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
FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 are objected to because the lines of the drawings are not sufficiently sharp and clear to distinguish the various parts of the device. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l). Reference characters must be plain and legible. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(1). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3).
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 Objections
Regarding each of Claims 8 and 19, the 3rd to the last line, it appears that the term “wherein” should be changed to “wherein the.”
Regarding Claim 9, the 3rd to the last line, it appears that the term “is” should be changed to “is a.”
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 10-20 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 10 is rejected since it is not clear what is meant by the language “user-definable angle.” It is not clear how the angle is defined by a user.
Claim 11 is rejected since it is not clear what is meant by the language “amplification flexible” recited in each of lines 4 and 5.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reed et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0136485 A1, hereinafter “Reed”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Reed discloses a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) switch, comprising: at least one comb drive (100; FIG. 1A) having a first input (105; FIG. 1A) and a second input (110; FIG. 1A), at least one conductive beam (115; FIG. 1A) connected across the at least one comb drive (100), a first contact (via a “communication system”; ¶ [0002]), and a second contact (e.g., a communication system voltage bias may be applied between shuttle 105 and stator 110”; ¶ [0002]), wherein no voltage difference between the first input (105) and the second input (110) does not result in any movement of the MEMS switch (¶ [0011]), and wherein a voltage difference between the first input (105) and the second input (110) causes an electrostatic force to be generated that causes the at least one conductive beam (115) to move in a direction orthogonal to a direction of the electrostatic force (¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 2, Reed discloses that the at least one comb drive (100) comprises a stationary first electrically conductive comb (110) having at least one comb finger (140A, 140B, 140C; FIG. 1A) and a movable second electrically conductive comb (115) having at least one comb finger (140A, 140B, 140C), wherein the at least one conductive beam (115; FIG. 1A) comprises one conductive beam (105) connected between the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110) and the movable second electrically conductive comb (115; FIG. 1A), wherein the second contact is fixedly connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110), wherein the first contact is not in contact with the one conductive beam (105) when there is no voltage difference between the first input (105) and the second input (110; ¶ [0011]), and wherein the first input (105) is connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110; in an actuated state) and the second input (110) is connected to the movable second electrically conductive comb (115; in an actuated state) such that the voltage difference between the first input (105) and the second input (110) causes, by the generated electromagnetic force, the movable second electrically conductive comb (115) to be physically drawn inward toward the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110) and causes the one conductive beam (105) to contact the first contact (¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 3, Reed discloses that the at least one comb drive (100) comprises a stationary first electrically conductive comb (110) having at least one comb finger (140A, 140B, 140C; FIG. 1A) and a movable second electrically conductive comb (115) having at least one comb finger (140A, 140B, 140C), wherein the at least one conductive beam (115) comprises one conductive beam (105) connected between a first end and a second end of the movable second electrically conductive comb (115; FIG. 1A), wherein the second contact is fixedly connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110; e.g., when the communication system voltage bias is applied, as discussed at ¶ [0002]), wherein the first contact is in contact with the one conductive beam (105) when there is no voltage difference between the first input (105) and the second input (110, e.g., when the communication system voltage bias is applied, as discussed at ¶ [0002]), and wherein the first input (105) is connected to the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110) and the second input (110) is connected to the movable second electrically conductive comb (115) such that the voltage difference between the first input (105) and the second input (110) causes, by the generated electromagnetic force, the movable second electrically conductive comb (115) to be physically drawn outward toward the stationary first electrically conductive comb (110) and causes the one conductive beam (105) to disconnect from the first contact (¶ [0011]).
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 4, 5, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed.
Reed discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention and further discloses a first at least one stationary conductor (140A; FIG. 1A) abutting the movable second electrically conductive comb (115) and a second at least one stationary conductor (140B; FIG. 1A) to restrict movement of the at least one conductive beam (115) in one axis (FIG. 1A), as recited in Claim 7, but does not disclose the claimed second comb drive, third electrically conductive comb, and third input. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize such limitations to establish multiple electrical connections 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 USPQ 8.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Tachibana et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/01288104 A1, hereinafter “Tachibana”).
Reed discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention and further discloses that each of the first conductive beam (115) and the second conductive beam (115) has a shape (FIG. 1A), in an area that contacts the first contact and the second contact, respectively, comprising a flat surface (FIG. 1A), and wherein the each of the first contact and the second contact has a shape, in an area that contacts the first conductive beam (115) and the second conductive beam (115), respectively, comprising a flat surface, as recited in Claim 5, but does not disclose the claimed surfaces.
However, Tachibana discloses (i) a first conductive beam (a 1st one of 56; FIG. 9) and a second conductive beam (a 2nd one of 56; FIG. 9) has a shape comprising at least one raised and rounded surface (an end portion of 56), and at least one raised and pointed surface (56c), as recited in Claim 6, and (ii) 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]), as recited in Claim 8. 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 Reed to provide a secure electrical connections upon actuation.
The combination of Reed and Tachibana discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed contacts comprising a plurality of recessed and rounded surfaces. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such surfaces to provide mutually corresponding conductive contacts for the beams and establish a secure electrical connection.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed.
Reed discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed force. 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 a force determination to ensure accurate switching timing since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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