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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Capacitive Microphone Has Vibration Film Provided With First Hole Array And Back Plate That Is Provided With Second Hole Array Allowing Air Flow To Pass Through.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins et al. (Hereinafter Jenkins) US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0167946.
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins teaches
A capacitive microphone (Fig. 1a shows a capacitive MEMS microphone device 100), comprising:
a diaphragm (Fig. 1a shows a membrane layer 101), wherein the diaphragm (i.e. membrane layer 101) is provided with a first hole array (Fig. 1a shows a bleed holes 111) that allows airflow to pass through (bleed holes 111 through the membrane 101 allow the pressure in the cavities 108/109 and 110 to equalise over relatively long timescales (in acoustic frequency terms) which reduces the effect of low frequency pressure variations…..Para. [0007], Lines 7-13); and
a backplate (Fig. 1a shows a back-plate 104), wherein the backplate (i.e. back-plate 104) is provided with a second hole array (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of holes 112) that allows airflow to pass through (a plurality of holes 112, hereinafter referred to as acoustic holes, are arranged in the back-plate 104 so as to allow free movement of air molecules, such that the sound waves can enter a cavity 110 between the membrane 101 and back-plate 104….Para. [0005], Lines 3-7), and the diaphragm (i.e. membrane layer 101) and the backplate (i.e. back-plate 104) are spaced apart from each other to form a capacitor (The distance between the membrane electrode 102 and the back-plate electrode 103 is correspondingly altered, giving rise to a change in capacitance between the two electrodes 102 and 103 that is subsequently detected by electronic circuitry…..Para. [0007], Lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins teaches
The capacitive microphone of claim 1, wherein a spacing between two adjacent holes of the first hole array on the diaphragm is in a range of 0.1µm to 50µm; or a spacing between two adjacent holes of the second hole array on the backplate is in a range of 0.1µm to 50µm (In one embodiment the diameter of the openings may be of the order of about 10 μm with the shortest distance between adjacent openings being of the order of about 5 μm….Para. [0085], Lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 9, Jenkins teaches
The capacitive microphone of claim 1, wherein a protruding structure is disposed on a surface of the backplate (i.e. back-plate 104) facing the diaphragm (i.e. membrane layer 101) as shown in Fig. 1a.
Regarding claim 13, Jenkins teaches
The capacitive microphone of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the diaphragm is in a range of 0.1µm (Para. [0021], Lines 1-2). Notes: This conversion follows the standard relation 1 nm = 0.001 µm, so multiplying 100 by 0.001 gives 0.1 µm.
Regarding claim 15, Jenkins teaches
The capacitive microphone of claim 1, further comprising a housing (Fig. 11a shows a package comprising a substrate 1118, and a cover or lid 1119 which is separated from the substrate 1118 by spacer side walls) accommodating the diaphragm and the backplate as shown in Fig. 11a, wherein the housing is provided with a first sound guiding hole (Fig. 11a shows an acoustic port 1120) and a second sound guiding hole (Fig. 11a shows an acoustic port 1117), the first sound guiding hole is configured to form a first acoustic path that allows air to flow to a surface of the diaphragm facing away from the backplate as shown in Fig. 11a, and the second sound guiding hole is configured to form a second acoustic path that allows air to flow to a surface of the diaphragm facing towards the backplate as shown in Fig. 11a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Hu et al. (Hereinafter Hu) CN 212259332 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Hu would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 2, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jenkins fails to teach that a diameter of each hole of the first hole array on the diaphragm is in a range of 5µm to 50µm.
Hu teaches a diameter of each hole of the vent holes on the diaphragm 1 is in a range of 4µm to 48µm (Pg. 3, Lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the diameter of each hole of the vent holes on the diaphragm is in the range of 4µm to 48µm, as taught by Hu. The motivation is to use the diameter of each hole of the vent holes to improve the airflow to pass through the diaphragm.
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Rombach et al. (Hereinafter Rombach) US-PAT No. 8,295,528.
Regarding claim 4, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jenkins fails to teach that a distance between the backplate and the diaphragm is in a range of 0.5µm to 20µm.
Rombach teaches a distance between the backplate and the diaphragm is in a range of 1µm to 20µm (Col. 3, Lines 66-Col. 4, Lines 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the distance between the backplate and the diaphragm is in a range of 1µm to 20µm, as taught by Rombach. The motivation is to use the distance between the backplate and the diaphragm to improve the airflow of the capacitive microphone.
10. Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Zhong et al. (Hereinafter Zhong) CN 112153544 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Zhong would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jenkins teaches of a substrate 105 as shown in Fig. 1a.
Jenkins fails to teach that a perimeter side of the diaphragm is elastically connected to the substrate.
Zhong teaches in Fig. 1 of a perimeter side of the diaphragm electrode 2 is elastically connected to the substrate (Pg. 2, Lines 32-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the perimeter side of the diaphragm is elastically connected to the substrate, as taught by Zhong. The motivation is to use the substrate as a support and the elastically make the diaphragm vibrate through the air.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jenkins and Zhong teach all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. Zhong teaches that the perimeter side of the diaphragm (i.e. the diaphragm electrode 2) is elastically connected to the substrate through a plurality of symmetrically distributed elastic structures as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jenkins and Zhong teach all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. Jenkins a perimeter side of the backplate (i.e. back-plate 104) is rigidly connected to the substrate (Fig. 1a shows a substrate 105) as shown in Fig. 1a and Para. [0107], Lines 4-7.
Regarding claim 11, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that the backplate includes a conductive layer and an insulating layer, and the insulating layer is located between the conductive layer and the diaphragm.
Zhong teaches in Fig. 2 of a back plate 70 includes a back plate electrode 60 and an isolation layer 50 is made of insulating material (Pg. 4, Line 25), and the isolation layer 50 is located between the back plate electrode 60 and the diaphragm electrode 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the insulating layer is located between the conductive layer and the diaphragm, as taught by Zhong. The motivation is to use the insulating layer located between the conductive layer and the diaphragm to improve the stability of the capacitor microphone.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Chen et al. (Hereinafter Chen) US-PG-PUB No. 2022/0396469.
Regarding claim 10, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that the backplate includes a conductive layer and an insulating layer, and the conductive layer is located between the insulating layer and the diaphragm.
Chen teaches in Fig. 1 of a backplate 13 includes a conductive layer 131 and an insulating layer 132, and the conductive layer 131 is located between the insulating layer 132 and the diaphragm 14 as shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the conductive layer is located between the insulating layer and the diaphragm, as taught by Chen. The motivation is to use the conductive layer located between the insulating layer and the diaphragm is to form a capacitor that offer higher sensitivity.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Wiesbauer et al. (Hereinafter Wiesbauer) US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0148531.
Regarding claim 12, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jenkins fails to teach that the backplate includes a first backplate and a second backplate disposed on two sides of the diaphragm, respectively; the diaphragm and the first backplate are spaced apart to form a first capacitor, and the diaphragm and the second backplate are spaced apart to form a second capacitor.
Wiesbauer teaches in Fig. 13 of a dual backplate MEMS transducer 1300 includes a first backplate 1302 and a second backplate 1304 disposed on two sides of the diaphragm 1306, respectively as shown in Fig. 13; the diaphragm 1306 and the first backplate 1302 are spaced apart to form a first capacitor as shown in Fig. 13 (Para. [0063], Lines 1), and the diaphragm 1306 and the second backplate 1304 are spaced apart to form a second capacitor (Para. [0063], Lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the backplate includes the first backplate and the second backplate disposed on two sides of the diaphragm, as taught by Wiesbauer. The motivation is to use the backplate includes the first backplate and the second backplate disposed on two sides of the diaphragm to offer higher sensitivity, improved linearity, reduced distortion, thus providing better stability than single‑backplate designs, making them ideal for high‑performance audio applications.
13. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Taenzer US-PG-PUB No. 2003/0156722.
Regarding claim 16, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that a path length of the first acoustic path is equal to a path length of the second acoustic path.
Taenzer teaches that a path length of the first acoustic path is equal to a path length of the second acoustic path (Para. [0027], Lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the path length of the first acoustic path is equal to the path length of the second acoustic path, as taught by Taenzer. The motivation is to provide equal sound pressures that will be present on both sides of the capacitive microphone.
14. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Inoda et al. (Hereinafter Inoda) US-PG-PUB No. 2012/0243721.
Regarding claim 17, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that an opening area of the first sound guiding hole is equal to an opening area of the second sound guiding hole.
Inoda teaches that an opening area of the first sound hole 22b is equal to an opening area of the second sound hole 22a (Para. [0066], Lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the opening area of the first sound guiding hole is equal to the opening area of the second sound guiding hole, as taught by Inoda. The motivation is to provide equal sound pressures that will be present on both sides of the capacitive microphone.
15. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Reese et al. (Hereinafter Reese) US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0007107.
Regarding claim 20, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that the first sound guiding hole and the second sound guiding hole are respectively provided with acoustic resistance elements corresponding to different levels of acoustic resistance.
Reese teaches that a first sound aperture 106and a second sound aperture 107 are respectively provided with a first acoustic resistance element 119 and a second acoustic resistance element 120 corresponding to different levels of acoustic resistance (Para. [0036], Lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the first sound guiding hole and the second sound guiding hole are respectively provided with acoustic resistance elements corresponding to different levels of acoustic resistance, as taught by Reese. The motivation is to use the first and the second acoustic resistance elements are arranged to cause a time delay with the sound (or ambient sound) that is transmitted to the first sound aperture and the second sound aperture.
16. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Yoo et al. (Hereinafter Yoo) US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0150326.
Regarding claim 21, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that an acoustic delay element is disposed in the first acoustic path and/or the second acoustic path, and the acoustic delay element is configured to extend a physical length of the corresponding acoustic path.
Yoo teaches that a phase delay unit 100 is disposed in the acoustic path as shown in 1, and the phase delay unit 100 is configured to extend a physical length of the corresponding acoustic path as shown in 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the acoustic delay element is configured to extend a physical length of the corresponding acoustic path, as taught by Yoo. The motivation is to use the phase delay unit to cause a time delay with the sound (or ambient sound) that is transmitted to the corresponding acoustic path.
Regarding claim 22, Jenkins teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Jenkins does not explicitly teach that the first acoustic path and/or the second acoustic path includes at least one bent section.
Yoo teaches in Fig. 1 that the acoustic path includes at least one bent section as shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive microphone, as taught by Jenkins with the acoustic path includes at least one bent section, as taught by Yoo. The motivation is to use the bent section to cause a time delay with the sound (or ambient sound) that is transmitted to the corresponding acoustic path.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Regarding claims 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. 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.
/ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights