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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowarz et al. (US Pub. 20020195418, Kowarz) in view of Shih et al. (US Pub. 20100090298, Shih).
As per claim 1, Kowarz teaches (in figures 1-4b and 12a-12b) a MEMS grating, comprising a substrate layer (substrate 10), an insulation layer (intermediate supports 27 formed from insulating film 18 see paragraph 56) and a deformable layer (conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed from ribbon layer 20 and conductive layer 22), wherein the insulation layer (intermediate supports 27) and the deformable layer (conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b) are arranged at an upper end of the substrate layer in sequence, the deformable layer (conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed from ribbon layer 20 and conductive layer 22) is a conductive material (paragraph 61) with a compressive pre-stress (see paragraphs 75 and 79 and figure 12a), the insulation layer (intermediate supports 27) is distributed along transverse intervals on the substrate layer (substrate 10), and a cavity (channels 25) is formed between every two adjacent insulation layers (intermediate supports 27) the deformable layer (conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b) comprises movable grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed between intermediate supports 27) and fixed grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed above intermediate supports 27), the fixed grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed above intermediate supports 27) are fixedly connected with the insulation layer (intermediate supports 27), the movable grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed between intermediate supports 27) correspond to the cavities (channels 25), included angles between the movable grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed between intermediate supports 27) and a side wall of the insulation layer (intermediate supports 27) are each smaller than or equal to 90 degrees (see figure 3b and paragraph 39), and the movable grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed above intermediate supports 27) are upwards-buckling camber surfaces; the movable grating bar has a symmetrical upwards buckling deformation in a non-working state, and the movable grating bars is higher than a horizontal plane of the fixed grating bar in a non-working state (see paragraphs 75 and 79 and figure 12a) no through holes are formed in the fixed grating bar.
Kowarz does not teach a plurality of through holes are formed in the movable grating bars and used for adjusting a compressive pre-stress of the movable grating bars and changing a displacement amount of upwards-buckling of the movable grating bars; an area ratio of the through holes in the movable grating bars is inversely proportional to the displacement amount cause by the buckling deformation of the movable grating bars.
However, Shih teaches (in figure 1A-1B) forming a plurality of through holes (S) in a movable diaphragm (first conductive layer 110) for a MEMS device in order to remove portions of an insulation layer (dielectric layer 130) which correspond to the cavity in the MEMS device without over etching the insulation layer (paragraph 39) such that and through holes are not formed in a fixed grating bar (area of first conductive layer 110 formed above remaining dielectric layer 206).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the through holes from Shih in the device of Kowarz in order to facilitate fabricating the device without over etching the insulation layer.
Regarding the functional limitation “used for adjusting a compressive pre-stress of the movable grating bars and changing a displacement amount of upwards-buckling of the movable grating bars” and “an area ratio of the through holes in the movable grating bars is inversely proportional to the displacement amount cause by the buckling deformation of the movable grating bars” since the structure of the device of Kowarz in view of Shih is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Kowarz in view of Shih is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... 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.” in the instant case, the device includes through holes as suggested by Shih and therefore capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 3, Kowarz in view of Shih teaches that each movable grating bar (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed between intermediate supports 27 in Kowarz) comprises a through hole region (regions of openings S from Shih) and a non-through-hole region (regions without openings S from Shih); and the through holes (openings S from Shih) are formed in the through hole region, the through hole region (7) is distributed in a middle of the movable grating bar, and the non-through-hole region is distributed on two sides of the through hole region (see figure 1B in Shih).
As per claim 4, Kowarz in view of Shih does not specifically teach that a width of each through hole region is smaller than or equal to two thirds of a width of each movable grating bar.
However, the width of the through holes is a result effective variable in that if the widths are too large, they will interfere with reflection and reduce the resiliency of the diaphragm, if the widths are too small over etching of the insulation layer will not be prevented.
As per claim 5, Kowarz in view of Shih teaches a plurality of columns of through holes (openings S from Shih) are formed in two sides of a center line of each movable grating bar (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed between intermediate supports 27 in Kowarz) (see figure 1B in Shih).
As per claim 6, Kowarz in view of Shih teaches that two columns of through holes (openings S from Shih) are formed, and an area of one column of through holes is greater than an area of the other column of through holes (see figure 1B and paragraph 36 in Shih).
As per claim 7, Kowarz in view of Shih teaches a plurality of columns of through holes (openings S from Shih) are formed, including a first column of through holes (openings S from Shih with width A3) formed in the center line of each movable grating bar (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed between intermediate supports 27 in Kowarz), and the other columns (openings S from Shih with width A1) of through holes distributed along two sides of the first column of through holes.
As per claim 8, Kowarz in view of Shih teaches that an area of the first column of through holes (openings S from Shih with width A3) is greater than an area of a column of through holes (openings S from Shih with width A1) in any side of the first column of through holes (see figure 1B and paragraph 36 in Shih).
As per claim 9, Kowarz teaches (in figures 1-4b and 12a-12b) a metal reflection layer (conductive layer 22) is arranged on the deformable layer (paragraph 61).
As per claim 10, Kowarz teaches (in figures 1-4b, 7a-7g, and 12a-12b) a fabrication method of a MEMS grating, comprising the following steps: fabricating an insulation layer (spacer layer 18) on a substrate layer (substrate 10) (figure 7a); fabricating a deformable layer ribbon layer 20 and conductive layer 22) on the insulation layer (figure 7f), wherein the deformable layer is made of a conductive material with a compressive pre-stress (paragraph 61); performing selective etching on the deformable layer (paragraph 63) and wet etching and removing a part of the insulation layer (figure 7g and paragraph 64), and after releasing, obtaining movable grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed from ribbon layer 20 and conductive layer 22 formed between intermediate supports 27) and cavities (channels 25), wherein included angles between the movable grating bars and a side wall of the insulation layer (intermediate supports 27) are each smaller than or equal to 90 degrees (see figure 3b and paragraph 39) the movable grating bar has a symmetrical upwards buckling deformation in a non-working state, and the movable grating bars is higher than a horizontal plane of the fixed grating bar in a non-working state (see paragraphs 75 and 79 and figure 12a) no through holes are formed in the fixed grating bar.
Kowarz does not teach that the selective etching on the deformable layer obtains a plurality of through holes wherein an area ratio of the through holes in the movable grating bars is inversely proportional to the displacement amount cause by the buckling deformation of the movable grating bars.
However, Shih teaches (in figure 1A-1B) forming a plurality of through holes (S) in a movable diaphragm (first conductive layer 110) for a MEMS device in order to remove portions of an insulation layer (dielectric layer 130) which correspond to the cavity in the MEMS device without over etching the insulation layer (paragraph 39) such that and through holes are not formed in a fixed grating bar (area of first conductive layer 110 formed above remaining dielectric layer 206).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the formation of through holes from Shih in the method of Kowarz in order to facilitate fabricating the device without over etching the insulation layer.
Regarding the limitation of “an area ratio of the through holes in the movable grating bars is inversely proportional to the displacement amount cause by the buckling deformation of the movable grating bars” as Kowarz in view of Shih teaches both buckling deformation and forming through holes in the deformable layer this limitation is considered inherently met by the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach “the movable grating bar (5) has a symmetrical upwards buckling deformation in a non-working state, and the movable grating bars (5) is higher than a horizontal plane of the fixed grating bar (6) in a non-working state; an area ratio of the through holes (9) in the movable grating bars (5) is inversely proportional to the displacement amount caused by a buckling deformation of the movable grating bars (5); no through holes are formed in the fixed grating bar” this argument is unpersuasive. As shown in the rejection above, Kowarz recites in paragraphs 75 and 79:
“This ideal situation arises if, in the unactuated state, the ribbon elements 23a, 23b, 23c, and 23d are suspended perfectly flat between the intermediate supports 27 and, hence do not cause any diffraction of light into non-zero diffracted orders. In practice, the ribbon elements 23a, 23b, 23c, and 23d will have a certain amount of curvature once the sacrificial layer 19 is removed” (paragraph 75, emphasis added)
“FIGS. 12a through 14b show the ribbon profiles of 3 annealed devices with 120 nm silicon nitride ribbons covered by 50 nm of aluminum” (paragraph 79)
As such, Kowarz teaches in paragraphs 75 and 79 and and figure 12a teach that the movable grating bars (portions of conductive reflective ribbon elements 23a and 23b formed above intermediate supports 27) each have a symmetrical upwards buckling deformation in a non-working state, and the movable grating bars is higher than a horizontal plane of the fixed grating bar in a non-working state (see paragraphs 75 and 79 and figure 12a) and that no through holes are formed in the fixed grating bar.
Shih teaches in figure 1A-1B and paragraph 39 forming a plurality of through holes (S) in a movable diaphragm (first conductive layer 110) for a MEMS device in order to remove portions of an insulation layer (dielectric layer 130) which correspond to the cavity in the MEMS device without over etching the insulation layer (paragraph 39) such that and through holes are not formed in a fixed grating bar (area of first conductive layer 110 formed above remaining dielectric layer 206).
With regard to the functional limitation of “an area ratio of the through holes (9) in the movable grating bars (5) is inversely proportional to the displacement amount caused by a buckling deformation of the movable grating bars (5)” since the structure of the device of Kowarz in view of Shih is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Kowarz in view of Shih is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... 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.” in the instant case, the device includes through holes as suggested by Shih and therefore capable of performing the recited function. Further, it is noted that Shih teaches in paragraph 39 “membrane stress of the first conductive layer can be increased by the dimension change of the opening in the first conductive layers so as to enhance the device characteristics of the MEMs diaphragm which provides further evidence that the area ratio of the through holes in the movable grating bars being inversely proportional to the displacement amount caused by a buckling deformation of the movable grating bars in an inherent property of providing through holes.
As such when taken together the cited references teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang (US Pub. 20070080473) is cited for teaching (in figures 3-5) a MEMS grating comprising through holes (131b) and that differences in compressive and tensile stress of the different layers of the diaphragm (110 and 121) cause bending (figures 4a and 4b and paragraph 24-26).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871