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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaajakari (US 2018/0019754, of record).
Claim 17: Kaajakari discloses an electronic device (Figs.2A, 3, and 6), comprising:
a circuit board (250, which is disclosed as a PCB; see [0050]); and
a micro-electro mechanical system (MEMS) oscillator (100) coupled to the circuit board (see Fig.6); and comprising:
a baseplate (110, Fig.3);
a MEMS chip (112, 124, 126, 134, 120, 122, i.e. the layer shown in Fig.2A) located on the baseplate (Figs.2A and 3) and comprising:
a MEMS resonator (120); and
a first heater (122); and
a second heater (222), located outside the MEMS chip (see Fig.6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 13, 15-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaajakari (US 2018/0019754, of record) in view of Yaralioglu et al. (US 2013/0001765, hereinafter “Yaralioglu”).
Claim 1: Kaajakari discloses a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) oscillator (Figs.2A, 3, and 6), comprising:
a first baseplate (110, Fig.3);
a MEMS chip (112, 124, 126, 134, 120, 122, i.e. the layer shown in Fig.2A) located on the first baseplate and comprising:
a first MEMS resonator (120); and
a first heater (122); and
a second heater (222) located outside the MEMS chip (see Fig.6).
Kaajakari further discloses the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above.
Kaajakari does not explicitly disclose the heater as a “heating coil” as required by claims 1 and 18. Yaralioglu discloses that a heating coil (e.g. Fig.5, where patterned aluminum layers are utilized as a heating element, thus a “heating coil”; see [0031]) may be utilized as a similar heater for a MEMS device. As both the generic “heater” disclosed by Kaajakari and a “heating coil” specifically as disclosed by Yaralioglu achieve the same function of heating, the results of substituting the generic “heater” of Kaajakari with a “heating coil” specifically would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a heating coil as the second heater of Kaajakari as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 21: Kaajakari discloses a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) oscillator (Figs.2A, 3, and 6), comprising:
a first baseplate (110, Fig.3);
a MEMS chip (112, 124, 126, 134, 120, 122, i.e. the layer shown in Fig.2A) located on the first baseplate and comprising:
a first MEMS resonator (120); and
a first heater (122); and
a second heater (222) located outside the MEMS chip (see Fig.6).
Kaajakari does not disclose “the MEMS chip is further located in a center of the second heater” of claims 3, 19, 21, “wherein the second heater is integrated on a surface of the first baseplate” of claim 4, or “wherein the second heater is inside the baseplate” of claim 19. Yaralioglu discloses in a similar MEMS device an integrated heater (106) may be provided within the substrate of or on the surface of the MEMS device (the “MEMS cap”; see [0019]), which would result in the MEMS resonator of Kaajakari being located in the center of the heater. Yaralioglu discloses that by integrating the heater within a substrate, i.e. “cap”, of the MEMS device, a cost effective solution for fast and real-time temperature compensation may be accomplished (see [0005]). Further, an intrinsic benefit of providing the second heater within the substrate/cap of the MEMS device would be a smaller circuit size (by not requiring space for the heater disposed laterally to the resonator in Kaajakari). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the second heater of Kaajakari central to the MEMS resonator by disposing the heater within the resonator cap (e.g. within 110 or 130 of Kaajakari) in order to have provided a cost effective solution for fast and real time temperature compensation and/or a reduced device size.
Claim 5: Kaajakari discloses the limitations of claim 5 and further discloses a chip for oscillation circuit (210). However, Kaajakari does not explicitly disclose the chip as a “CMOS chip” or that it is provided “on different surfaces of the first baseplate or are stacked on a first surface of the first baseplate”. Yaralioglu discloses a CMOS die (102) as a suitable die for providing electronic circuit components ([0024]) that is provided in a stacked configuration with the MEMS device (see Fig.1). In the combination with Kaajakari, the CMOS die is thus provided on a different surface of the baseplate (i.e. on the bottom surface of 110 of Kaajakari). Yaralioglu discloses that such a configuration allows for more rapid heating of the whole apparatus (see [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a CMOS die on the other surface of the baseplate of Kaajakari in order to have provided a configuration allowing more rapid heating of the device.
Claim 9: Kaajakari discloses a support beam (e.g. 124A, 124B) located at a periphery of the first MEMS resonator (120; see Fig.2B) and comprising a surface (top surface of 124A/B), wherein the support beam is the first heater, or the first heater is located on the surface (see Fig.2B, where 122 is located on the surface of 124A/B; see also [0033]).
Claim 10: Kaajakari discloses of the first MEMS resonator (130; see [0031]). wherein the MEMS chip further comprises a first temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature
Claim 13: Kaajakari discloses a second temperature sensor located outside the MEMS chip and configured to detect an external ambient temperature of the MEMS chip (230, located outside the MEMS chip; see Fig.6 and [0050]).
Claim 15: Kaajakari discloses a second baseplate (250); and a packaging cap (240), wherein the second baseplate and the packaging cap define a cavity (between 250 and 240), and wherein the first baseplate, the MEMS chip, and the second heater are all located on the second baseplate and in the cavity (see Fig.6).
Claim 16: Kaajakari discloses a base (250); a packaging cover (top part of 240); and a packaging ring (vertical parts of 240) located between the base and the packaging cover (see Fig.6), wherein the base, the packaging ring, and the packaging cover define a cavity (between 250 and 240), and wherein the first baseplate, the MEMS chip, and the second heater are all located on the base in the cavity (see Fig.6).
Claims 1, 5-10, 13-16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaajakari (US 2018/0019754, of record) in view of Arft et al. (US 2020/0186084, hereinafter “Arft”).
Claim 1: Kaajakari discloses a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) oscillator (Figs.2A, 3, and 6), comprising:
a first baseplate (110, Fig.3);
a MEMS chip (112, 124, 126, 134, 120, 122, i.e. the layer shown in Fig.2A) located on the first baseplate and comprising:
a first MEMS resonator (120); and
a first heater (122); and
a second heater (222) located outside the MEMS chip (see Fig.6).
Kaajakari does not explicitly disclose the heater as a “heating coil” as required by claims 1 and 18. Arft discloses that a heating coil may be utilized as a similar heater for a MEMS device (see [0017]). As both the generic “heater” disclosed by Kaajakari and a “heating coil” specifically as disclosed by Arft achieve the same function of heating, the results of substituting the generic “heater” of Kaajakari with a “heating coil” specifically would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a heating coil as the second heater of Kaajakari as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 5: Kaajakari discloses the limitations of claim 5 and further discloses a chip for oscillation circuit (210). However, Kaajakari does not explicitly disclose the chip as a “CMOS chip” or that it is provided “on different surfaces of the first baseplate or are stacked on a first surface of the first baseplate”. Arft discloses a CMOS die (see Fig.1) as a suitable die for providing electronic circuit components ([0015]) provided in a stacked configuration with the MEMS device (see Fig.1). In the combination with Kaajakari, the CMOS die is thus provided on a different surface of the baseplate (i.e. on the bottom surface of 110 of Kaajakari in 105). Arft discloses that the combination of MEMS, heaters, and CMOS dies may be stacked in any configuration (e.g. 101, 103, 105, 107) as opposed to a side-by-side configuration that is also disclosed by Kaajakari (corresponding to 131, 133). As there would be no change to the respective function of each element, i.e. the components in the CMOS die, the heater, and the MEMS would continue to function in the same manner no matter their physical configuration, the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a CMOS die on the other surface of the baseplate of Kaajakari as the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 6: the combination discloses wherein the second heater is integrated on a surface of the CMOS chip (see 107 of Fig.1 of Arft, which discloses a heater integrated on a top surface of the chip and discussion above, where it would have been obvious to have arranged the heaters, CMOS, and MEMS chips in any given configuration while maintain their respective functions, thus combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Claim 7: the combination discloses a heating chip comprising the second heater, wherein the heating chip and the MEMS chip overlap on the first baseplate (e.g. the configurations 101 and 107 of Arft, which disclose heater chips that overlap the MEMS chip, see discussion above, where it would have been obvious to have arranged the heaters, CMOS, and MEMS chips in any given configuration while maintain their respective functions, thus combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Claim 8: the combination discloses a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) chip comprising a second surface, wherein the heating chip is located on a first surface of the first baseplate or is stacked on the second surface (e.g. . the configurations 101 and 107 of Arft, which disclose heater chips that overlap the MEMS chip, see discussion above, where it would have been obvious to have arranged the heaters, CMOS, and MEMS chips in any given configuration while maintain their respective functions, thus combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Claim 9: Kaajakari discloses a support beam (e.g. 124A, 124B) located at a periphery of the first MEMS resonator (120; see Fig.2B) and comprising a surface (top surface of 124A/B), wherein the support beam is the first heater, or the first heater is located on the surface (see Fig.2B, where 122 is located on the surface of 124A/B; see also [0033]).
Claim 10: Kaajakari discloses of the first MEMS resonator (130; see [0031]). wherein the MEMS chip further comprises a first temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature
Claim 13: Kaajakari discloses a second temperature sensor located outside the MEMS chip and configured to detect an external ambient temperature of the MEMS chip (230, located outside the MEMS chip; see Fig.6 and [0050]).
Claim 14: Kaajakari discloses controlling a first power of the first heater based on the temperature (e.g. based on the temperature sensed via 130; see [0041]); and controlling a second power of the second heater based on the external ambient temperature (according to the temperature sensed by 230; see [0050]). Kaajakari does not explicitly disclose using PID controllers to control each. However, Arft discloses utilizing a PID controller to control heaters based on sensed temperatures in order to provide a temperature control signal to the heater and mitigate error between the sensed temperature and the target temperature (see [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided PID controllers to control each of the first and second heaters of Kaajakari according to first and second sensed temperatures in order to have provided a temperature control signal to respective heaters and mitigate error between the sensed temperatures and the target temperatures.
Claim 15: Kaajakari discloses a second baseplate (250); and a packaging cap (240), wherein the second baseplate and the packaging cap define a cavity (between 250 and 240), and wherein the first baseplate, the MEMS chip, and the second heater are all located on the second baseplate and in the cavity (see Fig.6).
Claim 16: Kaajakari discloses a base (250); a packaging cover (top part of 240); and a packaging ring (vertical parts of 240) located between the base and the packaging cover (see Fig.6), wherein the base, the packaging ring, and the packaging cover define a cavity (between 250 and 240), and wherein the first baseplate, the MEMS chip, and the second heater are all located on the base in the cavity (see Fig.6).
Claims 19 and 21: Kaajakari discloses the limitations discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 17, but does not disclose “wherein the MEMS chip is located at a center of the second heater”. Arft discloses providing the second heater in a stacked configuration (107, Fig.1). As implied by Arft, the size of the heater/CMOS chips corresponds to that of the MEMS/heater chips, thus the MES chip is located “in a center” of the heater. As there would be no change to the respective function of each element, i.e. the components in the CMOS die, the heater, and the MEMS would continue to function in the same manner no matter their physical configuration, the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the heater and MEMS chips of Kaajakari in a stacked configuration, thus the MEMS chip located in a center of the second heater, as the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaajakari in view of Yaralioglu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Partridge et al. (US 2007/0290763, hereinafter “Partridge”).
Kaajakari and Yaralioglu disclose the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. However, Kaajakari only discloses a resonator temperature sensing element as a thermistor (130) and does not disclose the first temperature sensor as “a second MEMS resonator arranged in parallel with the first MEMS resonator” as required by the claim. Partridge discloses that a MEMS resonator temperature may instead be measured by use of a second resonator in parallel with the resonator to be measured (12b, Fig.1, and [0153]), the measurement of which may also be utilized in order to control a heater ([0170]). As both methods, a thermistor or a second resonator, accomplish the same function of measuring a MEMS resonator temperature, the results of substituting one element (a thermistor) for another (a second resonator and associated analysis circuitry) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the second resonator and analysis circuitry of Partridge in place of the thermistor of Kaajakari as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaajakari in view of Arft as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Partridge et al. (US 2007/0290763, hereinafter “Partridge”).
Kaajakari and Arft disclose the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. However, Kaajakari only discloses a resonator temperature sensing element as a thermistor (130) and does not disclose the first temperature sensor as “a second MEMS resonator arranged in parallel with the first MEMS resonator” as required by the claim. Partridge discloses that a MEMS resonator temperature may instead be measured by use of a second resonator in parallel with the resonator to be measured (12b, Fig.1, and [0153]), the measurement of which may also be utilized in order to control a heater ([0170]). As both methods, a thermistor or a second resonator, accomplish the same function of measuring a MEMS resonator temperature, the results of substituting one element (a thermistor) for another (a second resonator and associated analysis circuitry) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the second resonator and analysis circuitry of Partridge in place of the thermistor of Kaajakari as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 requires two separate PID controllers to control the first and second heaters (“a first PID controller” and “a second PID controller”). However, claim 12 further requires that the “second PID controller” be controlled “based on an output value of the first PID controller or the temperature” (i.e. the temperature of the first MEMS resonator, according to the antecedent basis of claim 10). This configuration, where the “second heater located outside the MEMS chip” is controlled by a second PID controller that either receives a value of the first PID controller or the same temperature sensed of the first PID controller, could not be found in the prior art within the overall context of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Johnson whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Menna Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
