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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena US PG-PUB 2017/0297905 A1 (hereafter Saxena), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 7 October 2024.
As to claim 11: Saxena teaches a micromechanical component for a sensor device and/or a microphone device and/or a micro-loudspeaker device (100; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13), comprising:
a capping structure (102 and 104; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13), an inner side of the capping structure (the interior surface of capping structure 102 and 104 covering the components as disclosed in ¶ 13) being oriented towards a sensitive surface of the micromechanical component and at least partially spanning the sensitive surface of the micromechanical component (see ¶ 14 regarding covering internal components such as one of the exemplary sensor components disclosed in ¶ 13), and having at least one air and/or medium access opening (108; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) which is structured through the capping structure and extends in each case from the inner side of the capping structure to an outer side of the capping structure directed away from the inner side of the capping structure (see ¶ 13).
The embodiment of Saxena depicted does not explicitly teach:
at least two rib-like reinforcing structures projecting on the inner side of the capping structure, the reinforcing structures being oriented parallel to one another with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures.
However, another embodiment of Saxena (see fig. 2) teaches at least two rib-like reinforcing structures (218; see fig. 2 and ¶ 14) projecting on the inner side of a capping structure (see ¶ 14 which notes the cover 212 of fig. 2 is identical to 112 of fig. 1 which comprises the capping structures 102 and 104 as disclosed in ¶ 13), the reinforcing structures (218) being oriented parallel to one another with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures (see fig. 2 and ¶ 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Saxena depicted largely by fig. 1 above with the embodiment depicted largely by fig. 2 which includes at least two rib-like reinforcing structures projecting on the inner side of the capping structure, the reinforcing structures being oriented parallel to one another with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures because such a design reduces the overall thickness of the cover protecting the internal sensing components of a MEMS device while also retaining rigidity and durability of the overall MEMS device package such as suggested in ¶ 14 of Saxena.
As to claim 12: Saxena teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including at least two rib-like reinforcing structures (218; fig. 2), its width oriented perpendicular to its respective maximum length can be defined (see ¶ 14) and a distance between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures (see fig. 2 and ¶ 14).
The embodiments of Saxena thus far described do not explicitly teach:
the distance between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures being greater by at least a factor of 5 than an arithmetic mean of the widths of the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures.
It has been held that a mere change in size or proportion is not in and of itself a patentable distinction over the prior art. See, for example, MPEP 2144.04, Sec. IV, Part A regarding Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant application, it appears that Saxena teaches the structural features of two adjacent reinforcing structures but does not explicitly teach the distance between two of said adjacent ones being greater by at least a factor of 5 than an arithmetic mean of the widths of at least two rib-like reinforcing structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saxena’s rib-like reinforcing structures such that the distance between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures is greater by at least a factor of 5 than an arithmetic mean of the widths of the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures because such a distance can be modified depending upon the desired shape and configuration of these features, such as suggested in ¶ 14 of Saxena. Accordingly, depending upon whether greater corrugations or weight saving is desired, one may alter the shapes and configurations of the rib-like reinforcing structures depending upon whether extra space minimizing properties are desired or whether more interior space under a cover component are desired.
As to claim 13: Saxena teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including wherein for each of the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures (218; fig. 2) its width aligned perpendicular to its respective maximum length can be defined (see ¶ 14) and a height of the reinforcing structures protrude on the inner side of a capping structure (see fig. 2 and ¶ 14).
The embodiments of Saxena thus far described do not explicitly teach:
the height by which the reinforcing structures protrude on the inner side of the capping structure is greater by at least a factor of 2 than an arithmetic means of the widths of the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures.
It has been held that a mere change in size or proportion is not in and of itself a patentable distinction over the prior art. See, for example, MPEP 2144.04, Sec. IV, Part A regarding Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant application, it appears that Saxena teaches the structural features of reinforcing structures with widths aligned perpendicular to their respective maximum length and a height by which the reinforcing structures protrude on the inner side of a capping structure (see fig. 2 and ¶ 14), but does not explicitly teach the height by which the reinforcing structures protrude on the inner side of the capping structure is greater by at least a factor of 2 than an arithmetic means of the widths of the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saxena’s rib-like reinforcing structures such that the height by which the reinforcing structures protrude on the inner side of the capping structure is greater by at least a factor of 2 than an arithmetic means of the widths of the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures because such a distance can be modified depending upon the desired shape and configuration of these features, such as suggested in ¶ 14 of Saxena. Accordingly, depending upon whether greater corrugations or weight saving is desired, one may alter the shapes and configurations of the rib-like reinforcing structures depending upon whether extra space minimizing properties are desired or whether more interior space under a cover component are desired.
As to claim 16: Saxena teaches a manufacturing method for a micromechanical component for a sensor device and/or a microphone device and/or a micro-loudspeaker device (100; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13), comprising:
arranging a capping structure (102 and 104; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) adjacent to a sensitive surface of the micromechanical component in such a way that an inner side of the capping structure (the interior surface of capping structure 102 and 104 covering the components as disclosed in ¶ 13), which is aligned with the sensitive surface of the micromechanical component, at least partially spans the sensitive surface of the micromechanical component (see ¶ 14 regarding covering internal components such as one of the exemplary sensor components disclosed in ¶ 13),
structuring at least one air and/or medium access opening (108; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) extends in each case from the inner side of the capping structure to an outer side of the capping structure directed away from the inner side of the capping structure (see ¶ 13).
The embodiment of Saxena depicted does not explicitly teach:
forming at least two rib-like reinforcing structures, which protrude on the inner side of the capping structure and are aligned parallel to each other with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures.
However, another embodiment of Saxena (see fig. 2) teaches forming at least two rib-like reinforcing structures (218; see fig. 2 and ¶ 14), which protrude on the inner side of a capping structure (see ¶ 14 which notes the cover 212 of fig. 2 is identical to 112 of fig. 1 which comprises the capping structures 102 and 104 as disclosed in ¶ 13), and are parallel to each other with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures (see fig. 2 and ¶ 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Saxena depicted largely by fig. 1 above with the embodiment depicted largely by fig. 2 which includes forming at least two rib-like reinforcing structures which protrude on the inner side of the capping structure and are aligned parallel to each other with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the reinforcing structures because such a design reduces the overall thickness of the cover protecting the internal sensing components of a MEMS device while also retaining rigidity and durability of the overall MEMS device package such as suggested in ¶ 14 of Saxena.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena US PG-PUB 2017/0297905 A1 (hereafter Saxena), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 7 October 2024 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chiou US PG-PUB 2018/0313709 A1 (hereafter Chiou).
As to claim 14: Saxena teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including a sensitive surface of a micromechanical component (see ¶ 13 regarding the various sensors disclosed, the surfaces of which are considered to be sensitive surfaces), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sensitive surface of the micromechanical component is a membrane surface of a warpable membrane.
However, Chiou teaches that a sensitive surface of a micromechanical component may be a membrane surface of a warpable membrane (see ¶ 60 regarding the diaphragm 1008).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saxena’s sensitive surface to be a membrane surface of a warpable membrane because such a design is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of measuring pressure with a deflecting membrane in MEMS devices, as suggested in ¶ 60 of Chiou. Accordingly, such a modification would allow Saxena’s device to carry out differential pressure measurements as suggested in ¶ 60 of Chiou and Saxena’s device may be embodied by a pressure sensor as noted in Saxena ¶ 13 and therefore such a modification would achieve this result and allow such measurements to be carried out.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena US PG-PUB 2017/0297905 A1 (hereafter Saxena), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 7 October 2024 and Chiou US PG-PUB 2018/0313709 A1 (hereafter Chiou) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0270687 A1 (hereafter Chiu).
As to claim 15: Saxena as modified by Chiou teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 14, including a warpable membrane (see Chiou ¶ 60 regarding the diaphragm 1008), a capping structure (102, 104 of Saxena) and at least two rib-like reinforcing structures (218 of Saxena) that can be formed from a semiconductor layer (see ¶ 17), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the warpable membrane is formed from a first semiconductor layer.
However, Chiu teaches that warpable membranes may be formed from a first semiconductor layer (see ¶ 20 regarding membrane 220).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Saxena and Chiou’s membrane such that it is formed from a semiconductor layer because such a construction provides the benefits of semiconductor fabrication techniques such as lithographic and etching techniques while also allowing for the useful and predictable result of producing measurable electrical responses due to external pressure when formed of such materials which thus improves the signal to noise ratio of such pressure measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 17: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a manufacturing method wherein the substeps of arranging a capping structure adjacent to a sensitive area of a micromechanical component and for simultaneously forming at least two rib-like reinforcing structures includes structuring at least two trenches aligned parallel to each other into the at least one sacrificial layer with a distance not equal to zero between two adjacent ones of the trenches and wherein the at least two rib-like reinforcing structures are formed by filling the trenches with a material of a semiconductor layer despoted on at least one sacrificial layer, when considered in combination with the other limitations as recited in the instant claim and when considered with the limitations of parent claim 16.
In particular, while it is known from the prior art to utilize sacrificial layers with regard to forming MEMS devices with cap components (see for example Chang et al. US PG-PUB 2013/0119489 A1 ¶ 38), there does not appear to be an obvious modification of Saxena or the other available prior art that would render obvious the above indicated features of Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth by the limitations of claim 17 when considered with the limitations of parent claim 16 and accordingly the instant claim 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.
As to claims 18-20: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 17 and accordingly each is also indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon a claim that is itself 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 JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights