DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
For Examiner’s Interview fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html).
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
Independent: 1 and 9.
Pending: 1-16.
Amended: 1 and 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito et al., US PG pub. 20120031744 A1.
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Naito discloses an upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6) including: a spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) having at least one upward protruding portion (portion of upper electrode 101 upward protruding both support region 105, fig. 3) between both ends of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1); and a moving part (103, fig. 2) extending (as shown in figure 1 that layer 103 is extending in the y direction) in a first direction (Y direction, fig. 1) and having one end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) fixed to the at least one upward protruding portion (portion of upper electrode 101 upward protruding both support region 105, fig. 3) of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) and the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) being a free end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) that is capable of moving up and down in a second direction (up and down direction as shown in figure 2 and 3) intersecting the first direction (Y direction in figure 1); and
a lower electrode (104, fig. 2) at least partially disposed under the moving part (103, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 3, Naito disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein a part of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) has at least one bent portion or has an upward convex arc shape (as shown in figure 6 that when spring 101 could form an arc shape from support 105 to moving part 103).
Re: Claim 4, Naito disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) generally has an upward convex arc shape (as shown in figure 6 that when spring 101 could form an arc shape from support 105 to moving part 103) or an upwardly pointed triangular shape.
Re: Claim 5, Naito discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: the spring units 101 is separated by 104 with plurality of spring units as shown in figure 2-3, the upper electrode (101, fig. 1) further includes a connection part (connection region 103, fig. 1) for connecting the plurality of spring units to each other.
Re: Claim 7, Naito discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: the moving part (103 and 106, fig. 2-3) includes a plurality of moving units (103, 106A 106B, fig. 2-3) extending in plurality from a part of the spring part (101, fig. 2-3), the length of the plurality of moving units is different from each other (for example length of 106a/106b is different length than 103’s length), and the moving part (103, fig. 2) further includes a control electrode (1021 and 104, fig. 2-3) disposed under the plurality of moving units and disposed between the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) and the lower electrode (104, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 8, Naito discloses all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the plurality of moving units sequentially contacts the lower electrode (104, fig. 2) as a voltage applied (¶0011; Naito discloses it is necessary to increase the driving voltage to increase the contact force such that higher mechanical cleaning effect and a lower contact resistance are given therefore in order to have the moving units contacts the lower electrode voltage would require to applied) to the control electrode (1021 and 104, fig. 2-3) increases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al., US PG pub. 20120031744 A1; in view of Schepens et al., US PG pub. 20110002168 A1; further in view of Fukuda et al., US patent 7658109 B2.
Re: Independent Claim 9 (Currently Amended), Naito discloses an upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6) including: a spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) having at least one upward protruding portion (portion of upper electrode 101 upward protruding both support region 105, fig. 3) between both ends of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1); and a moving part (103, fig. 2) extending (as shown in figure 1 that layer 103 is extending in the y direction) in a first direction (Y direction, fig. 1) and having one end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) fixed to the at least one upward protruding portion (portion of upper electrode 101 upward protruding both support region 105, fig. 3) of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) and the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) being a free end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) that is capable of moving up and down in a second direction (up and down direction as shown in figure 2 and 3) intersecting the first direction (Y direction, fig. 1); and
a lower electrode (104, fig. 2) at least partially disposed under the moving part (103, fig. 2).
Naito is silent regarding: a mechanical interconnect memory arranged in plurality on one or more of BEOL (Back- End-Of-Line) layers; and an insulating layer disposed on the remaining region except around the mechanical interconnect memory.
Schepens discloses a mechanical interconnect memory (fig. 1 shown a MEMS switches cantilever electrode for general memory logic device, as shown in figure 36 that these MEMS switch are form in an array connection to general memory logic device) arranged in plurality on one or more of BEOL (Back- End-Of-Line) layers (¶0080; Schepens teaches the MEMS devices can be formed in the BEOL without having any negative impacts on the FEOL or necessitating the use of additional layers within the chip).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include mechanical interconnect memory arranged in plurality on one or more of BEOL since building MEMS structures vertically on top of the CMOS circuitry (in the BEOL layers) is an efficient way to increase the density of memory cells without increasing the chip's footprint significantly.
Naito and Schepens silent regarding: an insulating layer disposed on the remaining region except around the mechanical interconnect memory.
Fukuda discloses in figure 2 an insulating layer 112 and 104 disposed on the remaining region except around the mechanical interconnect memory 107.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an insulation layer surrounding the mechanical interconnect memory since insulating layer providing essential protection against range of electrical, mechanical, and chemical damage thereby contributing to the prevention of device destruction.
Re: Claim 10, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) and the lower electrode (104, fig. 2) are maintained in an adhered state after the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) is in contact with the lower electrode (104, fig. 2) by an electrostatic driving method (¶0022) based on a potential difference between the moving part (103, fig. 2) of the upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6) and the lower electrode (104, fig. 2), and
a part of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) is thermally expanded (¶0019; Naito teaches “electrical voltage for generating the electrostatic force between the movable electrode and the counter electrode is to be applied to one of the movable electrode and the counter electrode” thereby electrical voltage used to generate an electrostatic force can also generate heat, particularly when the electric current flows through a resistive element. This is due to the Joule heating effect, where the movement of electrons through the resistance dissipates energy in the form of heat) upward by a current flowing into the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) of the upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6), and thereby the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) is separated from the lower electrode (104, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 11, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein a part of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) has at least one bent portion or has an upward convex arc shape (as shown in figure 6 that when spring 101 could form an arc shape from support 105 to moving part 103).
Re: Claim 12, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) generally has an upward convex arc shape (as shown in figure 6 that when spring 101 could form an arc shape from support 105 to moving part 103) or an upwardly pointed triangular shape.
Re: Claim 13, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) includes a plurality of spring units (as shown in fig. 1 the spring units 101 is separated by 104 with plurality of spring units as shown in figure 2-3) arranged side by side in parallel, and
the upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6) further includes a connection part (connection region 103, fig. 1) for connecting the plurality of spring units to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including fig. 1 a plurality of spring units since having plurality of spring units can leads to improvements in sensitivity, output, signal quality, reliability.
Re: Claim 14, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Naito is silent regarding: wherein the moving part (103, fig. 2) has a step part in at least one portion of the moving part (103, fig. 2), and the step part is a part stepped down by a predetermined length from a part between both ends of the moving part (103, fig. 2).
Naito discloses in figure 8 wherein the moving part (503) has a step part (as shown in figure 8 a step from 501 to 505) in at least one portion of the moving part (503, fig. 8), and the step part (as shown in figure 8 a step from 501 to 505) is a part stepped down by a predetermined length from a part between both ends of the moving part (503, fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including a step part in at least portion of the moving part since having step shape of the moving part can leads to improvements in sensitivity, output, signal quality, reliability when moving up and down.
Re: Claim 15, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Naito is silent regarding: the moving part (103, fig. 2) includes a plurality of moving units extending in plurality from a part of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1), the length of the plurality of moving units is different from each other, and the moving part (103, fig. 2) further includes a control electrode (1021 and 104, fig. 2-3) disposed under the plurality of moving units and disposed between the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) and the lower electrode (104, fig. 2).
However, as shown in fig. 1-3 of Naito discloses the moving part (103 and 106, fig. 2-3) includes a plurality of moving units (103, 106A 106B, fig. 2-3) extending in plurality from a part of the spring part (101, fig. 2-3), the length of the plurality of moving units is different from each other (for example length of 106a/106b is different length than 103’s length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including fig. 1 a plurality of moving units since having plurality of moving units can leads to improvements in sensitivity, output, signal quality, reliability.
Re: Claim 16, Naito, Schepens and Fukuda discloses all the limitations of claim 15 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the plurality of moving units sequentially contacts the lower electrode (104, fig. 2) as a voltage applied (¶0011; Naito discloses it is necessary to increase the driving voltage to increase the contact force such that higher mechanical cleaning effect and a lower contact resistance are given therefore in order to have the moving units contacts the lower electrode voltage would require to applied) to the control electrode (1021 and 104, fig. 2-3) increases.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al., US PG pub. 20120031744 A1.
Re: Claim 2, Naito discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Naito further discloses: wherein the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) and the lower electrode (104, fig. 2) are maintained in an adhered state after the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) is in contact with the lower electrode (104, fig. 2) by an electrostatic driving method (¶0022) based on a potential difference between the moving part (103, fig. 2) of the upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6) and the lower electrode (104, fig. 2).
Naito is silent regarding: a part of the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) is thermally expanded upward by a current flowing into the spring part (left side portion 106, fig. 1) of the upper electrode (101, fig. 1-6), and thereby the other end of the moving part (103, fig. 2) is separated from the lower electrode (104, fig. 2). However, in ¶0019 of Naito discloses “electrical voltage for generating the electrostatic force between the movable electrode and the counter electrode is to be applied to one of the movable electrode and the counter electrode” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the electrical voltage used to generate an electrostatic force can also generate heat, particularly when the electric current flows through a resistive element. This is due to the Joule heating effect, where the movement of electrons through the resistance dissipates energy in the form of heat, so that the spring part 501 would expanded by the current flowing through the spring part 501.
Re: Claim 6, Naito disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Naito is silent regarding: wherein the moving part (103, fig. 2) has a step part in at least one portion of the moving part (103, fig. 2), and the step part is a part stepped down by a predetermined length from a part between both ends of the moving part (103, fig. 2).
Naito discloses in figure 8 wherein the moving part (503) has a step part (as shown in figure 8 a step from 501 to 505) in at least one portion of the moving part (503, fig. 8), and the step part (as shown in figure 8 a step from 501 to 505) is a part stepped down by a predetermined length from a part between both ends of the moving part (503, fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including a step part in at least portion of the moving part since having step shape of the moving part can leads to improvements in sensitivity, output, signal quality, reliability when moving up and down.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to current application disclosure.
* (“Sawada et al., US patent 6431714 B1”) discloses a micro-mirror apparatus of the invention has; a mirror 33, a plurality of torsion springs 35, 36 for supporting the mirror 33 so as to be tiltable relative to an upper substrate 27, a lower substrate 21 arranged facing a lower face of the mirror 33, a convex portion 34 provided on an upper face of the lower substrate 21 and a plurality of lower electrodes 22, 23 formed on an outer face of the convex portion 34. For the torsion spring 36, an aspect ratio of height/width in a cross-section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction thereof is at least 1.8.
* (“Shin US Patent 7049904 B2”) discloses a seesaw-type MEMS switch for radio frequency (RF) and a method for manufacturing the same, the seesaw-type MEMS switch for radio frequency (RF) includes a substrate, a transmission line formed on the substrate having a gap therein to provide a circuit open condition, an intermittent part formed a predetermined distance from the substrate, the intermittent part being operable to contact the transmission line on both sides of the gap by performing a seesaw movement about a seesaw movement axis, and a driving part to drive the seesaw movement of the intermittent part in response to a driving signal.
* (“Lee et al., US Patent 7170374 B2”) discloses a self-sustaining center-anchor microelectromechanical switch driven by an electrostatic force used for controlling a signal transmission in an electronic system, which can suppress deformation of a movement plane generated during manufacturing and operation process by inserting the self-sustaining center-anchor, and improve a ground line contact phenomenon of an upper electrode, thereby enhancing reliability and signal isolation feature while maintaining an existing insertion loss feature compared to the microelectromechanical switch of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in page 2-3 of independent claim 1 and page 3-4 of independent claim 9 that reference Naito et al., fails to disclose the feature of “a moving part extending in a first direction and having one end of the moving part fixed to the at least one upward protruding portion of the spring part and the other end of the moving part being a free end of the moving part that is capable of moving up and down in a second direction intersecting the first direction”. Examiner disagrees, as shown in figure 1 of Naito et al., moving part 103 is fixed on to the spring part 106 and is extending in a y direction as shown in figure 1, further moving part 103 as shown in figure 2 and figure 3 the moving part 103 can move up and down in the second direction which intersecting the first direction. Since these limitations are taught by reference Naito et al., the rejection is maintained. With regarding to the title objection, Applicant have summited a new title which is clearly indicative of the invention the objection of the title is hereby withdraw.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TSZ CHIU whose telephone number is 571-272-8656. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5PM 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 https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Ojha can be reached on 571-272-89368936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSZ K CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Tsz.Chiu@uspto.gov
/AJAY OJHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898 12/4/2025