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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-26) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 1-26 and 31-34 (new dependent claims depending upon elected group) are treated on the merit.
Claims 27-30 are cancelled by applicant as being drawn to non-elected group.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-13, 19, 20, 22, 26 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al (US 2011/0228440 A1 from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a microelectromechanical (MEM) array (para 2, “MEMS” and Fig. 5B; para 39 “As illustrated in Figs. 5B and 5C, a plurality of microstructural bodies 18 of Fig. 5A are arranged on an electrode substrate 9 to form a microstructural body array 22”), comprising:
a first stage (first 18 from Fig. 5B) comprising a first stage reflective surface (Fig. 4A, para 28 “the movable portion 5 is provided with a light reflection surface”);
a second stage (second 18 from Fig 5B, right next to labeled 18) comprising a second stage reflective surface (Fig. 4A, para 28 “the movable portion 5 is provided with a light reflection surface”, see Figs. 5B and 5C);
a base wafer (9) positioned below the first stage and the second stage (see Fig. 5C);
a first frame (Fig. 4A, para 27 “support portion 1”) pivotally coupled to the first stage (1 is pivotally coupled to 5 via torsion spring 4); and
wherein the first frame (1) is pivotally coupled to a second frame (Fig. 4A, connecting portion 3, 1 is pivotally coupled to 3 via torsion spring 2) comprising a second frame high aspect ratio (AR) member (torsion springs 2 and 4).
Kato does not positively disclose “a second frame high aspect ratio member is operable to reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage”.
However, the different feature would be easily derived from Kato (para 33 “In particular, by increasing the aspect ratio of the cross sections of the torsion springs so as to increase the rigidity in the longitudinal direction, the maximum permissible twist angle of the torsion springs can be increased, and the torsion springs are difficult to bend. For example, when the MEMS device is used as a light deflector, accurate deflection can be performed with little eccentricity and tilting of the axis for deflecting the light because the torsion springs are easy to twist and difficult to bend”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to “increase the rigidity in the longitudinal direction” in order to reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage, as being motivated to increase structural stiffness and actuation force.
Regarding claim 3, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the second frame comprises an additional second frame high AR member (see Fig. 4A, two torsion springs 2).
Regarding claim 5, the MEM array of claim 3, wherein the additional second frame high AR wherein the additional second frame high AR member is substantially parallel to the second frame high AR member (Fig, 4A, first torsion springs 2 are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 6, the MEM array of claim 3, wherein the second frame high AR member and the additional second frame high AR member have overlapping x-axis coordinates (Fig, 4A, first torsion springs 2 are overlapping x-axis considering vertical line is x-axis).
Regarding claim 8, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the mechanical motion comprises harmonic resonance (harmonic resonance would be derived from para 33 “by increasing the aspect ratio of the cross sections of the torsion springs so as to increase the rigidity in the longitudinal direction”).
Regarding claim 10, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the second frame is substantially free of apertures (connecting portion 3 does not have any aperture).
Regarding claim 11, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the base wafer comprises a support anchor operable to reduce mechanical motion of the second stage (Fig. 1B, para 20 “receiving portion 17 on the electrode substrate 9”).
Regarding claim 12, the MEM array of claim 1 wherein one or more of:
the second frame is a stationary frame,
the base wafer comprises a silicon wafer (para 44 “9 A production method for a microstructural body array (for example, used as a micromirror array) according to a third example of the present invention will be described with reference to FIGS. 7A to 7C. FIGS. 7A to 7C are cross-sectional views of microstructural bodies taken along line IB-IB of FIG. 1A, and a procedure for producing a microstructural body array including three microstructural bodies will be described here. Referring to FIG. 7A, an SOI substrate (device substrate) 100 including a device layer 103 in which a center-fixed gimbal structure is to be formed later has an SOI (silicon on insulator) structure of single-crystal silicon”),
the first stage reflective surface has a first resonant frequency, and
the second stage reflective surface has a second resonant frequency.
Regarding claim 13, Kato discloses a microelectromechanical (MEM) array (para 2, “MEMS” and Fig. 5B; para 39 “As illustrated in Figs. 5B and 5C, a plurality of microstructural bodies 18 of Fig. 5A are arranged on an electrode substrate 9 to form a microstructural body array 22”), comprising:
a first stage (first 18 from Fig. 5B) comprising a first stage reflective surface (Fig. 4A, para 28 “the movable portion 5 is provided with a light reflection surface”);
a second stage (second 18 from Fig 5B, right next to labeled 18) comprising a second stage reflective surface (Fig. 4A, para 28 “the movable portion 5 is provided with a light reflection surface”, see Figs. 5B and 5C);
a base wafer (9) positioned below the first stage and the second stage (see Fig. 5C);
a first frame (Fig. 4A, 3) pivotally coupled to the first stage (18), wherein the first frame 3 is pivotally coupled to a first stationary frame (1),
wherein the first stationary frame (1) is coupled to a first stationary frame support anchor (Fig. 4B, see 21).
Kato does not positively disclose “a first stationary frame support anchor that is operable to reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage”.
However, the different feature would be easily derived from Kato wherein the anchor 21 reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to have the first stationary frame support anchor operable to reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage, as being motivated to increase structural stiffness and actuation force.
Regarding claim 19, the MEM of claim 13, wherein the first stationary frame is
substantially free of apertures (see Fig. 4A, the support portion 1 does not have any aperture).
Regarding claim 20, the MEM of claim 13, wherein the base wafer comprises a support anchor (post 10 shown in Fig. 1B) positioned between the first stage and the second stage to reduce mechanical motion of the second stage (see Fig. 5C, the base wafer 9 comprises the plurality of 18s to reduce mechanical motion of the stages).
Regarding claim 22, Kato discloses a method for reducing coupling between adjacent stages in a
microelectromechanical (MEM) array (para 2, “MEMS” and Fig. 5B; para 39 “As illustrated in Figs. 5B and 5C, a plurality of microstructural bodies 18 of Fig. 5A are arranged on an electrode substrate 9 to form a microstructural body array 22”), comprising:
coupling a moveable frame (Fig. 4A, connecting portion 3) to a stage (Fig. 5B, 18) with a reflective surface (Fig. 4A, para 28 “the movable portion 5 is provided with a light reflection surface”), and a stationary frame (Fig. 4A, support portion 1).
Kato does not disclose the step of reducing a transfer of mechanical motion from the stage to an adjacent stage by one or more of:
coupling one or more stationary frame high aspect ratio (AR) members to the
stationary frame, or
coupling one or more stationary frame support anchors to the stationary frame.
For “coupling one or more stationary frame high aspect ratio (AR) members to the
stationary frame”: the different feature would be easily derived from Kato (para 33 “In particular, by increasing the aspect ratio of the cross sections of the torsion springs so as to increase the rigidity in the longitudinal direction, the maximum permissible twist angle of the torsion springs can be increased, and the torsion springs are difficult to bend. For example, when the MEMS device is used as a light deflector, accurate deflection can be performed with little eccentricity and tilting of the axis for deflecting the light because the torsion springs are easy to twist and difficult to bend”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to “increase the rigidity in the longitudinal direction” in order to reducing a transfer of a mechanical motion to an adjacent stage, as being motivated to increase structural stiffness and actuation force.
For “coupling one or more stationary frame support anchors to the stationary frame”: the different feature would be easily derived from Kato wherein the anchor 21 reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to have the first stationary frame support anchor operable to reduce a mechanical motion of the second stage, as being motivated to increase structural stiffness and actuation force.
Regarding claim 26, the method of claim 22, wherein the stationary frame is
substantially free of apertures (see Fig. 4A, the support portion 1 does not have any aperture).
Regarding claim 32, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the first stage (18) is coupled to the first
frame by a pair of central stage flexures (two torsional springs 2 and two torsional springs 4), and wherein each of the pair of central stage flexures comprises a plurality of torsion beams (two torsional springs 2 and two torsional springs 4).
Regarding claim 33, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the first frame (Fig. 4A, 1) comprises a support beam (2) between the first frame (1) and an end bar (end of 3).
Regarding claim 34, the MEM array of claim 1, wherein the first frame (Fig. 4A, 1) comprises a support beam (2) configured to apply tension to a central stage flexure (4) coupling the first frame (1) to the first stage (center of 18).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al (US 2011/0228440 A1 from IDS in view of Steffanson et al (US 2015/0377711 A1).
Kato discloses the claimed invention as set forth in the claimed combination as set forth above except for the MEM array of claim 1, further comprising a lid wafer positioned above the first stage and the second stage to seal the first stage and the second stage from an outside environment, wherein the lid wafer comprises glass.
Steffanson discloses a lid wafer positioned above the first stage and the second stage to seal the first stage and the second stage from an outside environment, wherein the lid wafer comprises glass (para 85 “micromechanical pixel array of micro mirror (4) can be enclosed in … with transparent optical windows on the top and the bottom of the sealing chamber”).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to provide a lid wafer positioned above the first stage and the second stage to seal them from an outside environment as taught by Steffanson for the purpose of extend the life of the first stage and the second stage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 14-18, 21 and 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the second frame high AR member is positioned to be in contact with a mirror cavity wall of the first stage, and the contact between the second frame high AR member and the mirror cavity wall is operable to reduce the mechanical motion of the second stage as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claim 4, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the additional second frame high AR member is positioned to be in contact with a mirror cavity wall of the first stage, and the contact between the additional second frame high AR member and the mirror cavity wall is operable to reduce the mechanical motion of the second stage;
Regarding claim 7, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the second frame comprises one or more side-flanking members, wherein the one or more side-flanking members are substantially perpendicular to the second frame high AR member as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claim 9, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the second frame high AR member is positioned to be in contact with a mirror cavity wall of the first stage, and the first frame is pivotally coupled to a third frame comprising a third frame high AR member positioned to be in contact with the mirror cavity wall, a fourth frame comprising a fourth frame high AR member positioned to be in contact with the mirror cavity wall, and a fifth frame comprising a fifth frame high AR member positioned to be in contact with the mirror cavity wall as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claims 14-18, claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the MEMS further comprising a first stationary frame AR member that is positioned to be in contact with a mirror cavity wall of the first stage as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claim 21, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the MEMS further comprising:
a second stationary frame coupled to a second stationary frame support anchor that is operable to reduce mechanical motion of a third stage,
a third stationary frame coupled to a third stationary frame support anchor that is
operable to reduce mechanical motion of a fourth stage, and
a fourth stationary frame coupled to a fourth stationary frame support anchor that
is operable to reduce mechanical motion of a fifth stage as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claim 23, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the one or more stationary frame high aspect ratio (AR) members are positioned to contact a mirror cavity wall as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claim 24, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the one or more stationary frame support anchors have a selected surface area that is oriented towards a surface area of one or more side flanking members of the stationary frame as set forth in the claimed combination; and
Regarding claim 25, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the stationary frame comprises one or more side-flanking members that are substantially perpendicular to the one or more stationary frame high AR members as set forth in the claimed combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
4/22/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights