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
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 12-14, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oden (US 20160124311 A1) in view of McDonald (US 20200209614 A1).
Re Claim 1, Oden discloses on Fig. 1 (See annotated portion of Fig. 1 below as well), an apparatus comprising: a substrate (pixel element 10 is formed on a substrate) [Par 32]; an electrode layer (electrode 13a) on the substrate, and a hinge layer (hinge 13b) [Par 32]; wherein (See annotated Fig. 1 below) a first edge of the linear hinge edges (edge of 13b adjacent gap 1-L) is spaced apart from a closest second edge of the linear electrode edges (edge of 13a adjacent gap 1-L) by a first lateral gap distance (1-L), and a third edge of the linear hinge edges (edge of 13B adjacent gap 2-L) is spaced apart from a closest fourth edge (edge of 13A adjacent gap 2-L) of the linear electrode edges by a second lateral gap distance (2-L) different from the first lateral gap distance (1-L and 2-L can be seen to be different in Fig. 1), having N linear hinge edges (See annotated Fig. 1 below: 7 linear hinge edges) on a side of a centerline.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Oden
But Oden does not explicitly disclose, the electrode layer having N linear electrode edges on a same side of a centerline of the electrode layer, N being an odd number greater than or equal to 3.
However, within the same field of endeavor, McDonald teaches, on Fig. 7, that it is desirable in electronic actuators for, the electrode layer (electrode 208) [Par 30] having linear electrode edges (See annotated Fig. 7 below) on a same side of a centerline of the electrode layer, the electrode edges being an odd number greater than or equal to 3 (See annotated Fig. 7: 13 electrode edges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden with McDonald in order to provide, to better steer the light beam, as taught by McDonald [Par 35].
But Oden in view of McDonald still does not explicitly disclose, where the number of linear electrode hinges and the number and linear hinge edges are the same.
However, since McDonald teaches explicitly optimizing the number of partitioned electrode segments [Par 21 and 16], and the number of electrode edges would inherently require controlling the number of partitioned electrode segments, McDonald teaches that it known in the optimize or control the number of electrode edges. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of utilizing McDonald’s electrode optimization techniques in Oden’s electrode and hinge configuration, at the time of the invention, to optimize the number of edges of both the electrode and the hinges such that they are both equal. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the number of electrodes in order to, solve the non-linearity of the voltage displacement profile, as taught by McDonald [Par 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald, in order to solve the non-linearity of the voltage displacement profile, as taught by McDonald [Par 21].
PNG
media_image2.png
285
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of McDonald
Claim(s) 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oden in view of McDonald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20070097486 A1).
Re Claim 4, Oden in view of McDonald discloses, the apparatus of claim 1.
But Oden in view of McDonald does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset and the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that, the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset and the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 5, Oden in view of McDonald discloses, the apparatus of claim 1.
But Oden in view of McDonald does not explicitly disclose, wherein a fifth edge of the linear hinge edges is spaced apart from a closest sixth edge of the linear electrode edges by a third lateral gap distance different from the second lateral gap distance.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that, wherein a fifth edge of the linear hinge edges is spaced apart from a closest sixth edge of the linear electrode edges by a third lateral gap distance different from the second lateral gap distance, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 6, Oden in view of McDonald and Yang discloses, the apparatus of claim 5.
But Oden in view of McDonald and Yang does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first and third lateral gap distances are within 5% of each other.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that, the first and third lateral gap distances are within 5% of each other, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 7, Oden in view of McDonald and Yang discloses, the apparatus of claim 5.
But Oden in view of McDonald does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, and the third lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance plus the offset.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, and the third lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance plus the offset, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 8, Oden discloses on Fig. 1 (See annotated portion of Fig. 1 above as well), an apparatus comprising: a substrate (pixel element 10 is formed on a substrate) [Par 32]; an electrode layer (electrode 13a) on the substrate, and a hinge layer coupled to the electrode layer (hinge 13b is couple to electrode 13a through memory cell 11) [Par 32]; wherein (See annotated Fig. 1 above) a first edge of the linear hinge edges (edge of 13b adjacent gap 1-L) is spaced apart from a closest second edge of the linear electrode edges (edge of 13a adjacent gap 1-L) by a first lateral gap distance (1-L), and a third edge of the linear hinge edges (edge of 13B adjacent gap 2-L) is spaced apart from a closest fourth edge (edge of 13A adjacent gap 2-L) of the linear electrode edges by a second lateral gap distance (2-L) different from the first lateral gap distance (1-L and 2-L can be seen to be different in Fig. 1), having N linear hinge edges (See annotated Fig. 1 above: 7 linear hinge edges) on a side of a centerline.
But Oden does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, a second lateral gap distance substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, the electrode layer having N linear electrode edges on a side of a centerline of the electrode layer, N being an odd number greater than or equal to 3.
However, within the same field of endeavor, McDonald teaches, on Fig. 7, that it is desirable in electronic actuators for, the electrode layer (electrode 208) [Par 30] having linear electrode edges (See annotated Fig. 7 above) on a same side of a centerline of the electrode layer, the electrode edges being an odd number greater than or equal to 3 (See annotated Fig. 7: 13 electrode edges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden with McDonald in order to provide, to better steer the light beam, as taught by McDonald [Par 35].
But Oden in view of McDonald still does not explicitly disclose, where the number of linear electrode hinges and the number and linear hinge edges are the same.
However, since McDonald teaches explicitly optimizing the number of partitioned electrode segments [Par 21 and 16], and the number of electrode edges would inherently require controlling the number of partitioned electrode segments, McDonald teaches that it known in the optimize or control the number of electrode edges. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of utilizing McDonald’s electrode optimization techniques in Oden’s electrode and hinge configuration, at the time of the invention, to optimize the number of edges of both the electrode and the hinges such that they are both equal. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the number of electrodes in order to, solve the non-linearity of the voltage displacement profile, as taught by McDonald [Par 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald, in order to solve the non-linearity of the voltage displacement profile, as taught by McDonald [Par 21].
But Oden in view of McDonald does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 11, Oden in view of McDonald and Yang discloses, the apparatus of claim 8.
But Oden in view of McDonald does not explicitly disclose, wherein a fifth edge of the linear hinge edges is spaced apart from a closest sixth edge of the linear electrode edges by a third lateral gap distance substantially equivalent to the fixed distance plus the offset.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that wherein a fifth edge of the linear hinge edges is spaced apart from a closest sixth edge of the linear electrode edges by a third lateral gap distance substantially equivalent to the fixed distance plus the offset, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oden in view of McDonald and Hornbeck (US 20100007936 A1).
Re Claim 16, Oden discloses on Fig. 1 (See annotated portion of Fig. 1 above as well), an apparatus comprising: a substrate (pixel element 10 is formed on a substrate) [Par 32]; an electrode layer (electrode 13a) on the substrate, and a hinge layer (hinge 13b) [Par 32]; a mirror layer (mirror 14a); and a second post coupling the mirror layer to the hinge layer (via 14b connects mirror 14a to hinge 13c) [Par 32],
wherein (See annotated Fig. 1 below) a first edge of the linear hinge edges (edge of 13b adjacent gap 1-L) is spaced apart from a closest second edge of the linear electrode edges (edge of 13a adjacent gap 1-L) by a first lateral gap distance (1-L), and a third edge of the linear hinge edges (edge of 13B adjacent gap 2-L) is spaced apart from a closest fourth edge (edge of 13A adjacent gap 2-L) of the linear electrode edges by a second lateral gap distance (2-L) different from the first lateral gap distance (1-L and 2-L can be seen to be different in Fig. 1), having N linear hinge edges (See annotated Fig. 1 above: 7 linear hinge edges) on a side of a centerline.
But Oden does not explicitly disclose, the electrode layer having N linear electrode edges on a same side of a centerline of the electrode layer, N being an odd number greater than or equal to 3, and a first post coupling the hinge layer to the electrode layer.
However, within the same field of endeavor, McDonald teaches, on Fig. 7, that it is desirable in electronic actuators for, the electrode layer (electrode 208) [Par 30] having linear electrode edges (See annotated Fig. 7 below) on a same side of a centerline of the electrode layer, the electrode edges being an odd number greater than or equal to 3 (See annotated Fig. 7: 13 electrode edges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden with McDonald in order to provide, to better steer the light beam, as taught by McDonald [Par 35].
But Oden in view of McDonald still does not explicitly disclose, where the number of linear electrode hinges and the number and linear hinge edges are the same, and a first post coupling the hinge layer to the electrode layer.
However, since McDonald teaches explicitly optimizing the number of partitioned electrode segments [Par 21 and 16], and the number of electrode edges would inherently require controlling the number of partitioned electrode segments, McDonald teaches that it known in the optimize or control the number of electrode edges. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of utilizing McDonald’s electrode optimization techniques in Oden’s electrode and hinge configuration, at the time of the invention, to optimize the number of edges of both the electrode and the hinges such that they are both equal. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the number of electrodes in order to, solve the non-linearity of the voltage displacement profile, as taught by McDonald [Par 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald, in order to solve the non-linearity of the voltage displacement profile, as taught by McDonald [Par 21].
But Oden in view of McDonald still does not explicitly disclose, a first post coupling the hinge layer to the electrode layer.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hornbeck teaches, on Fig. 23a, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators to include, a first post (post 170) coupling the hinge layer (hinge 172) to the electrode layer (electrode 160) [Par 154].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Hornbeck in order to enable rotation of the mirror plate, as taught by Hornbeck [Par 154].
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oden, McDonald, and Horbeck as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yang.
Re Claim 17, Oden in view of McDonald and Hornbeck teaches, the apparatus of claim 16.
But Oden in view of McDonald and Hornbeck does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset and the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald and Hornbeck, with Yang, and optimize them such that, the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset and the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 19, Oden in view of McDonald, Hornbeck, and Yang discloses, the apparatus of claim 16.
But Oden in view of McDonald, Hornbeck, and Yang does not explicitly disclose, wherein a fifth edge of the linear hinge edges is spaced apart from a closest sixth edge of the electrode edges by a third lateral gap distance within 5% of the first lateral gap distance.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that a fifth edge of the linear hinge edges is spaced apart from a closest sixth edge of the electrode edges by a third lateral gap distance within 5% of the first lateral gap distance, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Re Claim 20, Oden in view of McDonald, Hornbeck, and Yang discloses, the apparatus of claim 19.
But Oden in view of McDonald, Hornbeck, and Yang, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, and the third lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance plus the offset.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches, on Fig. 4b, that it is desirable in micromirror actuators, to include a defined spacing between a plurality of electrode devices and a plurality of hinge devices [Par 13], and further describes the lateral spacing between electrodes and another hinge layer (bias layer 110 is used to open or hinge portions of oxide layer 220 which can be seen in fig. 3B) [Par 99], being explicitly controlled [Par 99]. Thus, Yang teaches that it is at least known in the art at the time of the invention to control the lateral gap distances between electrodes and hinge, and that controlling such variables would provide for electrical isolation between the different layers [Par 99]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Oden in view of McDonald with Yang, and optimize them such that, wherein the first lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to a fixed distance plus an offset, the second lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance minus the offset, and the third lateral gap distance is substantially equivalent to the fixed distance plus the offset, in order to provide electrical isolation between the different layer as taught by Yang [Par 99].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carr (US 6442307 B1) teaches an optical micromirror device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights