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 group I, claims 1-4 in ”Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 01/05/2026”, is acknowledged.
This office action considers claims 1-6 are thus pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 5-6 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-4 are examined on their merits.
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 limitations in claims:
(related to device claim 2 in view of the parent device claim), “a depth of the movable portion adjacent to the isolation joint is less than a depth of the isolation joint”(claim 2, Ln 1-2),
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant is reminded that the element, to be shown in the drawing, must not be a temporary element of a method or a lithographic process that does not exist in the final device structure as claimed. 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 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite and non-functional for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, The instant claim, recites the limitation, in view of claim 1, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, in claim 2, is vague and ill-defined, as a result of limitation the claim “wherein a depth of the movable portion adjacent to the isolation joint is less than a depth of the isolation joint” (claim 2. Line 1-2). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is the depth of the movable portion? It is noted that, in PGPUB version of specification, paragraph [0030] defines “the depth of the IJ 4 is t”, that is shown in Fig 2; from where the depth of the movable portion (3) is “mh”; and paragraph [0045] determined “mh > t” . This statement contradicts claim’s limitation “a depth of the movable portion adjacent to the isolation joint is less than a depth of the isolation joint”. It is also found in paragraph [0055] a depth (s2) of the movable portion adjacent to the isolation joint is less than a depth (t) of the isolation joint. However, the s2 is not defined in disclosure of the MEMS device; s2 is defined as a temporary etching depth in process step solely in Fig 12. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purposes of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner assumes any feature as necessarily being appropriate.
Regarding claim 3 this is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), because of its dependency in claim 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as 10; Fig 2; [0038]) = (element 10; Figure No. 3; Paragraph No. [0038]). 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by MILLER; Scott A. (US 20230136105 A1) hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 1. Miller teaches a MEMS device (10; Figs 1-2; [0038]) having a movable portion (comprising {220,227, 214} including hanging mass or blade), comprising (see the entire document, Figs 1-2, along with subject matter referenced in other figures, specifically, as cited below):
PNG
media_image1.png
396
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller Figures 1-2 (truncated)
a substrate (212; Fig.2; [0047]);
a recess (232; [0046] labelled as cavity), disposed in the substrate (212);
the movable portion ({220,227, 214} including hanging masses or blades), hollowly supported in the recess (232); and
an isolation joint (210; Fig 2; [0047]), inserted into a predetermined position of the movable portion ( 214) and electrically insulating (as disclosed in [0047] as 210 is a dielectric material, which for one embodiment is silicon dioxide and provide the electrical isolation between blade 14) both sides of the movable portion (214), wherein
a shortest distance (hereinafter d_shortest) between a bottom of the recess (232; depicted in Fig 2 where 234 touches 232; hereinafter 232_bottom) and the movable portion (hanging masses or blades) is less (depicted in Fig 2) than a distance between the bottom of the recess (232_bottom) and the isolation joint (210).
Regarding claim 2. Miller as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 1, further teaches (see drawing objection in section I and 112(b) rejection in section II, supra), wherein a depth (along the vertical direction) of the movable portion (214) adjacent to the isolation joint (210) is less than a depth (Fig 2) of the isolation joint (210). ([0057].
Regarding claim 3. Miller as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 2, further teaches, further teaches, wherein the movable portion ({220,227, 214} including hanging masses or blades) includes a portion (hanging masses or blades) having a depth (along vertical length) greater (depicted in Fig 2) than the depth (along vertical length) of the isolation joint (210).
Regarding claim 4. Miller as applied to the MEMS device of Claim 1, further teaches, further teaches, wherein the distance between the bottom of the recess (232_bottom) and the isolation joint (210) is a distance between a lower end of the isolation joint (210) and a protrusion (502 in Fig 5; [0050]) formed at the bottom of the recess (232_bottom).
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
February 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights