Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0413198 (published 31 December 2020) (“Zeng”) and US Patent Application Publication 2025/0030987 (effectively filed 19 July 2023) (“Reinmuth”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zeng; Reinmuth and US Patent Application Publication 2023/0345170 (published 26 October 2023) (“Zhou”).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zeng; Reinmuth and WO 2022/000793 (published 06 January 2022) (“Zeng II”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zeng; Reinmuth and CN 112492474 A (published 12 March 2021) (“Bai”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a bone conduction package structure.” The following table and Figure 1 illustrates the correspondence between the claimed structure and the Zeng reference.
Claim 1
The Zeng Reference
“1. A bone conduction package structure, comprising:
The Zeng reference describes a corresponding bone conduction MEMS microphone. Zeng at Abs., ¶ 27, FIG.1.
“a base board;
Zeng’s microphone includes a circuit board 14 corresponding to the claimed base board. Id. at ¶ 27, FIG.2.
“a housing covered with the base board to form a receiving room;
Zeng’s microphone includes a housing 13 corresponding to the claimed housing and covering circuit board 14 to form a chamber 15, or receiving room. Id. at ¶¶ 27–28, FIG.2.
“a bone conduction MEMS chip located in the receiving room, the bone conduction MEMS chip comprising:
Chamber 15 contains a MEMS chip 11 corresponding to the claimed bone conduction MEMS chip. Id.
“a substrate having a chamber;
MEMs chip 11 is formed by its substrate 11 that defines a back cavity 112, or chamber. Id.
“a diaphragm supported on the substrate; and
Substrate 11 similarly supports a diaphragm 111. Id.
“a backplate spaced apart from the diaphragm and arranged on one side of the diaphragm distal to the substrate; and
The MEMS chip further includes backplate 113 spaced from and facing one side of diaphragm 111 that is distal to substrate 11. Id.
“an ASIC chip located in the receiving room;
Chamber 15 includes an ASIC chip 16. Id. at ¶ 32, FIG.2.
“wherein a first cavity is formed between the diaphragm and the backplate,
“a second cavity is formed by the diaphragm, the substrate, and the base board, and
“a third cavity is formed by the backplate, the housing, the substrate, and the base board,
Zeng’s MEMS microphone similarly defines a first cavity (e.g., the space between diaphragm 111 and backplate 113), second cavity (e.g., back cavity 112) and third cavity (e.g., 15) as claimed. Id. at FIG.2. See also Figure 2, below.
“the first cavity is set as a low-pressure area below atmospheric pressure.”
Zeng does not describe its first cavity between diaphragm 111 and backplate 113 as being a low-pressure area that is below atmospheric pressure. Rather, Zeng depicts backplate 113 with through-holes. See id. at FIG.2.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
316
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up copy of Zeng at FIG.2 (marked-up to show correspondence between elements of Zeng and the claimed invention).
Zeng does not describe the first cavity between diaphragm 111 and backplate 113 as a low-pressure area set below atmospheric pressure. The Reinmuth reference is similarly related to the field of MEMS microphones and teaches that when providing a membrane and backplate in close proximity and in a sealed state, it is beneficial to vacuum the enclosed volume to reduce pressure relative to ambient. Reinmuth at Abs., ¶¶ 25, 28, 57, FIG.1A. According to Reinmuth, reducing the pressure mitigates thermal noise and squeeze damping that could reduce performance. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 28, 57, FIG.1A.
The combined teachings of Zeng and Reinmuth would have reasonably suggested modifying Zeng’s microphone as claimed. In particular, Zeng’s microphone serves as a base vibration-detecting MEMS microphone device having a membrane and backplate that form a capacitive sensor. While Zeng describes the use of a perforated backplate, such that the first cavity between the membrane and backplate is not set at a low pressure. Reinmuth teaches and suggests that in a configuration of a membrane and backplate that form a sealed cavity, it is beneficial to vacuum out the gas in the cavity to reduce pressure and mitigate thermal noise and squeeze-film damping. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng and the Reinmuth references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm is a complete and impermeable structure, and the backplate is a complete and impermeable structure.”
In the field of vibration detecting MEMS microphones, closure of the backplate is not always required. The Zhou reference, for example, describes several variations of a vibration detecting MEMS microphone. Zhou at Abs., ¶¶ 2–4, FIGs.8, 13. Some examples include through-holes in the structure. Id. at ¶ 93, FIG.8. But at least one example includes a membrane, weight and backplate, just as in Zeng, and depicted as not having any through-holes. Id. at ¶ 143, FIG.13.
The combined teachings of Zeng, Zhou and Reinmuth would have reasonably suggested modifying Zeng’s microphone as claimed. In particular, Zeng’s microphone serves as a base vibration-detecting MEMS microphone device having a membrane and backplate that form a capacitive sensor. While Zeng describes the use of a perforated backplate, such that the first cavity between the membrane and backplate is not set at a low pressure. The Zhou reference teaches and suggests an alternative sealed structure without any perforations in the membrane and the backplate. Reinmuth further teaches and suggests that in a configuration of a membrane and backplate that form a sealed cavity, it is beneficial to vacuum out the gas in the cavity to reduce pressure and mitigate thermal noise and squeeze-film damping. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng, the Reinmuth and the Zhou references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm comprises a plurality of first ventilation holes, the first ventilation holes communicating the first cavity and the second cavity, the second cavity is set as the low-pressure area below atmospheric pressure.”
Zeng does not describe providing ventilation holes in diaphragm 111. The Zeng II reference further teaches and suggests providing a MEMS vibration sensing microphone with a diaphragm 32 having a set of pressure relief holes 34 to equalize the pressure between first and second cavities. Zeng II at ¶ 36, FIGs.2 ,3. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Zeng’s diaphragm 111 to similarly include at least one, and the claimed plurality, of pressure relief holes. And as explained in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have also been obvious to set the cavities as low-pressure areas to reduce thermal noise and squeeze layer damping. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng, the Reinmuth and the Zeng II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the backplate comprises a plurality of second ventilation holes, the second ventilation holes communicating the first cavity and the third cavity, the third cavity is set as the low-pressure area below atmospheric pressure.”
Zeng’s backplate 113 is depicted with a plurality of through holes. Zeng at FIG.2. As explained in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have also been obvious to set the cavities as low-pressure areas to reduce thermal noise and squeeze layer damping. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng and the Reinmuth references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm comprises a plurality of first ventilation holes, the first ventilation holes communicating the first cavity and the second cavity,
“the second cavity is set as the low-pressure area below atmospheric pressure,
“the backplate comprising a plurality of second ventilation holes,
“the second ventilation holes communicating the first cavity and the third cavity,
“the third cavity is set as the low-pressure area below atmospheric pressure.”
Zeng’s backplate 113 is depicted with a plurality of through holes. Zeng at FIG.2. Zeng does not describe providing ventilation holes in diaphragm 111. The Zeng II reference further teaches and suggests providing a MEMS vibration sensing microphone with a diaphragm 32 having a set of pressure relief holes 34 to equalize the pressure between first and second cavities. Zeng II at ¶ 36, FIGs.2 ,3. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Zeng’s diaphragm 111 to similarly include at least one, and the claimed plurality, of pressure relief holes. And as explained in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have also been obvious to set the cavities as low-pressure areas to reduce thermal noise and squeeze layer damping. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng, the Reinmuth and the Zeng II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a weight is provided on a side of the diaphragm away from the backplate.”
Similarly, Zeng describes a weight 12 connected to a side of diaphragm 111 facing away from backplate 113. Zeng at ¶ 29, FIG.2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng and the Reinmuth references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein the bone conduction MEMS chip further comprises at least one connecting column connecting the weight to the diaphragm on the side of the diaphragm away from the backplate.”
Zeng describes attaching a mass 12 to the backside of diaphragm 111. Zeng at ¶¶ 29, 30, FIG.2. Zeng describes attaching mass 12 to diaphragm with a semiconductor process or by an adhesive process. Id. at ¶ 31. This reasonably suggests including a layer, or column, of adhesive between the two elements. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng and the Reinmuth references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a plurality of anti-stick pillars are disposed on a side of the backplate proximal to the diaphragm.”
The Bai reference teaches and suggests adding anti-stick protrusions 31 to a side of a MEMS backplate facing a diaphragm to prevent the two elements from becoming stuck during operation. Bai at ¶ 23, FIG.2. Read in light of Zeng, Bai’s teachings reasonably suggest modifying Zeng’s backplate 113 to similarly include anti-stick bumps on a side of backplate 113 facing diaphragm 111. One of ordinary skill would have understood from the Bai reference that the anti-stick bumps would prevent undesirable sticking between backplate 113 and diaphragm 111. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zeng, the Reinmuth and the Bai references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–8 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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.
Additional Citations
The following table lists documents identified as being relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed in this Application. While this Office action does not rely on the listed documents, Applicant is advised to consider them in drafting a reply.
Citation
Relevance
US 2011/0079081
Column used to couple mass to diaphragm
US 2006/0137455
Column used to couple mass to diaphragm
US 2025/0380099
Related application publication
Table 2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights