Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 08/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 17-26 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed 08/07/2026, 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 and the new claims 21-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims 1-8 and 17-23 are allowed as stated below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the new claims 24-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states " Claim 24 presents an arrangement similar to claim 1 but reciting two regions. As with claim 1, "an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum- containing metal," which is not taught by the cited art. Each of claims 25 and 26 depend from and build on the arrangement of claim 24, adding further limitation to the mechanical layer and the first region recited in claim 24. Claims 24-26 are thus allowable over the cited art". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The language of the claims is treated as the “metes and bounds” of the subject matter for which protection is being sought. The new limitation of “an oxygen content of the first region is within a first range that is greater than an oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum- containing metal, the oxygen content of the second region is within a second range that is less than the first range and greater than or equal to the oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure” cited in the claim 1 is not the same as the new limitation of “an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” cited in the claim 24.
Furthermore, as stated in the rejections of claim 24 below, (1) the limitation of “an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” in Claim 24, Lines 7-9 is not described in the specification at the time the application was filed; and (2) The limitation “an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” is indefinite insofar as unclear of (i) a difference of what, and/or (ii) an oxygen content difference between whom and whom, since an oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of an aluminum-containing metal is a value instead of a difference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation of “an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” in Claim 24, Lines 7-9 is not described in the specification at the time the application was filed. In paragraphs [0090, 0091, 0115] of specification of the application, it has been described that “layers exposed to oxygen plasma as described in FIG. 8 exhibit a relative oxidization higher than ambient atmospheric exposure levels”, “The mechanical layer would include a first, oxidized region that refers to the portion of the layer with oxidation levels greater than exposure to ambient atmosphere (e.g., between approximately x = 0 A and x = 175 A). The mechanical layer would also include a second, non-oxidized region that refers to a portion of the layer with oxidization levels based on or approximately equal to exposure to ambient atmosphere”, and “The example oxidization technique increases the oxidization of the target layer above average levels caused by exposure to the ambient environment”. The originally filed specification does not describe that ““an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal”. Therefore, the claim limitation of ““an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” in claim 24 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. This is a new matter rejection.
Dependent claims 25-26 would be rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 24-26 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 24, Lines 7-9 recites the limitation “an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” is indefinite insofar as unclear of (i) a difference of what, and/or (ii) an oxygen content difference between whom and whom, since an oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of an aluminum-containing metal is a value instead of a difference. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the limitation of “an oxygen content of the first region exceeds an oxygen content of the second region by an amount greater than a difference attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal” will not been further treated on the merits. Correction to the claim language is required.
Dependent claims 25-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 17-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, none of the prior art discloses or suggests that a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) device comprising: a static layer; and a mechanical layer connected to the static layer, the 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; wherein “the mechanical layer comprising an aluminum-containing metal, a first range that is greater than an oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum- containing metal, and the second range that is less than the first range and greater than or equal to the oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-8 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding independent claim 17, none of the prior art discloses or suggests that a digital micromirror device (DMD) comprising: a static layer; a hinge layer connected to the static layer; and a mirror plate connected to the hinge layer, the mirror plate disposed over the hinge layer, 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, and wherein a degree of curvature of the mirror plate is based on a thickness of the first region; wherein “the mirror plate comprises an aluminum-containing metal; the hinge layer comprises an aluminum-containing metal; and the first range is greater than an oxygen content attributable to ambient atmospheric exposure of the aluminum-containing metal of the mirror plate” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Dependent claims 18-23 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
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