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 Species I A (claims 1 – 6) in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted that another Species II A (claims 1 – 4) was elected. For office action purposes, it will be selected Species I A (claims 1 – 6), since such species already encompasses claims 1 – 4.
This Office Action will consider claims 1 – 6.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the statements “vicinity of the shuttle” and “generally transverse” are indefinite. It is not clear what would encompass a “vicinity” and how a second direction would be transverse “generally”.
Claims 2 – 6 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (US 2013/0038175) in view of Lueke et al (US 2014/0077662).
Ogawa et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A compliant structure comprising: a frame 11; a shuttle 122 distant from the frame 11 mounted on a cantilever 13 that is supported by the frame 11 (see Figs. 1, 2, 4), wherein the cantilever with the shuttle is movable transversely to and out of a plane of the frame [0029]; and one or more flexures 20, 21, 211, 212 that connect the cantilever with the frame (see Figs. 1, 2), wherein the cantilever 13 comprises a body at least in part extending in a first direction which points to the shuttle 122 (see Fig. 1), and the one or more flexures 20, 21, 211, 212 connect to the shuttle and/or to the cantilever in the vicinity of the shuttle [due to the alternative claim language, the flexures can be connected either to the shuttle or the cantilever], wherein the flexures are oriented in a second direction, which second direction is generally transverse with respect to the first direction (see Fig. 2), and wherein the flexures are preloaded causing the flexures to buckle so as to provide a selectable stiffness to the cantilever and to provide the cantilever with a preferential position out of the plane of the frame [0011, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0069, 0070; since the flexures have a spring structure and such structure is mentioned to alleviate stress and suppress the possibility of over vibration (selectable stiffness) due to a predetermined adjusted value (preloaded); 0069, 0070].
Lueke et al is being cited for explicitly showing that having a cantilever 12 with a part extending in a first direction and having flexures 1, 13 (springs or supports) being oriented in a second transverse direction is well-known in the art (see Figs. 1, 4, 2, 5; [0029, 0033, 0036, 0037]).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the flexures are oriented in a second direction that is at right angles with the first direction (Ogawa et al, Fig. 2; Lueke et al, Figs. 1, 4, 2, 5, 10).
Claim 3, the structure is a unitary MEMS structure (Lueke et al, [0003, 0011, 0043]; Ogawa et al, [0001, 0051]).
Claim 4, the cantilever is piezoelectric (Ogawa et al, [0029, 0038, 0039, 0044, 0056; Lueke et al, [0034, 0052]).
Claim 5, the frame is clamped between a top package element and a bottom package element (Ogawa et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 6, the structure is embodied as an energy harvester (Ogawa et al, abstract; Lueke et al, [0010]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the structure as disclosed by Ogawa et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Lueke et al for the purpose of suppressing damages to a vibration power device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights