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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 9/15/2025. In that response, Applicant amended claim 7.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/067,402 filed on 12/16/2022 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 7 has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the third spring is directly connected to a third support structure" in lines 3-4. This is inconsistent with Figs. 1, 2, where there are only a first support structure 30a/30c and a second support structure 30b. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation is "the third spring is directly connected to the first or second support structure".
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liukku et al. (US 2020/0386985, hereinafter, “Liukku”).
Regarding claim 1, Liukku discloses a micromechanical component 300, comprising:
a bracket 316, 346 (Fig. 3, [0045], [0047]);
an adjustable portion 301 arranged in an adjustable manner on the bracket (Fig 3, [0045]);
a first bender actuator 411 (Figs. 3, 4, [0045], [0049], [0053], [0059]-[0060]); and
a first support structure 311 for the first bender actuator, wherein the first bender actuator is arranged in or on the first support structure (Figs. 3, 4, [0045], [0049], [0053], [0059]);
wherein the first bender actuator is configured to bend the first support structure at least in an area of the first bender actuator arranged in or on the first support structure, such that the adjustable portion is displaceable relative to the bracket around a first rotational axis YY (Fig. 3, [0056]); and
wherein the first support structure 311 is directly connected to the adjustable portion 301
(Fig. 3), and
wherein the micromechanical component includes a first spring 314, wherein the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure for the first bender actuator and the adjustable portion from the bracket (Figs. 3, 4, [0047], [0049]).
It is noted that the claim recites “the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure for the first bender actuator “. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation principle, the first spring 314 suspends the first support structure 311. Also, the first spring 314 “suspend[s] the adjustable portion from the bracket 316”. It is suggested that to make the claimed structure clearer and distinguish from Liukku, said language is changed to “wherein the micromechanical component includes a first spring, wherein the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure for the first bender actuator from the bracket and the adjustable portion from the bracket”.
Regarding claim 2, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second spring 315 configured to suspend the first support structure 311 for the first bender actuator 411 and the adjustable portion 301 from the bracket 351 (Fig. 4, [0047], [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 2, wherein
a first point of application of the first spring 314 on the first support structure 311 and a second point of application of the second spring 315 on the first support structure 311 are arranged at an offset from the first rotational axis YY (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second bender actuator (not labelled) and a second support structure 341 for the second bender actuator, wherein the second bender actuator is arranged in or on the second support structure 341, wherein
the second bender actuator is configured to bend the second support structure at least in an area of the second bender actuator arranged in or on the second support structure, such that the adjustable portion is displaceable relative to the bracket around the first rotational axis,
wherein the second support structure 341 is directly connected to the adjustable portion (Fig. 3, [0047], [0059]); and
a third spring 344 configured to suspend the second support structure 341 for the second bender actuator and the adjustable portion 301 from the bracket 316, 346 (Fig. 3, [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, wherein
the first support structure 311 and the second support structure 341 engage the adjustable portion 301 at opposite ends of the adjustable portion (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, wherein
a third point of application of the first spring 314 on the first support structure 311 and a fourth point of application of the third spring 344 on the second support structure 341 are arranged on the first rotational axis YY (Fig. 3, under the broadest reasonable interpretation principle the two points of application are arranged on the rotational axis YY, similarly to Fig. 1 of the application).
Regarding claim 7, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 5, wherein
the first spring 314 is directly connected to the first support structure 311.
Regarding claim 8, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, wherein
the first bender actuator and/or the second bender actuator, is configured as piezoelectric actuator ([0053], [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, wherein
the first bender actuator 411 is arranged on an opposite end of the first support structure 311 to the adjustable portion 301 and/or the second bender actuator is arranged on an opposite end of the second support structure 341 to the adjustable portion (Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 10, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, wherein
the first support structure 311 and/or the second support structure 341 in a semi-circular wing shape (Fig. 3, [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, further comprising:
a control device configured to control the first bender actuator and/or the second bender actuator, using electrical signals such that the adjustable portion is moved into a resonant oscillating movement around the first rotational axis relative to the bracket ([0049], a drive signal is provided by a control device).
Regarding claim 12, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 1, wherein
the adjustable portion 301 is a micromirror (Fig. 3, [0045], a MEMS mirror system by definition includes a micromirror).
Regarding claim 13, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 4, wherein
the first support structure and/or the second support structure, is configured as a spring element (311/341 is flexible, thus, it is a spring according to p. 6, lines 13-15 of the specification).
Regarding claim 15, Liukku discloses a micro-scanning device ([0071]), comprising:
a micromechanical component 300 including:
a bracket 316, 346 (Fig. 3, [0045], [0047]);
an adjustable portion 301 arranged in an adjustable manner on the bracket (Fig 3, [0045]);
a first bender actuator 411 (Figs. 3, 4, [0045], [0049], [0053], [0059]-[0060]); and
a first support structure 311 for the first bender actuator, wherein the first bender actuator is arranged in or on the first support structure (Figs. 3, 4, [0045], [0049], [0053], [0059]);
wherein the first bender actuator is configured to bend the first support structure at least in an area of the first bender actuator arranged in or on the first support structure, such that the adjustable portion is displaceable relative to the bracket around a first rotational axis YY (Fig. 3, [0056]); and
wherein the first support structure 311 is directly connected to the adjustable portion 301
(Fig. 3), and
wherein the micromechanical component includes a first spring 314, wherein the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure 311 for the first bender actuator and the adjustable portion 301 from the bracket 316 (Figs. 3, 4, [0047], [0049]).
It is noted that the claim recites “the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure for the first bender actuator “. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation principle, the first spring 314 suspends the first support structure 311. Also, the first spring 314 “suspend[s] the adjustable portion 301 from the bracket 316”. It is suggested that to make the claimed structure clearer and distinguish from Liukku, said language is changed to “wherein the micromechanical component includes a first spring, wherein the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure for the first bender actuator from the bracket and the adjustable portion from the bracket”.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liukku.
Regarding claim 14, Liukku discloses the micromechanical component according to claim 13.
Liukku does not disclose the first spring and/or the second spring and/or the third spring, has a lower spring stiffness than the first support structure and/or the second support structure.
However, Liukku discloses that the different sections of each suspender, e.g., 310, may have different stiffness, for example, the middle section 312 may be formed by a stiffer material than the inner and outer sections 311, 313 ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liukku so that the spring 314/315/344 (i.e., an inner section) has a lower spring stiffness than 311/341 (i.e., a, relatively, middle section), as taught by Liukku, for causing deformation of the inner section to displace the reflector body 301, rather than simply deflecting the middle section ([0046] in Liukku).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 7, Applicant stated that the made amendment “rendered moot the present rejection”, see p. 5 of the Remarks.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Applicant stated that “The present claim[s] recite the feature of the first spring is configured to suspend the first support structure for the first bender actuator and the adjustable portion from the bracket (emphasis included). In contrast, Liukku discloses a distributed suspension system in which a reflector body 301 is connected to inner suspender sections 311, 321, via springs 314, 324, and the inner suspender sections are connected to middle and outer suspender sections 312, 313, which are anchored to a bracket via anchor points 316, 326. Liukku's springs 314, 324 do not suspend both the support structure and the reflector body from the bracket (emphasis added). Rather, they serve as intermediate flexible connectors between the support structure and the reflector body”, see p. 5 of the Remarks.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 7, the Office notes that “a third support structure” is inconsistent with Figs. 1, 2. It appears that an embodiment reflecting both Figs. 1, 2 would comprise three springs and two support structures.
As stated in the prior art rejections above, and unlike the Applicant’s argument above, the claimed language does not recite the first spring suspending both the support structure and the reflector body from the bracket. An amendment to claims 1 and 15 that clarifies this feature would distinguish from Liukku.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus, the rejection of independent claim 1 (and its dependents) and independent claim 15 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872