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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 5/29/26 is acknowledged. Newly submitted claims 22-23 are considered included in the elected invention.
Claims 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: element 220 discussed in paragraph [0030] of the written disclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 sets forth “partial trenches” however as disclosed in the written specification there is no “partial trenches”, only trenches (complete trenches). Therefor the language used in claim 14 is not consistent with that as provided by the written disclosure. Also claim 19 sets forth a second cavity however no distinction can be made between this second cavity and the second cavity set forth in claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The written disclosure does not provide any specifics of trenches used “to control pressure in the cavity or differential stress on the diaphragm” as set forth by claim 14. Similarly, the written disclosure does not provide any specifics areas used as a capacitor (claim 15) or features used to minimize parasitic capacitance (claim 16). The written disclosure does not provide any specifics of the use of Perminex or its purpose as set forth in claim 4. The written disclosure does not provide any specifics of dispersing the adhesive as a liquid as set forth in claim 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is not clear from the language “area of the bonded wafers without cavity” from claim 15 what is referred to since neither claim 15 or claim 1 in which claim 15 depends defines an area of bonded wafers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 5-7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (US 2011/0038495 A1).
Re claim 1: Jeong et al. teaches a method for forming a Micro-Electromechanical System (MEMS) audio device comprising:
receiving a first wafer (122) characterized by an upper portion and a lower portion (see orientation of this wafer in figure 1), wherein a first cavity (121) is formed within the upper portion of the first wafer;
disposing a second wafer (112) upon the first wafer, wherein the second wafer comprises a semiconductor material (Si wafer) paragraph [0032] by semiconductor technology (paragraph [0006]; note Si material is the most widely used semiconductor used for such technology) having a first side and a second side (see figure 1), wherein a diaphragm (114) is formed from a portion of the semiconductor material, wherein the diaphragm is disposed above the first cavity (see figure 1), and wherein the first side of the second wafer is directed towards the upper portion of the first wafer (see figure 1); and
disposing a third wafer (130) on top of the second wafer via a thickness of an adhesive material (a thickness of the bonding used between elements 130 and 110, paragraph [0035]), wherein the third wafer comprises a bottom side and an upper side (see figure 1), wherein the bottom side of the third wafer is directed towards the second side of the second wafer (see figure 1), wherein a second cavity (111) is formed therebetween, wherein the second cavity is disposed above the diaphragm (see figure 1);
wherein the diaphragm for the MEMS audio device is configured to move out of plane (vibrate) relative to the semiconductor material and within the first cavity and the second cavity (see discussion of this vibration in paragraphs [0031 and 0033].
Re claim 2: note the audio device taught in Jeong et al. is a speaker (see abstract)
Re claim 3: note that the boding of the wafers/plates are through a polymer bonding as taught in paragraph [0022]
Re claim 6: note each of the first and second wafers used are a SI wafer (see paragraph [0032 and 0036] and which together form a cavity (such as 111 and 121)
Re claim 7: note use of electrodes (in the form of wiring layers (115, 124, 127) used relative to the moving diaphragm (114) and in which the diaphragm is used to generate acoustic signals (sound, paragraph [0033]
Re claim 17: Jeong et al. teaches a Micro-Electromechanical System (MEMS) audio device (figure 1) comprising:
a first wafer (122) characterized by a first surface comprising a first cavity (121) and a second surface having at least a first vent hole (128) formed through the first wafer and coupled to the first cavity, wherein the first surface comprises a first plurality of electrical contacts (115, 124, 127);
a second wafer (112) disposed upon the first surface of the first wafer, wherein the second wafer is characterized by a flexible material layer (diaphragm 114), wherein a portion of the flexible material layer is disposed above the first cavity of the first wafer (see figure 1);
a third wafer (130) coupled to the second wafer using an insulating material (a thickness of the bonding used between elements 130 and 110, paragraph [0035]), wherein the third wafer includes a second cavity (111), and having at least a second vent hole (opening allowing for sound to exit) formed through the third wafer and coupled to the second cavity;
wherein the first portion of the flexible material forms a diaphragm for the MEMS audio device (see use of diaphragm 114, discussed in paragraphs [0031 and 0033])
Re claim 18: note the device is used as a speaker (see abstract).
Re claim 5: the boding between elements as taught in Jeong et al. satisfies at least a adhesive film for this boding as set forth in claim 5.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0375937 A1).
Re claim 9: The teaching of Jeong et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Also note in Jeong et al. that an etching process is used for the manufacture of the audio device. Jeong et al. however does not teach to use a hydrofluoric acid for this etching. Liu et al. teaches in a similar environment of MEMS manufacture process to include the use of a hydrofluoric acid (See paragraph [0022] as a way of removing material to expose the remaining desired elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such an acid material as taught by Liu et al. to be used in the etching process as taught in Jeoung et al. to predictably provide a way of removing unwanted material during an etching process. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. in view of Hirata et al. (US 2005/0073751 A1).
Re claim 10: The teaching of Jeong et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Jeong et al. disclosing openings/vents does not teach to use of a deep reactive ion etching process to form these openings/vents. Hirata et al. teaches in a similar environment of MEM manufacture technology to use deep reactive ion etching process to form these openings/vents. See paragraph [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such an method as taught by Hirata et al. to be used in the process of manufacture as taught in Jeoung et al. to predictably provide a possible way of removing unwanted material during an etching process to form these openings/vents. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. in view of Umeda (US 2016/0156332 A1).
Re claim 13: The teaching of Jeong et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Jeong et al. however does not teach that the Si wafers used are a Cavity Silicon on Insulator as set forth in claim 13. Umeda teaches in a similar environment of MEM vibration devices that Cavity Silicon on Insulator is used to provide cavities in a SI layer. See general discussion in paragraph [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the SI wafer layers in Jeong et al. with a Cavity Silicon on Insulator as taught in Umeda to predictably provide an alternative way in which cavities are being formed. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 19, 22-23 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: Other than 112 rejections than must be overcome, the method including in combination those features of claim 1 that uses a Perminex adhesive material as set forth in claim 4 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The method including in combination those features of claim 1 in which the third wafer with an electrical connection disposed on the upper side of this wafer is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The method including in combination those features of claim 1 in which the thickness of the adhesive material used is within a range of 1 to 40 microns as set forth in claim 11 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The method including in combination those features of claim 1 wherein a third cavity is formed within the upper portion of the first wafer; wherein another diaphragm is formed from another portion of the semiconductor material of the second wafer, wherein the other diaphragm is disposed above the third cavity; wherein a fourth cavity is formed between the first third wafer and the second wafer; wherein the other diaphragm for the MEMS audio device is configured to move out of plane relative to the semiconductor material and within the third cavity and the fourth cavity; wherein the diaphragm comprises a speaker diaphragm as set forth in claim 12 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 23 depend upon those features of claim 12/1. The method including in combination those features of claim 1, where partial trenches are created between the wafers forming a cavity to control pressure in the cavity or differential stress on the diaphragm as set forth in claim 14 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The method including in combination those features of claim 1, where area of the bonded wafers without cavity is used as a capacitor as set forth in claim 15 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The method including in combination those features of claim 1, where additional oxide or other dielectric is deposited in the regions other than cavities in order to minimize parasitic capacitance as set forth in claim 16 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The method including in combination those features of claim 1 wherein another diaphragm is formed from another portion of the semiconductor material; wherein the other diaphragm is a sensor diaphragm for a MEMS sensor; and wherein the MEMS sensor is selected from a group consisting of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a pressure sensor as set forth in claim 22 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The audio device including in combination those features of claim 17 wherein the first surface of the first wafer also comprises a second cavity; wherein another portion of the flexible material layer of the second wafer is disposed above the second cavity of the first wafer; where the other portion of the flexible material forms a portion of a device selected from a group consisting of: a microphone, an accelerometer, and a pressure sensor as set forth in claim 19 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 7/1/26
Prosecution Insights