DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Applicant's submission filed on July 22, 2026, has been entered.
Drawings
FIG. 5 is objected to because numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3). The text below each of 521 and 525 does not meet this requirement. The text above each of 521 and 522 does not meet this requirement. Additionally, it does not appear that each of the numerical identifiers meet this requirement.
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 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 1-3 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Behin et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2001/0034938A1, hereinafter “Behin”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Behin discloses a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) switch, comprising at least one comb drive having a first input (16, 18; FIG. 1A, ¶ [0024]) and a second input (28, 30; FIG. 1A, ¶ [0024]), at least one conductive beam (34, 36) connected across the at least one comb drive (FIG. 1A), a first contact (16; FIG. 1A), and a second contact (30; FIG. 1A), wherein no voltage difference between the first input (16, 18) and the second input (28, 30) does not result in any movement of the MEMS switch (FIG. 1A), and wherein a voltage difference between the first input (16, 18) and the second input (28, 30) causes an electrostatic force to be generated that causes the at least one conductive beam (34, 36) to move in a direction orthogonal to a direction of the electrostatic force (¶¶ [0023] - [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2, Behin discloses that the at least one comb drive comprises a stationary first electrically conductive comb (25) having at least one comb finger (14; FIG. 1A) and a movable second electrically conductive comb (22) having at least one comb finger (24; FIG. 1A), wherein the at least one conductive beam (34, 36) comprises one conductive beam (34, 36) connected between the stationary first electrically conductive comb (25) and the movable second electrically conductive comb (22; a bottom portion of 36 is between 22 and 25; FIG. 1A), wherein the second contact (30) is fixedly connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (25; FIG. 1A), wherein the first contact (16) is not in contact with the one conductive beam (34, 36) when there is no voltage difference between the first input (16, 18) and the second input (28, 30; ¶ [0024]), and wherein the first input (16, 18) is connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (25) and the second input (28, 30) is connected to the movable second electrically conductive comb (22) such that the voltage difference between the first input (16, 18) and the second input (28, 30) causes the movable second electrically conductive comb (22) to be physically drawn inward by the generated electrostatic force toward the stationary first electrically conductive comb and causes the one conductive beam (34, 36) to contact the first contact (16; ¶ [0024]).
Regarding Claim 3, Behin discloses that the at least one comb drive comprises a stationary first electrically conductive comb (25) having at least one comb finger (FIG. 1A) and a movable second electrically conductive comb (22) having at least one comb finger (FIG. 1A), wherein the at least one conductive beam (34, 36) comprises one conductive beam (34, 36) connected between a first end and a second end of the movable second electrically conductive comb (22; FIG. 1A), wherein the second contact (30) is fixedly connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (25), wherein the first contact (16) is in contact with the one conductive beam (34, 36) when there is no voltage difference between the first input (16, 18) and the second input (28, 30; FIG. 1A), and wherein the first input (16, 18) is connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (25) and the second input (28, 30) is connected to the movable second electrically conductive comb (22) such that the voltage difference between the first input (16, 18) and the second input (28, 30) causes the movable second electrically conductive comb (22) to be physically drawn outward by the generated electrostatic force toward the stationary first electrically conductive comb (25) and causes the one conductive beam (34, 36) to disconnect from the first contact (16; ¶ [0024]).
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14, include language similar to that of Claims 1, 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and are 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 of this title, 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 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behin in view of Tachibana et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/01288104 A1, hereinafter "Tachibana").
Behin discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed substrates. However, Tachibana discloses a first substrate (200; FIG. 16) on which the MEMS switch is formed and a second substrate (310; FIG. 16) attached to a top of the MEMS switch (FIG. 16), wherein the first substrate (200) and the second substrate (310) each comprise Silicon-On-Insulator (SOI), Silicon-on-Sapphire (SOS), Germanium-on-Silicon, Lithium Tantalate, Zinc Oxide, or photo definable glass (¶¶ [0070], [0111], [0125]). 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 Tachibana with those of Behin to provide a secure electrical connection upon actuation.
Claim 19 includes language similar to that of Claim 8 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9-10, 15-18, and 20, are 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
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