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)(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) 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carfore (US 20230171549 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Carfore discloses a microphone module, comprising:
a first microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (510) comprising a first cantilever and a first fixed electrode (“electrodes at the substrate” discussed in [0044); and
a second MEMS transducer (511) comprising a second cantilever and a second fixed electrode (“electrodes at the substrate” discussed in [0044]),
wherein the first MEMS transducer (510) and the second MEMS transducer (511) are arranged in the microphone module ([0072]) such that when a sound wave traverses the microphone module the sound wave causes the first MEMS transducer (510) and the second MEMS transducer (511) to move in different directions with respect to each other (as illustrated in Fig 5A, current direction for MEMS 510 is moved in opposite direction as the current direction for MEMS 511).
Regarding claim 3, Carfore discloses that the microphone module further comprising a first sound port (reads on the part of port affecting the sensing by MEMS 510) and a second sound port (reads on the part of port affecting the sensing by MEMS 511), wherein the first MEMS transducer is positioned in the microphone module over the first sound port and the second MEMS transducer is positioned in the microphone module over the second sound port ([0072], Figs. 1 and 2) (definition of over: Indicates something is directly above or covering an object, or moving across a surface, barrier, or space. over definition - Google Search).
Regarding claim 6, Carfore shows that the first MEMS transducer and the second
MEMS transducer are fabricated to be identical to each other ([0070]).
Regarding claim 8, although not explicitly shown, the first cantilever inherently has an equilibrium position such that the first cantilever is deflected in a first direction relative to the first fixed electrode (electrode within 50); and the second cantilever inherently has an equilibrium position such that the second cantilever is deflected in the first direction relative to the second fixed electrode (the claimed equilibrium position reads on the position when no sound wave is being detected, a cantilever inherently has an equilibrium position when no sound wave is being detected due to the construction as shown in Figs. 2 and 3; at the equilibrium position, the cantilever is located at a position relative to other components of the MEMS, including the substrate).
Regarding claim 9, the word “downwards” is a relative term, such as a degree of downward. Carfore shows 0o of downward.
Regarding claim 14, Carfore shows that the first MEMS transducer (510) is configured to generate a first output signal (535) when the sound wave traverses the microphone module,
the second MEMS transducer (511) is configured to generate a second output signal (536) when the sound wave traverses the microphone module, wherein the second output signal is opposite in phase relative to the first output signal ([0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Carfore shows that the first output signal and the second
output signal are subtracted to generate a differential output of the microphone module ([0069]-[0070]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claims 1 and 14 discussed above.
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) 10-13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carfore.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 20, Carfore fails to show whether the two MEMS transducers would be supported by a common substrate or two separate substrates with two separate lids. Fig. 1 of Carfore shows a PCB substrate (22) for supporting the MEMS and a lid (28) for enclosing a single MEMS, wherein the lid provides an enclosed chamber. As Carfore teaches that the two MEMS could share the same sound port (24), one skilled in the art would have expected that the two MEMS are closely placed with each other. Mounting them on a common substrate or two separate substrates are a matter of design preference and trade-off. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Carfore by testing out the mounting arrangement of the two MEMS transducers, either on a common substrate or two separate substrates with two separate lids enclosing them separately, in order to determine which configuration is the best fit.
Regarding claim 16, Carfore fails to show one or more third MEMS transducers and one or more fourth MEMS transducer. Carfore suggests multiple identical MEMS transducers could replace a single MEMS ([0050]). Additional pair of MEMS would provide additional signal representing sensed sound wave which could be combined with the signals from the first pair of MEMS to generate a synthesized signal. Having additional pair of MEMS would improve the performance, such as providing directionality control, but would increase the cost and increase the physical weight and size of the microphone module. This is a decision that the engineer would make depending on the application requirement and other trade off. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Carfore by having an additional pair of MEMS transducers in order to improve the performance of the microphone module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 17 and 18 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/PING LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights