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 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings (i.e., FIG. 5, reference character x = 101.39µs, reference character y = 1.355V). 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Furthermore, no description is provided for FIG. 5.
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, 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
Regarding Claim 19, line 13, the period should be removed and perhaps replaced with a semicolon.
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 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Pasch et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0202933 A1, hereinafter “Pasch”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 10, Pasch discloses a method of controlling a position of a cantilever beam of a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) switch (¶¶ [0218], [0227]-[0230], FIG. 12), comprising: applying a control signal (V; FIG. 12, reproduced and annotated below) during a first time interval (T1), the control signal (V) during the first time interval (T1) decreasing from a first level (30V) to a second level (10V), applying the control signal (V) during a second time interval (T2), the control signal (V) during the second time interval (T2) being maintained at the second level (10V), applying the control signal (V) during a third time interval (T3), the control signal (V) during the third time interval (T3) increasing from the second level (10V) to a third level (30V), applying the control signal (V) during a fourth time interval (T4), the control signal (V) during the fourth time interval (T4) being maintained at the third level (30V), and applying the control signal (V) during a fifth time interval (T5), the control signal (V) during the fifth time interval (T5) decreasing from the third level (30V) to a fourth level (0V).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Pasch discloses that the fourth level (0V) is less than the second level (10V; FIG. 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Pasch discloses that the control signal (V) is a voltage applied to a gate of the MEMS switch (¶ [0323]).
Regarding Claim 13, Pasch discloses that the second time interval (T2) immediately follows the first time interval (T1), the third time interval (T3) immediate follows the second time interval (T2), the fourth time interval (T4) immediately follows the third time interval (T3), and the fifth time interval (T5) immediately follow the fourth time interval (T4; FIG. 12).
Regarding Claim 14, Pasch discloses that the control signal (V) during the first time interval (T1) linearly decreases from the first level (30V) to the second level (10V; FIG. 12).
Regarding Claim 15, Pasch discloses that the control signal (V) during the third time interval (T3) linearly increases from the second level (10V) to the third level (30V; FIG. 12).
Regarding Claim 16, Pasch discloses that the control signal (V) during the fifth time interval (T5) linearly decreases from the third level (30V) to the fourth level (0V; FIG. 12).
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 negate (28)d by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/175230 A1, hereinafter “Hammond”) in view of Wright et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0169707 A1, hereinafter “Wright”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Hammond discloses a method of controlling a position of a cantilever beam of a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) switch (Abstract, FIGS. 5-6), comprising: applying a control signal (actuation signal voltage) during a first time interval (t1-t2; ¶ [0040]), the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the first time interval (t1-t2) increasing from a first level to a second level (see the increasing part of the voltage graph on FIG. 6; ¶ [0040]), applying the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during a second time interval (t2-t3; FIG. 6), the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the second time interval (t2-t3) being maintained at the second level (see the flat horizontal part of the voltage graph; FIG. 6), applying the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during a third time interval (t3-t4), the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the third time interval (t3-t4) decreasing from the second level to a third level (see the decreasing part of the voltage graph; FIG. 6), applying the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during a fourth time interval (t4 and beyond), the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the fourth time interval being maintained at the third level (see the flat horizontal part of the voltage graph on FIG. 6). Hammond does not disclose applying the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during a fifth time interval.
However, Wright discloses applying a control signal (20) during a time interval (comprising T2 and T3; FIG. 3), the control signal during the time interval increasing from the third level (V1) to a fourth level (V2; FIG. 3, ¶ [0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control signal of Wright during a fifth time interval and combine with the teachings of Hammond to consistently establish an appropriate contact pressure without bouncing (¶ [0025] of Wright).
Regarding Claim 2, Hammond discloses that the fourth level is about the same as the second level (e.g., the end of the second level at about t2 is the same as the beginning of just after t4).
Regarding Claim 3, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) is a voltage applied to a gate (28) of the MEMS switch (FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Hammond discloses that the second time interval (t2-t3) immediately follows the first time interval (t1-t2; FIG. 4), the third time interval (t3-t4) immediate follows the second time interval (t2-t3; FIG. 4), the fourth time interval immediately follows the third time interval (t3-t4; FIG. 4), and the fifth time interval immediately follow the fourth time interval (FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the first time interval (t1-t2) linearly increases from the first level to the second level (FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the third time interval (t3-t4) linearly decreases from the second level to the third level (FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) during the fifth time interval linearly increases from the third level to the fourth level.
Regarding Claim 9, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) is applied in a hot environment (¶¶ [0006]-[0010] of Hammond).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hammond and Wright.
The combination of Hammond and Wright discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed interval. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such an interval to provide fast actuation without bounce since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasch.
Pasch discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed interval. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such an interval to provide fast actuation without bounce since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pasch and Hammond.
Pasch discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed environment. However, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) is applied in a hot environment (¶¶ [0006]-[0010] of Hammond). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hammond with those of Pasch to maintain circuit performance and effectively minimize a closing time.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hammond and Wright in view of Pasch.
Specifically, regarding Claim 19, Hammond discloses a control system for controlling a position of a cantilever beam of a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) switch, comprising: a controller (“control circuitry”; Abstract, ¶ [0032]) configured to: in a first configuration, apply a control signal (actuation signal voltage) to a control port to close the MEMS switch, the control signal (actuation signal voltage) comprising: during a first time interval (t1-t2), increasing from a first level to a second level (FIG. 4), during a second time interval (t2-t3), maintaining at the second level (FIG. 4), during a third time interval (t3-t4), decreasing from the second level to a third level (FIG. 4), during a fourth time interval (t4-t5), maintaining at the third level (FIG. 4). Hammond does not disclose the claimed (i) fifth time interval, and (ii) second configuration.
However, Wright discloses applying a control signal (20) during a time interval (comprising T2 and T3; FIG. 3), the control signal during the time interval increasing from the third level (V1) to a fourth level (V2; FIG. 3, ¶ [0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control signal of Wright during a fifth time interval and combine with the teachings of Hammond to consistently establish an appropriate contact pressure without bouncing (¶ [0025] of Wright).
The combination of Hammond and Wright does not disclose the claimed second configuration. However, Pasch discloses a controller (¶ [220]) configured to apply a control signal (V) to a control port to open the MEMS switch (¶¶ [0218], [0227]-[0230], FIG. 12), the control signal (V) comprising: during a first time interval (T1; FIG. 12, shown above), decreasing from a first level (30V) to a second level (10V), during a second time interval (T2), maintaining at the second level (FIG. 12), during a third time interval (T3), increasing from the second level to a third level (30V; FIG. 12), during a fourth time interval (T4), maintaining at the third level (FIG. 12), and during a fifth time interval, decreasing from the third level to a fourth level (0V; FIG. 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pasch with the combination of Hammond and Wright to extend device lifetime (¶ [0217]).
Regarding Claim 20, Hammond discloses that the control signal (actuation signal voltage) is a voltage applied to a gate (28) of the MEMS switch (FIG. 4).
Conclusion
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 2833