DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
The Amendment filed July 21, 2026 has been entered. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1-2, and 4-11 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160088402 (hereinafter, “Hu”) in view of Khenkin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180362332 (hereinafter, “Khenkin”), and further in view of Jung U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190342670.
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a MEMS microphone (Referring to FIGS. 1 to 3, as provided in one embodiment of the present invention, a capacitive micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS), par [0038], see Figs. 1 to 3 and respective portions of the specification, see Hu), comprising:
a substrate (1, Figs. 1, 2, see Hu), defining a cavity (13, Figs. 1, 2; a chamber 13 is defined between the substrate 1 and the first dielectric supporting layer 2, which is recessed from the bottom surface 12 of the substrate 1 and extends towards the top surface 11 of the substrate 1, Figs. 1, 2, see par [0039], see Hu);
at least one anchoring member (anchors 31, Figs. 1, 2, see Hu), disposed on the substrate (substrate 1, Figs. 1, 2; the anchors 31 are distributed around the movable diaphragm 34, and are fastened to the substrate 1 through the first dielectric supporting layer 2, Figs. 1, 2, see par [0042], see Hu); and
a diaphragm (34, Figs. 1, 2, see Hu) having at least one beam structure (flexible beams 33, Figs. 1, 2, 3, see Hu), wherein each of the at least one beam structure (flexible beam 33) is fixed on a respective anchoring member of the at least one anchoring member (anchor 31; see relative position of beam structures 33 and anchors 31 in Fig. 3; the flexible beams 33 and the anchors 31 are evenly disposed around the periphery of the movable diaphragm 34, see Fig. 3. par [0041], see Hu), and the diaphragm (34) covers the cavity (13) and is spaced apart from the substrate (1, see relative position of diaphragm 34 and substrate 1 in Figs. 1, 2, see Hu).
However, Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is provided with at least one chamfer at an inner edge of a side of the substrate close to the diaphragm.
Khenkin teaches transducer packaging (see Title) including a MEMS microphone (FIGS. 1a and 1b provide a schematic diagram and a perspective view, respectively, of a known capacitive MEMS microphone device 10, par [0004], see Khenkin). The membrane 205 (i.e., diaphragm) of the MEMS transducer is provided in a plane overlying the first surface 212 of the package substrate 201, and is positioned within the package so as to overlie, i.e. cover, the acoustic port 208 (Fig. 3, par [0077], see Khenkin). This cavity or acoustic port may, for example, be formed by drilling a hole in the package substrate between the upper and lower surfaces of the package substrate, preferably using a chamfered drill bit (see position of port 208 at substrate 201 and membrane 205, Fig. 3, par [0122], see Khenkin). In other words, chamfer is at an inner edge of a side of the substrate close to the diaphragm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transducer packaging taught by Khenkin with the MEMS microphone of Hu such that to obtain wherein the substrate is provided with at least one chamfer at an inner edge of a side of the substrate close to the diaphragm in order to improve the response of the flexible membrane, as suggested by Khenkin in paragraph [0113].
However, Hu in view of Khenkin does not explicitly disclose the substrate is provided with a plurality of step portions in a direction from the diaphragm toward the substrate; heights of the plurality of step portions gradually increase in the direction from the diaphragm toward the substrate.
Jung teaches MEMS microphone, method of manufacturing the same and MEMS microphone package including the same (see Title) in which referring to FIGS. 4 and 7, a cavity extending portion 216 may have a second sidewall 118 stepped away from the center of the cavity 112 to have a plurality of step portions along the first sidewall 115. As the cavity extending portion 216 has the stepped second side wall 218, the path of the acoustic pressure flowing through the cavity extending portion 216 may be adjusted. That is, a number of step portions or a height thereof can be controlled by modifying the extending portion 216, so that characteristics of the MEMS microphone 102 may be controlled (Figs. 4, 7, par [0092], see Jung). In an example embodiment of the present invention, the cavity 112 and the cavity extending portion 116 may be formed in situ. The cavity 112 and the cavity extending portion 116 may be simultaneously formed. For example, the cavity 112 and the cavity extending portion 116 having a plurality of step portions (see FIG. 3) may be formed through a plurality of etching processes. Further, a cavity extending portion 116 (see FIG. 2) having an inclined second sidewall 117 may be formed with the cavity 112 by adjusting a process recipe for the etching process (Fig. 3, par [0109], see Jung). As shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 7, the groove area becomes larger toward bottom; and the more of the plurality of step portions, the heights of the plurality of step portions gradually increase in the vertical direction C (In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the cavity 112 defines a center line C. The center line C extends perpendicular to the diaphragm 120, see par [0063], see Jung) from the diaphragm toward the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the MEMS microphone, method of manufacturing the same and MEMS microphone package including the same taught by Jung with the MEMS microphone of Hu in view of Khenkin such that to obtain the substrate is provided with a plurality of step portions in a direction from the diaphragm toward the substrate; heights of the plurality of step portions gradually increase in the direction from the diaphragm toward the substrate for having a decreased compliance and an improved SNR, as suggested by Jung in paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 1. Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung, as modified, teaches wherein at least an inner edge of a step portion of the plurality of step portions closest to the diaphragm is provided with a chamfer (via chamfered drill bit, par [0122], see Khenkin). The cross sectional area A1 of the first opening 210 in the upper surface 212 of the package substrate 201 is greater than the cross sectional area A2 of the second opening 214 in the lower surface 216 of the package substrate 201. Furthermore, the diametric distance (e.g. diameter) between opposing portions of the first acoustic port volume is greater than the diametric distance between opposing portions of the second port volume, see Fig. 3, par [0080], see Khenkin).
Regarding claim 4, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 2. Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung, as modified, teaches wherein each step portion of the plurality of step portions is provided with a chamfer at an inner edge of the step portion (by using a chamfered drill bit (see position of port 208 at substrate 201 and membrane 205, Fig. 3, par [0122], see Khenkin); The third substrate layer 322 comprises a third cavity 328. The cavity provided in the third substrate layer 322 has a cross sectional area A3 which is smaller than the respective cross sectional areas A1 or A2 of either first or second cavity provided in the first or second layers. Thus, the largest cavity is provided at the top surface of the substrate 201, and the smallest cavity is provided at the bottom surface of the substrate 201. In this manner, any number of substrate layers, i.e. laminates, provided with cavities may form the package substrate 201, see Fig. 4b, par [0085], see Khenkin).
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 2. Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung, as modified, teaches wherein widths of the plurality of step portions gradually increase in a direction from an edge of the diaphragm to a central position of the diaphragm (see step portions from layer 212 to layer 322 , Fig. 4b; FIG. 4b illustrates a further example in which the package substrate 201 comprises three layers. Thus, in addition to the first and second layers 318, 320 illustrated in FIG. 4a a further, third, substrate layer 322 also forms part of the package substrate 201. In this example, the layers are arranged such that first substrate layer 318 is provided on top of the second substrate layer 320, and the second substrate layer 320 is provided on top of the third substrate layer 322. The second substrate layer 320 is therefore provided between the first and third substrate layers 318 and 322. Therefore, in this example, the upper surface of the first substrate layer 318 forms the upper surface 212 of the package substrate 201, and the lower surface of the third substrate layer 322 forms the lower surface 216 of the package substrate 201, (see Fig. 4b, par [0084], see Khenkin).
Regarding claim 11, this claim merely reflects the method to the apparatus claim of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
6. Claims 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160088402 (hereinafter, “Hu”) in view of et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180362332 (hereinafter, “Khenkin”) in view of Jung U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190342670, and further in view of Shin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150076631 (hereinafter, “Shin”).
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 2. However, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose wherein a respective chamfer of the at least one chamfer is a rounded chamfer.
Shin teaches reduction of chipping damage to mems structure (see Title) in which FIGS. 2a and 2b sets forth an example of a MEMS structure 200 in accordance with an embodiment. By removing sharp corners from the structural layer by creating an initially chamfered profile 220 on the MEMS structure 200 and a rounded profile 230 (corresponds to a rounded chamfer) on the MEMS structure 200 chipping is significantly reduced (par [0026], see Shin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reduction of chipping damage to mems structure taught by Shin with the MEMS microphone of Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung such that to obtain wherein a respective chamfer of the at least one chamfer is a rounded chamfer in order to reduce the likelihood of chipping and electrical shorting, as suggested by Shin in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 1. However, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose wherein a respective chamfer of the at least one chamfer is an oblique chamfer.
Shin teaches reduction of chipping damage to mems structure (see Title) in which FIGS. 2a and 2b sets forth an example of a MEMS structure 200 in accordance with an embodiment. By removing sharp corners from the structural layer by creating an initially chamfered profile 220 (corresponds to an oblique chamfer) on the MEMS structure 200 and a rounded profile 230 on the MEMS structure 200 chipping is significantly reduced (see Fig. 2b, par [0026], see Shin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reduction of chipping damage to mems structure taught by Shin with the MEMS microphone of Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung such that to obtain wherein a respective chamfer of the at least one chamfer is an oblique chamfer in order to reduce the likelihood of chipping and electrical shorting, as suggested by Shin in paragraph [0005].
7. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160088402 (hereinafter, “Hu”) in view of et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180362332 (hereinafter, “Khenkin”) in view of Jung U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190342670, in view of Shin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150076631 (hereinafter, “Shin”), and further in view of Jahnes et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160083245 (hereinafter, “Jahnes”).
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 5. However, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the rounded chamfer has a radian of R, wherein 0<R≤π/2.
Jahnes teaches planar cavity MEMS and related structures, methods of manufacture and design structures (see Title) in which a chamfered lower cavity A and upper B cavity corner 405 is shown in FIG. 21F (also see, e.g., FIG. 21B). Chamfering the cavity corner can reduce the stress after silicon venting, resulting in reduced chance of dielectric film cracking due to temperature cycling or other stresses. A 45 degree chamfer 405 is shown; although any chamfer angle is envisioned, including a rounded corner (also represented by reference numeral 405). As mentioned previously, chamfering as opposed to rounding corners reduces the computational complexity associated with verifying that the layout does not violate the minimum line and space rules (see Fig. 21F, par [0086], see Jahnes). It is noted that a 45 degree chamfer corresponds to π/4 radian of rounded chamfer (i.e., 0< π/4 ≤π/2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the planar cavity MEMS and related structures, methods of manufacture and design structures taught by Jahnes with the MEMS microphone of Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin such that to obtain wherein the rounded chamfer has a radian of R, wherein 0<R≤π/2 in order to reduce chance of dielectric film cracking due to temperature cycling or other stresses, as suggested by Jahnes in paragraph 0086].
Regarding claim 7, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 5. However, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the rounded chamfer has a radian of R, wherein π/6≤R≤π/2.
Jahnes teaches planar cavity MEMS and related structures, methods of manufacture and design structures (see Title) in which a chamfered lower cavity A and upper B cavity corner 405 is shown in FIG. 21F (also see, e.g., FIG. 21B). Chamfering the cavity corner can reduce the stress after silicon venting, resulting in reduced chance of dielectric film cracking due to temperature cycling or other stresses. A 45 degree chamfer 405 is shown; although any chamfer angle is envisioned, including a rounded corner (also represented by reference numeral 405). As mentioned previously, chamfering as opposed to rounding corners reduces the computational complexity associated with verifying that the layout does not violate the minimum line and space rules (see Fig. 21F, par [0086], see Jahnes). It is noted that a 45 degree chamfer corresponds to π/4 radian of rounded chamfer (i.e., π/6< π/4 ≤π/2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the planar cavity MEMS and related structures, methods of manufacture and design structures taught by Jahnes with the MEMS microphone of Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin such that to obtain wherein the rounded chamfer has a radian of R, wherein π/6≤R≤π/2 in order to reduce chance of dielectric film cracking due to temperature cycling or other stresses, as suggested by Jahnes in paragraph 0086].
Regarding claim 8, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin teaches the MEMS microphone of claim 5. However, Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the rounded chamfer has a radian of R, wherein π/4≤R≤π/2.
Jahnes teaches planar cavity MEMS and related structures, methods of manufacture and design structures (see Title) in which a chamfered lower cavity A and upper B cavity corner 405 is shown in FIG. 21F (also see, e.g., FIG. 21B). Chamfering the cavity corner can reduce the stress after silicon venting, resulting in reduced chance of dielectric film cracking due to temperature cycling or other stresses. A 45 degree chamfer 405 is shown; although any chamfer angle is envisioned, including a rounded corner (also represented by reference numeral 405). As mentioned previously, chamfering as opposed to rounding corners reduces the computational complexity associated with verifying that the layout does not violate the minimum line and space rules (see Fig. 21F, par [0086], see Jahnes). It is noted that a 45 degree chamfer corresponds to π/4 radian of rounded chamfer (i.e., π/4≤ π/4 ≤π/2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the planar cavity MEMS and related structures, methods of manufacture and design structures taught by Jahnes with the MEMS microphone of Hu in view of Khenkin in view of Jung in view of Shin such that to obtain wherein the rounded chamfer has a radian of R, wherein π/4≤R≤π/2 in order to reduce chance of dielectric film cracking due to temperature cycling or other stresses, as suggested by Jahnes in paragraph 0086].
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CON P TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7532. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (08:30 AM- 05:00 PM) ET.
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, VIVIAN C. CHIN can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/C.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
