
As per claim 14, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material is configured to help to ensure a uniform charge distribution across the assembly (per the claim 2 rejection).
As per claim 15, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material is configured to have a flatness deviation across a diameter of the assembly measuring 10 percent or less of a height of an air gap intermediate the diaphragm and the backplate (per the claim 3 rejection).
As per claim 16, the assembly of claim 9, wherein the backplate has a flatness deviation, across a diameter of the backplate, configured to help prevent the diaphragm from collapsing onto the backplate (per claim 4 rejection).
As per claim 18, a method comprising: coating a vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least one of a backplate or a diaphragm (required to implement the device per the claim 1 rejection); and
assembling a condenser microphone comprising the backplate and the diaphragm (required to implement the device per the claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 19, the method of claim 18, wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material is configured to at least one of: help to ensure a uniform charge distribution across the backplate; or have a flatness deviation across a diameter of the backplate measuring 10 percent or less of a height of an air gap intermediate the diaphragm and the backplate (per the claim 2 and 3 rejections).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20050254673 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Amatucci et al (US 20140087214 A1).
As per claim 20, Hsieh discloses the method of claim 18, but does not specify wherein the coating the vapor-deposited parylene electret material on at least one of a backplate or a diaphragm comprises: vaporizing dimer into a dimeric gas; heating the dimeric gas to form a monomeric gas; and polymerizing, using the monomeric gas, an exposed surface of the at least one of a backplate or a diaphragm.
Amatucci teaches that parylene can be deposited via the well known steps of vaporizing dimer into a dimeric gas; heating the dimeric gas to form a monomeric gas; and polymerizing, using the monomeric gas, an exposed surface of the at least one of a backplate or a diaphragm per para 80. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to implement the well known manufacturing steps taught by Amatucci for the purpose of implementing the vapor deposited parylene as disclosed by Hsieh.
Claim(s) 8,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20050254673 A1) as applied to claims 1,9 above.
As per claim 8,17 Hsieh discloses the assembly of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the coating of the vapor-deposited parylene electret material comprises parylene-AF4.
The examiner takes official notice it is well known in the art that paraylene AF4 is a well known form of Parylene used to coat. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement a well known form of parylene for the purpose of compatibility with known standards and formats in order to implement the parylene coating as disclosed by Hsieh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per applicant’s argument that the prior art does not disclose parylene used as the electret, the examiner notes Para 5: The dielectric film is formed from Mylar, FEP, a PTFE fluoropolymer, Teflon.RTM. AF, a silicone, or Parylene.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
September 24, 2026
