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 .
Claims Filed: 12-09-2024
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 recites “a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm”, which is vague and requires clarification due to Applicant’s lack of description identifying where specified regions of the diaphragm is located. Based on Applicant’s Specification, see para 31-32. This is similarly required for Claims 12 and 18.
Claim 6 recites “slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the diaphragm facing the back plate than a gap at a side …. back plate”, which is vague and requires clarification, based on Applicant’s specification, see para 41. This is similarly required for Claims 13 and 19.
Claim 8 recites “the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate at the same time the substrate limits deflection of the diaphragm away from the back plate”, is vague and requires clarification due the inherency of how a diaphragm moves. In para 39 of Applicant’s specification, the spring/slots is cited as the main driver of motion but interpretation is vague about the diaphragm being in two places at the same time.
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 1-4, 9-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Publication) 20160192082 A1 in view of Loeppert (US Publication) 20200245077 A1 in further view of Loeppert, PV (US Publication) 20210337317 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) transducer (Fig 1 [1], acoustic sensor, para 32. The sensor is formed using a MEMS technique, see para 5) comprising: a substrate (Fig 3E [3], silicon substrate, para 39);
a back plate mounted to the substrate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, which is connected through 2nd and 3rd sacrifice layers [15U & 15B], para 39) and partially covering an aperture through the substrate (Fig 3E [2], back chamber, see para 39);
a diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39) between the back plate and the substrate (As shown in Fig 3E, the diaphragm [5] is between the substrate [3] and backplate [6]), the diaphragm comprising a central portion covering the aperture and an outer peripheral portion coupled to the substrate (In Fig 3E, the diaphragm [5] sits over the aperture [or back chamber (2)], where the outer portions of the diaphragm are coupled to the substrate via the 2nd & 3rd sacrifice layers [15], see para 39-40. Note: in Fig 2 shows a complete rendering of the diaphragm [5] and the aperture [2] within the substrate [3]. In Fig 3E, sacrifice layer is the supporting body connected to the substrate); and
Uchida does not explicitly teach a plurality of springs connecting the central portion of the diaphragm to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, each spring located outwardly of the aperture;
Loeppert discloses a plurality of springs (Fig 5 [250], spring members, there are three springs present, para 35) connecting the central portion of the diaphragm to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, each spring located outwardly of the aperture (In Fig 6A, the springs are located outward of the sound channel and center the diaphragm, see para 38);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a plurality of springs connecting the central portion of the diaphragm to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, each spring located outwardly of the aperture as taught by Loeppert in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to a minimize the accumulation of liquids through capillary condensation and any particles swept up by the liquids and serve to further minimize stiction. In para 38, in Loeppert.
Uchida as modified above does not explicitly teach a plurality of deflection limiters protruding from the back plate, wherein the plurality of deflection limiters is located and configured to at least momentarily contact the diaphragm proximate the plurality of springs during operation of the MEMS transducer.
Loeppert, PV discloses a plurality of deflection limiters protruding (Fig 6 [442], posts, para 27) from the back plate, wherein the plurality of deflection limiters is located and configured to at least momentarily contact the diaphragm proximate the plurality of springs during operation of the MEMS transducer (In para 27, the posts extend downwardly from the backplate, perpendicularly towards the diaphragm and make contact with the upper side [424] of the diaphragm [406]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a plurality of deflection limiters protruding from the back plate, wherein the plurality of deflection limiters is located and configured to at least momentarily contact the diaphragm proximate the plurality of springs during operation of the MEMS transducer as taught by Mogilevsky in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 2, Uchida teaches when the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39) is biased toward the back plate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, para 39) and the MEMS transducer (Fig 1 [1], acoustic sensor, para 38) is not subject to excessive acoustic energy, when the MEMS transducer is subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teach the plurality of deflection limiters spaced apart from the diaphragm wherein deflection of the diaphragm toward the plate is limited by the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS transducer is subject to excessive acoustic energy.
Loeppert, PV discloses the plurality of deflection limiters spaced apart (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27. They are positioned on the outer perimeter of the backplate [404] to form a boundary, see para 28, as shown in Fig 6) from the diaphragm wherein deflection of the diaphragm toward the plate is limited by the plurality of deflection limiters (The posts [deflection limiters] and central pillar [444] form a boundary that results into an “M” shaped deflection, or double curve, of the diaphragm, see para 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters spaced apart from the diaphragm wherein deflection of the diaphragm toward the plate is limited by the plurality of deflection limiters as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 3, Uchida teaches the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39) are arranged on the back plate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, para 39)
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein deflection limiters that contact in a generally circular pattern on at least one radius from a center of the back plate.
Loeppert, PV discloses wherein deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27) that contact in a generally circular pattern on at least one radius from a center of the back plate (In Fig 6, the back plate is in a circular shape with the posts positioned at the edge of the boundary and before the aperture [414]. Additionally, the pillar [444] is positioned center of the diaphragm [406] and the posts together form a boundary condition at both the center position and outer parameter of the diaphragm, see para 28). (Note: Additional and/or fewer posts may be added to the embodiment [see para 27]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize more posts can be added to the backplate to influence the amount of deflection between the diaphragm and backplate.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of deflection limiters that contact in a generally circular pattern on at least one radius from a center of the back plate as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 4, Uchida teaches further comprising overpressure stops (Fig 3E [17], protruding stoppers, see para 39) protruding from the back plate and located inwardly of wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate (Fig 5A & 5B [17], backplate, para 42) is limited by the overpressure stops(The stoppers prevent the vibration electrode film [5, or diaphragm] from making contact with the fixed electrode film [8], see para 39) when the MEMS transducer (Fig 1 [1], acoustic sensor, para 38) is subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teach the plurality of deflection limiters, wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm
Loeppert, PV discloses the plurality of deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27), wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm (The posts [deflection limiters] and central pillar [444] form a boundary that results into an “M” shaped deflection, or double curve, of the diaphragm, see para 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters, wherein the plurality of deflection limiters contact the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate, and deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm toward the plate as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 9, Uchida teaches a substrate (Fig 3E [3], silicon substrate, para 39); a perforated back plate mounted to the substrate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, which is connected through 2nd and 3rd sacrifice layers [15U & 15B], para 39) and covering an aperture through the substrate (Fig 3E [2], back chamber, see para 39);
a diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39) between the back plate and the substrate (As shown in Fig 3E, the diaphragm [5] is between the substrate [3] and backplate [6]), the diaphragm comprising a central portion covering the aperture and an outer peripheral portion coupled to the substrate (In Fig 3E, the diaphragm [5] sits over the aperture [or back chamber (2)], where the outer portions of the diaphragm are coupled to the substrate via the 2nd & 3rd sacrifice layers [15], see para 39-40. Note: in Fig 2 shows a complete rendering of the diaphragm [5] and the aperture [2] within the substrate [3]. In Fig 3, sacrifice layer is the supporting body connected to the substrate),
a post protruding from the back plate (In Fig 3E [17], protruding stoppers, which are part of the back plate [6], see para 39) and configured to contact the central portion of the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate (In Fig 5A & 5B, the back plate [6] has limited the upward deflection of the vibration electrode film [5] through means of a drop test, see para 42);
to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42), wherein deflection of the diaphragm toward the back plate is limited by contact
Uchida does not explicitly teach the central portion of the diaphragm coupled to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm by a plurality of springs located outwardly of the aperture (In Fig 6A, the springs are located outward of the sound channel and center the diaphragm, see para 38);
Loeppert discloses the central portion of the diaphragm to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, each spring (Fig 5 [250], spring members, there are three springs present, para 35) located outwardly of the aperture (In Fig 6A, each spring are located outward of the sound channel and center the diaphragm, see para 38); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the central portion of the diaphragm coupled to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm by a plurality of springs located outwardly of the aperture as taught by Loeppert in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to a minimize the accumulation of liquids through capillary condensation and any particles swept up by the liquids and serve to further minimize stiction. In para 38, in Loeppert.
Uchida does not explicitly teach A Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) die for a microphone, the MEMS die comprising: a plurality of deflection limiters protruding from the back plate and spaced apart from the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate and when the MEMS die is not subject to excessive acoustic energy, wherein deflection of the diaphragm toward the back plate is limited by contact with the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS die is subject to excessive acoustic energy.
Loeppert, PV discloses A Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) die (Fig 6 [400], MEMS Die, para 27) for a microphone (for improving of capacitive microphone, para 14), the MEMS die comprising: a plurality of deflection limiters protruding (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27) from the back plate and spaced apart from the diaphragm (They are positioned on the outer perimeter of the backplate [404] to form a boundary, see para 28, as shown in Fig 6) when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate and when the MEMS die is not subject with the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS die is subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) die for a microphone, the MEMS die comprising: a plurality of deflection limiters protruding from the back plate and spaced apart from the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate and when the MEMS die is not subject with the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS die is subject to excessive acoustic energy as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 10, Uchida teaches is subject to excessive acoustic energy. (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42)
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of deflection limiters is located on the back plate outwardly of the aperture and configured to contact the diaphragm when the MEMS die.
Loeppert, PV discloses wherein the plurality of deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27) is located on the plate (Fig 6 [404], backplate, para 27) outwardly of the aperture (Fig 6 [414], aperture, para 27) and configured to contact the diaphragm when the MEMS die (Fig 6 [400], MEMS Die, para 27) (The posts [deflection limiters] extend dowardly from the back plate towards the diaphragm such that they make contact with each other, see para 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters is located on the plate outwardly of the aperture and configured to contact the diaphragm when the MEMS die as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 11, Uchida teaches further comprising overpressure stops (Fig 3E [17], protruding stoppers, see para 39) protruding from the back plate inwardly is limited by contact with the overpressure stops (The stoppers prevent the vibration electrode film [5, or diaphragm] from making contact with the fixed electrode film [8], see para 39) when subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teaches inwardly of the plurality of deflection limiters, wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate the MEMS die.
Loeppert, PV discloses of the plurality of deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27), wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate the MEMS die is (Fig 6 [400], MEMS Die, para 27) (The posts [deflection limiters] and central pillar [444] form a boundary that results into an “M” shaped deflection, or double curve, of the diaphragm, see para 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters, wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate the MEMS die as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 16, Uchida teaches a substrate (Fig 3E [3], silicon substrate, para 39); a perforated back plate mounted to the substrate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, which is connected through 2nd and 3rd sacrifice layers [15U & 15B], para 39) and covering an aperture through the substrate (Fig 3E [2], back chamber, see para 39);
a diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39) between the back plate and the substrate (As shown in Fig 3E, the diaphragm [5] is between the substrate [3] and backplate [6]), the diaphragm comprising a central portion covering the aperture and an outer peripheral portion coupled to the substrate (In Fig 3E, the diaphragm [5] sits over the aperture [or back chamber (2)], where the outer portions of the diaphragm are coupled to the substrate via the 2nd & 3rd sacrifice layers [15], see para 39-40. Note: in Fig 2 shows a complete rendering of the diaphragm [5] and the aperture [2] within the substrate [3]. In Fig 3, sacrifice layer is the supporting body connected to the substrate),
a post protruding from the back plate (In Fig 3E [17], protruding stoppers, which are part of the back plate [6], see para 39) and configured to contact the central portion of the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate (In Fig 5A & 5B, the back plate [6] has limited the upward deflection of the vibration electrode film [5] through means of a drop test, see para 42);
and overpressure stops (Fig 3E [17]), protruding from the back plate , wherein deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate is limited by contact with the overpressure stops (The stoppers prevent the vibration electrode film [5, or diaphragm] from making contact with the fixed electrode film [8], see para 39) is subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teach the central portion of the diaphragm coupled to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm by a plurality of springs located outwardly of the aperture
Loeppert discloses the central portion coupled to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm by a plurality of springs located outwardly of the aperture (In Fig 6A, the springs are located outward of the sound channel and center the diaphragm, see para 38);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the central portion coupled to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm by a plurality of springs located outwardly of the aperture as taught by Loeppert in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to a minimize the accumulation of liquids through capillary condensation and any particles swept up by the liquids and serve to further minimize stiction. In para 38, in Loeppert.
Uchida does not explicitly teach a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) die for a microphone, the MEMS die comprising: and located inwardly of the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS die, a plurality of deflection limiters protruding from the back plate and configured to contact the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate;
Loeppert, PV discloses Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) die (Fig 6 [400], MEMS Die, para 27) for a microphone (for improving of capacitive microphone, para 14), the MEMS die comprising: and located inwardly of the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS die, a plurality of deflection limiters protruding (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27) from the back plate and configured to contact the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate (Fig 6 [400], MEMS Die, para 27) (The posts [deflection limiters] extend dowardly from the back plate towards the diaphragm such that they make contact with each other, see para 27);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) die for a microphone, the MEMS die comprising: located inwardly of the plurality of deflection limiters when the MEMS die, a plurality of deflection limiters protruding from the back plate and configured to contact the diaphragm when the diaphragm is biased toward the back plate as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 17, Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of deflection limiters is located on the back plate to contact the diaphragm outwardly of the aperture.
Loeppert, PV discloses (The 71) wherein the plurality of deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27) is located on the back plate to contact the diaphragm outwardly of the aperture (In para 27, the posts extend downwardly from the backplate, perpendicularly towards the diaphragm and make contact with the upper side [424] of the diaphragm [406]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters is located on the back plate to contact the diaphragm outwardly of the aperture as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Claim 5-6, 12-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Publication) 20160192082 A1 in view of Loeppert, PV (US Publication) 20210337317 A1 in further view of Loeppert (US Publication) 20200245077 A1, in further view of Chen (US Patent) 11459230 B2.
Regarding claim 5, Uchida teaches in the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots, a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm.
Chen discloses wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots (Fig 1B [141], long slots are present in the diaphragm, see Col 5 L45-49), a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm (In Fig 1B, there two slots, one slot is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm [14], where the diaphragm is over the aperture [11A, or the opening portion of the substrate (11)] and the other slot is connected to the outer portion of the diaphragm that is in contact with dielectric layer [12], see Col 5 L45- 51. Based the Fig 1 of the applicant’s drawings, the central portion of the diaphragm is being interpreted at being between the springs over the aperture and the end portion being outside the spring connected to the substrate), and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm (In Fig 3A-3C, the slots are arranged in a parallel pattern around the circumference of the diaphragm’s perimeter, see Col 6 L38-40, L44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots, a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm as taught by Chen in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to reduce the stiffness of the diaphragm. In Col 5 L52-54, in Chen.
Regarding claim 6, Uchida teaches in the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate.
Loeppert discloses wherein at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate (In Fig 7a-7d, alternative spring designs are suggested where members include portion that would wind back and forth in a circumferential direction within a gap between the transducer substrate and diaphragm. See para 39. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the design choice as a means of mitigating the distribution load applied 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 have used the teachings of at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate as taught by Loeppert in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to provide a compliant attachment method without causing a deflection of the diaphragm through residual stress or asymmetric geometry. In para 39, in Loeppert.
Regarding claim 12, Uchida teaches in the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots, a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm.
Chen discloses wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots (Fig 1B [141], long slots are present in the diaphragm, see Col 5 L45-49), a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm (In Fig 1B, there two slots, one slot is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm [14], where the diaphragm is over the aperture [11A, or the opening portion of the substrate (11)] and the other slot is connected to the outer portion of the diaphragm that is in contact with dielectric layer [12], see Col 5 L45- 51. Based the Fig 1 of the applicant’s drawings, the central portion of the diaphragm is being interpreted at being between the springs over the aperture and the end portion being outside the spring connected to the substrate), and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm (In Fig 3A-3C, the slots are arranged in a parallel pattern around the circumference of the diaphragm’s perimeter, see Col 6 L38-40, L44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots, a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm as taught by Chen in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to reduce the stiffness of the diaphragm. In Col 5 L52-54, in Chen.
Regarding claim 13, Uchida teaches in the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate.
Loeppert discloses wherein at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate (In Fig 7a-7d, alternative spring designs are suggested where members include portion that would wind back and forth in a circumferential direction within a gap between the transducer substrate and diaphragm. See para 39. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the design choice as a means of mitigating the distribution load applied 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 have used the teachings of at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate as taught by Loeppert in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to provide a compliant attachment method without causing a deflection of the diaphragm through residual stress or asymmetric geometry. In para 39, in Loeppert.
Regarding claim 14, Uchida teaches the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39) are arranged on the back plate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, para 39)
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein deflection limiters that contact the diaphragm are arranged on the back plate in a generally circular pattern on at least one radius from a center of the back plate.
Loeppert, PV discloses wherein deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], posts, see para 27) that contact in a generally circular pattern on at least one radius from a center of the back plate (In Fig 6, the back plate is in a circular shape with the posts positioned at the edge of the boundary and before the aperture [414]. Additionally, the pillar [444] is positioned center of the diaphragm [406] and the posts together form a boundary condition at both the center position and outer parameter of the diaphragm, see para 28). (Note: Additional and/or fewer posts may be added to the embodiment [see para 27]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize more posts can be added to the backplate to influence the amount of deflection between the diaphragm and backplate.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of deflection limiters that contact in a generally circular pattern on at least one radius from a center of the back plate as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Regarding claim 18, Uchida teaches in the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots in the diaphragm, a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm.
Chen discloses wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots (Fig 1B [141], long slots are present in the diaphragm, see Col 5 L45-49), a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm (In Fig 1B, there two slots, one slot is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm [14], where the diaphragm is over the aperture [11A, or the opening portion of the substrate (11)] and the other slot is connected to the outer portion of the diaphragm that is in contact with dielectric layer [12], see Col 5 L45- 51. Based the Fig 1 of the applicant’s drawings, the central portion of the diaphragm is being interpreted at being between the springs over the aperture and the end portion being outside the spring connected to the substrate), and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm (In Fig 3A-3C, the slots are arranged in a parallel pattern around the circumference of the diaphragm’s perimeter, see Col 6 L38-40, L44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the plurality of springs are defined by a plurality of slots, a first end portion of each spring is connected to the central portion of the diaphragm and a second end portion of each spring is connected to the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm, and at least some of the springs are oriented non-perpendicular to a perimeter of the diaphragm as taught by Chen in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to reduce the stiffness of the diaphragm. In Col 5 L52-54, in Chen.
Regarding claim 19, Uchida teaches in the diaphragm (Fig 3E [5], vibration electrode film, para 39).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the diaphragm facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate.
Loeppert discloses wherein at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate (In Fig 7a-7d, alternative spring designs are suggested where members include portion that would wind back and forth in a circumferential direction within a gap between the transducer substrate and diaphragm. See para 39. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the design choice as a means of mitigating the distribution load applied 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 have used the teachings of at least some slots comprise a larger gap at a side of the facing the back plate than a gap at a side of the diaphragm facing away from the back plate as taught by Loeppert in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to provide a compliant attachment method without causing a deflection of the diaphragm through residual stress or asymmetric geometry. In para 39, in Loeppert.
Claim 7- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Publication) 20160192082 A1 in view of Loeppert, PV (US Publication) 20210337317 A1 in further view of Loeppert (US Publication) 20200245077 A1, in further view of Hoekstra (US Publication) 20150256915 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Uchida teaches the back plate (Fig 3E [6], back plate, para 39) when the MEMS transducer (Fig 1 [1], acoustic sensor, para 38) subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away from.
Hoekstra discloses wherein the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away from (In Fig 5, the membrane [101] is deflected downwards to an extent that it makes contact with the substrate [105] at its respective edge [202]. Additionally, a layer [401] is added to the membrane to protect it from damage. Based on this, the substrate limits the deflections applied on the membrane, para 69)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away as taught by Hoekstra in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to distribute the stress to the support structure. In para 69, in Hoekstra.
Regarding claim 8, Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate at the same time the substrate limits deflection of the diaphragm away from the back plate.
Loeppert PV discloses wherein the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate (The posts extend downwardly and make contact with the upper surface the diaphragm [406], and are positioned at the outer perimeter of the diaphragm. The Post with the pillar [444] creates a boundary condition that results in a “M” shaped deflection of the diaphragm. See para 27-28.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Uchida does not explicitly teach at the same time the substrate limits deflection of the diaphragm away from the back plate.
Hoekstra discloses at the same time the substrate limits deflection of the diaphragm away from the back plate (In Fig 5, the membrane [101] is deflected downwards to an extent that it makes contact with the substrate [105] at its respective edge [202], see para 69. Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a diaphragm/membrane can inherently move in an upward and downward motion. Due to the position of the diaphragm being between the substrate and the backplate, both respective elements would limit the movement of the diaphragm as it oscillates.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away as taught by Hoekstra in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to distribute the stress to the support structure. In para 69, in Hoekstra.
Claim 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Publication) 20160192082 A1 in view of Loeppert, PV (US Publication) 20210337317 A1 in further view of Loeppert (US Publication) 20200245077 A1, in further view of Chen (US Patent) 11459230 B2, in further view of Hoekstra (US Publication) 20150256915 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Uchida teaches is subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teach the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate when the MEMS die
Loeppert PV discloses the plurality of deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], Posts, para 27) limit deflection of the peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate when the MEMS die (Fig 6 [400], MEMS die, para 27) (The posts extend downwardly and make contact with the upper surface the diaphragm [406], and are positioned at the outer perimeter of the diaphragm. The Post with the pillar [444] creates a boundary condition that results in a “M” shaped deflection of the diaphragm. See para 27-28.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate when the MEMS die as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away from the back plate at the same time
Hoekstra discloses wherein the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away from the back plate at the same time (In Fig 5, the membrane [101] is deflected downwards to an extent that it makes contact with the substrate [105] at its respective edge [202], see para 69. Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a diaphragm/membrane can inherently move in an upward and downward motion. Due to the position of the diaphragm being between the substrate and the backplate, both respective elements would limit the movement of the diaphragm as it oscillates.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away as taught by Hoekstra in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to distribute the stress to the support structure. In para 69, in Hoekstra.
Regarding claim 20, Uchida teaches is subject to excessive acoustic energy (In Fig 5A & 5B, the acoustic sensor [101] is subject to a drop test, see para 42).
Uchida does not explicitly teach the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate when the MEMS die
Loeppert PV discloses the plurality of deflection limiters (Fig 6 [442], Posts, para 27) limit deflection of the peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate when the MEMS die (Fig 6 [400], MEMS die, para 27) (The posts extend downwardly and make contact with the upper surface the diaphragm [406], and are positioned at the outer perimeter of the diaphragm. The Post with the pillar [444] creates a boundary condition that results in a “M” shaped deflection of the diaphragm. See para 27-28.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the plurality of deflection limiters limit deflection of the peripheral portion of the diaphragm toward the back plate when the MEMS die as taught by Loeppert, PV in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to lower maximum deflection and increased margin of the bias voltage that can be applied between the diaphragm. In para 25, in Loeppert, PV.
Uchida does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away from the back plate at the same time
Hoekstra discloses wherein the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away from the back plate at the same time (In Fig 5, the membrane [101] is deflected downwards to an extent that it makes contact with the substrate [105] at its respective edge [202], see para 69. Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a diaphragm/membrane can inherently move in an upward and downward motion. Due to the position of the diaphragm being between the substrate and the backplate, both respective elements would limit the movement of the diaphragm as it oscillates.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the substrate limits deflection of the central portion of the diaphragm away as taught by Hoekstra in Uchida’s invention. The motivation would have been to distribute the stress to the support structure. In para 69, in Hoekstra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Tong (US Publication) 20230217191 A1 – spring placement
Hsieh (US Patent) 10390145 B1 – springs parallel with diaphragm and downward deflection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights