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 and Arguments
The amendment filed 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application, and claims 9-16 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “…Schmid uses stiffening structures with silicon and carbon materials to modify MEMS device properties. However, Schmid does not disclose a structure having at least three regions layered closest to furthest from a top of a MEMS device, in which each region contains oxygen content within a specified range, which are different and decrease further from the top. Thus, Schmid does not disclose a "mechanical layer having at least three regions including a first region extending a first distance from a top of the MEMS device, a second region extending a second distance from a bottom of the first region, and a third region extending a third distance from a bottom of the second region, wherein an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range, and the oxygen content of the third region is within a third range that is less than the second range, wherein a shape or a stress of the mechanical layer is based on a thickness of the first region, as recited in claim 1…". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in the rejection of claim 17 and the examiner note 1 below, since Schmid teaches that (in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164]): (i) the concentration of one or more materials of the Si—C—O—N compound may vary step-wise along the thickness direction 26 of the stiffening structure 24; (ii) for example, the material concentration may vary in steps of more than 0.05%, more than 0.1% or more than 0.2% of the material concentration along the thickness direction 26; (iii) For example, the plurality of material concentration steps may comprise more than 5, more than 10 or more than 20 steps, and (iv) the material concentration may vary continuously along the thickness direction 26, wherein in both cases, a step-wise or continuous variation the material concentration value may increase or decrease monotonically, Schmid teaches that (i) the concentration of oxygen material (“one or more materials of the Si—C—O—N compound” inherently includes any individual member of Si, C, O or N) of the Si—C—O—N compound may vary step-wise along the thickness direction 26 of the stiffening structure 24; (ii) the material concentration inherently including the oxygen material concentration may vary in steps of more than 0.05%, more than 0.1% or more than 0.2% of the material concentration along the thickness direction 26, (iii) the plurality of material concentration steps inherently including the plurality of oxygen material concentration steps may comprise more than 5, more than 10 or more than 20 steps, and (iv) a step-wise variation the material concentration value inherently including the step-wise variation of the oxygen material concentration value may increase monotonically from the lowest surface of the stiffening structure 24 to the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24 along the thickness direction 26.
Therefore, as stated in the detailed rejection of claim 1 below, Schmid teaches that a mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], See examiner note 1) connected to the static layer (the layer corresponding to the substrate 12 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11), the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164]) having at least three regions (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the regions corresponding to the inherent plurality of oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) including a first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the first step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1) extending a first distance (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the distance corresponding to the distance between the adjacent two steps of the oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) from a top of the MEMS device (the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1), a second region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the second step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1) extending a second distance (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the distance corresponding to the distance between the adjacent two steps of the oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) from a bottom of the first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the first step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1), and a third region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the third step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1) extending a third distance (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the distance corresponding to the distance between the adjacent two steps of the oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) from a bottom of the second region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the second step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1), wherein an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range, and the oxygen content of the third region is within a third range that is less than the second range (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], a step-wise variation the material concentration value inherently including the step-wise variation of the oxygen material concentration value may increase monotonically from the lowest surface of the stiffening structure 24 to the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24 along the thickness direction 26, See examiner note 1), wherein a shape or a stress of the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11) is based on a thickness of the first region ([0046, 0063, 0081, 0119, 0138-0139], Based on the physical principles of MEMS, both the shape and stress of the mechanical layer are based on the thickness of the first region because the material composition difference leads to stress, and that stress, combined with the thickness and geometry, dictates the final physical shape of the movable layer. Therefore, both the shape and the stress are based on the thickness of the first region since a composition gradient (difference in oxygen) across the mechanical layer's thickness creates differential stresses; these internal stresses cause the layer to bend or deform, determining its final shape; and the magnitude of both the stress and the resulting shape change depend directly on the relative thicknesses of the regions).
Applicant also states “…The combination of Sherwin and Schmid fails to teach at least "wherein the mirror plate includes a first region extending a first distance from a top of the DMD and a second region extending a second distance from a bottom of the first region, and the hinge layer includes a third region extending a third distance from a top of the hinge layer and a fourth region extending a fourth distance from a bottom of the third region, wherein an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range, the oxygen content of the third region is within a third range that is less than the second range, and the oxygen content of the fourth region is within a fourth range that is less than the third range," as recited in claim 17…". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim is the metes and bounds of the invention. As stated in the rejection of claim 17 below, Sherwin teaches the mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]) includes a first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) extending a first distance (half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) from a top of the DMD (the top of 200 in Fig. 1) and a second region (the region corresponding to the lower half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) extending a second distance (half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) from a bottom of the first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1), and the hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]) includes a third region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) extending a third distance (half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) from a top of the hinge layer (Fig. 1) and a fourth region (the region corresponding to the lower half portion of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) extending a fourth distance (half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) from a bottom of the third region (Fig. 1). Furthermore, as stated in the examiner note 2, in the mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]) of Sherwin, an oxygen content of the first region is an inherent value of X1 ≥ 0 and an oxygen content of the second region is an inherent value of X2 ≥ 0. In the hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]) of Sherwin, an oxygen content of the third region is an inherent value of X3 ≥ 0, and an oxygen content of the fourth region is an inherent value of X4 ≥ 0. Further, the “Max” can be defined as the maximum one among the group consisting of X1, X2, X3 and X4, a first range R1 is defined as R1=Max +ΔX1, a second range R2 is defined as R2=Max +ΔX2, a third range R3 is defined as R3=Max +ΔX3, and a fourth range R4 is defined as R2=Max +ΔX4, wherein ΔX1, ΔX2, ΔX3 and ΔX4 are arbitrary positive numbers satisfying ΔX1>ΔX2>ΔX3>ΔX4≥0. Therefore, with the definitions of “Max”, “a first range R1”, “a second range R2”, “a third range R3” and “a fourth range R4”, it satisfies that an oxygen content of the first region X1 is within a first range R1, the oxygen content of the second region X2 is within a second range R2 that is less than the first range R1, the oxygen content of the third region X3 is within a third range R3 that is less than the second range R2, and the oxygen content of the fourth region X4 is within a fourth range R4 that is less than the third range R3.
Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, Sherwin teaches that the mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]) includes a first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) extending a first distance (half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) from a top of the DMD (the top of 200 in Fig. 1) and a second region (the region corresponding to the lower half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) extending a second distance (half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) from a bottom of the first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1), and the hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]) includes a third region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) extending a third distance (half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) from a top of the hinge layer (Fig. 1) and a fourth region (the region corresponding to the lower half portion of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) extending a fourth distance (half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) from a bottom of the third region (Fig. 1), wherein an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range, the oxygen content of the third region is within a third range that is less than the second range, and the oxygen content of the fourth region is within a fourth range that is less than the third range (See examiner note 2).
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.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid (US 2016/0031701).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid teaches a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) device (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11-16, [0006-0179]) comprising:
a static layer (the layer corresponding to the substrate 12 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11); and
a mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], See examiner note 1) connected to the static layer (the layer corresponding to the substrate 12 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11), the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164]) having at least three regions (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the regions corresponding to the inherent plurality of oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) including a first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the first step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1) extending a first distance (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the distance corresponding to the distance between the adjacent two steps of the oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) from a top of the MEMS device (the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1), a second region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the second step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1) extending a second distance (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the distance corresponding to the distance between the adjacent two steps of the oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) from a bottom of the first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the first step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1), and a third region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the third step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1) extending a third distance (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the distance corresponding to the distance between the adjacent two steps of the oxygen material concentration steps, See examiner note 1) from a bottom of the second region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the second step of oxygen material concentration steps from the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24, See examiner note 1), wherein an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range, and the oxygen content of the third region is within a third range that is less than the second range (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], a step-wise variation the material concentration value inherently including the step-wise variation of the oxygen material concentration value may increase monotonically from the lowest surface of the stiffening structure 24 to the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24 along the thickness direction 26, See examiner note 1), wherein a shape or a stress of the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11) is based on a thickness of the first region ([0046, 0063, 0081, 0119, 0138-0139], Based on the physical principles of MEMS, both the shape and stress of the mechanical layer are based on the thickness of the first region because the material composition difference leads to stress, and that stress, combined with the thickness and geometry, dictates the final physical shape of the movable layer. Therefore, both the shape and the stress are based on the thickness of the first region since a composition gradient (difference in oxygen) across the mechanical layer's thickness creates differential stresses; these internal stresses cause the layer to bend or deform, determining its final shape; and the magnitude of both the stress and the resulting shape change depend directly on the relative thicknesses of the regions).
Examiner note 1: in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], since Schmid teaches that (i) the concentration of one or more materials of the Si—C—O—N compound may vary step-wise along the thickness direction 26 of the stiffening structure 24; (ii) for example, the material concentration may vary in steps of more than 0.05%, more than 0.1% or more than 0.2% of the material concentration along the thickness direction 26; (iii) For example, the plurality of material concentration steps may comprise more than 5, more than 10 or more than 20 steps, and (iv) the material concentration may vary continuously along the thickness direction 26, wherein in both cases, a step-wise or continuous variation the material concentration value may increase or decrease monotonically, Schmid teaches that (i) the concentration of oxygen material (“one or more materials of the Si—C—O—N compound” inherently includes any individual member of Si, C, O or N) of the Si—C—O—N compound may vary step-wise along the thickness direction 26 of the stiffening structure 24; (ii) the material concentration inherently including the oxygen material concentration may vary in steps of more than 0.05%, more than 0.1% or more than 0.2% of the material concentration along the thickness direction 26, (iii) the plurality of material concentration steps inherently including the plurality of oxygen material concentration steps may comprise more than 5, more than 10 or more than 20 steps, and (iv) a step-wise variation the material concentration value inherently including the step-wise variation of the oxygen material concentration value may increase monotonically from the lowest surface of the stiffening structure 24 to the topmost surface of the stiffening structure 24 along the thickness direction 26.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8, Schmid also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 2) the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11) comprises aluminum ([0071]).
(Claim 3) the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11) forms a cantilever hinge (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11) having a flat state pitch angle (FSPA) ([0046], the inherent FSPA due to the static deformation or fatigue break of the cantilever hinge, which is a deflectable component, due to strains or internal stresses) between an end point on an arm of the cantilever hinge (the right end of 14 in Fig. 1) and a fixed point on the cantilever hinge (the left fixed point of 14 in Fig. 1).
(Claim 4) the FSPA is determined by the thickness of the first region (the region corresponding to the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0046, 0059-0063, 0136-0139, 0158], the FSPA is determined by the thickness of the first region because the FSPA is caused by static deformation of the cantilever hinge and a result of the built-in differential stresses caused by the varying composition across the mechanical layer; the magnitude of this stress and how it translates into physical bending (the FSPA angle) is directly analyzed/modeled using beam-bending theory, which incorporates the relative thicknesses of the different material layers; and changing the thickness of the first region alters the balance of internal forces, thereby changing the degree of out-of-plane bending and thus the FSPA).
(Claim 5) the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 46 in Fig. 13) includes a bridged structure between a first via (62a in Fig. 13, [0153]) and a second via (62b in Fig. 13, [0153]).
(Claim 6) a stress tolerance of the bridged structure is based on the thickness of the first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0046, 0059-0063, 0136-0139, 0158], the stress tolerance of the bridged structure is based on the thickness of the first region because the stress tolerance relates to the maximum stress the structure can withstand before failure or buckling; the thickness of the first region with higher amount of oxygen impacts the material properties (such as yield strength and modulus) and the overall residual stress distribution within the mechanical layer; changes in this thickness alter the magnitude of the differential stresses across the bridge, which fundamentally changes the overall structural integrity and how much external or induced stress it can tolerate before an operational failure).
(Claim 8) the mechanical layer ((the layer corresponding to the function structure 46 in Fig. 13) includes a bridged structure; and a stress tolerance of the bridged structure is based on the thickness of the first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0046, 0059-0063, 0136-0139, 0158], the stress tolerance of the bridged structure is based on the thickness of the first region because the stress tolerance relates to the maximum stress the structure can withstand before failure or buckling; the thickness of the first region with higher amount of oxygen impacts the material properties (such as yield strength and modulus) and the overall residual stress distribution within the mechanical layer; changes in this thickness alter the magnitude of the differential stresses across the bridge, which fundamentally changes the overall structural integrity and how much external or induced stress it can tolerate before an operational failure).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 2008/0068704).
Regarding claim 7, Schmid teaches the mechanical layer (the layer corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7a-10b and Fig. 13) forms a plate having a degree of curvature (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7a-10b and Fig. 13, [0046, 0053-0063, 0115, 0118, 0130, 0134-0139, 0151, 0158], the mechanical layer as a cantilever or bridge will have a degree of curvature since the non-uniform material composition or gravity/fatigue creates a gradient in internal residual stress or material properties across the layer's thickness. This differential stress inherently causes the released structure to bend into a curved shape to reach a mechanical equilibrium, rather than remaining perfectly flat); and the degree of curvature is based on the thickness of the first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7a-10b and Fig. 13, [0046, 0053-0063, 0115, 0118, 0130, 0134-0139, 0151, 0158], the degree of curvature is inversely proportional to the total stiffness of the cantilever or bridge and directly related to the bending moment caused by the differential stress. Beam-bending theory dictates that the relative thicknesses of the different layers fundamentally determine how much bending occurs. Thinner layers generally result in greater curvature under the same stress conditions).
Schmid does not teach the following elements.
Schmidt teaches the following elements (Fig. 1, [0041]):
(Claim 7) a plate (actuated mirror in Fig. 1) formed by a mechanical layer is a mirror plate (Fig. 1, [0041]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Schmidt for the system of Schmid such that in the system of Schmid,
(Claim 7) the plate formed by the mechanical layer is a mirror plate.
The motivation is to provide micromechanical mirrors with a high-reflection coating in the spectral range of DUV and VUV and used for adaptive optics, lab-on-chip and also telecommunications applications (Schmidt, [0008, 0002]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherwin (US 2019/0155016) in view of Schmid (US 2016/0031701).
Regarding claim 17, Sherwin teaches a digital micromirror device (DMD) (Fig. 1-Fig. 16, [0001-0037]), comprising:
a static layer (the layer corresponding to 230 in Fig. 1, [0024]);
a hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]) connected to the static layer (Fig. 1); and
a mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]) connected to the hinge layer (Fig. 1), the mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]) disposed over (Fig. 1) the hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]),
wherein the mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]) includes a first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) extending a first distance (half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) from a top of the DMD (the top of 200 in Fig. 1) and a second region (the region corresponding to the lower half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) extending a second distance (half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1) from a bottom of the first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the micromirror 204 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1), and the hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]) includes a third region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) extending a third distance (half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) from a top of the hinge layer (Fig. 1) and a fourth region (the region corresponding to the lower half portion of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) extending a fourth distance (half of the total thickness of the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1) from a bottom of the third region (Fig. 1), wherein an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range, the oxygen content of the third region is within a third range that is less than the second range, and the oxygen content of the fourth region is within a fourth range that is less than the third range (See examiner note 2),
Sherwin teaches that the mirror plate is a MEMS deflectable plate (Fig. 1). Sherwin does not teach that a degree of curvature of the mirror plate is based on a thickness of the first region.
Schmid teaches that (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0041-0043, 0049, 0051, 0055, 0059-0063, 0065, 0135-0137, 0142, 0145, 0164], See examiner note 1) a MEMS deflectable plate (the plate corresponding to the function structure 14 including the conductive base layer 22 and the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11) includes a first region (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, Fig. 12b, [0049, 0062, 0059-0060, 0135-0137, 0164], the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the stiffening structure 24 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1), and a degree of curvature (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7a-10b and Fig. 13, [0046, 0053-0063, 0115, 0118, 0130, 0134-0139, 0151, 0158], the mechanical layer as a cantilever or bridge will have a degree of curvature since the non-uniform material composition or gravity/fatigue creates a gradient in internal residual stress or material properties across the layer's thickness. This differential stress inherently causes the released structure to bend into a curved shape to reach a mechanical equilibrium, rather than remaining perfectly flat) of the MEMS deflectable plate is based on a thickness of the first region (the region corresponding to the upper half portion of the stiffening structure 24 with a thickness being half of the total thickness of the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7a-10b and Fig. 13, [0046, 0053-0063, 0115, 0118, 0130, 0134-0139, 0151, 0158], the degree of curvature is inversely proportional to the total stiffness of the cantilever or bridge and directly related to the bending moment caused by the differential stress. Beam-bending theory dictates that the relative thicknesses of the different layers fundamentally determine how much bending occurs. Thinner layers generally result in greater curvature under the same stress conditions).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Schmid for the system of Sherwin such that in the system of Sherwin, a degree of curvature of the mirror plate is based on a thickness of the first region. The motivation is that a durability and/or deflection performance of a micro mechanical structure may be improved when a hardness of the deflectable structure is increased by covering the deflectable structure partially with a stiffening material (Schmid, [0006]).
Examiner note 2: In the mirror plate (the plate corresponding to the micromirror 204 in Fig. 1, [0024]), an oxygen content of the first region is an inherent value of X1 ≥ 0 and an oxygen content of the second region is an inherent value of X2 ≥ 0. In the hinge layer (the layer corresponding to the hinge 216 and the spring tips 226 in Fig. 1, [0024]), an oxygen content of the third region is an inherent value of X3 ≥ 0, and an oxygen content of the fourth region is an inherent value of X4 ≥ 0. Further, the “Max” can be defined as the maximum one among the group consisting of X1, X2, X3 and X4, a first range R1 is defined as R1=Max +ΔX1, a second range R2 is defined as R2=Max +ΔX2, a third range R3 is defined as R3=Max +ΔX3, and a fourth range R4 is defined as R2=Max +ΔX4, wherein ΔX1, ΔX2, ΔX3 and ΔX4 are arbitrary positive numbers satisfying ΔX1>ΔX2>ΔX3>ΔX4≥0. Therefore, with the definitions of “Max”, “a first range R1”, “a second range R2”, “a third range R3” and “a fourth range R4”, it satisfies that an oxygen content of the first region X1 is within a first range R1, the oxygen content of the second region X2 is within a second range R2 that is less than the first range R1, the oxygen content of the third region X3 is within a third range R3 that is less than the second range R2, and the oxygen content of the fourth region X4 is within a fourth range R4 that is less than the third range R3.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherwin in view of Schmid as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Pan (US 2007/0053052)
Regarding claim 18, Sherwin does not teach the following elements.
Pan teaches the following elements:
(Claim 18) a mirror plate (102 in Fig. 1a, [0047, 0049]) is composed of an alloy that includes aluminum ([0017, 0018, 0047]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Pan for the system of Sherwin in view of Schmid such that in the system of Sherwin in view of Schmid,
(Claim 18) the mirror plate is composed of an alloy that includes aluminum.
The motivation is to enhance the optical reflectivity (Pan, [0018, 0049]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherwin in view of Schmid as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of McDonald (US 2016/0266377)
Regarding claim 19, Sherwin does not teach the following elements.
McDonald teaches the following elements (Fig. 18, Fig. 22, Fig. 26, Abs, [0060-0063]):
(Claim 19) a hinge layer forms a cantilever (the cantilever beam 132 in Fig. 18, Fig. 22, Fig. 26, [0060], The cantilevered beam section 132 is supported at its outer end by the corner hinge support via 114, but remains unsupported at its inner end)
Schmid teaches the following elements (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0041-0043, 0051, 0055, 0063, 0065, 0142, 0145])
(Claim 19) a cantilever having a flat state pitch angle (FSPA) ([0046], the inherent FSPA due to the static deformation or fatigue break of the cantilever hinge, which is a deflectable component, due to strains or internal stresses) between an end point on an arm of the cantilever (the right end of 14 in Fig. 1) and a fixed point on the cantilever (the left fixed point of 14 in Fig. 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by McDonald and Schmid for the system of Sherwin in view of Schmid such that in the system of Sherwin in view of Schmid,
(Claim 19) the hinge layer forms a cantilever having a flat state pitch angle (FSPA) between an end point on an arm of the cantilever and a fixed point on the cantilever.
The motivation is to provide a micromirror with a cantilevered flexure beam that allows rotation about two axes (perpendicular and parallel to beam length) (McDonald, [0054]), and a durability and/or deflection performance of a micro mechanical structure may be improved when a hardness of the deflectable structure is increased by covering the deflectable structure partially with a stiffening material (Schmid, [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, as stated in the rejection of claim 19, Sherwin in view of Schmid and McDonald already teaches that the hinge layer forms the cantilever. Sherwin does not teach the following elements.
Schmid teaches the following elements (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0041-0043, 0051, 0055, 0063, 0065, 0142, 0145])
(Claim 20) the FSPA is determined by the thickness of a third region (the region corresponding to the stiffening structure 24 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 11, [0046, 0059-0063, 0136-0139, 0158], the FSPA is determined by the thickness of the third region because the FSPA is caused by static deformation of the cantilever hinge and a result of the built-in differential stresses caused by the varying composition across the mechanical layer; the magnitude of this stress and how it translates into physical bending (the FSPA angle) is directly analyzed/modeled using beam-bending theory, which incorporates the relative thicknesses of the different material layers; and changing the thickness of the third region alters the balance of internal forces, thereby changing the degree of out-of-plane bending and thus the FSPA).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Schmid for the system of Sherwin in view of Schmid and McDonald such that in the system of Sherwin in view of Schmid and McDonald,
(Claim 20) the FSPA is determined by the thickness of the third region.
The motivation is that a durability and/or deflection performance of a micro mechanical structure may be improved when a hardness of the deflectable structure is increased by covering the deflectable structure partially with a stiffening material (Schmid, [0006]).
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. 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.
/SHAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights