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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 01/13/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 17-18 have been amended; claims 2-4, 12-15 have been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Final Office Action dated 09/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the supporting columns” in lines 2, 3, 4. This should read “the plurality of supporting columns” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the thermal insulation layer” in lines 3-4. This should read “the at least one thermal insulation layer” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an orthogonal projection of the electrically heated wire onto the substrate” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 8 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites “an orthogonal projection of the heater projecting onto the substrate” previously in lines 12-13. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same orthogonal projection or different orthogonal projections since claim 8 defines the heater has the electrically heated wire. For examination purposes, the limitation “an orthogonal projection” recited in claim 8 will be interpreted as to refer to the “orthogonal projection” recited previously in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a microelectromechanical heating device (structure 300, Cheng Figs.4-5), comprising a substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5), a heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5), and a thermal insulator (first membrane layer 104-1, second membrane layer 104-2 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, and four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide, Cheng Par.0095 teaches the second membrane layer 104-2 includes silicon dioxide and also teaches the second membrane layer 104-2 includes same material as the first membrane layer 104-1. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material), the thermal insulator (first membrane layer 104-1, second membrane layer 104-2 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, and four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) comprising:
a plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5), disposed on the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5); and
at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C), located above the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) and connected to the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5),
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) is spaced apart from the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) by a distance (as shown in Cheng Fig.4), and the heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5, 9C) is disposed on the at least one thermal insulation layer (Cheng Par.0094 discloses: “a heater 105 is disposed and patterned over the first membrane layer 104-1 as shown in FIG. 9C”),
wherein the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged in an array (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5) on the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5), and the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged to avoid overlapping an area (area, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) denoting an orthogonal projection of the heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5) projecting onto the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) (It is noted that the Instant Application defines “an area R2 denotes an orthogonal projection of the area R1 of the heating portion 31 projecting onto the electrically insulating layer 12 of the substrate 10” in Par.0014 and see Figs.19 & 21 of the Instant Application. In this case, the annotated area in Cheng annotated Fig.6 below and the area R2 of the Instant Application are equivalent).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5) has an electrically heated wire (heater 105 is electrically heated wire as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5), and the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged to surround an orthogonal projection of the electrically heated wire (heater 105 is electrically heated wire as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5) onto the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Figs.4-5 show four supporting columns on four corners surround the orthogonal projection of the heater 105).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are disposed between the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) and the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) comprises a non-electrically insulating layer (second substrate 201, Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0102 discloses: “the second substrate 201 is a silicon substrate”; therefore, the second substrate 201 is non-electrically insulating layer) and an electrically insulating layer (intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) which are stacked on each other (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5), the electrically insulating layer (intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) is located closer to the thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) than the non-electrically insulating layer (second substrate 201, Cheng Figs.4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 5-7, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1) in view of Garcia-Blanco et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0228733 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) comprises a plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material), one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5) that is located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) is spaced apart from the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) by a distance (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose
the distance of greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers.
Garcia-Blanco teaches a microelectromechanical heating device (100, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5):
one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (structure 101 and heat-spreading layer 109, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) (Garcia-Blanco Par.0028 teaches: “The suspended structure 101 is typically made up of a dielectric material such as but not limited to Si, SiO2, Si3N4 or silicon oxinitride. ”, and Garcia-Blanco Par.0029 teaches the heat-spreading layer 109 is made up of SiO2; it is noted that SiO2 is thermal insulating material) that is located adjacent to the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) is spaced apart from the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) by a distance (gap g, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) of greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers (Garcia-Blanco Par.0030 teaches: “The vertical gap g is preferably set between 1 μm and 50 μm”)
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 apparatus of Cheng, by adding the teaching of the distance of greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers, as taught by Garcia-Blanco, in order to obtain the vertical gap with optimal dimension that can separate the underside of the platform from the substrate; with that dimension of the gap, the gap can be small enough to keep the fabrication of the whole microdevice manageable, and the gap can also be large enough to prevent the suspended structure from inadvertently contacting the substrate to create detrimental thermal bridges, as recognized by Garcia-Blanco [Garcia-Blanco, Par.0030].
Regarding claim 6, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, Cheng also discloses:
wherein each of the supporting columns (each of the four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) is a column-shaped object (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5), and each of the supporting columns has a central axis and a width (each column including 204, 103, 101f has central axis and width; Cheng Figs.4-5).
Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco does not explicitly teach:
a distance between the central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other, divided by the width is greater than or equal to 15.3.
Regarding the limitation that a distance between the central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other, divided by the width is greater than or equal to 15.3, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Figures 4-5 where the reference Cheng discloses certain distance between central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other and certain dimension of the width of the each supporting column), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Cheng discloses certain distance between central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other and certain dimension of the width of the each supporting column, thus, certain ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is disclosed, and having a specific ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column would affect the integration and electrical connection of the first device 100 with the second device 200. An optimized ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column can minimize parasitic capacitance, reduce signal loss, and enable miniaturized, high-performance sensing. Thus, the ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco apparatus by making distance between the central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other, divided by the width is greater than or equal to 15.3 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, Cheng also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of supporting columns (each of the four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) is a square column or a circular column (It is noted that the limitation “a square column or a circular column” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these is required during examination. In this case, Cheng discloses square columns as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) comprises a plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material), the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5) that is located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5)
Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
the substrate and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers that is located adjacent to the substrate form an airtight space therebetween
Garcia-Blanco teaches a microelectromechanical heating device (100, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5):
the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (structure 101 and heat-spreading layer 109, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) (Garcia-Blanco Par.0028 teaches: “The suspended structure 101 is typically made up of a dielectric material such as but not limited to Si, SiO2, Si3N4 or silicon oxinitride. ”, and Garcia-Blanco Par.0029 teaches the heat-spreading layer 109 is made up of SiO2; it is noted that SiO2 is thermal insulating material) that is located adjacent to the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) form an airtight space therebetween (Garcia-Blanco Claim 1 teaches MEMS getter microdevice enclosed in a hermetically sealed package)
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 apparatus of Cheng, by adding the teaching of the substrate and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers that is located adjacent to the substrate form an airtight space therebetween, as taught by Garcia-Blanco, in order to protect sensitive, fragile components from moisture, contamination, and performance degradation over time.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 16, Cheng also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (each of first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) has a plurality of through holes (second recesses 104a and annotated through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses: “the first membrane layer 104-1 is disposed over the second oxide layer 101 d-2, and then patterned to form several second recesses 104 a”), a part of the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) extend to the plurality of through holes (annotated through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) so as to seal the plurality of through holes (“so as to” here is interpreted as intended result without structural limitation and carries no patentable weight. Since Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches a hermetically sealed package, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above, thus, it is understood the through holes are sealed).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 16, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6) comprise a first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-6) and a second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104; Cheng Figs.4-6, 9C) disposed on the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6), wherein the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) has a plurality of through holes (through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below), a part of the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) extend to the plurality of through holes (through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) so as to seal the plurality of through holes (“so as to” here is interpreted as intended result without structural limitation and carries no patentable weight. Since Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches a hermetically sealed package, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above, thus, it is understood the through holes are sealed), the second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104; Cheng Figs.4-6, 9C) covers the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) (Cheng Figs.4-6 & 9C shows that the first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104 covers portion of the second oxide layer 101d-2), the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6), and the plurality of through holes (through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) adjacent the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6) and are connected to the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose
the plurality of supporting columns penetrate through the at least one thermal insulation layer
However, a skilled artisan would recognize that there are only a finite number of ways to connect the supporting columns to the at least one thermal insulation layer or the platform, i.e, by penetrating through or not through.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try connecting the supporting columns to the at least one thermal insulation layer by penetrating through it, as it is one of known method for connecting supporting columns to a platform/table and the success of it can be reasonably expected. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Cheng teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 10, and also teaches:
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6) comprises a first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-6) and a second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, Cheng Figs.4-6) disposed on the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6), the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) penetrate through (as explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10 above) the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) and are connected to the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6), the second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, Cheng Figs.4-6) covers the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) (Cheng Figs.4-6 & 9C shows that the first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104 covers portion of the second oxide layer 101d-2) and the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
DeNatale et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0115377 A1) discloses an apparatus for providing localized heating as well as protection for a vibrating MEMS device.
Ahn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0370336 A1) discloses a micro heater including a substrate and a heater electrode formed on the substrate.
Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0227816 A1) discloses a method for fabricating a multiple MEMS device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/05/2026