DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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: 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, 5-2) extending from the component to the frame; 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 comprises at least two exposed corners (there are at least four) each having an angle greater than 180 degrees in the gap (annotated fig. 16, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NOTE: the Applicant’s newly added limitation directed to the internal contour of the frame comprising “at least two exposed corners each having an angle greater than 180 degrees in the gap” (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. This corner 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 then, as shown below in fig. 16 of Yasuda, there must naturally be angles greater than 180 degrees, given that they are the opposite orientation from the angles that are about 90 degrees. This has been clearly demonstrated in the newly annotated fig. 16, below, and is determined using the exact same methodology as that of instant fig. 1B.
PNG
media_image2.png
1029
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 angle greater than 180 degrees (270 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 has an angle greater than 180 degrees (270 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.
Regarding claim 23, Yasuda discloses a micro-device, comprising: a frame (fig. 19: 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 (annotated fig. 19, above); a component (1, 3’-1) separated from the frame by a gap and connected to the frame only with one or more cantilever supports (5-1, 5-2) extending from the component to the frame; and at least a portion of a tether extending from the external contour away from the frame; wherein the frame comprises one or more slits extending into the frame (annotated figs. 19 above and below; col. 5, lines 5-7 and 12-29).
Regarding claim 24, Yasuda discloses the micro-device of claim 23, wherein at least one of the one or more slits extends from the gap into the frame directly away from the component (lower outside slit extends radially away from component, as shown in fig. 19), wherein the slits form an exposed corner (where they meet the cantilever supports) in the frame, the exposed corner has an angle greater than 180 degrees (270 degrees), and the component is substantially rectangular (as viewed in figs. 10A-10D).
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).
PNG
media_image3.png
427
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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; 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 comprises at least two exposed corners (at least four shown) each having an angle greater than 180 degrees in the gap (annotated fig. 2; 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) 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 (112, 113) extending from the component to the frame (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 comprises at least two exposed corners (at least six shown) each having an angle greater than 180 degrees in the gap (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 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 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Yasuda does not disclose the limitation, newly added to claim 1, which requires “at least two exposed corners each having an angle greater than 180 degrees in the gap”. Applicant stated that: “careful examination of Yasuda reveals that there is no exposed corner having an angle greater than 180 degrees in the gap as required by the instant claims (see, for example, Fig. 1B, element 18 of the instant Specification for such an exposed corner) in Fig. 19 or anywhere else in Yasuda”. Respectfully, this argument is not compelling. Please refer to the updated prior art rejection of claim 1 to Yasuda and especially to the “NOTE” below that rejection with respect to the new limitation. The difference between a 90 degree angle and a 270 degree angle is a matter of perspective. The instant application shows angles that are apparently 90 degrees and also angles that are in the reverse direction and thereby measured as being greater than 180 degrees (e.g. 270 degrees). As such, if the prior art discloses and shows angles having two completely opposing directions, then for the exact same reasons that the Applicant purports that their claim limitation finds support in the instant application, the prior art naturally discloses the same feature. Either the instant application does not disclose support for the claimed feature and thereby the prior art also does not; or the instant application does disclose support, and therefore the prior art does as well.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant has subsequently argued that:
[T]he Office Action alleges that two spaces of Yasuda: one - between movable frame 4M and piezoelectric actuators 3'- 1 and 3'-2 and another - between piezoelectric actuators 3'-1 and 3'-2 and mirror 1, correspond to the slits as claimed. Office Action at pp. 3-4. However, the first space is also allegedly the claimed gap. This rejection of the Office Action is deficient as two separate elements cannot correspond to the same structure. Also, the first space does not extend from the gap into the frame as required by the instant claims. The other space is inside the alleged component (piezoelectric actuators 3'-1 and 3'-2 with mirror 1) and does not belong to movable frame 4M as required.
PNG
media_image6.png
442
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, this argument is not compelling and represents the “fallacy of suppressed evidence”, wherein the Applicant has changed the reasonable interpretation of their own disclosure after the fact in order to support their current argument. This type of argument through the use of selective evidence is not appropriate, nor is it compelling. Please refer to annotated fig. 1A, below, from the instant application. The “slit” (12) in the instant application, is clearly the same opening as the “gap” (16). As such, if there is overlap between the cited gap and the cited slit(s) then this is appropriate based upon the applicant’s own disclosure which also states that “The internal contour of the frame can comprise one or more slits extending from the gap into the frame”.
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant’s argument against the applicability of Yasuda is based upon limitations which were not previously recited in that claim and Yasuda is not relied upon to disclose the limitations of claim 7. Accordingly, this argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In fact, all of the concurrently cited prior art is held to likely anticipate each and every limitation of at least claim 1. For example, Fu (CN-203399016-U) discloses all of the elements of claim 1 (see fig. 1). The Fu reference (and the remaining art cited in the PTO-892) is/are 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 duplicative rejections.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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