DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the restriction/election requirement dated 09/18/2025, applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
The applicant's election with traverse of all claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it should no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application”. This is not found persuasive because the MPEP states that “Election of species may be required prior to a search on the merits (A) in applications containing claims to a plurality of species with no generic claims” (see MPEP 808.01(a)). In this case, although the applicant stated that “all claims should read upon” the species of Fig. 78, Species of Fig. 78 does not appear to disclose a plurality of deformable members (claim 1), a driving member being positioned in spaced relationship related to said deformable members (claim 1) and the first array being positioned on a first side of the at least one driving member and the second array being positioned on a second side of the at least one driving member (claim 18), sequential contact between said plurality of deformable members or between said plurality of deformable members (claim 1), electric stimuli (claim 1), variable cross section or shape (claim 8), driver member is connected to a proof mass (claim 4), and driver member is hermetically and movable sealed within said MEMS sensor (claim 5), etc.. It appears that the applicant has elected claims directed to different or non-elected inventions. No claim has been designated as generic.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
For examination purposes, the claims will be examined based on the species of Fig. 78 as indicated by the applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “driver member is connected to a proof mass” in claim 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive features of the claimed invention is respectfully requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that “displacement causes said plurality of deformable members to create a sequential contact between said plurality of deformable members or between said plurality of deformable members and said driving member” without defining the limitation for performing the displacement. In this case, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01).
The phrase “sequential contact” can be understood as a contact between two members, a contact between a member and a plurality of different members, or a contact between two members and a third member.
The claim recites “at least one of said plurality of said deformable members comprises a Piezo-active material layer for inducing deformation or vibration of said at least one of said deformable members upon receiving electric stimuli, without defining whether “electric stimuli” refers to the stimuli that induces electrical signal output from the deformation or vibration of at least one of the deformable members or an electrical signal input that induces deformation or vibration of at least one of the deformable members. In addition, the claim recites “electric stimuli” without disclosing the element for generating the electric stimuli. In this case, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01).
The phrase “Piezo-active” is capitalized indicating a proper noun. The claim does not disclose whether “Piezo-active” refers to piezoelectric and the like or something else.
Furthermore, while the preamble defines “a MEMS sensor”, the body of the claim does not appear to disclose any explicit sensing or detecting. In this case, claim 12 teaches the sensor for the sensing or detecting. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “said driver member is connected to a proof mass”, but the embodiment as disclosed in Fig. 78 does not appear to teach a driver member connected to a proof mass. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the claims recite “a driver member” without explaining whether the driver member is the same as the driving member, in claim 1, or in addition to it. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites that “driver member is hermetically and moveable sealed within said MEMS sensor” without explaining which part or parts of the MEMS sensor the driver member would be “movable sealed within”. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood as the MEMS sensor comprising a housing and at least the driving electrodes or the deformable member is within the housing. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that “said drive member is one of said deformable members” without explaining whether the drive member is the same as or in addition to the driving member in claim 1. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as a member being one of said deformable members. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites that “said plurality of deformable members comprises a first array and a second array of deformable members, the first array positioned on a first side of said at least one driving member and the second array positioned on a second side of said at least one driving member, the first side of said at least one driving member opposed from the second side of said at least one driving member”; but the species of Fig. 78 does not appear to disclose a driving member having first and second array of deformable members disposed on first and second side of the at least one driving members, respectively. Furthermore, claim 1 appears to disclose that “at least one driving member positioned in a spaced relationship related to said deformable members”, which directly contradicts with the claimed limitation of “the first array positioned on a first side of said at least one driving member and the second array positioned on a second side of said at least one driving member”. The claim does not appear to clarify whether the arrays are disposed in a spaced relationship from the respective first and second sides of the driving member. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 20, the term “Graphene” is capitalized, indicating a proper noun. The claim does not disclose whether “Graphene” to graphene and the like or something else. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8-17, 19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (Pat. No. US 6,992,474) (hereafter Jacobsen) in view of Jin (Pat. No. US 6,286,226) (hereafter Jin).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobsen teaches a MEMS sensor comprising:
a plurality of deformable members (i.e., elongate bars 56 and 76 and flexible bars 124) (see Fig. 2A-B, 4); and
at least one driving member positioned in spaced relationship related to said deformable members (i.e., voltage source 84/current source 136) (see Fig. 4), and
wherein at least one of said plurality of said deformable members comprises a Piezo-active material layer (i.e., the elongate bar 76 is made of piezoelectric material) (see Fig. 2A-B) for inducing deformation (i.e., piezoelectric materials, of course, are well known to change shape physically in response to application of electrical voltages and to produce electrical voltages when distorted, squeezed, bent, etc.) (see Column 3, line 62, to Column 4, line 28) or vibration of said at least one of said deformable members upon receiving electric stimuli (i.e., when the piezoelectric bars 56 and 76 were bent or longitudinally compressed respectively, voltages would be developed in the bars and these voltages would be detected by the sensing circuitry to thereby sense movement of the respective bars) (see Column 3, line 62, to Column 4, line 28); but does not explicitly teach that displacement causes said plurality of deformable members to create a sequential contact between said plurality of deformable members or between said plurality of deformable members and said driving member
Regarding the displacement, Jin teaches that displacement causes said plurality of deformable members (i.e., plurality of nanowires 14) (see Fig. 1B) to create a sequential contact between said plurality of deformable members (i.e., when the object 20 contacts the first set of nanowires 14a, those nanowires elastically bend and make contact (e.g., at 15), with the second set 14b of nanowires) (see Fig. 1B). Although the nanowires as disclosed by Jin may be structurally different from those taught by Jacobsen, Jin’s teaching of the object contacting and displacing the nanowires illustrates the serial displacement of deformable structures/rods/bars/nanowires, when a displacing force contacts at least one of the deformable structures/rods/bars/nanotubes and causing the at least one of the deformable structures/rods/bars/nanotubes to elastically bend and to make contact with an adjacent at least one deformable structures/rods/bars/nanowires, along the direction of the displacing force. Therefore, in view of the teaching of Jin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the deformable members to exhibit a displacement along the direction of the displacing force in order to customize the motion of the deformable members.
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen teaches that said deformable members are selected from the group consisting of cantilevers, beams (i.e., elongate bars 56 and 76 and flexible bars 124) (see Fig. 2A-B, 4), bridges, membranes, wires and nano-tubes.
Regarding claim 3, Jacobsen teaches that said driving member provides linear motion or angular motion (i.e., piezoelectric materials, of course, are well known to change shape physically in response to application of electrical voltages and to produce electrical voltages when distorted, squeezed, bent, etc.) (see Column 3, line 62, to Column 4, line 28).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobsen as modified by Jin as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said driver member is connected to a proof mass. However, Jin teaches that said driver member is connected to a proof mass (i.e., object 20) (see Fig. 1B). In view of the teaching of Jin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the deformable members to have used a proof mass to displace the deformable members along the direction of the displacing force in order to customize the motion of the deformable members.
Regarding claim 6, Jacobsen teaches that said predetermined spacings between said deformable members are providing (i.e., spacings between the bars 124) (see Fig. 4) for linear or non-linear sensor sensitivity to said displacement (Please note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation (see MPEP 2114 II)).
Regarding claim 5, Jacobsen teaches that said driver member is hermetically and moveable sealed within said MEMS sensor (i.e., housing 290 or housing 310) (see Fig. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 7, Jacobsen as modified by Jin as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said drive member is one of said deformable members. However, Jin teaches that said drive member is one of said deformable members (i.e., when the first set of nanowires 14a elastically bend and make contact (e.g., at 15), with the second set 14b of nanowires) (see Fig. 1B). In view of the teaching of Jin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the deformable members to exhibit a displacement along the direction of the displacing force in order to customize the motion of the deformable members.
Regarding claim 8, Jacobsen teaches that at least one of said deformable members is of variable cross section or shape (i.e., conical cap 282 is disposed on the end of the bar 270) (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobsen teaches that said deformable member has a plurality of electrically isolated conductive surfaces (i.e., spacings between conductive strips 80 or electrodes 64) (see Fig. 2A-B).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobsen teaches that said plurality of the deformable members is connected to electronic circuitry (i.e., signal processor 306) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobsen as modified by Jin as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said plurality of the deformable members and said circuitry are integral with a substrate. However, Jin teaches that said plurality of the deformable members and said circuitry are integral with a substrate (i.e., a substrate 10 containing sensing circuitry (not shown) and a surface 11, with an array of contact pads 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d and a plurality of nanowires 14 on the contact pads) (see Column 3, lines 46-67). In view of the teaching of Jin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the circuitry to the substrate in order to form a more compact device. Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-B)).
Regarding claim 12, Jacobsen teaches that said circuitry comprises a sensor (i.e., field detectors 302) (see Fig. 11) for detecting change of the state of said deformable members in response to said displacement or said electric stimuli and generating a signal indicating of said change of the state of contacts (i.e., the field detectors 302 are coupled to a signal processor 306 for determining which of the field detectors 302 is producing the strongest signal, indicating that the field emitter 298 is closest to that field detector) (see Column 6, line 48, to Column 7, line 6).
Regarding claim 13, Jacobsen teaches that said sensors output is selected from the group consisting of: resistance, capacitance, analogue or digital voltage or electric charge (i.e., the degree of deflection by the rod can be determined by the strength of the electric field detected and this provides an indication of the magnitude of the acceleration) (see Column 6, line 48, to Column 7, line 6).
Regarding claim 14, Jacobsen teaches that said sensor detects more than one direction of said displacement (i.e., the amount of voltage developed would provide an indication of the degree of deflection of the rod 313 and thus of the magnitude of the acceleration. Also, the polarity of the voltages developed at each of the electrically conductive elements 318 would provide an indication of the direction of the acceleration) (see Column 7, lines 7-21).
Regarding claim 15, Jacobsen teaches that said sensor is encapsulated in a housing (i.e., housing 290 or housing 310) (see Fig. 11 and 12) that can be attached to a member providing for said displacement (i.e., the housings are accelerated) (see Column 6, line 48, to Column 7, line 21).
Regarding claim 16, Jacobsen teaches that said housing or part thereof is deformable (i.e., housing 290 or housing 310 were not disclosed as being non-deformable. Therefore, it is understood that the housing can be deformed) (see Column 6, line 48, to Column 7, line 21).
Regarding claim 17, Jacobsen as modified by Jin as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said plurality of deformable members comprises a first cantilever and a second cantilever, the first cantilever opposed from and interleaved with the second cantilever. However, Jin teaches that said plurality of deformable members comprises a first cantilever and a second cantilever (i.e., sets of nanowires formed on respective contact pads) (see Fig. 2), the first cantilever opposed from and interleaved with the second cantilever (i.e., nanowires formed on intersecting parallel conductive strips) (see Fig. 2). In view of the teaching of Jin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a matrix of contact positions in order to determine the displacement location on a two-dimensional sensing surface.
Regarding claim 19, Jacobsen teaches a processor in communication with the sensor, the processor is configured to receive the electronic signal and generating data output based on the electronic signal received from the sensor (i.e., summing circuit 188) (see Fig. 6); a database in communication with the processor, the electronic database storing the data output received from the processor (i.e., signal source 192) (see Fig. 6); and a power source for providing electrical energy to at least one of: the processor, the sensor and the database (i.e., power source 212) (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Jacobsen as modified by Jin as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said plurality of deformable members comprise Graphene. However, Jin teaches that said plurality of deformable members comprise Graphene (i.e., the nanowires may comprise carbon nanotubes) (see Column 6, line 16, to Column 7, line 59). In view of the teaching of Jin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used graphene or carbon nanotubes in order to form a more compact sensor or to improve the sensor’s aspect ratio. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (Pat. No. US 6,992,474) (hereafter Jacobsen) in view of Jin (Pat. No. US 6,286,226) (hereafter Jin) and in further view of Shahinpoor et al. (Pat. No. US 6,109,852) (hereafter Shahinpoor).
Regarding claim 18, Jacobsen as modified by Jin as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said plurality of deformable members comprises a first array and a second array of deformable members, the first array positioned on a first side of said at least one driving member and the second array positioned on a second side of said at least one driving member, the first side of said at least one driving member opposed from the second side of said at least one driving member. However, Shahinpoor teaches that said plurality of deformable members comprises a first array and a second array of deformable members, the first array positioned on a first side of said at least one driving member and the second array positioned on a second side of said at least one driving member, the first side of said at least one driving member opposed from the second side of said at least one driving member (i.e., muscle assembly structure comprising two different rows of strips of treated ion-exchange membranes 150 imprinted within multiple electrodes 160, wherein the two rows are positioned on two opposing sides of the head assembly) (see Fig. 6). In view of the teaching of Shahinpoor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the deformable members on opposing sides in order to further control and customize the motion of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855