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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-18, 25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda et al. (US 9,395,536 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses a micro-device, comprising: a frame (fig. 19: 5-2 and 4 including layer(s) 1002, 1003, and/or 1004 of 4 at 4M) comprising (i) an internal contour defined by a perimeter, shape, or outline of a hole or absence of material within the frame and (ii) an external contour defined by an exterior perimeter, shape, or outline of the frame (annotated fig. 19, below); a component (1, 3’-1) separated from the frame by a gap except where the component is connected to the frame with one or more cantilever supports (5-1) extending from the component to the frame wherein the frame surrounds the component (figs. 15, 16 and 19); and at least a portion of a tether (13) extending from the external contour away from the frame; wherein the internal contour of the frame is non-rectangular (circular) (annotated fig. 19; col. 5, lines 5-7 and 12-29) and the frame comprises at least two exposed corners (there are at least two exposed corners at the juncture of 5-2 and the frame) in the gap and separate from the one or more cantilever supports (only one cantilever support, 5-1, is cited and the exposed corners are at the juncture of 5-2 and the frame), the at least two exposed corners each having an internal angle less than 180 degrees (annotated fig. 16, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NOTE: the Applicant’s newly reversed limitation directed to the internal contour of the frame comprising “at least two exposed corners… each having an internal angle less than 180 degrees” (emphasis added) is evidently entirely subjectively defined (see, e.g., Applicant’s own fig. 1B and specification, pp. 16-17, lines 27-31 and 1-3). In instant figure 1B, there is depicted a corner (18) being measured from the outside rather than from the inside in order to suit the purposes of their arguments against the applicability of Yasuda. In fact, the Applicant’s new recitation is bordering upon being unsupported new matter based upon the original disclosure (specification, pp. 16-17) which explicitly states that: “the non-rectangular shape of frame 10 with slits 12 provides external or exposed corners 18 (e.g., having an angle greater than 180 degrees, for example 270 degrees)” (emphasis added). However, as a courtesy to the Applicant, they are being given the benefit of the doubt because the corner(s) could just as easily be measured from the inside and would be an ~90-degree corner, rather than an ~270-degree corner, which any POSITA would know are structurally identical. Nonetheless, it is quite clear that if one applies to the prior art the same angle measurement techniques as the Applicant has used to suit their vacillating arguments, then as shown below in fig. 16 of Yasuda, there must naturally be angles less than 180 degrees, given that they are the opposite orientation from the angles that are about 270 degrees. This has been clearly demonstrated in the newly annotated fig. 16, below,
PNG
media_image2.png
1029
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and is determined using the interpretation in the most recent arguments which is in direct contradiction of the description as that of instant fig. 1B in the specification.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the internal contour of the frame follows an external contour of the component and the one or more cantilever supports except where the one or more cantilever supports are connected to the frame (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the internal contour of the frame comprises one or more slits (either or both of the semi-circular slits indicated in annotated fig. 19, above) extending from the gap into the frame directly away from the component (either slit extends radially away from component, as shown in fig. 19), wherein each of the one or more slits form an exposed corner (where they meet the cantilever supports) in the frame, the exposed corner has an internal angle less than 180 degrees (90 degrees, see annotated fig. 16, above), and the component is substantially rectangular (as viewed in figs. 10A-10D).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the external contour of the frame is rectangular (as viewed in figs. 10A-10D).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the external contour of the frame comprises one or more slits extending into the frame directly toward the component (lower outside slit extends radially toward the component from the frame, as shown in fig. 19), wherein the slits form an exposed corner (where they meet the cantilever supports) in the frame and the exposed corner in the gap has an internal angle less than 180 degrees (90 degrees) in the gap (figs. 16 and 19).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the gap separating the frame from the component has a uniform width except where the one or more cantilever supports are connected to the frame (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the component further comprises a piezoelectric material (PZT), the micro-device further comprises electrodes (1005, 1007, 1601), and the electrodes extend over the one or more cantilever supports to the frame (figs. 6, 10A-10D and 16; col. 5, lines 12-29; col. 6, lines 24-52; col. 9, lines 35-48).
Regarding claim 10, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the frame and the component each comprise one or more same materials (col. 6, lines 24-56).
Regarding claim 11, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, further comprising a cap (4 and/or 11) disposed over the frame and component and adhered to the frame (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the one or more cantilever supports is a plurality (at least 2) of cantilever supports (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of cantilever supports comprises cantilever supports that connect to the component at different sides of the component (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 14, Yasuda discloses the micro-device structure, comprising a target substrate (layer 1001 at 11) different from the frame and one or more micro-devices according to claim 1 disposed on the target substrate (figs. 6, 10-10D and 19).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuda discloses the micro-device structure of claim 14, further comprising a cavity (open area under component) in the target substrate, wherein the component is disposed on or over the target substrate over the cavity (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 16, Yasuda discloses the micro-device structure of claim 14, further comprising a cap (the other of 4 or 11) disposed over the micro-device and adhered to the target substrate.
Regarding claim 17, Yasuda discloses a micro-device wafer, comprising: a source wafer (4) which has a sacrificial portion (section removed below the component) adjacent to an anchor (12); and a micro-device according to claim 1 disposed entirely over the sacrificial portion (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 18, Yasuda discloses a micro-device wafer, comprising: a source wafer (4); and a micro-device according to claim 1 suspended over the source wafer by at least the tether, wherein the tether is connected to the source wafer and the micro-device is suspended such that a space (opening below component) is defined between the source wafer and the micro-device.
PNG
media_image3.png
427
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises one or more slits extending into the frame (annotated fig. 19; col. 5, lines 5-7 and 12-29) and the external contour of the frame comprises at least one of the one or more slits extending into the frame directly toward the component (lower outside slit extends radially toward the component from the frame, as shown in fig. 19), wherein the slits form an exposed corner (where they meet the cantilever supports) in the frame in the external contour and the exposed corner has an angle greater than 180 degrees (270 degrees) outside the frame (annotated fig. 19, below).
Regarding claim 28, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the internal contour comprises straight lines (figs. 6 and 19: along 5-1 and 5-2).
Regarding claim 29, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the external contour comprises straight lines (fig. 19: along top, sides and bottom).
Regarding claim 30, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the component is rectangular or polygonal except for the one or more cantilever supports (as viewed in figs. 10A-10D).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Lierop (US 12,434,961 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Van Lierop discloses a micro-device (Title), comprising: a frame (5/6) comprising (i) an internal contour defined by a perimeter, shape, or outline of a hole or absence of material within the frame and (ii) an external contour defined by an exterior perimeter, shape, or outline of the frame (annotated fig. 2, below); a component (21) separated from the frame by a gap (annotated fig. 2) except where the component is connected to the frame with one or more cantilever supports (annotated fig. 2) extending from the component to the frame wherein the frame surrounds the component (the frame is located both above and below the component as viewed in figure 2 and thus surrounds it); and at least a portion of a tether (60) extending from the external contour away from the frame; wherein the internal contour of the frame is non-rectangular (annotated fig. 2) and the frame comprises at least two exposed corners (at least four shown) in the gap and separate from the one or more cantilever supports, the at least two exposed corners each having an internal angle less than 180 degrees (annotated fig. 2, below; col. 7, lines 9-36).
PNG
media_image4.png
1070
1228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colonius (WO 2017/196454 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Colonius discloses a micro-device, comprising: a frame (102, 112) comprising (i) an internal contour (interior perimeter surrounding 111) defined by a perimeter, shape, or outline of a hole or absence of material within the frame and (ii) an external contour (116) defined by an exterior perimeter, shape, or outline of the frame (annotated fig. 1A, below; pars. 0018-0022); a component (109/110) separated from the frame by a gap (111) except where the component is connected to the frame with one or more cantilever supports (113) extending from the component to the frame wherein the frame surrounds the component (annotated fig. 1A, below; pars. 0018-0019); and at least a portion of a tether (103, 114, and/or 115) extending from the external contour away from the frame (figs. 1A-1B; pars. 0018 and 0021); wherein the internal contour of the frame is non-rectangular (figs. 1A-1B) and the frame comprises at least two exposed corners (at least six shown) in the gap and separate from the one or more cantilever supports, the at least two exposed corners each having an internal angle less than 180 degrees (annotated fig. 1A; pars. 00180022).
PNG
media_image5.png
787
983
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Colonius discloses the micro-device of claim 1, wherein the component is substantially rectangular in plan view (as viewed in fig. 1A; par. 0011).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanson (US 4,182,187).
PNG
media_image6.png
802
751
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hanson discloses a micro-device (accelerometer), comprising: a frame (44) comprising (i) an internal contour (inside of 44) defined by a perimeter, shape, or outline of a hole or absence of material within the frame and (ii) an external contour (outside of 44) defined by an exterior perimeter, shape, or outline of the frame; a component (30) separated from the frame by a gap (annotated fig. 4, below) except where the component is connected to the frame with one or more cantilever supports (48) extending from the component to the frame wherein the frame surrounds the component (annotated fig. 4, below); and at least a portion of a tether (32 and/or 34) extending from the external contour away from the frame; wherein the internal contour of the frame is non-rectangular (generally circular) and the frame comprises at least two exposed corners (at least four shown) in the gap and separate from the one or more cantilever supports, the at least two exposed corners each having an internal angle less than 180 degrees (annotated fig. 4, below; col. 4, lines 18-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, in view of Moore et al. (US 2021/0300098 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Yasuda discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yasuda, however, does not explicitly disclose that the tether is fractured.
Moore teaches that it is well known to provide a component which is mounted in a frame and which has a manufacturing tether, wherein the tether is fractured (figs. 4 and 6-11; pars. 0043 and 0049).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Yasuda to incorporate the fractured tethers of Moore. PHOSITA would have realized that the component can be easily and readily manufactured by any number of well-known processes, including micro-printing or stamping, and that this would predictably result in a tether piece which would be broken to remove it from the manufacturing framework. This feature is not critical to the function of the product (see instant application) and in fact has no actual functionality at all. As such, this would have been a routine matter. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special tether was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old micro-device of Yasuda with the well-known broken of Moore. This combination would have been easily performed with reasonable expectations of success. Further still, the applicant is advised that patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the amended language of at least claims 1, 3 and 5, border on improper introduction of unsupported new matter. However, the Examiner is giving the Applicant the benefit of the doubt based upon the well-established understanding of geometric angles. That is, one can measure an angle from one direction and find it to be 90 degrees and can measure the same angle from another direction and find it to be 270 degrees. As such, the Examiner has not included a 112a rejection of the claims at this time. That being so, it is evident that the Applicant has amended the claims to suit their argument and in an attempt to overcome the art rejections, rather than to actually disclose any inventive concepts of the instant application. Accordingly, the Examiner ahs also reversed the direction in which the prior art corner angles are being measured in the exact same manner as the Applicant has done. As such, the Examiner’s reinterpretation of the prior art is reasonable for the same reason that the Applicant’s reinterpretation of the original disclosure is asserted to be reasonable by the Applicant.
The current arguments presented by the Applicant are effectively a complete reversal of their arguments in response to the previous rejections. Applicant has argued that Yasuda and Van Lierop and Colonius do not disclose a frame having internal contour with at least two exposed corners in the gap and separate from the cantilever supports wherein the corners each have internal angles less than 180 degrees. First, it is noted that the Applicant has argued limitations which were not previously presented or examined and as such, the arguments are moot for that reason alone. Nonetheless, as a courtesy, the Examiner will address these arguments. Please refer to the updated prior art rejections above. Therein it is quite clear that each of the noted prior art references are expressly anticipatory of the new limitations directed to the exposed corners. Each of the prior art references clearly discloses and shows exposed corners which have angles less than 180 degrees.
The Applicant has also argued that:
Careful examination of Yasuda reveals that there is no exposed corner having an internal angle less than 180 degrees in the alleged internal contour as required by the instant claims in Figs. 16 or 19, or anywhere else in Yasuda. (Compare the annotated Fig. 19 of Yasuda to an example of an internal contour as claimed as illustrated by element 18 in present Fig. 1B.) The Office Action annotated Fig. 16 of Yasuda with angles between piezoelectric actuator 3'-1 and coupling bar 5- 2. However, such angles are not part of the alleged internal contour of movable frame 4M as required by instant claim 1.
This argument is conclusory and is not based upon factual inquiry. There is no doubt that there are numerous corners in Yasuda which have angles less than 180 degrees and there are specifically at least two exposed internal corners of the frame (which is cited as including element 5-2) having angles less than 180 degrees. The angles between the piezoelectric element 3’-1 are not cited as part of the internal angles and thus this argument is moot and is not compelling.
Applicant continues by stating that: “Van Lierop does not teach "the frame surrounds the component" as claimed. The Office Action alleges that the annotated parts of body 2 and element 5 correspond to the frame as claimed, whereas mirror surface 21 corresponds to the component as claimed.” Respectfully, this argument is not compelling, as it improperly reads limitations into the claim though they are not recited. The claim does not disclose that the frame completely surrounds the component. As such, a reasonable interpretation is that the frame does not completely surround the component (and in fact, if the claim did recite that the frame completely surrounded the component, then the claim would be rejected under 112a for improperly adding unsupported new matter). The frame of Van Lierop is clearly shown surrounding at least two ends of the component and thus anticipates the claimed and argued limitation. Accordingly, this argument is not compelling.
Subsequently, with regards to Colonius, Applicant has alleged that: “As a preliminary matter, the Office Action annotated an edge of piezoelectric element 109 as a portion of the alleged internal contour. However, such annotation is contrary to the claim language as the claimed internal contour is a part of the frame. The Office Action alleges that the annotated angles in support member 112 read on the instant claims. Id. Respectfully, support member 112 is not a part of frame 102. There are no angles in frame 102 that would read on the instant claims.” Respectfully, none of these assertions are valid or germane in light of the updated prior art rejection to Colonius above. Please see that rejection, wherein it is clear that the piezoelectric element (109) is not cited as a portion of the internal contour and the support member (112) is cited as part of the frame. As such, the internal corners are properly cited and are correctly shown to have angles less than 180 degrees.
With each recent filing of claim amendments there does not appear to be any attempt to actually define the structural elements of the claimed product which are actually held to be representative of the inventive concept. The Applicant is strongly encouraged to determine what the inventive concept(s) of the invention actually is/are and to amend the claims to disclose as much. As currently presented, the claimed “micro-device” is exceedingly broad and is anticipated by no less than four different prior art references.
According to the prior art rejections above, as well as the response to arguments herein, all of the currently disclosed limitations in the claims are held to be properly rejected, and each argument on the merits has been answered and rebutted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Fu (CN-203399016-U) appears to disclose all or nearly all of the elements of claim 1 (see fig. 1). Fu discloses a micro-device, comprising: a frame (10) comprising (i) an internal contour (inside of 10) defined by a perimeter, shape, or outline of a hole or absence of material within the frame and (ii) an external contour (outside of 10) defined by an exterior perimeter, shape, or outline of the frame; a component (301) separated from the frame by a gap except where the component is connected to the frame with one or more cantilever supports (4) extending from the component to the frame wherein the frame surrounds the component; and at least a portion of a tether (portion of 10 extending from left side or extending from bottom side, as viewed) extending from the external contour away from the frame; wherein the internal contour of the frame is non-rectangular (complex non-rectangular geometry) and the frame comprises at least two exposed corners (at least twenty shown) in the gap and separate from the one or more cantilever supports, the at least two exposed corners each having an internal angle less than 180 degrees (fig 1, below). The Fu reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or further duplicative rejections.
PNG
media_image7.png
878
582
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571)272-0993. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights