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 on 12/31/2025 after final rejection of 10/01/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered. The Office action on currently pending elected claims 10-11, 15-16, and 21 follows.
Election/Restrictions
As outlined in the non-final Office action of 05/19/2025, the restriction of 01/13/2023 is reinstated due to the allowance of 02/11/2025 being withdrawn, and thus Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie 1 and Sub-Specie A as elected in the reply filed on 03/13/2025 is also reinstated. Furthermore, as outlined in the attached Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary, independent claim 1 has now been amended such that the scope of the claim is no longer part of Applicant’s election. Referring to claim 1, the limitation “the body is electrically isolated from the contact pad at the first and second positions” is a limitation that is only supported in specie 2 (as outlined in the Restriction/Election requirement of 01/13/2023). Referring to Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification), paragraphs [0016], [0033], [0036], and [0067] are the only portions in Applicant’s specification that discuss electrical isolation. Specifically, paragraphs [0033] and [0036] are the only paragraphs that specifically detail how the electrical isolation is achieved. The Office notes that paragraphs [0033] and [0036] are drawn to figure 4 of Applicant’s figures, which was specifically restricted out in the Restriction/Election requirement of 01/13/2023, and therefore not making claim 1 part of Applicant’s election.
Referring now to newly added claim 26, the subject matter is only described in paragraphs [0016] and [0037] of Applicant’s specification. Again, referring to paragraph [0037], the subject matter is also only drawn to figure 4 of Applicant’s specification, and there is no other teaching or suggestion that would make one believe that Applicant’s election also includes the subject matter as claimed in claim 26. Therefore, claim 26 is also not believed to be part of Applicant’s election of 03/13/2025.
For all of the reasons provided above, in addition to claims 4-6, 12-14, and 17-20 being withdrawn, claims independent claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom (claims 2-3, 7-9, and 22-26) are also hereby withdrawn, and thus leaving claims 10-11, 15-16, and 21 to be examined on the merits.
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 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minners (US 20010010488) in view of Sinclair (US 6675578).
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 Below) 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 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); 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); and contact the contact pad (20a and/or b) (Contacting the Contact Pad: See Figs.7A-B).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
818
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 section 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 a 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 11, Minners further discloses:
Wherein the spine (62c) is a first spine (See Figure of Claim 10), and further comprising: a second spine (62a) extending from the base (See Figure of Claim 10) and coupled to the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 10) (Fig.1 and See Figure of Claim 10: 62a extends from the base and extends to and couples to the body); a first bridge (See Figure of Claim 10) coupled between the first spine (62c) and a first side of the body (See Figure of Claim 10: 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 10) coupled between the second spine (62c) and a second side of the body (See Figure of Claim 10: 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.
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”) with respect to 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 current source coupled to the spine and configurable to generate a current at intervals, in which the spine is configurable to, responsive to the current, cause the body to: repeatedly move along a first axis with respect to the contact pad, and contact the contact pad at different locations responsive to a force along a second axis angled from the first axis.
Minners however teaches (Figs.1-5B and 7A-B):
A spine (62c- See Figure of Claim 10) extending from the base (See Figure of Claim 10) and coupled to the body (62b- See Figure of Claim 10) (Spine extending from the Base and coupled to the Body: See Figure of Claim 10- the first end of the spine extends from the base and connects to the body at the second end of the spine), 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”) 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).
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 responsive to a force along a second axis angled from the first axis.
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), and a beam (194) that is configurable to move responsive to a force along a second axis (212) angled from the first axis (205) (Col.7 Lns.24-30 and Col.8 Lns.41-51: in response to the unequal/asymmetric current that is applied, a force is applied 194 to cause it to move along 212, which is orthogonal, and thus angled from 205).
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 times responsive to a force along a second axis that is angled from the first axis2, 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 10).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 12/31/2025 have been fully considered, but have been found unpersuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to independent claim 10, Applicant contests that the claim is in condition for allowance because “Minners describes beam structure 12a being contact or separate from signal contact 20a/20b, but Minners does not describe that structure 12a contacts with signal contacts 20a/20b at a first location when the switch is in the on state at a first time, and that structure 12a contacts with signal contacts 20a/20b at a section location when the switch is in the on state at a second time. The rest of the references also fail to cure the deficiencies of Minners with respect to claim 10”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees. While Applicant is correct in stating the Minners does not disclose the above subject matter, the Office notes that Applicant’s argument fails to disclose why either Sinclair or the combination of Minners and Sinclair would fail to teach and obviate the subject matter. Referring to the final Office action of 10/01/2025, Sinclair was utilized to teach a current source that is configurable to generate a current at intervals. As outlined in both the final Office action of 10/1/2025 and as mapped in the body of the rejection above, figures 23 and 25, Col.7 Lns.24-30, and Col.8 Lns.34-55 of Sinclair appears to teach the necessary subject matter that can obviate the claimed subject matter, especially when used to modify Minners. Sinclair teaches (see Col.8 Lns.34-55) two “ON” modes in which either equal/symmetrical current or unequal/unsymmetrical current is being supplied by the current source and an “OFF” mode that generates no current in order to move an actuator, and thus also clearly suggests the use of a variable current source (i.e., in order to supply both equal and unequal currents, a variable current source would need to be utilized). Sinclair further teaches that the actuator can move anywhere along its longitudinal axis and/or anywhere along its transverse linear axis depending on the current flow. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could reasonably take the teaching of Sinclair to modify Minners such that the current source supplies current that allows the body to contact the contact pad at different locations, including at a first location at a first time and second location at a second time when the MEMS switch is on the on state, as outlined in the rejection above. Therefore, even though Minners and Sinclair in isolation do not teach the above subject matter, the combination of Minners and Sinclair is believed to obviate the subject matter of claim 10. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error and the rejection over Minners and Sinclair is maintained.
Regarding independent claim 16, Applicant contests that the claim is in condition for allowance because both Aimi and Minners fail to teach and/or suggest, at least, “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 with respect to the contact pad, and contact the contact pad at different locations at different times responsive to a force along a second axis angled from the first axis”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees for similar reasons as those outlined above. Applicant’s argument again is not directed to the rejection in its entirety and does not provide any argument and/or reason as to why the combination of Aimi, Minners, and Sinclair would fail to obviate the device as recited in amended independent claim 16, especially since Sinclair is the prior art reference that is directed to the subject matter that Applicant is focused on. As outlined above, Sinclair teaches an actuator that is electrically coupled to a current source that can supply both equal and unequal currents in order to move the actuator only in the longitudinal direction when equal currents are being delivered or both the longitudinal direction and the transverse linear axis when unequal currents are being delivered (i.e., as discussed above, Sinclair teaches two different ON modes and an OFF mode in order to move the actuator in a desired fashion). Furthermore, as outlined above, Sinclair clearly suggests a use of a variable current source that can generate “a current having different values at different intervals” since a variable current source would be needed in order to deliver the equal and unequal currents. Therefore, Sinclair can then be utilized to modify Aimi, as modified by Minners, such that the body contacts the contact pad at “different locations at different times responsive to a force along a second axis angled from the first axis” without undo experimentation and without impermissible hindsight. Therefore, for all of the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error, and the previous rejection over Aimi, Minners, and Sinclair is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20110036690: teaches a MEMS switch with a current source that can be operated at different times and the beam being actuated at a frequency that is above 1kHz.
US 20110163397: teaches a MEMS switch with a current source that can be operated at different times and the beam being actuated at a frequency less than or equal to 1kHz or greater than 1kHz.
US 20110128112: teaches a MEMS switch with a current source that can be operated at different times and the beam being actuated at a frequency at 1kHz.
US 20110067983: teaches a MEMS switch with a current source that can be operated at different times and the beam being actuated at a frequency at 1kHz.
US 20030090346: teaches a MEMS switch with a cantilever that is operable within a range of 1kHz to 100kHz.
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 2835
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 responsive to a force along a second axis angled from the first axis”, 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 responsive to a force along a second axis angled from the first axis” as claimed.