fDETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 9/17/2025. Claims 17 and 33 are amended, claim 24 is canceled, and claims 17-19, 22-23, 25-33 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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 17-20, 22-23, 25, 27-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 8,208,192 to Keyworth et al. (hereinafter Keyworth).
Regarding claims 17 and 33, Keyworth discloses a micromirror arrangement (Fig. 17) and projection apparatus (Fig. 28A; col. 12), comprising: at least a first micromirror (top unlabeled rectangular mirror, Fig. 17), a second micromirror (middle unlabeled rectangular mirror, Fig. 17), and a third micromirror (lower unlabeled rectangular mirror, Fig. 17); wherein the second micromirror includes a first component (top unlabeled hinge of middle mirror, Fig. 17) and a second component (bottom unlabeled hinge of middle mirror, Fig. 17), the first and second components being first and second functional components (hinged, Fig. 17; col. 10, ll. 11-20), the first component being disposed such that, in plan view, the first component overlaps a first mirror surface of the first micromirror (Fig. 17), and the second component is disposed such that, in plan view, the second component overlaps a third mirror surface of the third micromirror (Fig. 17), wherein the first micromirror further includes at least one third component (hinge 512, Fig. 17), the third component being a third functional component (hinge 512, Fig. 17), wherein the third component is disposed such that, in plan view, the third component overlaps a second mirror surface of the second micromirror (hinge 512 overlaps middle unlabeled rectangular mirror, Fig. 17), a first main extension plane, in plan view, of the first component (y-z plane, annotated Fig. 17 below), and a third main extension plane, in plan view, of the third component extend substantially parallel to one another (y-z plane, annotated Fig. 17 below), side by side (Figs. 17), wherein there is no overlapping of the first component (top unlabeled hinge of middle mirror, Fig. 17) and the third component (hinge 512, Fig. 17) in plan view (Fig. 17), wherein the first, second, and third micromirror are disposed alonq a common first main extension plane (disposed along a plane parallel to the “sheet” from the perspective of Fig. 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
846
1456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Keyworth discloses the at least first, second, and third micromirror are arranged as an array (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 19, Keyworth discloses the second micromirror is disposed between the first and the third micromirror (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 22, Keyworth discloses the first and the third component have cross-sections that differ from one another (hinge 512 and top unlabeled hinge of unlabeled middle rectangular mirror are mirrored and thus different in cross-section along hinge bends; Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 23, Keyworth discloses the first and the third component have cross-sections that are the same (hinge 512 and top unlabeled hinge of unlabeled middle rectangular mirror are mirrored and thus the same in cross-section at a mid-line of hinges; Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 25, Keyworth discloses the first, second, and third micromirror are disposed along the common main extension plane (“top plane”, Abstract & Claim 1; Fig. 17) offset from a main extension plane (mid plane of frame, Abstract & Claim 1; Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 27, Keyworth discloses components of the first, second, and third micromirrors are made at least in part of silicon (col. 12, ll. 22-34).
Regarding claim 28, Keyworth discloses components of the micromirrors are at least parts of micromechanical spring elements (hinges, Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 29, Keyworth discloses components of the micromirrors are at least parts of a vertical comb drive (hinges of comb drive are part of a comb drive, Fig. 17; col. 2, ll. 14-37).
Regarding claim 31, Keyworth discloses the micromirror arrangement has a fill factor of at least 90% for a one-dimensional array (col. 12, ll. 46-59).
Regarding claim 32, Keyworth discloses the micromirror arrangement has a fill factor of at least 80% for a two-dimensional array (Figs. 17 & 28A; col. 12, ll. 46-59).
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 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyworth as applied to Claim 17, and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,605,971 to Ishii et al. (hereinafter Ishii).
Regarding claim 26, Keyworth discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the at least first, second, and third micromirror have a common carrier substrate.
Ishii discloses the at least first, second, and third micromirror have a common carrier substrate (substrate 303, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a common substrate as taught by Ishii with the system as disclosed by Keyworth. The motivation would have been to provide a uniform reference surface by which control of mirror angles is based.
Regarding claim 30, Keyworth discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the micromirror arrangement comprises at least sixteen micromirrors arranged in a 4x4, array.
Ishii the micromirror arrangement comprises at least sixteen micromirrors arranged in a 4x4, array (mirror elements 300, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a common substrate as taught by Ishii with the system as disclosed by Keyworth. The motivation would have been to deflect light beams for the purpose of projecting an image (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Each of the independent claims has been amended to recite the feature of the first, second, and third micromirror are disposed along a common first main extension plane… Keyworth et al. disclose in Figure 17 an array where the mirrors are provided with overlaps, but the mirrors are not arranged along the same main extension axis; instead, they are laterally offset from each other (the middle one relative to the two outer mirrors)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim does not exclude latera offsetting as the claim does not require alignment of the micromirror centers. The annotated image below depicts the edge of a common first extension plane anticipating the claim language. The claim is broad enough to extend to several other interpretations of “a common first main extension plane”, including a plane parallel to the plan on which the plan view is drawn in Fig. 17. It is also noted that there is no claimed correspondence between “a common first main extension plane” and “a first main extension plane … of the first component” in the preceding recitation. While it is understood that Applicant’s micromirror arrangement aligns geometric centers of the mirrors, the claim is not so limited and the amendment does not distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
828
1008
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872