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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 “bond-pads for testing and signal on top of the MEMS device” recited in claim 3 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 1, in line 6 of the claim “wherein the ASIC circuitry chip comprising” recited in line 6 should read “wherein the ASIC circuitry chip comprises”; in line 7 of the claim “electrical signal” should read “an electrical signal”; in line 12 “the bond-pads” should read “the plurality of exposed bond-pads”. Claims 2-10 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and which inherit issues of claim 1 are objected to for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 7, it is suggested that an article “a” be placed before each newly introduced element of the claim.
With respect to claim 8, “CMOS logic circuits maintains” recited in line 2 should read “CMOS logic circuits maintain”.
With respect to claim 9, “freedom motion” recited in lines 2 and 3 should read “freedom of motion”.
With respect to claim 17, “freedom motions” recited in line 4 of the claim should read “freedom of motion”. Claims 18-20 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 17 and which inherit issues of claim 17 are objected to for similar reasons.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, as currently presented the claim recites “with exposed wire bond-pads from bottom attached ASIC” in line 2. It is unclear if the recited “bottom attached” means that an ASIC is attached to the bottom of the MEMES device or if bond pads are exposed from the bottom surface of the ASIC. Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the optical device” recited in line 4 of the claim, “said ASIC and MEMS wafers” recited on line 15 of the claim, “the MEMS wafer substrate” recited in lines 19-20, and “ASCI chip” recited in line 20 of the claim. Also, the difference between various recited ASICs and MEMS is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear if “ASIC circuity chip” recited in line 6, “ASIC … wafer” recited in line 15 and “ASIC chip” recited in line 20 are referring to the same or different elements. Similarly, it is not clear if the “MEMS device” recited in line 3, and MEMS wafer, recited in line 15 are referring to the same or different elements. In addition, the phrase “used for the optical device to utilize the front surface of the MEMS device to reflect and control incident light” is unclear. First, it is not clear how the structures are used. Second, it is not clear what utilizes the front surface. Furthermore, in lines 6-7 and 10 the claim recites “electrical signal” as being provided by “a plurality of electrode areas” and in line 10 that the “electrode area” receives “electrical signals”. First, it is unclear from the claim language if the provided and received electrical signals are referring to the same electrical signals or different electrical signals. Second, it is not clear how a plurality of electrode areas provide an electrical signal and a single electrode area receives electrical signals. Additionally, it is unclear how “a plurality of electrical connections through the substrate of the MEMS device” comprise electrode area, as recited in line 10 of the claim. Furthermore, the claim requires that “a plurality of exposed bond-pads from the ASCI circuitry chip … the bond-pads are exposed to outside wire bonding”. It is unclear from the claim language if the bond pads are exposed from the ASIC circuity chip or if the bond-bond pads of the ASIC circuitry chip are exposed and outside of what are they exposed. Also, the difference between “a plurality of exposed bond-pads” (line 12) and “exposed wire bond-pads” (line 2) is unclear. Namely it is not clear if the two phrases are referring to the same element or different elements. Moreover, it is unclear if the “(wafer to wafer bonding)” recited in lines 17-18 is an example of wafter-level wafer bonding technologies or something else. Lastly, the phrase “split-dicing with the MEMES device and the ASIC circuitry” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear what is being split-diced and how it is split-diced with the MEMS device and ASIC circuity. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that that “bottom attached” means that an ASIC is attached to the bottom of the MEMES device and that the released movable structures of the MEMS device are configured to reflect and control incident light. Moreover, “the optical device” will be treated as if it were “an optical device”. Claims 3-10, which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and which inherit issues of claim 1 are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 4, the antecedent basis for the claim limitation “the bond-pads” is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear if “the bond-pads” related back to “exposed wire-bond pad” (line 12, claim 1), “a plurality of exposed bond-pads” (line 12, claim 1), “the bond-pads” (line 12, claim 1) or “separate bond-pads” (line 2, claim 3).
With respect to claim 5, as currently presented the claim requires that the ASIC chip has “communication channels”. The scope of the term “communication channels”, however, is unclear and the specification provides no guidance as to what the term covers. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that “communication channel” is referring to a wire bond through which signals can be transferred.
With respect to claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the electrical signals” recited in lines 2-3 of the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that the “electrical signals” are referring back to “electrical signal” recited in line 7 of claim 1. Claims 7-9, which either directly or indirectly depend form claim 6 and inherit issues of claim 6 are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to clam 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the control circuity” for “the CMOS logic” and “the plurality of the electrical signals” recited in lines 1 and 2 of the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, “the control circuitry” will be treated as if it were “a control circuitry”, “the CMOS logic” will be treated as if were “a CMOS logic” and “the plurality of the electrical signals” will be treated as if it were “a plurality of electrical signals”.
With respect to claim 17, as currently presented the claim recites “with exposed wire bond-pads from bottom attached ASIC” in line 2. It is unclear if the recited “bottom attached” means that an ASIC is attached to the bottom of the MEMES device or if bond pads are exposed from the bottom surface of the ASIC. Furthermore, the claim requires that “a plurality of exposed bond-pads from the ASCI circuitry chip … the bond-pads are exposed to outside wire bonding”. It is unclear from the claim language if the bond pads are exposed from the ASIC circuity chip or if the bond-bond pads of the ASIC circuitry chip are exposed and outside of what they are exposed. Also, the difference between “a plurality of exposed bond-pads” (line 10) and “exposed wire bond-pads” (line 2) is unclear. Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the “ASIC and MEMS wafers” recited on line 12 of the claim. Furthermore, the difference between various recited ASICs and MEMS is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear if an “ASIC circuity chip” recited in line 5, and “ASIC … wafer” recited in line 12 are referring to the same or different elements. Similarly, it is not clear if the “MEMS device”, recited in line 3, and MEMS wafer, recited in line 12 are referring to the same or different elements. Lastly, it is unclear if the “(wafer to wafer bonding)” recited in lines 17-18 is an example of wafter-level wafer bonding technologies or something else. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that that “bottom attached” means that an ASIC is attached to the bottom of the MEMES device and “said ASIC and MEMS wafers” would be treated as it were “ASIC and MEMS wafers”. Claims 18-20, which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 17 and which inherit issues of claim 17 are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen (US 2017/0081180, hereinafter “Classen”) in view of Boysel et al. (US 2025/0224729, hereinafter “Boysel”) with Brosnihhan (US , hereinafter “Brosnihhan”) relied on as evidentiary reference for showing that micro-optic device disclosed by Boysel is known in the art to include mirror structure that reflect and control incident light.
Regarding claim 1, Classen teaches in Figs. 12-17 (Fig. 17 shown below) and related text an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) integrated MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) device (100, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) exposed wire bond-pads (i.e. pad on ASIC 20 to which wire 40 is connected, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) from bottom attached ASIC comprising:
a. a MEMS device (10, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) with released moving structures (14, 15, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) on a substrate (11, 13, Figs. 12, 17 and ¶[0040]);
b. an ASIC circuitry chip (20, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]);
d. a plurality of exposed bond-pads (i.e. pads to which wire 40 is attached, Fig. 17) from the ASIC circuitry chip wherein the bond-pads are exposed to outside wire bonding (Fig. 17, i.e. it is noted that the limitation “after split-dicing with the MEMS device and the ASIC circuitry chip” renders the claim a product-by process claim and therefore the claim is treated according to MPEP § 2113 which states that “[e]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Classen teaches all of the claimed structure, the claimed method does not distinguish it from the prior art);
wherein said ASIC and MEMS wafers are separately fabricated (Fig. 12-14) and wafer bonded after fabrication (¶[0052]) and before dicing, and said ASIC integrated MEMS device with exposed wire bond-pads are fabricated with wafer-level wafer bonding technologies (wafer to wafer bonding) and wherein said ASIC integrated MEMS device with exposed wire bond-pads are diced to individual devices (i.e. it is noted that the limitations of when and how the ASIC and MEMS wafers were fabricated and separated, render the claim a product-by process claim and therefore the claim is treated according to MPEP § 2113 which states that “[e]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Classen teaches all of the claimed structure, the claimed method does not distinguish it from the prior art).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Classen, however, does not explicitly teach that the MEMS structures are used for the optical device to utilize the front surface of the MEMS device to reflect and control incident light, that the ASIC circuity chip comprises a plurality of electrode areas to provide electrical signal to the MEMS device and that a plurality of electrical connections through the substrate of the MEMS device is provided wherein the electrical connections are connected to the ASIC circuitry chip and wherein the electrical connections comprise electrode area to receive electrical signals from the ASIC circuitry chip, and as a result, that the electrical connections through the MEMS wafer substrate are between the MEMS device and ASIC chip.
To begin Boysel, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that in an ASIC integrated MEMS device similar to that disclosed by Classen, the MEMS device with a released movable structure can be an micro-optic device (¶[0079], which is known in the art to include mirror structure that reflect and control incident light as evidenced by Brosnihhan, ¶[0009]). Boysel, also teaches in Fig. 8A and related text that MEMS device (1100, Fig. 8A and ¶[0064]) and an ASIC circuity chip (1200, Fig. 8A and ¶¶[0069]-[0070]) similar to that disclosed by Classen includes a plurality of electrode areas (1228, 1230, Fig. 8A and ¶[0073]) to provide electrical signal to the MEMS device (¶¶[0068]-[0073]) and a plurality of electrical connections (1130, 1150, Fig. 8A and ¶[0068]) through the substrate of the MEMS device (¶[0068]) wherein the electrical connections are connected to the ASIC circuitry chip (1200, Fig. 8A and ¶[0070]) and wherein the electrical connections comprise electrode area (1144, 1124, Fig. 8A and ¶¶[0067]-[0068]) to receive electrical signals from the ASIC circuitry chip (¶¶[0068]-[0072]) in order to provide connection between the two chips, thereby allowing for control of the MEMS device by the ASIC circuity.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the micro-optic MEMS disclosed by Boyles as MEMS disclosed by Classen, in order to meet specific design requirements for the device. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of electrode areas disclosed by Boyles as part of ASIC circuity disclosed by Classen, in order to provide electrical signal to the MEMS device and a plurality of electrical connections through the substrate of the MEMS device wherein the electrical connections are connected to the ASIC circuitry chip and wherein the electrical connections comprise electrode area to receive electrical signals from the ASIC circuitry chip, so that electrical connections through the MEMS wafer substrate are between the MEMS device and ASIC chip, in order to provide connection between the two chips, thereby allowing for control of the MEMS device by the ASIC circuity.
Regarding claim 5 (1), the combined teaching of Classen and Boysel discloses wherein the ASIC chip has a communication channel (Classen, 40, Fig. 17) through the exposed wire bond-pads.
Regarding claim 17, Classen teaches in Figs. 12-17 (Fig. 17 shown above) and related text, an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) integrated MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) device (100, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) exposed wire bond-pads (i.e. pad on ASIC 20 to which wire 40 is connected, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) from bottom attached ASIC comprising:
a. a MEMS device (10, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) with released moving structures (14, 15, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]) on a substrate (Fig. 17) wherein the structures have a plurality of degree of freedom motions (Figs. 16 and 17 show elements 14 and 15 at different degrees of freedom of motion, ¶¶[0055]-[0056]);
b. an ASIC circuitry chip (20, Fig. 17 and ¶[0038]); and
d. a plurality of exposed bond-pads (i.e. pads to which wire 40 is attached, Fig. 17) from the ASIC circuitry chip wherein the bond-pads are exposed to outside wire bonding (Fig. 17);
wherein said ASIC and MEMS wafers are separately fabricated (Figs. 12-14) and wafer bonded after fabrication (¶[0052]) and before dicing and said ASIC integrated MEMS device with exposed wire bond-pads are fabricated with wafer-level wafer bonding technology (wafer to wafer bonding) (i.e. it is noted that the limitations of when and how the ASIC and MEMS wafers are fabricated and separated, render the claim a product-by process claim and therefore the claim is treated according to MPEP § 2113 which states that “[e]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Classen teaches all of the claimed structure, the claimed method does not distinguish from the prior art).
Classen, however, does not explicitly teach that the ASIC circuitry chip comprises a plurality of electrode areas to provide electrical signal to the MEMS device and a plurality of electrical connections go through the substrate of the MEMS device wherein the electrical connections are connected between the ASIC circuitry chip and the MEMS device.
Boysel, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 8A and related text that MEMS device (1100, Fig. 8A and ¶[0064]) and an ASIC circuity chip (1200, Fig. 8A and ¶¶[0069]-[0070]) similar to that disclosed by Classen includes a plurality of electrode areas (1228, 1230, Fig. 8A and ¶[0073]) to provide electrical signal to the MEMS device (¶¶[0068]-[0073]) and a plurality of electrical connections (1130, 1150, Fig. 8A and ¶[0068]) through the substrate of the MEMS device (¶[0068]) wherein the electrical connections are connected to between the ASIC circuitry chip (1200, Fig. 8A and ¶[0070]) and the MEMS device in order to provide connection between the two chips, thereby allowing for control of the MEMS device by the ASIC circuity chip.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of electrode areas disclosed by Boyles as part of ASIC circuity disclosed by Classen, in order to provide electrical signal to the MEMS device and a plurality of electrical connections through the substrate of the MEMS device wherein the electrical connections are connected between the ASIC circuitry chip and the MEMS device, in order to provide connection between the two chips, thereby allowing for control of the MEMS device by the ASIC circuity chip.
Regarding claim 18 (17), the combined teaching of Classen and Boyles discloses wherein the MEMS device is controlled by the ASIC circuitry chip (Boyles, Fig. 10A and ¶¶[0088]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 19 (17), the combined teaching of Classen and Boyles discloses wherein the ASIC circuitry chip is controlled through the exposed bond-pads (Classen, 40, Fig. 17 and ¶[0056], where the external contacting element provides signals to the ASIC circuitry chip (i.e. controls the ASIC) from a circuit board assembly (¶[0053])).
Regarding claim 20 (17), the combined teaching of Classen and Boyles discloses wherein the exposed bond-pads are used for delivering signals from a circuit board assembly for the ASIC circuitry chip (Classen, ¶¶[0053] and [0056]). While Classen and Boyles do not exility teach that the delivered signals are control signal and power, supplying desired signal through the provided bond-pads disclosed by Classen and Boyles would have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art as it would amount to nothing more than providing desired signals to the existing structure in order to operate the device.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen and Boysel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2015/0197419, hereinafter “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Classen and Boysel was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 and includes wherein the MEMS wafter and ASIC wafer are separately fabricated (Classen, Figs. 12-14 and Fig. and Boysel, Fig. 8A). While Classen and Boysel do not explicitly teach that the MEMS and ASIC wafers are also tested before wafter bonding, testing MEMS and ASIC wafers before wafer bonding would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to ensure that the final ASIC integrated MEMS device includes only good ASIC and MEMS wafers, as evidenced by Cheng (¶¶[0040] and [0064]), thereby increasing the overall device yield.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test the MEMS and ASIC wafers disclosed by Classen and Boysel before wafer bonding, as disclosed by Cheng, in order include only good ASIC and MEMS wafers in the final device, thereby increasing the overall device yield.
Regarding claim 3 (1), the combined teaching of Classen and Boysel was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Classen and Boysel, however, do not explicitly teach that the MEMS device has separate bond-pads for testing and signal on top of the MEMS device. Cheng, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that MEMS devices can include bond-pads (111, Fig. 1D and ¶[0020]) on top of the MEMS device in order to provide electrical connections to the MEMS device (i.e. it is noted that the purpose for which the bond-pads disclosed by Cheng are used (e.g. for testing and signal) is considered intended use and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since Classen, Boysel and Cheng disclose all of the claimed structure which would be capable of being used for testing and providing signal, they are considered as disclosing the claimed device).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include separate bond-pads, as disclosed by Cheng, on top of the MEMS device of Classen, and Boysel, in order to provide electrical connections to the MEMS device.
Regarding claim 4 (3), the combined teaching of Classen, Boysel and Cheng, was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3. Classen, Boysel and Cheng, however, do not exility teach that the bond pads are connected separately for testing and controlling the MEMS device. Nonetheless, using the bond-pads disclosed by Classen, Boysel and Cheng for testing or controlling the MEMS device is considered intended use and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since Classen, Boysel and Cheng disclose all of the claimed structure which would be capable of being used for testing and controlling the MEMS device, they are considered as disclosing the claimed device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen and Boysel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0008540, hereinafter “Chu”).
Regarding claim 6 (1), the combined teaching of Classen and Boysel was discussed above in the rejection of claim 7. While Classen and Boysel disclose the same structure as claimed including that the ASIC chip uses a CMOS circuit, Classen and Boysel do not explicitly teach that the CMOS circuit is a logic circuit is used to generate the electrical signals.
Chu, in a similar field of endeavor teaches that the CMOS devices of the ASIC chip in a MEMS-CMOS integrated devices can include logic devices that allow to generate electrical signals (¶¶[0003] and [0025]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to include CMOS logic circuits disclosed by Chu in the device disclosed by Classen and Boysel, in order to control the MEMS device.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen, Boysel and Chu, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0393243, hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 7 (6), the combined teaching of Classen, Boysel and Chu was discussed above in the rejection of claim 6. Classen, Boysel and Chu, however, do not explicitly teach that the ASIC chip has a control circuity for CMOS logic, wherein the control circuitry comprise a column driver, a row driver and a timing driver.
Wu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 4 and related text that in CMOS logic for controlling MEMS devices may include control circuitry (438, 440, Fig. 4 and ¶[0049]) that includes column driver, row driver and timing controller in order to control individual elements of the MEMS device that are arranged in rows and columns.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the control circuity for CMOS logic, disclosed by Wu, that comprise the column driver, the row driver and the timing driver in order to control individual elements of the MEMS device that are arranged in rows and columns.
Regarding claim 8 (7), the combined teaching of Classen, Boysel, Chu and Wu was discussed above in the rejection of claim 7. While Classen, Boysel, Chu and Wu disclose the same structure as claimed, Classen, Boysel, Chu and Wu do not explicitly teach that the CMOS logic circuits maintain the electrical signal until the control circuitry generates the next electrical signal. The limitation of claim specifying that the CMOS logic circuit “maintains the electrical signal until the control circuitry generates next electrical signal”, is considered an intended use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since Classen, Boysel, Chu and Wu disclosed all of the claimed structure which would be capable of maintaining an electrical signal until the control circuitry generates next electrical signal, they are considered as disclosing the claimed device.
Regarding claim 9 (7), the combined teaching of Classen, Boysel, Chu and Wu discloses, wherein the MEMS device has a plurality of degrees of freedom of motion (Brosnihhan, ¶[0008]), wherein the plurality of degrees of freedom of motion is controlled by the ASIC chip generated electrical signal (Boysel, ¶¶[0067]-[0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights