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 . Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 8, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claim 2 is rejected since it is not clear if the “input port” recited in line 2 is the same as or different from that recited in Claim 1, line 11.
Claim 8 is rejected since there is no antecedent basis for the language “coplanar-waveguide ground plane structure.” Claim 20 is rejected since there is no antecedent basis for the language “at least two ground structures” recited in lines 1-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morihara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,048,053 B2, hereinafter “Morihara”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Morihara discloses a micro-electrical-mechanical-system (MEMS) switching device (101), comprising: a MEMS switch die (10) that hosts a first MEMS switch (11a, 21a) having a first terminal (a left hand side 11a, LHS11a; FIG. 3, reproduced and annotated below) and a second terminal (a right hand side 11a; RHS11a; FIG. 3, reproduced and annotated below), and a -second MEMS switch (12a, 21a) having a third terminal (left hand side 12a; LHS12a; FIG. 3, reproduced and annotated below) and a fourth terminal (right hand side 12a; RHS12a; FIG. 3, reproduced and annotated below), the MEMS switch die (10) oriented in a device plane defined by an X-axis (e.g., axis III; FIG. 1) and a Y-axis (e.g., an axis perpendicular to axis III and extending from 45b to 46b; FIG. 1), a first input conductor (51), a second input conductor (31), a first output conductor (11), and a second output conductor (31), configured such that: (i) the first input conductor (51) electrically connects the second terminal (right hand side 11a) to the third terminal (left hand side 12a), (ii) the second input conductor (31), oriented along a Z-axis that is perpendicular to the X-axis and the Y-axis, electrically connects an input port (41) to the first input conductor (51), (iii) the first output conductor (11) electrically connects a first output port (51a) to the first terminal (left hand side 11a), (iv) the second output conductor (31) electrically connects a second output port (52a) to the fourth terminal (right hand side 12a), wherein the first input conductor (51), the first output conductor (11), and the second output conductor (31) are oriented in line with a common axis in the device plane, and wherein a first path from the input port (41) to the first output port (51a; col. 5, line 56), and a second path from the input port (41) to the second output port (52a), have substantially identical electrical characteristics (col. 14, ll. 33-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Morihara discloses that the second input conductor (31) electrically connects an input port (41) to the first input conductor (51) through a through-glass-via (TGV, 34a, 35a; FIG. 3, col. 11, line 66).
Regarding Claim 3, Morihara discloses that the electrical characteristics comprise one or more of electrical resistance, trace width, trace length, material composition, layout geometry, spatial orientation, parasitic inductance, and/or parasitic capacitance (col. 14, ll. 33-40).
Regarding Claim 4, Morihara discloses that the first input conductor (51), the first output conductor (11), and the second output conductor (31) comprise a coplanar-waveguide structure comprising: a first ground conductor (13) and a second ground conductor (14) disposed in the device plane with the first input conductor (51), the first output conductor (11), and the second output conductor (31), wherein the first ground conductor (13) and the second ground conductor (14) are arranged on opposite sides of the device axis (col. 14, l. 57; FIGS. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6, Morihara discloses that the MEMS switch die (10) comprises a substrate having a first face (e.g., on which 12 is provided; FIG. 2) and a second face (a side opposite that comprising 12; FIG. 2), configured such that the device plane corresponds to the first face (FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Morihara discloses a cap (30; FIG. 3) having a first face and a second face (FIG. 3), and a cavity (39a, 39b) formed in the first face (FIG. 3), the glass cap (30) bonded to the MEMS switch die (10) such that the first MEMS switch (11a, 21a) and the second MEMS switch (12a, 21a) are hermetically sealed within the cavity (39a, 39b).
Regarding Claim 8, Morihara discloses that the cap (30) is a glass cap (30; FIG. 2, col. 2, ll. 57-58), and at least one through-glass-via (TGV; 31, col. 8, ll. 13-14) connects a ground plane to the coplanar-waveguide [ground plane] structure (col. 11, ll. 3-10).
Regarding Claim 9, Morihara discloses that both of the MEMS switch are a single pole-single-throw switch (col. 8, lines 34-35).
Claim 10 includes language similar to that of Claim 4 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Regarding Claim 11, Morihara discloses that the second input conductor (31) is oriented along a Z-axis that is perpendicular to the X-axis and the Y-axis (FIG. 1).
Claim 12 includes language similar to that of Claim 3 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claim 13 includes language similar to that of Claim 3 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above. A glass substrate is disclosed at, e.g., col. 5, line 49.
Claim 14 includes language similar to that of Claim 7 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claim 15 includes language similar to that of Claim 1 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claim 16 includes language similar to that of Claim 3 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claim 17 includes language similar to that of Claim 4 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claim 19 include language similar to that of Claim 8 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claim 21 includes language similar to that of Claim 9 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morihara.
Morihara discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed third MEMS switch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a third MEMS switch to provide increased device switching capacity since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 U.S.P.Q. 8. Furthermore, although not relied upon in the current rejection, Horimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/253260 A1) discloses the use of dual parallel MEMS switches.
Claim 18 includes language similar to that of Claim 5 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,122,942 B2) discloses an RF MEMS switch utilizing an input port and an output port but does not disclose the claimed second input conductor and claimed second output conductor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights