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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claim 6 was objected to due to an informality. The Applicant amended the claim to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 were rejected as being obvious over Naono in view of Uematsu. Claim 11 was rejected as being obvious over Naono in view of Uematsu and Uchiyama. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 11-12 and canceled claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 2/2/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-16under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0179452 to Brunner et al.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0208330 to Naono in view of Japanese Patent Application No. 2008-294127 to Uematsu and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0179452 to Brunner et al. (hereinafter Brunner).
Regarding claim 1, Naono teaches a movable device (FIG. 1, 10) comprising:
a movable portion (FIG. 1, 12);
a drive structure (FIG. 1; 14, 24) configured to drive the movable portion;
a support frame (FIG. 1, 30) that surrounds the movable portion and supports the drive structure (Paragraph [0058]);
electrodes (FIG. 1; 41, 42, 43, 44, 61, 62, 63, 64) electrically coupled to the drive structure;
wherein the electrodes are provided on the support frame.
Naono does not teach pseudo electrodes electrically isolated from the drive structure, and wherein all of the pseudo electrodes are fixed in contact with at least one testing probe.
However, Uematsu teaches a semiconductor device having pseudo electrodes (FIG. 1; 6, 8) formed at the outer periphery of a substrate support frame isolated from the circuit (Paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable device of Naono with the pseudo electrodes of Uematsu to aid in the detection of abnormalities in the manufacturing of the device (Paragraph [0002]).
Naono in view of Uematsu does not teach all of the pseudo electrodes being fixed in contact with at least one testing probe.
However, Brunner teaches an electrical substrate (FIG. 11, 160) with multiple electrodes (Paragraph [0064]) each being fixed in contact with at least one testing probe (FIG. 11, 1080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable device of Naono in view of Uematsu with the multiple testing probes of Brunner to increase the testing throughput of the device as multiple pseudo electrodes would be tested in parallel.
Regarding claim 2, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein Uematsu further teaches the pseudo electrodes being arranged symmetrically with respect to a center of the support frame in a plan view (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein the support frame is rectangular in a plan view (Naono FIG. 1, 30), and includes a first frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, upper part) and a second frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, lower part) facing the first frame, the first frame and second frame defining opposing sides of the support frame, and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are provided on each of the first frame and the second frame (Uematsu Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein the support frame is rectangular in a plan view (Naono FIG. 1, 30), and includes a first frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, upper part) and a second frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, lower part) facing the first frame, the first frame and second frame defining opposing sides of the support frame, wherein the drive structure is supported by the first frame and the second frame (Naono Paragraph [0058]), and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are provided on each of the first frame and the second frame (Uematsu Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein the support frame is rectangular in a plan view (Naono FIG. 1, 30), and includes a plurality of frames defining four sides of the support frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, upper, lower, left, and right parts), and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are provided on a corresponding frame among the plurality of frames (Uematsu Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein the support frame is rectangular in a plan view (Naono FIG. 1, 30), and includes a plurality of frames defining four sides of the support frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, upper, lower, left, and right parts), and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are provided at a corner of the support frame that is formed at a junction between end portions of adjacent frames among the plurality of frames (Uematsu Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein the support frame is rectangular in a plan view (Naono FIG. 1, 30), and includes a first frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, upper part) and a second frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, lower part) facing the first frame, the first frame and second frame defining opposing sides of the support frame, and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are provided at a middle portion of each of the first frame and the second frame (Uematsu Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 8, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein Uematsu further teaches each of the pseudo electrodes having a linear shape (FIG. 1; 6, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein Naono further teaches the electrodes being arranged symmetrically with respect to a center of the support frame, in a plan view (FIG. 1; 41, 42, 43, 44, 61, 62, 63, 64).
Regarding claim 12, Naono teaches a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (FIG. 1, 10) comprising:
a movable portion (FIG. 1, 12);
a drive structure (FIG. 1; 14, 24) configured to drive the movable portion;
a support frame (FIG. 1, 30) that surrounds the movable portion and supports the drive structure (Paragraph [0058]);
electrodes (FIG. 1; 41, 42, 43, 44, 61, 62, 63, 64) electrically coupled to the drive structure;
wherein the electrodes are provided on the support frame.
Naono does not teach pseudo electrodes electrically isolated from the drive structure, wherein all of the pseudo electrodes are fixed in contact with at least one testing probe.
However, Uematsu teaches a semiconductor device having pseudo electrodes (FIG. 1; 6, 8) formed at the outer periphery of a substrate support frame isolated from the circuit (Paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS device of Naono with the pseudo electrodes of Uematsu to aid in the detection of abnormalities in the manufacturing of the device (Paragraph [0002]).
Naono in view of Uematsu does not teach all of the pseudo electrodes being fixed in contact with at least one testing probe.
However, Brunner teaches an electrical substrate (FIG. 11, 160) with multiple electrodes (Paragraph [0064]) each being fixed in contact with at least one testing probe (FIG. 11, 1080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS device of Naono in view of Uematsu with the multiple testing probes of Brunner to increase the testing throughput of the device as multiple pseudo electrodes would be tested in parallel.
Regarding claim 13, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the MEMS device according to claim 12, wherein Uematsu further teaches the pseudo electrodes being arranged symmetrically with respect to a center of the support frame in a plan view (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the MEMS device according to claim 12, wherein the support frame is rectangular in a plan view (Naono FIG. 1, 30), and includes a first frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, upper part) and a second frame (Naono FIG. 1, 30, lower part) facing the first frame, the first frame and second frame defining opposing sides of the support frame, respectively, wherein the drive structure is supported by the first frame and the second frame (Naono Paragraph [0058]) and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are provided on each of the first frame and the second frame (Uematsu Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches an optical scanning apparatus (Naono Paragraph [0099]) comprising: the movable device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Naono in view of Uematsu teaches an optical scanning apparatus (Naono Paragraph [0099]) comprising: the MEMS device of claim 12.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner and in further view of Japanese Patent No. 2012-30342 to Uchiyama et al. (hereinafter Uchiyama).
Regarding claim 11, Naono in view of Uematsu and Brunner teaches the movable device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one testing probe includes a plurality of testing probes (FIG. 11, 1080), and wherein one or more of the pseudo electrodes are configured to be fixed to the support frame (Uematsu Paragraph [0003]).
Naono in view of Uematsu does not teach bringing the one or more pseudo electrodes into contact with corresponding testing probes, among the plurality of testing probes, in a second movable device that is next to the movable device.
However, Uchiyama teaches multiple MEMS mirror elements (FIG. 1, M01-M12) having electrodes connected to each other (Paragraph [0053]) by a probe.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable device of Naono in view of Uematsu with the second movable device of Uchiyama to provide more functionality to the movable device by actuating multiple devices at simultaneously.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834