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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 06/15/2026 to the non-final Office action of 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending elected claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-16, and 21-25 follows.
Election/Restrictions
As outlined in the non-final Office action of 02/13/2026, claim 26 is not believed to be a part of Applicant’s elected invention of Specie 1 and Sub-Specie A, as elected in the reply of 03/13/2025. While Applicant contests that claim 26 is a part of Applicant’s elected invention, the Office respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the Response to Arguments section below, paragraph [0016] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification), paragraph [0016] is simply a summary section that is supposed to summarize the overall idea of Applicant’s specification, and thus provides no context as to which embodiment or embodiments are included or excluded in the described range of “1 kilohertz or above”, as claimed in claim 26. In other words, paragraph [0016] cannot be relied upon to conclude that Applicant’s elected invention was in possession of the claimed frequency range of “1 kilohertz or above”, especially since paragraph [0037] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification) is the only other section in Applicant’s specification that refers to the claim frequency, and only associates the frequency with the embodiment shown in figure 4 of Applicant’s figures (which is Applicant’s non-elected figure). As also outlined in the Response to Arguments section below, Applicant’s specification specifically ties the frequency to the “movable portions” shown in figure 4 to achieve a function that is unique to only the embodiment shown in figure 4. Therefore, there is far more evidence to conclude that the claimed frequency range, as claimed in claim 26, is only a part of the embodiment shown in figure 4, and thus not a part of Applicant’s elected invention. For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 26 is still considered to not be a part of Applicant’s elected invention, and thus remains withdrawn from consideration.
However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, and in the event that Applicant is able to provide a persuasive argument that claim 26 is actually a part of Applicant’s elected invention, the Office will provide a rejection for withdrawn claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 below) in order to demonstrate that the claim is not believed to contain subject matter that will productively advance prosecution. In other words, an exemplary rejection will be made to claim 26 even though it is still withdrawn from consideration in order to best advance prosecution. Therefore, the exemplary rejection of claim 26 should not be considered to be an admission that the claim is part of Applicant’s elected invention.
See next page→
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 15, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minners (US 20010010488) in view of Sinclair (US 6675578).
Regarding claim 1, Minners discloses (Figs.1-5B and 7A-B):
A microelectromechanical structures (MEMS) switch comprising: a contact pad (20a and/or b); a body (62b- See Figure Below) extending from a base (See Figure Below); a spine (62c- See Figure Below) extending from the base and coupled to the body (62b) (Spine extending from the Base and Coupled to the Body: See Figure Below- the first end of the spine extends from the base and connects to the body at the second end of the spine), wherein the spine is substantially parallel to the body along an extending direction (See Figure Below and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the horizontal/lateral direction in which both the spine and body extends will define the “extending direction”) of the spine and the body (See Figure Below and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the spine and body are parallel to each other along the extension direction of the of the spine and body); and a power source (32) coupled to the spine (See Figs.1-2: 32 is a power source that will have to be at least electrically coupled to the spine), the power source (32) configurable to generate a current ([0029]) at intervals (Fig.2 and [0030]: the periods in which 30a is closed and 30b is open, when 30a is open and 30b is closed, and when 32 is “OFF” will define the “intervals”), in which the spine is configurable to cause the body to repeatedly move in a direction substantially perpendicular (See Figure Below and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the body moves in an up-down, vertical, direction, which is substantially perpendicular to the horizontal/lateral/extending direction of the spine) to the extending direction of the spine between a first position (See Fig.7A) and a second position (See Fig.7B) with respect to the contact pad (20a and/or b) responsive to the current ([0029]) (Spine to cause Body to Repeatedly Move with Respect to the Contact Pad: See Figs.1-2 and 7A-B, [0029], [0040]- based on the current flow flowing through 26a or 26b, the spine will cause the body to repeatedly move in contact with and out of contact with 20a and 20b so that it repeatedly moves between the first and second positions).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
818
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Minners does not explicitly disclose:
A current source coupled to the spine, the current source configurable to generate a current at intervals.
Sinclair however teaches (Figs.23 and 25):
A current source (200) (Col.6 Lns.66-67: 200 explicitly referred to as a “current source”), the current source (200) configurable to generate a current at intervals (Col.8 Lns.34-55: there are three intervals that will define the “intervals” in which the current source will generate current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sinclair to modify the device of Minners such that the power source is a current source that generates the current at intervals so that the spine is configurable to cause the body to repeatedly move respect to the contact pad responsive to the current, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of actuating the switch (i.e., by utilizing a current source that can generate unequal amounts of current at desired locations as taught by Sinclair, the relays 30a,b of Minners are no longer required to route the current to a desired area, and thus reducing the number of components needed to operate the switch) as taught and/or suggested by Sinclair (Col.8 Lns.34-55: the current source has three time periods that can be used to move the switch without the use of any relays to drive current to a desired area so that the switch moves as desired).
Regarding claim 10, Minners discloses (Figs.1-5B and 7A-B):
A microelectromechanical structure (MEMS) switch (10) comprising: a contact pad (20a and/or b); a body (62b- See Figure of Claim 1) movable to toggle the MEMS switch (10) between on (See Fig.7B) and off (See Fig.7A) states based on the body (62b) contacting or being spaced from the contact pad (20a and/or b) (Figs.7A-B: MEMS switch 10 toggles between the ON state and OFF state based on 62b contacting or being spaced from 20a and/or b), the body (62b) extending from a base (See Figure of Claim 1); a spine (62c- See Figure of Claim 1) extending from the base and coupled to the body (62b) (Spine extending from the Base and coupled to the Body: See Figure of Claim 1- the first end of the spine extends from the base and connects to the body at the second end of the spine), wherein the spine is substantially parallel to the body along an extending direction (See Figure of Claim 1 and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the horizontal/lateral direction in which both the spine and body extends will define the “extending direction”) of the spine and the body (See Figure of Claim 1 and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the spine and body are parallel to each other along the extension direction of the of the spine and body); and a power source (32) coupled to the spine (See Figs.1-2: 32 is a power source that will have to be at least electrically coupled to the spine), the power source (32) configurable to generate a current ([0029]) at intervals (Fig.2 and [0030]: the periods in which 30a is closed and 30b is open, when 30a is open and 30b is closed, and when 32 is “OFF” will define the “intervals”), in which the spine is configurable to, responsive to the current ([0029]), cause the body to: move repeatedly with respect to the contact pad (20a and/or b) (Spine to cause Body to Repeatedly Move with Respect to the Contact Pad: See Figs.1-2 and 7A-B, [0029], [0040]- based on the current flow flowing through 26a or 26b, the spine will cause the body to repeatedly move in contact with and out of contact with 20a and 20b) in a direction substantially perpendicular (See Figure of Claim 1 and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the body moves in an up-down, vertical, direction, which is substantially perpendicular to the horizontal/lateral/extending direction of the spine) to the extending direction of the spine to contact the contact pad (20a and/or b) (Contacting the Contact Pad: See Figs.7A-B).
However, Minners does not disclose:
A current source coupled to the spine, the current source configurable to generate a current at intervals; and contact the contact pad at a first location when the MEMS switch is in the on state at a first time and contact the contact pad at a second location when the MEMS switch is in the on state at a second time.
Sinclair however teaches (Figs.23 and 25):
A current source (200) (Col.6 Lns.66-67: 200 explicitly referred to as a “current source”), the current source (200) configurable to generate a current at intervals (254) (Col.8 Lns.34-55: there are three intervals that will define the “intervals” in which the current source will generate current); and move a beam (194) at a first location (Col.8 Lns.34-55: and Fig.23: the equal current flow with move 194 only along 205, and thus any location that is only along 205 will define the first location) when in the on state at a first time (Col.8 Lns.34-55: the equal current is an on state at a “first time”) and move the beam (194) at a second location (Col.8 Lns.34-55: and Fig.23: the unequal/asymmetric current flow with move 194 along both 205 and 212, and thus any location that 194 moves along due to moving along both 205 and 212 will define the “second location”) when in the on state at a second time (Col.8 Lns.34-55: the unequal/asymmetric current is an on state at a “second time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sinclair to modify the device of Minners such that the power source is a current source that is coupled to the spine, and the current source being configured to generate the current at the intervals so that the spine is configurable to, in response to the current, cause the body to: move repeatedly with respect to the contact pad and contact the contact pad at a first location when the MEMS switch is in the on state at a first time and contact the contact pad at a second location when the MEMS switch is in the on state at a second time (See Col.7 Lns.24-30 and Col.8 Lns.34-55 of Sinclair: when unequal/asymmetric currents and equal currents are utilized, it can allow the beam to expand/contract similarity or differently, and thus allow the beam, and thus also the body of Minners, to contact the contact pad at different locations when the MEMS switch is in the on state at two different times depending on whether equal or unequal currents are being utilized when modifying Minners)1, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of actuating the switch (i.e., by utilizing a current source that can generate unequal amounts of current at desired locations as taught by Sinclair, the relays 30a,b of Minners are no longer required to route the current to a desired area, and thus reducing the number of components needed to operate the switch) as taught and/or suggested by Sinclair (Col.8 Lns.34-55- the current source has three time periods that can be used to move the switch without the use of any relays to drive current to a desired area so that the switch moves as desired).
Regarding claim 2, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the spine (62c) is a first spine (See Figure of Claim 1), and further comprising: a second spine (62a) extending from the base (See Figure of Claim 1) and coupled to the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 1) (Fig.1 and See Figure of Claim 1: 62a extends from the base and extends to and couples to the body); a first bridge (See Figure of Claim 1) coupled between the first spine (62c) and a first side (See Figure of Claim 1: with respect to the shown perspective, the upper side of the body will define the “first side”, and the first bridge is between 62c and the upper side of the body) of the body; and a second bridge (See Figure of Claim 1) coupled between the second spine (62a) and a second side of the body (See Figure of Claim 1: with respect to the shown perspective, the lower side of the body will define the “second side”, and the second bridge is between 62a and the lower side of the body).
Regarding claim 22, Minners further discloses:
At least one of the spine (62c) or the body (62b) comprising a first material (24a and/or b) with a first thermal coefficient ([0035]: the first material is made out of a conductive material that will have an associated thermal coefficient that will define the "first thermal coefficient") and a second material (64a and/or b) with a second thermal coefficient ([0034]: the second material is made out of an insulating material that can include silicon dioxide, which will have an associated thermal coefficient that will define the "second thermal coefficient") different from the first thermal coefficient ([0034]-[0035]: the first material will be made out of a conductive material such as copper, which will have a different thermal coefficient than the second material, since the second material will be made out of an insulating material that has silicon dioxide, and copper and silicon dioxide will have different thermal coefficients).
Regarding claim 3, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the first material (24a and/or b) is at a first depth (Fig.4B: depth of 24a or 24b at 62c) of at least one of the spine (62c) or the body (62b) and the second material (64a and/or b) is at a second depth (Fig.4B: depth of 64a or 64b at 62c) of the at least one of the spine (62c) or the body (62b).
Regarding claim 9, Minners further discloses:
A first width (Fig.3A: width of 62c) of the spine (62c- See Figure of Claim 1) and a second width (Fig.3A: width of 62b) of the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 1).
However, modified Minners does not explicitly teach:
Wherein a ratio of a first width of the spine to a second width of the body is in a range from 1:3 to 1:80.
However, modifying the first width of the spine and/or the second width of the body such that they have a desired ratio with respect to each other, including as claimed (i.e., the ratio of the first width of the spine to the second width of the body being in the range from 1:3 to 1:80), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the desired bending characteristics as suggested by Minners ([0008], [0033], and [0044]-[0045]) since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the spine (62c) is a first spine (See Figure of Claim 1), and further comprising: a second spine (62a) extending from the base (See Figure of Claim 1) and coupled to the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 1) (Fig.1 and See Figure of Claim 1: 62a extends from the base and extends to and couples to the body); a first bridge (See Figure of Claim 1) coupled between the first spine (62c) and a first side of the body (See Figure of Claim 1: with respect to the shown perspective, the upper side of the body will define the “first side”, and the first bridge is between 62c and the upper side of the body); and a second bridge (See Figure of Claim 1) coupled between the second spine (62c) and a second side of the body (See Figure of Claim 1: with respect to the shown perspective, the lower side of the body will define the “second side”, and the second bridge is between 62a and the lower side of the body).
Regarding claim 15, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the body (62b) is configurable to contact the contact pad (20a and/or b) at random points of contact responsive to the current provided by the power source (32) (See Figs.1-2 and 7A-B, [0037], and [0040]: figure 7B shows intimate contact between the body and the contact pad, and figure 7A shows the body separated from the contact pad, and thus there will be a plurality of random contact points as the body goes between the “ON” mode and “OFF” mode, which will be affected by the amount voltage/current passing through the switch via 32. Furthermore, the cantilever can toggle between the on and off positions without having to worry about the cantilever sticking onto the contact pad).
However, as mentioned above, Minners does not explicitly teach:
The current source.
However, as outlined above, Sinclair teaches:
The current source (200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sinclair to further modify the device of modified Minners such that when the power source of Minners is modified to be a current source, as modified in claim 10, the body is configurable to contact the contact pad at random points of contact responsive to the current provided by the current source, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved switch actuation as outlined in claim 10 above.
Examiner Note: the limitations “configurable to contact the contact pad at random points of contact responsive to the current provided by the current source” are functional limitations and is rendered anticipated should the prior art(s) teach all of the structural limitations of the claim. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, Minners as modified by Sinclair teaches a microelectromechanical structure switch circuit that teaches all of the structural requirements of claim 15 (see rejection of claims 10 and 15). Therefore, the device of Minners as modified by Sinclair is believed to be capable of performing the aforementioned functional limitations of claim 15. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 23, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the spine (62c- See Figure of Claim 1) has a narrower width (See Figure of Claim 1: depicted width of the spine is smaller/narrower than that of the body) than the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, Sinclair further teaches:
Wherein the current source (200) (Col.6 Lns.66-67: 200 explicitly referred to as a “current source”) is configurable to generate unequal amounts of the current at the intervals (Col.8 Lns.41-51: during a “second time period”, which is one of three intervals that will define the “intervals”, unequal amounts of the current will be applied to both 186 and 188).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sinclair to further modify the device of modified Minners such that the current source is configurable to generate unequal amounts of the current at the intervals in such a way that the first and second positions vary between different intervals, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved actuation as outlined in claim 1 above.
See next page→
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minners (US 20010010488) and Sinclair (US 6675578) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kawakubo (US 20060285255).
Regarding claim 7, modified Minners does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the first material is at least partially composed of at least one of tungsten or platinum.
Kawakubo however teaches (Figs.1 and 4-7):
Wherein the first material (22A) is at least partially composed of at least one of tungsten ([0042]) or platinum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Kawakubo to further modify the device of modified Minners such that the first material is at least partially composed of tungsten, as claimed, in order to provide a material that is easy to handle and easy to handle as taught by Kawakubo ([0042]).
Furthermore, modifying the material such that the first material is made out of a desired material, including as claimed (i.e., at least partially composed of tungsten or platinum), as suggested by Minners ([0035]) would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the art would do since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice in order to efficiently and effectively transfer current between the control contacts (68a and 68b) of Minners since the first material will be made out of a material that is known in the art to be great conductor of electricity. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the second material (64a and/or b) is at least partially composed of silicon dioxide ([0034]) or titanium.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minners (US 20010010488) and Sinclair (US 6675578) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aimi (US 20160257558).
Regarding claim 26, modified Minners does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the current source is configurable to provide the current at a frequency is at 1 kilohertz or above, and the spine is configurable to cause the body to repeatedly move at the frequency responsive to the current.
Aimi however teaches (Figs.1-5):
Wherein the current source (120) is configurable to provide the current at a frequency is at 1 kilohertz or above ([0034]: 120 can generate a current that can cause 104 to move at a frequency of 1kHz or less, or 120 can actuate 104 at frequencies greater than 1kHz depending on the desired usage), and the body (104) to repeatedly move at the frequency responsive to the current (See Figs.1-2 and 4-5, [0031], and [0033]-[0034]: the beam can be “selectively movable” between the two modes, which means that 104 is designed to repeatedly move at the frequency responsive to the current flowing through 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Aimi such that the current source is figured to provide the current at a frequency is at 1 kilohertz or above, and such that the spine is configured to cause the body to repeatedly move at the frequency responsive to the current, as claimed, in order to provide a switch that can be utilized in both higher and lower power distribution applications as taught by Aimi ([0034]- the frequency of 1kHz can be reliably used in higher power distribution applications, and frequencies larger than 1kHz can be used in applications that utilize relatively lower powers) to achieve the improved switch actuation as outlined in claim 1 above, and thus improve the overall usability of the device.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimi (US 20160257558) in view of Minners (US 20010010488) and in further view of Sinclair (US 6675578).
Regarding claim 16, Aimi discloses (Figs.1-5):
A microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) switch comprising: a contact pad (102); a base (106) comprising a current source (120) and a ground terminal (Figs.1-2: the depicted ground will define the “ground terminal”) (Fig.2 and [0034]: due to the circuit needing to be a closed circuit, the base will have to comprise 120 and the ground terminal in order to create the closed circuit); a body (104) extending from (See Figs.1-2) the base (106) and over (See Figs.1-2) the contact pad (102), the body (104) movable to contact (See Fig.5) the contact pad (102), the ground terminal coupled to the body (104) (Figs.1-2: the ground that defines the ground terminal is electrically coupled to, and thus coupled to, the body 104), and the current source (120) configurable to generate a current at intervals (the periods in which the MEMS switch is ON and OFF will define the intervals and 120 by definition will generate a current when the MEMS switch is ON due to 120 being a current source), in which the body (104) is configurable to, responsive to the current, cause the body (104) to: repeatedly move along a first axis (See Figs.4-5: the axis that 104 moves along to contact and separate from 102 will define the “first axis”) to contact the contact pad (102) (Figs.4-5, [0031], and [0033]: the beam can be “selectively movable” between the two modes, which means that 104 is designed to repeatedly move along the axis to either open or close the circuit in response to the current that flows through 104).
However, Aimi does not disclose:
A spine extending from the base and coupled to the body, the spine being substantially parallel to the body in an extending direction of the spine and the body, the current source coupled to the spine and configurable to generate a current having different values at different intervals, in which the spine is configurable to, responsive to the current, cause the body to: repeatedly move along a first axis substantially perpendicular to the extending direction of the spine to contact the contact pad at different locations.
Minners however teaches (Figs.1-5B and 7A-B):
See next page→
A spine (62c- See Figure of Claim 1) extending from the base (See Figure of Claim 1) and coupled to the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 1) (Spine extending from the Base and coupled to the Body: See Figure of Claim 1- the first end of the spine extends from the base and connects to the body at the second end of the spine), the spine (62c) being substantially parallel to the body (62b) in an extending direction (See Figure of Claim 1 and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the horizontal/lateral direction in which both the spine and body extends will define the “extending direction”) of the spine (62c) and the body (62b) (See Figure of Claim 1 and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the spine and body are parallel to each other along the extension direction of the of the spine and body), the power source (32) coupled to the spine (See Figs.1-2: 32 is a power source that will have to be at least electrically coupled to the spine) and configurable to generate a current ([0029]) at intervals (Fig.2 and [0030]: the periods in which 30a is closed and 30b is open, when 30a is open and 30b is closed, and when 32 is “OFF” will define the “intervals”), in which the spine is configurable to, responsive to the current ([0029]), cause the body to: repeatedly move along a first axis (Figs.2 and 7A-B: the axis in which 12a moves in order to contact and separate from 20a,b will define the “first axis”) substantially perpendicular (See Figure of Claim 1 and Figs.1, 3A, and 7A-B: the body moves along the first axis, which is an up-down, vertical, direction, which is substantially perpendicular to the horizontal/lateral/extending direction of the spine) to the extending direction of the spine (62c) to contact the contact pad (20a and/or b) (Spine to cause Body to Repeatedly Move with Respect to the Contact Pad: See Figs.1-2 and 7A-B, [0029], [0040]- based on the current flow flowing through 26a or 26b, the spine will cause the body to repeatedly move in contact with and out of contact with 20a and 20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Minners to modify the device of Aimi such that it has a spine that extends from the base and coupled to the body, and such that the current source is coupled to the spine to generate the current at the intervals so that the spine causes the body to repeatedly move along the first axis with respect to the contact pad in response to the current, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of moving the body to contact and separate from the contact pad (i.e., in order to provide the spine taught by Minners to the device of Aimi, the gaps 60a,b of Minners also have to be incorporated, which will increase the flexibility of the switch, and thus making it that much easier to move the switch of Aimi to the various positions).
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
The current source coupled to the spine and configurable to generate a current having different values at different intervals, and contact the contact pad at different locations at different times.
Sinclair however teaches (Figs.23 and 25):
The current source (200) (Col.6 Lns.66-67: 200 explicitly referred to as a “current source”) configurable to generate a current having different values at different intervals (Col.8 Lns.34-55: there are three intervals that will define the “intervals” in which the current source will generate current, and since both equal currents and unequal currents can be utilized at two different intervals, the current source can generate currents at different values depending on which interval the current source is in and depending on how the beam wants to move).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sinclair to further modify the device of modified Aimi such that the current source is coupled to the spine and configurable to generate the current having different values at the different intervals so that the spine is also configurable to move the body to contact the contact pad at different locations at different times2, as claimed, in order to provide a more user friendly actuating means as suggested by Sinclair (Col.8 Lns.34-55- the current source has three time periods that can be used to move the switch to a desired position, and thus allowing a user more flexibility as to how to utilize and actuate the switch, and thus allowing the switch to be more customizable based on a user’s needs).
Regarding claim 21, Aimi further discloses:
Wherein the current source (120) ([0034]) is configurable to cause a current to pass through the body (104) as a pulse waveform ([0034]: the current source can provide a current that oscillates, and thus defining a pulse waveform).
However, as discussed in claim 16 above, Aimi does not disclose:
The spine.
However, as outlined in claim 16, Minners teaches:
The spine (62c- See Figure of Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Minners to further modify the device of modified of Aimi such that when the spine taught by Minners is incorporated to the device of Aimi, as modified in claim 16 above, the current source is also configurable to cause a current to pass through the spine as a pulse waveform, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved switching as outlined in claim 16 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 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: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 24-25, and at least in part, for the reasons outlined in the final Office action 10/01/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 06/15/2026 have been fully considered, but have been found unpersuasive. For initial matters, regarding Applicant’s traversal of the Office’s position that claims 1 and 26 are not a part of Applicant’s elected invention, as outlined in the non-final Office action of 02/13/2026, the Office notes that Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but has been found unpersuasive. Regarding Applicant’s traversal of claim 1, while the Office disagrees with Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s argument is moot since the claim has been amended to remove the restricted subject matter, and thus allowing claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom to be examined on the merits.
However, regarding Applicant’s argument made to the withdrawal of claim 26, the Office has fully considered Applicant’s argument, but respectfully disagrees. While Applicant is correct that paragraph [0016] of Applicant’s specification (see the US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification) does recite the claimed frequency range and does not explicitly limit the range to any one embodiment, the Office notes that paragraph [0016] is simply an overly broad teaching and that simply summarizes the invention as a whole, and thus has to include both the elected and non-elected species as outlined in the Restriction/Election requirement 01/13/2023. Furthermore, paragraph [0037], which is only drawn to the embodiment shown in figure 4 of Applicant’s figures, is the only paragraph that links the invention to the frequency range. In other words, if the invention shown in figure 1A of Applicant’s figures is capable of operating within the claimed frequency range, as claimed in claim 26, then why is the relationship only outlined with the embodiment shown in figure 4, as outlined in paragraph [0037] (i.e., in the detailed explanation of Applicant’s invention, the frequency range is only affiliated with the non-elected embodiment shown in figure 4 of Applicant’s figures)? There should at least be some teaching or suggestion that the device shown in figure 1A (which is Applicant’s specification) is capable of operating within the frequency range. Therefore, there is more evidence and arguments to conclude that the limitations of claim 26 are not a part of Applicant’s elected invention. However, as outlined in the Election/Restriction section above, even if Applicant were to provide a persuasive argument that the limitations of claim 26 are indeed a part of Applicant’s elected invention, the claim still is not believed to be a claim that would productively advance prosecution. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s traversal to claim 26 being a part of Applicant’s elected invention is believed to be in error.
Regarding amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16, Applicant contests that neither Minners nor Sinclair teaches and/or suggests “the spine is configurable to, responsive to the current, cause the body to: move repeatedly with respect to the contact pad in a direction substantially perpendicular to the extending direction of the spine” as now respectively recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 16.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to figures 1, 3A, and 7A-B of Minners. As outlined in the body of the rejection above, the spine (62c) and body (62b) both extend along a lateral direction, which will define the claimed “extending direction” for both the spine and body, which is perpendicular to the direction that the cantilever moves. As depicted in figures 7A-B of Minners, the cantilever moves about an up/down (vertical) direction, which will be, at least, about/substantially perpendicular to the direction in which both the body and spine extend, and is thus substantially perpendicular to the extending direction of the spine. Furthermore, Minners also shows that the spine (62c) and body (62b) extend parallel to each other, and thus also disclosing the other amended limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 16.
With respect to the limitation “move repeatedly with respect to the contact pad”, the Office notes that Applicant has provided no argument as to why the Offices interpretation of the Minners reference is incorrect. As outlined in the rejection above and in the non-final Office action of 02/13/2026, paragraphs [0029] and [0040] of Minners are believed to provide sufficient teaching and suggestion that the cantilever is supposed to be repeatedly actuated. The aforementioned paragraphs of Minners clearly teaches that the cantilever is repeatedly heated to actuate the cantilever to a desired position, and thus provided a teaching that the connection between the cantilever and contacts are not supposed to be permanent. Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion that would suggest that the connection between the cantilever and contacts are supposed to be permanent. In fact, there are more teachings and suggestions that the connection is supposed to be non-permanent so that the cantilever can be moved to a desired position at any point in time. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument that neither Minners nor Sinclair teaches and/or suggests “the spine is configurable to, responsive to the current, cause the body to: move repeatedly with respect to the contact pad in a direction substantially perpendicular to the extending direction of the spine” is believed to be in error.
Finally, Applicant argues that there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Minners with Sinclair to arrive at the claimed invention because it is unclear “how the combination would reduce the number of components needed to operate the switch as alleged by the Office”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to the rejections made to claims 1 and/or 10. As outlined in the rejections for both claims 1 and 10, and even as highlighted by Applicant, by providing a current source that can generate unequal amounts of current at desired locations, the relays of Minners are no longer required, and thus reducing the total number of components needed to assemble the device (i.e., the total number of physical components needed to operate the MEMS switch has now been reduced). Therefore, the Office action very clearly outlines how the combination would reduce the number of components needed. In fact, the motivation provides a very explicit explanation as to how the MEMS switch now requires fewer mechanical components. The Office also notes that Applicant did not provide an explanation as to how no longer requiring the relays of Minners would not reduce the total number of components. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be improper, and the rejection made to independent claims 1 and 10 over Minners and Sinclair, and the rejection made to independent claim 16 over Aimi, Minners, and Sinclair are still maintained.
See next page→
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6438954: teaches a MEMS actuator that can be moved in a plurality of directions, including a vertical and horizontal direction.
US 20030038703: teaches a MEMS actuator that can be actuated in both a vertical and horizontal direction.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
See next page→
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 Examiner’s Note: with respect to the limitation “contact the contact pad at different locations when the MEMS switch is in the on state”, the Office notes that the motivation is written so that it is the combination of Minners and Sinclair that teaches the limitation since neither reference in isolation teaches the full limitation (i.e., no reference in isolation teaches a spine that is configured to move a body so that it contacts a contact pad at different locations in an “ON” mode).
2 Examiner’s Note: regarding the limitation “…contact the contact pad at different locations at different times”, the Office notes that the motivation is structured to convey that the combination itself teaches the limitation since none of the references in isolation teach a spine that moves a body to “contact the contact pad at different locations at different times” as claimed.
Prosecution Insights