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 .
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as 1; Fig 10; [0051]) = (element 1; Figure No. 10; Paragraph No. [0051]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Nagel; Cristian et al. US 20220091154 A1) hereinafter Nagel.
PNG
media_image1.png
399
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nagel Figure 10 (top) Figure 11 (bottom)
Regarding claim 1. Nagel teaches a MEMS device (1; Fig 10; [0051]) having a movable portion (3; Figs 11-12; [00]), comprising (see the entire document, Figs 10-11 along with other relevant figures 1-9 as references in description of Figs 11-12, specifically, as cited below):
a substrate (2; Fig 10,[0051]);
a recess (not labelled but construed around mass 3 in Fig 11) disposed in the substrate (2);
the movable portion (3), hollowly supported in the recess; and
a bump stop (stop structure 6 comprising 71 of 61 and 72 of 62, labelled as spring stop in Figs 2-3; [0035]), hollowly supported in the recess and configured to restrict a movement of the movable portion (3) by contacting (construed from [0035]: Stop structure 6 is designed in such a way that, initially, first spring stop 61 comes into mechanical contact during a movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13 beyond an operating range; thereafter, second spring stop 62 comes into mechanical contact during a further movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13; and thereafter, fixed stop 63 comes into mechanical contact during a further movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13 ) the movable portion (3), wherein the bump stop (61/62 of 6) includes:
a protruding portion (portion of 71/72 along axis 11; Fig 11, i.e., cantilever arm; hereinafter 71/72_ protruding_portion), configured to contact (as cited from [0035] in preceding paragraph) the movable portion (3); and
a shock absorbing portion (portion of 71/72 along axis 12 .i.e., anchor or base; Fig 11; hereinafter 71/72_ absorbing_portion), disposed between the protruding portion (71/722_ protruding_portion) and the substrate (2) configured to absorb at least a part of an impact force (energy) applied to the protruding portion (72_ protruding_portion) by elastic deformation (inherent characteristic of a spring; and further detailed in [0036])
Examiner would like to note that as MPEP § 2114.I “Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. In this instant the claimed limitation “configured to contact the movable portion; and configured to absorb at least a part of an impact force applied to the protruding portion by elastic deformation” are functional properties and specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 1, further teaches, wherein the protruding portion (71/72_ protruding_portion) extends along a movable direction (along axis 11 Fig 10) of the movable portion (3).
Regarding claim 3. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 1, further teaches, wherein the shock absorbing portion (71/72_ absorbing_portion), is a cantilever (depicted fig 11) with a first end fixed to the substrate (2) and a second end fixed to the protruding portion (distal end of 71/72_ protruding_portion).
Regarding claim 4. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 2, further teaches, wherein the shock absorbing portion (71/722_ absorbing_portion) is a cantilever (depicted in Fig 11) with a first end fixed to the substrate (2) and a second end fixed to the protruding portion (distal end of 71/72_ protruding_portion).
Regarding claim 5. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 1, further teaches, wherein the shock absorbing portion (71/722_ absorbing_portion) is a grid-shaped beam (construed from multiple units of 61,62,63 of graduated stop structure 6; [0035]; fig 11) fixed to the substrate (2).
Regarding claim 6. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 1, further teaches, wherein the shock absorbing portion (71/722_ absorbing_portion) is a grid-shaped beam (construed from multiple units of 61,62,63 of graduated stop structure 6 [0035]; fig 11) fixed to the substrate (2).
Regarding claim 7. Nagel teaches a MEMS device (1; Fig 10; [0051]) having a movable portion (3; Figs 11-12; [00]), comprising (see the entire document, Figs 10-11 along with other relevant figures 1-9 as references in description of Figs 11-12, specifically, as cited below):
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nagel Figure 11 (annotated for top linage 71, 72 etc)
a substrate (2; Fig 10, [0051]);
a recess (not labelled but construed around mass 3 in Fig 11) disposed in the substrate (2);
the movable portion (3), hollowly supported in the recess); and
a first bump stop (a part of structure 6 comprising 72 of 62, labelled as spring stop in Figs 2-3; [0035]), hollowly supported in the recess and configured to be elastically deformed (inherent characteristic of a spring; and further detailed in [0036]) by contacting (described in claim rejection 1 that is cited from [0035]) the movable portion (3) to absorb (by a portion of 72 along axis 12 .i.e., anchor or base; Fig 11; hereinafter 72_ absorbing_portion) at least a part of an impact force (inherent characteristic of a spring; and further detailed in [0036]) applied from the movable portion (3); and
a second bump stop (another part of stop structure 6 comprising 71 of 61, labelled as spring stop in Figs 2-3; [0035]), hollowly supported in the recess and configured to restrict a movement of the movable portion by contacting (construed from [0035]: Stop structure 6 is designed in such a way that, initially, first spring stop 61 comes into mechanical contact during a movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13 beyond an operating range; thereafter, second spring stop 62 comes into mechanical contact during a further movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13; and thereafter, fixed stop 63 comes into mechanical contact during a further movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13 ) the movable portion (3), wherein
a distance between the movable portion (bottom of 3) and the first bump stop (top of 72 of 62) is less (see annotated linage of 72 and 71 in Fig 11) than a distance between the movable portion (3) and the second bump stop (71).
Regarding claim 8. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 7, further teaches, wherein the first bump stop (a part of structure 6 comprising 72 of 62, labelled as spring stop in Figs 2-3; [0035]) includes:
a protruding portion (portion of 72 along axis 11; Fig 11, i.e., cantilever arm; hereinafter 72_ first_protruding_portion), configured to contact (construed from [0035]: Stop structure 6 is designed in such a way that, initially, first spring stop 62 comes into mechanical contact during a movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13 beyond an operating range; thereafter, second spring stop 61 comes into mechanical contact during a further movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13; and thereafter, fixed stop 63 comes into mechanical contact during a further movement of at least one portion of seismic mass 3 in third direction 13 ) the movable portion (3); and
a shock absorbing portion ((portion of 72 along axis 12 .i.e., anchor or base; Fig 11; hereinafter 72_ first_absorbing_portion)), disposed between the protruding portion (72_ first_protruding_portion) and the substrate (2) and configured to absorb at least a part of an impact force (energy) applied to the protruding portion (72_ first_protruding_portion) by elastic deformation (inherent characteristic of a spring; and further detailed in [0036]).
Examiner would like to note that as MPEP § 2114.I “Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. In this instant the claimed limitation “configured to contact the movable portion” is functional properties and specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 9. Nagel as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 7, further teaches, wherein the second bump stop (a part of structure 6 comprising 71 of 61, labelled as spring stop in Figs 2-3; [0035]) includes a protruding portion (portion of 71 along axis 11; Fig 11, i.e., cantilever arm; hereinafter 71_ second_protruding_portion) fixed to the substrate (2) and extending along a direction (along axis 11, Fig 10) of movement of the movable portion (3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
November 13, 2025