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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-23 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Procopio (US 20190259932 A1) in view of Neumaier (US 11910154 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Procopio teaches a sensor package comprising[Title, Abstract, 0005, Fig 1 has PMUT]:
a back cavity having an acoustic resonance mode at a first frequency[Fig 4, 0038 as substrate #36 and cavity #40, See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity];…..
and a microelectromechanical system ("MEMS") die exposed to the back cavity and the port[0038 has cavity #40 and die #35 in Fig 4], the MEMS die comprising a membrane of the ultrasonic sensor having an operating frequency range that includes the first frequency[Membrane #8 and See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity], wherein based on a location of the MEMS die within the back cavity an applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the acoustic resonance mode is balanced over the membrane. [Fig 8, 0053-0058 has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die #35; See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity].
Procopio does not explicitly teach and a port exposed to an external environment.
Neumaier teaches that and a port exposed to an external environment[Fig 1, 2A, 2B sound port #14 in a manner identical with applicant's claim];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the port in Neumaier in order to have a sound port to allow path from MEMS membrane to environment.
Regarding claim 22, Procopio teaches [Fig 1 has PMUT; See also Title and Abstract] a sensor package comprising:
a back cavity having an acoustic resonance mode at a first frequency [Fig 4, 0038 has substrate #36 and cavity #40, See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity];…..
and a PMUT membrane located within the sensor package and having an operating frequency range that includes the first frequency[Membrane #8 and See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity], wherein based on a location of the membrane within the sensor package an applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the acoustic resonance mode is balanced over the membrane. [Fig 8, 0053-0058 has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die #35; See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity].
Procopio does not explicitly teach and a port exposed to an external environment.
Neumaier teaches that and a port exposed to an external environment[Fig 1, 2A, 2B sound port #14 in a manner identical with applicant's claim];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the port in Neumaier in order to have a sound port to allow path from MEMS membrane to environment.
Regarding claim 23, Procopio teaches a PMUT sensor comprising[Fi 1 has PMUT; See also Title and Abstract]
a lid[Fig 4, 0038 has protective cap #38];
a base substrate, wherein the lid and substrate define a back volume[Fig 4, 0038 has substrate #36 and cavity #40];
processing circuitry …..[Fig 10, 0065-0067 has circuit #102];
and a membrane of the PMUT sensor located within the back volume[Membrane #8], wherein based on a location of the membrane within the back volume an applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to an acoustic resonance mode of the back volume is balanced over the membrane. [Fig 8, 0053-0058 has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die #35; See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity]
Procopio does not explicitly teach located within the back volume.
Neumaier teaches that located within the back volume[Fig 1, 2A, 2B has ASIC inside the back volume in a manner identical with applicant's claim].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the asic in Neumaier in order to locate the asic close to the MEMS device. Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the ASIC in the back volume, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein, when the membrane receives an electrical transmission signal to convert into a transmitted acoustic signal within the operating frequency range, the balance of the applied acoustic pressure of the acoustic resonance mode prevents energy of the electrical transmission signal from being used to excite the acoustic resonance mode of the back cavity. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane].
Regarding claim 3, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein, when the membrane receives an acoustic signal to convert into an electrical signal within the operating frequency range, the balance of the applied acoustic pressure of the acoustic resonance mode prevents energy of the received acoustic signal from being used to excite the acoustic resonance mode of the back cavity. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane].
Regarding claim 4, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the acoustic resonance mode comprises a first acoustic resonance mode having a first applied acoustic pressure, further comprising a second acoustic resonance mode at a second frequency within the operating frequency range of the membrane, wherein based on the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package a second applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the second acoustic resonance mode is balanced over the membrane. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane; See also Claims 6, 18, 24 with regards to having MUT in areas of maximum or minimum pressure]
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have to have pressure controlled and balanced across membrane for various acoustic resonance modes meaning the modes in the sensor range.
Regarding claim 5, Procopio, as modified, teaches further comprising a third acoustic resonance mode at a third frequency within the operating frequency range of the membrane, wherein based on the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package a third applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the third acoustic resonance mode is balanced over the membrane. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane; See also Claims 6, 18, 24 with regards to having MUT in areas of maximum or minimum pressure]
Regarding claim 6, Procopio, as modified, teaches further comprising a fourth acoustic resonance mode at a fourth frequency within the operating frequency range of the membrane, wherein based on the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package a fourth applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the fourth acoustic resonance mode is balanced over the membrane. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane; See also Claims 6, 18, 24 with regards to having MUT in areas of maximum or minimum pressure]
Regarding claim 7, Procopio, as modified, teaches further comprising a fourth acoustic resonance mode at a fourth frequency outside of the operating frequency range of the membrane, wherein based on the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package a fourth applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the fourth acoustic resonance mode is not balanced over the membrane. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane; See also Claims 6, 18, 24 with regards to having MUT in areas of maximum or minimum pressure]
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have to have pressure differences meaning unbalanced across membrane for various acoustic resonance modes meaning the modes in the sensor range.
Regarding claim 8, Procopio, as modified, teaches further comprising a second acoustic resonance mode at a second frequency outside of the operating frequency range of the membrane, wherein based on the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package a second applied acoustic pressure on the membrane corresponding to the second acoustic resonance mode is not balanced over the membrane. [0045-0046, 0053-0058, 0065 teaches acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity and has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die and controlled deflection of membrane; See also Claims 6, 18, 24 with regards to having MUT in areas of maximum or minimum pressure]
Regarding claim 9, Procopio, as modified, teaches further comprising processing circuitry located within the sensor package, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide an electrical transmission signal within the operating frequency range to the membrane to cause the membrane to transmit an acoustic signal within the operating frequency range via the port. [0065, Fig 10 has circuitry #102]
Regarding claim 10, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive an electrical reflection signal based on a reflection of the transmitted acoustic signal received by the membrane via the port. [0066, Fig 10 has circuitry #102 receiving signals]
Regarding claim 11, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package is based at least in part on a location and size of the processing circuitry [Fig 8, 0053-0058 has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die #35; See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity].
Procopio does not explicitly teach within the sensor package.
Neumaier teaches that within the sensor package[Fig 1, 2A, 2B has ASIC inside the back volume in a manner identical with applicant's claim]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the asic in Neumaier in order to locate the asic close to the MEMS device. Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the ASIC in the back volume, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the package comprises a base substrate and a lid[Fig 4, 0038 has protective cap #38],
Procopio does not explicitly teach wherein the port is located in the base substrate, wherein a first portion of the MEMS die surrounds the port such that the membrane faces the port, and wherein the back cavity encloses a volume of air defined by the lid, an internal surface of the base substrate, and a second portion of the MEMS die opposite the first portion.
Neumaier teaches that wherein the port is located in the base substrate, wherein a first portion of the MEMS die surrounds the port such that the membrane faces the port, and wherein the back cavity encloses a volume of air defined by the lid, an internal surface of the base substrate, and a second portion of the MEMS die opposite the first portion[Fig 1, 2A, 2B sound port #14 in a manner identical with applicant's claim]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the port in Neumaier in order to have a sound port to allow path from MEMS membrane to environment.
Regarding claim 13, Procopio does not explicitly teach wherein the volume of air is further defined by a processing circuitry located within the back cavity.
Neumaier teaches that wherein the volume of air is further defined by a processing circuitry ocated within the back cavity. [Fig 1, 2A, 2B has ASIC inside the back volume in a manner identical with applicant's claim]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the asic in Neumaier in order to locate the asic close to the MEMS device. Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the ASIC in the back volume, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 14, Procopio, does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor package comprises at least three stacked layers, wherein the port is located in a first layer of the stacked layers, wherein a first portion of the MEMS die surrounds the port such that the membrane faces the port, wherein a second layer is located parallel to the first layer, and wherein a third layer couples the first layer to the second layer to define the back cavity. [Fig 1, 2A, 2B sound port #14 with layers in a manner identical with applicant's claim]
Neumaier teaches that wherein the sensor package comprises at least three stacked layers, wherein the port is located in a first layer of the stacked layers, wherein a first portion of the MEMS die surrounds the port such that the membrane faces the port, wherein a second layer is located parallel to the first layer, and wherein a third layer couples the first layer to the second layer to define the back cavity. [Fig 1, 2A, 2B sound port #14 with layers in a manner identical with applicant's claim]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the port in Neumaier in order to have a sound port to allow path from MEMS membrane to environment.
Regarding claim 15, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the back cavity has one of a rectangular shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, a polygon shape, or an irregular shape. [0029, 0040 and claim 3 has circular, square, polygonal shape meaning it reads on the claim].
Regarding claim 16, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the membrane has one of a rectangular shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, a polygon shape, or an irregular shape. [0029, 0040 and claim 3 has circular, square, polygonal shape meaning it reads on the claim].
Regarding claim 17, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the applied acoustic pressure comprises a first pressure region applying a first net pressure to a first portion of the membrane on a first lateral side of the membrane and a second pressure region applying a second net pressure that is equal and opposite to the first pressure to a second portion of the membrane on a second lateral side that is opposite the first side. [Fig 8 shows pressure distribution and has pressure regions]
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have various pressure distributions, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein a lateral symmetry line of the membrane separates the first side from the second side, and wherein the second portion of the membrane is located on a second side of the symmetry line opposite the first portion of the membrane on a first side of the symmetry line. [Fig 8 shows pressure distribution and has pressure regions]
Regarding claim 19, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the lateral center location of the membrane corresponds to a symmetry line of the back cavity. [Fig 8 shows pressure distribution and has pressure regions which has a symmetry].
Regarding claim 21, Procopio does not explicitly teach wherein a volume of the back cavity is filled with air approximately at an atmospheric pressure.
Neumaier teaches that wherein a volume of the back cavity is filled with air approximately at an atmospheric pressure. [Fig 1, 2A, 2B sound port #14 and cavity is filled with air and open to the atmosphere meaning it has air at atmospheric pressure]
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Procopio (US 20190259932 A1) in view of Neumaier (US 11910154 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 20240327203 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Procopio, as modified, teaches wherein the location of the MEMS die within the sensor package is based at least [Fig 8, 0053-0058 has various resonance modes and frequencies based on location of die #35; See also 0044-0046 for acoustic resonance and frequency and its relation to the cavity]
Procopio does not explicitly teach in part on a location and size of a filler material within sensor package.
Shaw teaches that in part on a location and size of a filler material within sensor package[0146-0147 has insulating filler].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Procopio with the insulating filler of Shaw in order to provide insulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly with regards to pressure on the membrane while not explaining how it is different from applicant’s claim. PMUT’s work by having applied pressure on a membrane and having acoustic resonance from the same. Applicant is focusing on the maximization and minimization of pressure and stating that it is not the same as being ‘balanced’. Does being balanced mean there is no change in pressure across the membrane or between the membrane and the other side? Is there some mechanism that does the balancing? Or does the air pressure balance itself as across a membrane as that is how physics works. Here it appears the prior art and the claims show the same mechanism and applicant is claiming a result without explaining how it came to be or what ‘balanced’ even means. Applicants own drawings have pressure profiles across the membrane which is the same as the prior art meaning by applicant’s own arguments his membrane is not balanced. Said another way applicant is claiming a result of having a pressure profile across a membrane without clearly identifying and defining the claim limitations.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights