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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torkkeli et al (US 2019/0146211; hereinafter referred to as Torkkeli).
Regarding Claim 1, Torkkeli teaches a mirror array (Figure 2), comprising:
a lid (Figure 2; Packaging Component 224);
a base (Figure 2; Packaging Component 222);
a movable mirror (Figure 2; Reflector Body 211) between the lid (Figure 2; Packaging Component 224) and the base (Figure 2; Packaging Component 222), the movable mirror (Figure 2; Reflector Body 211) including:
a stationary frame (Figure 2; Fixed Frame 22) including a cavity (Figure 2; Cavity 241);
a movable frame (Figure 5; Gimbal Frame 53) in the cavity (see Figures 2 and 5; Paragraph [0043]; wherein the central portion of the reflector body in the MEMS reflector system is attached with flexures to the sidewall of the central opening 513 in the reflector body 511 and the flexures comprise a gimbal frame 53 which surrounds the central attachment point 512);
a central stage (Figure 2; Central Attachment Point 212) in the cavity (see Figure 2); and
a first protrusion (Figure 2; Central Support Structure 29) on the base (Figure 2; Packaging Component 222), wherein the first protrusion (Figure 2; Central Support Structure 29) overlaps with the central stage (Figure 2; Central Attachment Point 212) in a first direction (see Figure 2; wherein the central support structure 29 overlaps with the central attachment point 212 in a z axis direction).
Regarding Claim 2, Torkkeli teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Torkkeli further teaches the central stage (Figure 2; Central Attachment Point 212) includes a bottom portion facing the first protrusion (see Figure 2; wherein a surface of the central attachment point 212 faces the central support structure 29).
Regarding Claim 3, Torkkeli teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
Torkkeli further teaches the first protrusion (Figure 2; Central Support Structure 29) is spaced apart from the bottom portion of the central stage (Figure 2; Central Attachment Point 212) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 2; wherein the central support structure 29 is spaced apart from the central attachment point 212 by element 291).
Claims 16-17, 19, 21-22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tachibana et al (US 2011/0188104; hereinafter referred to as Tachibana).
Regarding Claim 16, Tachibana teaches a mirror array (Figure 16; Light Scanning Mirror 301), comprising:
a movable mirror (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21), the movable mirror (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21) including:
a stationary frame (Figure 16; Stationary Frame 36) including a cavity (see Figure 16);
a movable frame (Figure 16; Moving Frame 35) in the cavity (see Figure 16), the movable frame (Figure 16; Moving Frame 35) suspended from the stationary frame (Figure 16; Stationary Frame 36) by a first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; leftmost First Hinge 31) and a second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost First Hinge 31);
a central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) in the cavity (see Figure 16); and
a lid wafer (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310) covering the movable mirror (see Figure 16);
a first protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) on the lid wafer (see Figure 16), the first protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) extended towards the movable mirror (see Figure 16; wherein the stoppers 315 extend towards the scanning mirror 21).
Regarding Claim 17, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches the first protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) overlaps with the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Leftmost First Hinge 31) in a first direction (see Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 19, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches a second protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) on the lid wafer (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310), wherein the second protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) overlaps with the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost First Hinge 31) in a first direction (see Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 21, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches a base wafer (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320); and a third protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) on the base wafer (see Figure 16), wherein the third protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) overlaps with the central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) in a first direction (see Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 22, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 21 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches the third protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) is spaced apart from a bottom portion of the central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) by a predetermined distance (see Figures 16 and 18).
Regarding Claim 24, Tachibana teaches a fabrication method of mirror array (see Paragraph [0077]), the method comprising:
forming a plurality of movable mirrors (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21) that are spaced apart from each other (see Figure 16; Paragraph [0078]), the plurality of movable mirrors (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21) including a first movable mirror (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21), the first movable mirror (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21) including:
a stationary frame (Figure 16; Stationary Frame 36) including a cavity (see Figure 16);
a movable frame (Figure 16; Moving Frame 35) in the cavity (see Figure 16), the movable frame (Figure 16; Moving Frame 35) suspended from the stationary frame (Figure 16; Stationary Frame 36) by a first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; leftmost First Hinge 31) and a second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost First Hinge 31); and
a central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) in the cavity (see Figure 16);
forming a lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310), the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310) having a plurality of protrusions (Figure 16; Stoppers 315), the plurality of protrusions (Figure 16; Stoppers 315) including a first protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) and a second protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315);
covering the plurality of movable mirrors (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21) with the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310) so that the first protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) overlaps with the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; leftmost First Hinge 31) in a first direction (see Figure 16), and the second protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) overlaps with the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost First Hinge 31) in the first direction (see Figure 16);
forming a base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320), the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320) having a plurality of base protrusions (see Figure 24; wherein the base protrusions correspond to the stopper 325 and the protrusions to the left and right thereof), the plurality of base protrusions (see Figure 24; wherein the base protrusions correspond to the stopper 325 and the protrusions to the left and right thereof) including a first base protrusion (Figure 24; Stopper 325),
supporting the plurality of movable mirrors (Figure 16; Scanning Mirror 21) with the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320) so that the first base protrusion (Figure 24; Stopper 325) overlaps with the central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) in the first direction (see Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 25, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 24 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches forming the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310) includes: bonding a silicon wafer to a glass wafer (see Paragraph [0125]; wherein it is disclosed that the upper protection substrate 310 should be a glass substrate because of the light transparency and the easiness to join it with the first silicon layer 200a and that the upper protection substrate 310 may be formed integrally to include the recess 312a, the through-holes 313 and the stoppers 315 with using the glass substrate by bonding method); disposing a hard mask layer on the silicon wafer (see Paragraph [0125]); patterning the hard mask layer (see Paragraph [0125]); disposing a photoresist layer on the patterned hard mask layer and the silicon wafer (see Paragraph [0130]; wherein it is disclosed that a resist 230 is patterned on the first silicon layer 200a); patterning the photoresist layer to define locations of the plurality of protrusions (see Paragraph [0125]; wherein it is disclosed that the upper protection substrate 310 may be formed integrally to include the recess 312a, the through-holes 313 and the stoppers 315 with using the glass substrate by molding method, bonding method, etching method or blast method); and etching the silicon wafer that is exposed (see Paragraph [0125]; wherein it is disclosed that the upper protection substrate 310 may be formed integrally to include the recess 312a, the through-holes 313 and the stoppers 315 with using the glass substrate by an etching method).
Regarding Claim 26, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 25 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches removing the patterned photoresist layer (see Paragraph [0129]); and etching the silicon wafer that is exposed after removing the patterned photoresist layer (see Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding Claim 27, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 24 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches forming the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320) includes: disposing a hard mask layer on a base wafer (see Paragraph [0125]); patterning the hard mask layer (see Paragraph [0125]); disposing a photoresist layer on the patterned hard mask layer and the base wafer (see Paragraph [0131]); patterning the photoresist layer to define locations of the plurality of base protrusions (see Paragraph [0131]); and etching the base wafer that is exposed (see Paragraph [0131]).
Regarding Claim 28, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 27 as detailed above.
Tachibana further teaches removing the patterned photoresist layer (see Paragraph [0131]; wherein it is disclosed that the resist 232 is removed during etching of the second silicon layer 200b); and etching the base wafer that is exposed after moving the patterned photoresist layer (see Paragraph [0131]).
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, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torkkeli et al (US 2019/0146211; hereinafter referred to as Torkkeli) as applied to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Torkkeli teaches the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above.
Torkkeli further discloses the first protrusion (Figure 2; Central Support Structure 29) is spaced apart from the bottom portion of the central stage (Figure 2; Central Attachment Point 212) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 2; wherein the central support structure 29 is spaced apart from the central attachment point 212 by element 291).
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the predetermined distance is between 3 μm and 15 μm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an optimization as it would ensure proper clearance for the movable mirror while maintaining a compact size of the mirror array.
Claims 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torkkeli et al (US 2019/0146211; hereinafter referred to as Torkkeli) as applied to claim 1, in view of Tachibana et al (US 2011/0188104; hereinafter referred to as Tachibana).
Regarding Claim 5, Torkkeli teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose a second protrusion on the lid; and a third protrusion on the lid, wherein the second protrusion and the third protrusion extend towards the base.
Tachibana discloses a mirror array (Figure 16; Light Scanning Mirror 301), comprising:
a lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310);
a base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320);
a movable mirror (Figure 16; Moving Plate 21) between the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310) and the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320), the movable mirror (Figure 16; Moving Plate 21) including:
a first protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) on the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320), wherein the first protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) overlaps with a central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) in a first direction (see Figure 16),
a second protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) on the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310); and
a third protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) on the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310), wherein the second protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) and the third protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) extend towards the base (see Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli to incorporate a second protrusion on the lid; and a third protrusion on the lid, wherein the second protrusion and the third protrusion extend towards the base, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would restrain the displacement of the moving plate in the z-direction other than torsion direction (see Tachibana Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding Claim 6, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 5 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose a first stationary frame flexure; a second stationary frame flexure, wherein the first stationary frame flexure and the second stationary frame flexure suspend the movable frame from the stationary frame.
Tachibana further discloses a first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Leftmost First Hinge 31); a second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315), wherein the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Leftmost First Hinge 31) and the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) suspend a movable frame (Figure 16; Moving Frame 35) from the stationary frame (Figure 16; Stationary Frame 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli to incorporate a first stationary frame flexure; a second stationary frame flexure, wherein the first stationary frame flexure and the second stationary frame flexure suspend the movable frame from the stationary frame, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would prevent the trouble of breakage of the first hinges by contacting the stoppers in the displacement of the moving plate (see Tachibana Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding Claim 7, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the second protrusion overlaps with the first stationary frame flexure in the first direction, and wherein the third protrusion overlaps with the second stationary frame flexure in the first direction.
Tachibana further discloses the second protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) overlaps with the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Leftmost First Hinge 31) in the first direction (see Figure 16), and wherein the third protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) overlaps with the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) in the first direction (see Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli such that the second protrusion overlaps with the first stationary frame flexure in the first direction, and wherein the third protrusion overlaps with the second stationary frame flexure in the first direction, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would prevent the trouble of breakage of the first hinges by contacting the stoppers in the displacement of the moving plate (see Tachibana Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding Claim 8, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the second protrusion is apart from the first stationary frame flexure by a predetermined distance.
Tachibana further discloses the second protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) is apart from the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Leftmost First Hinge 31) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli such that the second protrusion is apart from the first stationary frame flexure by a predetermined distance, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would prevent the trouble of breakage of the first hinges by contacting the stoppers in the displacement of the moving plate (see Tachibana Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding Claim 9, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 8 as detailed above.
Tachibana discloses the second protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) is apart from the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Leftmost First Hinge 31) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 16).
Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana does not expressly disclose that the predetermined distance is between 3 μm and 15 μm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an optimization as it would ensure proper clearance for the movable mirror while maintaining a compact size of the mirror array.
Regarding Claim 10, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the third protrusion is apart from the second stationary frame flexure by a predetermined distance.
Tachibana further discloses the third protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) is apart from the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost First Hinge 31) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli such that the third protrusion is apart from the second stationary frame flexure by a predetermined distance, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would prevent the trouble of breakage of the first hinges by contacting the stoppers in the displacement of the moving plate (see Tachibana Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding Claim 11, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 10 as detailed above.
Tachibana discloses the third protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) is apart from the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; Rightmost First Hinge 31) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 16).
Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana does not expressly disclose that the predetermined distance is between 3 μm and 15 μm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an optimization as it would ensure proper clearance for the movable mirror while maintaining a compact size of the mirror array.
Regarding Claim 12, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 5 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the second protrusion and the third protrusion are non-overlapped with the central stage in the first direction.
Tachibana further discloses the second protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) and the third protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) are non-overlapped with the central stage in the first direction (see Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli such that the second protrusion and the third protrusion are non-overlapped with the central stage in the first direction, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would restrain the displacement of the moving plate in the z-direction other than torsion direction (see Tachibana Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding Claim 13, Torkkeli teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose a fourth protrusion on the base; and a fifth protrusion on the base, wherein the first protrusion is between the fourth protrusion and the fifth protrusion.
Tachibana discloses a mirror array (Figure 16; Light Scanning Mirror 301), comprising:
a lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310);
a base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320);
a movable mirror (Figure 16; Moving Plate 21) between the lid (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 310) and the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320), the movable mirror (Figure 16; Moving Plate 21) including:
a first protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) on the base (Figure 16; Protection Substrate 320), wherein the first protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) overlaps with a central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) in a first direction (see Figure 16),
a fourth protrusion (Figure 24; Leftmost Protrusion on substrate 320) on the base (Figure 24; Protection Substrate 320); and a fifth protrusion (Figure 24; Rightmost Protrusion on Substrate 320) on the base (Figure 24; Protection Substrate 320), wherein the first protrusion (Figure 24; Stopper 325) is between the fourth protrusion (Figure 24; Leftmost Protrusion on substrate 320) and the fifth protrusion (see Figure 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli to include a fourth protrusion on the base; and a fifth protrusion on the base, wherein the first protrusion is between the fourth protrusion and the fifth protrusion, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would restrain the displacement of the moving plate 50 in the z-direction other than the torsion (see Tachibana Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 14, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the fourth protrusion is configured to support a first support member, and wherein the fifth protrusion is configured to support a second support member.
Tachibana discloses the fourth protrusion (Figure 24; Leftmost Protrusion on substrate 320) is configured to support a first support member (Figure 24; Leftmost Side of Silicon Layer 200), and wherein the fifth protrusion (Figure 24; Rightmost Protrusion on Substrate 320) is configured to support a second support member (Figure 24; Rightmost Side of Silicon Layer 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli such that the fourth protrusion is configured to support a first support member, and wherein the fifth protrusion is configured to support a second support member, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would protect internal semiconductor unit (see Tachibana Paragraph [0124]).
Regarding Claim 15, Torkkeli as modified by Tachibana discloses the limitations of claim 14 as detailed above.
Torkkeli does not expressly disclose that the central stage includes a bottom portion extending towards the first protrusion, and wherein the bottom portion is between the first support member and the second support member.
Tachibana discloses a central stage (Figure 24; Mirror Face 20) includes a bottom portion extending towards the first protrusion (see Figure 24; wherein the bottom portion of mirror face 20 extends towards the supporting member 9), and wherein the bottom portion is between the first support member (Figure 24; Leftmost Side of Silicon Layer 200) and the second support member (Figure 24; Rightmost Side of Silicon Layer 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mirror array of Torkkeli such that the central stage includes a bottom portion extending towards the first protrusion, and wherein the bottom portion is between the first support member and the second support member, as taught by Tachibana, because doing so would protect internal semiconductor unit (see Tachibana Paragraph [0124]).
Claims 18, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al (US 2011/0188104; hereinafter referred to as Tachibana) as applied to claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above.
Tachibana discloses the first stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; leftmost First Hinge 31) and the first protrusion (Figure 16; Leftmost Stopper 315) on the lid wafer (see Figure 16).
Tachibana does not expressly disclose that a gap between the first protrusion and the first stationary frame flexure is between 3 μm and 15 μm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an optimization as it would ensure proper clearance for the movable mirror while maintaining a compact size of the mirror array.
Regarding Claim 20, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 19 as detailed above.
Tachibana discloses the second stationary frame flexure (Figure 16; rightmost First Hinge 31) and the second protrusion (Figure 16; Rightmost Stopper 315) on the lid wafer (see Figure 16).
Tachibana does not expressly disclose that a gap between the second protrusion and the second stationary frame flexure is between 3 μm and 15 μm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an optimization as it would ensure proper clearance for the movable mirror while maintaining a compact size of the mirror array.
Regarding Claim 23, Tachibana teaches the limitations of claim 22 as detailed above.
Tachibana further discloses the third protrusion (Figure 16; Stopper 325) is spaced apart from a bottom portion of the central stage (Figure 16; Mirror Face 20) by a predetermined distance (see Figures 16 and 18).
Tachibana does not expressly disclose that the predetermined distance is between 3 μm and 15 μm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such an optimization as it would ensure proper clearance for the movable mirror while maintaining a compact size of the mirror array.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm 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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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 A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882