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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barsukou et al (US 20230104257 A1).
As per claim 1, Barsukou discloses an apparatus comprising:
a substrate including a cavity (fig. 2a and 2b the cavities that are part of the cantilever structures cited in para 56, noting a cavity defines the ‘lever’ of the cantilever)) and first and second anchors (the anchor for each cantilever);
a cantilever including a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion (Fig. 2a, the end of one triangle/slices, the portions between and comprising the tips of two triangles/slices, the end of the other of the two connected triangle/slices per fig 3b.),
the first portion coupled between the second and third portions (each cantilever side is connected as a triangle/slice which comprises portions at each different thickness between the straight sides of each triangle/slice as the thickness tapers towards the center, noting the portions defined by the cited anchors comprise the third portion, noting applicant specification para 33 the third portion being under the anchors ),
the first portion coupled to the first and second anchors and suspended over the cavity (each side is coupled to anchors per para 60, noting fig. 3A and further that: Only one side of the PMM is illustrated in FIG. 3A; it is to be understood that the anchor region about the majority or the whole of the PMM membrane may be similarly configured), and
a length of the first portion along a dimension is shorter than respective lengths of the second and third portions along the dimension (per the triangle structures shown in fig. 3b).
As per claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the second and third portions have a respective shape that tapers towards the first portion (the shapes can include curves/tapers per para 56: the cantilever structures could be shaped other than as illustrated, for example, as polygons with three or more straight or curved sides).
As per claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the second and third portions have curved edges extending towards the first portion (per the claim 2 rejection, the curved edges).
As per claim 4, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first portion is larger than respective thicknesses of the second and third portions (the length between the ends of the first portion is longer than the shortest distance between each of the second and third sides per the slices in fig. 3b, and further per the third portions defined as under the anchors, noting applicant’s specification para 33 characterizing the first second and third portions, and noting the same structure disclosed by the prior art fig. 3b).
As per claim 5, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first portion is smaller than respective thicknesses of distal ends of the second and third portions (as per the claim 4 rejection and as shown in fig. 3b).
As per claim 6, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first portion is coupled between the second and third portions along a first axis; the substrate includes a third anchor and a fourth anchor coupled to the first portion; the cantilever includes a fourth portion and a fifth portion, and the first portion is coupled between the fourth and fifth portions along a second axis; and the first axis and the second axis are orthogonal to each other (the multiple slices arranged as shown in fig. 3b comprise additional portions encompassing the first portion via the portions defined by the anchors supporting the additional slices as shown in the figure noting the middle portion of each slice is between orthogonal axis defined by the second and third portions under the anchors, that are orthogonal to the axis of the anchors of the surrounding slices relative to the first portion ).
As per claim 7, the apparatus of claim 6, wherein each of the fourth and fifth portions has a respective shape that tapers towards the first portion (each slice has portions with a tapered shape as shown in fig. 3b).
As per claim 8, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cantilever includes a piezoelectric material, a first electrode layer, and a second electrode layer (para 56, fig. 2b).
As per claim 9, the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the cantilever includes a piezoelectric bimorph having the first electrode layer, a third electrode layer, and the second electrode layer between the first and third electrode layers (fig. 2b the three electrodes).
As per claim 10, the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first and second anchors form a pivot, wherein at least one of the first or second electrodes include a first electrode portion and a second electrode portion on opposite sides of the pivot and spaced apart from each other (the electrodes forming the different, equally spaced, slices as shown in fig. 3b, noting each cited anchor at each edge is a pivot).
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(s) 11,12,13,14,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsukou et al (US 20230104257 A1) as applied to claim1,10 above, and further in view of Hall (US 20230104257 A1).
As per claim 11, Barsukou discloses a differential electrode arrangement, and teaches that the cited diaphragms and cantilevers may present voltage differences per para 51, but does not specify, further including a difference amplifier having a first input, a second input, and an output, wherein the first input is coupled to the first electrode portion, and wherein the second input is coupled to the second electrode portion.
Hall teaches that directional microphones may use multiple detectors and may use a difference amplifier to measure the difference signal (para 62). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to implement a difference amplifier for the purpose of measuring the difference between the electrodes in the bimorph configuration to obtain the voltage difference taught by Barsukou in the bimorph multi electrode configuration of the microphone.
As per claim 12, the examiner takes official notice it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to integrate the cited microphone and difference amplifier for the advantages inherent to integration. Noting obvious to integrate each cited circuit portion as an integrated die, further noting the disclosed microphone in claim 11 requires a common substrate and housing in order to support and house the cited electrical components.
As per claims 13,14, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing that different electrical components could be situated in different relative to each other as a matter of design choice. Including the following:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first die and the second die form a stack on the package substrate.
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first die and the second die are laterally adjacent to each other on the package substrate.
As per claim 18, the apparatus of claim 1 further includes a difference amplifier coupled to the cantilever, wherein the cantilever and the difference amplifier are configured as a directional microphone (as per the claim 11 rejection).
Claim(s) 15-17,19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsukou et al (US 20230104257 A1), and further in view of Hall (US 20230104257 A1) as applied to claims 1,11,12 above, and further in view of Chang (US 20100034413 A1).
As per claim 15, Barsukou and Hall disclose the apparatus of claim 12, but do not specify the device further comprising a case on the package substrate enclosing the first and second dies, wherein the case includes multiple openings.
Chang teaches that microphone cases can comprise sound holes in order to balance sound pressure per para.12. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to implement a case on the package substrate enclosing the first and second dies, wherein the case includes multiple openings for the purpose of balancing sound pressure.
As per claim 16,17, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing that the holes and positions of the circuits and their integrated dies could be disposed about as a matter of design choice and in order to balance sound pressure for a given device. These various configurations would include wherein the openings are over the first die and wherein the openings are on a side of the first die.
As per claim 19, the claim 1, 11 12 rejections recite integration where integration of each cited circuit component comprises by definition a die as it is the physical foundation to an integrated circuit, where each of the following circuit elements, when integrated, comprises a die, where the device comprises : a packaged integrated circuit including:
a package substrate (Barsukou the base of the housing required to house and support the substrate in fig. 2b when implemented as a microphone; and also the package substrate disclosed by Chang as part of the teachings of balancing sound pressure per the claim 15 rejection);
a die on the package substrate, the die including:
a first substrate including a cavity and first and second anchors (per claim 1 rejection);
a cantilever including a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion (per claim 1 rejection),
the first portion coupled between the second and third portions, the first portion coupled to the first and second anchors and suspended over the cavity (per the cantilevers of the claim 1 rejection), and
a length of the first portion along a dimension is shorter than respective lengths of the second and third portions along the dimension (per the triangle/slice structures of the claim 1 rejection); and
a case on the package substrate and enclosing the die, the case including multiple openings (per the teachings of Chang in the claim 15 rejection where it would be obvious to implement the housing/case/package substrate with openings for the purpose of balancing sound pressure for the microphone).
As per claim 20, the packaged integrated circuit of claim 19, wherein each of the second and third portions has a respective shape that tapers towards the first portion (per the slice/triangle shaped cantilevers cited above).
As per claim 21, the packaged integrated circuit of claim 19, wherein each of the second and third portions have curved edges extending towards the first portion (per the curves cited in the claim 2 rejection).
As per claim 22, the packaged integrated circuit of claim 19, wherein a thickness of the first portion is larger than respective thicknesses of the second and third portions (per the portions defined by the tapering triangle/slices cited above as implemented in the orthogonal butterfly configuration).
As per claim 23, the packaged integrated circuit of claim 19, wherein a thickness of the first portion is smaller than respective thicknesses of distal ends of the second and third portions (as per the claim 5 rejection).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights