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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the position-limiting parts are not integral to or moving with the movable part) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Man does not teach that the first position-limiting part and the second position-limiting part are separately connected to the fastening frame, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Figures 7a-11d of Man, 901 and 921 are shown as separate connections to either side of 911, where Figures 11b-d further include spacers 932 and 934 to further show that these are separate components which are bonded together. Further, paragraphs 0065-0066 state that 901 is bonded to 911 and 921 is bonded to 911. Therefore, Man teaches the separate connection of the position-limiting parts to the fastening frame as claimed. Further, examiner respectfully clarifies that the first position-limiting part is mapped to 901 in Man and not 915a-b. 915a-b is mapped to the overall structure of the micromirror chip, which is not shown to be connected to 901 in Figure 6, aside from where 901 is bonded to 911 as described in Man para. 0065.
As to the arguments on page 11 regarding the projection of the collision part on the micromirror chip being symmetrical about the central axis of the first cantilever not being taught by Man, examiner respectfully disagrees. Though Man does not show a top-down view of 916a in relation to 914a, the placement of 916a being symmetrical to the central axis of 914a would be implicit to the device claimed by Man for the specific function of preventing damage to MS1 upon exposure to shock as disclosed in Man para. 0080 (see also MPEP §2144.01).
In response to applicant's argument that Asada is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Man specifically incorporates Asada by reference (Man para. 0003) as being an example of a micro-mirror having similar structural components as what is disclosed in Man.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Man does not teach “a first width of the first stopper part is greater than a second width of the first cantilever”, examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Man para. 0072 directly teaches that the thickness of 915a-b can be configured to be substantially greater than that of 914a-b, where 915a-b was mapped as the first stopper part and 914a-b was mapped to the first cantilever in the claim mapping.
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 gap between the second position-limiting part and the micromirror chip in claim 2 and the gap between the first position-limiting part and the micromirror chip of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the substrate layer that is stacked with the device layer device layer” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This should be amended to state “the substrate layer that is stacked with the device layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Man US 20210302717 (hereinafter “Man” of record).
Regarding claim 1, Man teaches a micromirror assembly (Man fig. 6a-11d) comprising:
a micromirror chip (Man fig. 6 - 911, MS1 which includes 912 and 913, 914a-b, 915a-b) comprising a fastening frame (Man fig. 6a - 911), a movable part (Man fig. 6a - MS1), and a first cantilever (Man fig. 6a - 914a-b), wherein the first cantilever (914a-b) connects the movable part (MS1) to the fastening frame (Man para. 0063), wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) comprises a device layer (Man fig. 6a – 912 of MS1, see also para. 0062 and the below annotated Man figure) and a substrate layer (Man fig. 6a – 913 of MS1, see also para. 0062 and the annotated Man figure below) that are stacked (Man fig. 6a, see also para. 0062);
PNG
media_image1.png
558
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first position-limiting part (Man fig. 9a - 901) comprising a collision part (Man fig. 8b - bottom side of 901 facing MS1) and a first hollow area (Man fig. 6a – 903, 904), wherein the first position-limiting part (901) is a structural component separate from the micromirror chip (Man fig. 11a-d – 901 and 911 have a spacer 932 defining a gap g1 between 901 and 911, see also para. 0095), and wherein a first projection (Man fig. 8b-d - 916a) of the collision part (bottom part of 901 facing MS1) on the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b) intersects with a central axis of the first cantilever (Man fig. 8b-d – shows 916a in relation to 914a, when viewed along the optical axis 916a would intersect with the central axis of 914a); and
a second position-limiting part (Man fig. 6a - 921) comprising a second hollow area (Man fig. 6a – 923, 924), wherein the first position-limiting part (901) and the second position-limiting part (921) are separately connected to the fastening frame (Man para. 0065-0066 – 901 and 921 are bonded to 911) and configured to absorb shock from a collision with the micromirror chip (Man fig. 8c - 901 absorbing shock, fig. 8d - 921 absorbing shock), wherein the first hollow area (903, 904) and the second hollow area (923, 924) are opposite to the movable part (Man fig. 6a-b, 7b-d, 8b-d), wherein the first position-limiting part (901) is stacked on the micromirror chip (Man fig. 6a), and wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) is stacked on the second position-limiting part (Man fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 6, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises a first stopper part (Man fig. 8b-9d – 915a-b) located between the first cantilever (914a-b) and the movable part (MS1), wherein a first width of the first stopper part (Man 915a-b) is greater than a second width of the first cantilever (Man para. 0072 – the thickness of 915a-b can be configured to be substantially greater than that of 914a-b), and wherein the first position-limiting part (901) is configured to absorb the shock from the collision with the first stopper part (Man para. 0080).
Regarding claim 7, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 6, and Man further teaches wherein a first width of the first stopper part (915a-b) is greater than a second width of the first cantilever (Man fig. 6b-9d – 915a-b width is greater than 914a-b width, see also para. 0064).
Regarding claim 10, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises a protruding position-limiting structure (Man fig. 8b-d – 916a-b), and wherein the first position-limiting part (901) is configured to absorb the shock from the collision with the protruding position-limiting structure (Man para. 0080 and 0084).
Regarding claim 11, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 10, and Man further teaches wherein a projection (Man fig. 8b-d – 916b) of the protruding position-limiting structure (916a-b) on the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) intersects with the central axis of the first cantilever (Man fig. 8b-d – shows 916b in relation to 915b, when viewed along the optical axis 916b would intersect with the central axis of 914b).
Regarding claim 12, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises a position-limiting structure (Man fig. 6a-9d – 915a-b) located at a position at which the first cantilever (914a-b) and the movable part (MS1) are connected (Man fig. 6a-9d).
Regarding claim 13, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 12, and Man further teaches wherein the second position-limiting part (921) is of a flat plate structure (Man fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 14, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (Man 911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises a first position-limiting structure (Man fig. 9c-d – 917c-d disposed on the bottom of MS1, see also para. 0084, 0122, and 0125) protruding from a surface that is of the movable part (MS1) that faces the second position-limiting part (Man fig. 9b-d – 917c-d are disposed on the bottom of MS1 and face 921), wherein there is a gap between the first position-limiting structure (Man 917c-d) and the first position-limiting part (Man 901) such that the micromirror chip (Man 911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) can twist without the first position-limiting structure (Man 917c-d) being blocked by the first position-limiting part (Man fig. 9b – gap between 901 and 917c-d is the height of MS1 combined with g1, showing that 917c-d would not be blocked by 901).
Regarding claim 15, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 12, and Man further teaches wherein the second position-limiting part (921) further comprises an avoidance groove (Man fig. 6a - 923, 924, see also para. 0066) comprising a protrusion (Man fig. 8b-d – 916c-d), and wherein an opening of the avoidance groove (923, 924) is opposite the position-limiting structure (Man fig. 8b-8d).
Regarding claim 16, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 12, and Man further teaches wherein the second hollow area (923, 924) comprises a (Man fig. 8b-d – 916c-d), and wherein an opening of the avoidance groove (923, 924) is opposite the position-limiting structure (Man fig. 8b-8d).
Regarding claim 17, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 15, and Man further teaches wherein a projection (Man fig. 8b-d – 916c) of the protrusion (Man fig. 8b-d – 916c-d) on the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) intersects with the central axis of the first cantilever (Man fig. 8b-d – shows 916c in relation to 915a, when viewed along the optical axis 916c would intersect with the central axis of 914a).
Regarding claim 18, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the movable part (MS1) comprises a micromirror (Man fig. 6a – 913, see also para. 0062) connected to the fastening frame (911) by the first cantilever (Man fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 20, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the first position-limiting part (901) is connected to the fastening frame (911) by a first adhesive layer (Man fig. 11b-d - 932), and wherein a height of a gap between the first position-limiting part (901) and the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) is equal to a thickness of the first adhesive layer (Man fig. 11b-d – the gap between the top of MS1 and 901 is the same thickness as 932).
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.
Claims 2-5, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man US 20210302717 (hereinafter “Man” of record).
Regarding claim 2, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (Man 911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises the device layer (913), the substrate layer (912) that is stacked with the device layer device layer (Man fig. 6a), and a protruding position-limiting structure (Man fig. 9c-d – 917c-d disposed on the bottom of MS1, see also para. 0084, 0122, and 0125) on a surface of the substrate layer (912, on the bottom of MS1) that is distal from the first position-limiting part (Man fig. 9c-d – 917c-d disposed on MS1 distal to 901), wherein a first distance between the second position-limiting part (Man 921) and the device layer (913) is greater than a second distance between the second position-limiting part (Man 921) and the substrate layer (921 is disposed below MS1 in Man fig. 6a, 913 is disposed above 912 so 913 would be further away from 921 than 912) and wherein the protruding first position-limiting structure (917c-d) is configured to absorb the shock from the collision with the second position-limiting part (Man para. 0083-0084).
Man does not teach and wherein a gap between the second position-limiting part and the micromirror chip is between 10 micrometers and 200 micrometers, however Man does teach a gap between the second position-limiting part (Man 921) and the micromirror chip (Man 911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) in Figure 9b – g2 defines the gap, see also para. 0071.
Since Man teaches a gap g2 between the second position-limiting part and the micromirror chip in Figure 9b as g2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the gap be between 10 micrometers and 200 micrometers for the purpose of preventing the flexures from moving out of plane upon exposure to shock (Man para. 0069), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 2, and Man further teaches wherein a second projection (917d), of a part of the protruding position-limiting structure (917c-d) that collides with the second position-limiting part (921) on the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) intersects with the central axis of the first cantilever (Man fig. 9c-d – shows 917c-d in relation to 914a-b, when viewed along the optical axis 917d would intersect with the central axis of 914b), and wherein the second projection (917d) is symmetrical about the central axis of the first cantilever (Man fig. 9c-d – this is an implicit placement for the function of the projections as stated in para. 0083).
Regarding claim 4, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises the device layer (913) and the substrate layer (912) that is stacked with the device layer (Man fig. 6a), wherein the first position-limiting part (Man 901) further comprises a protrusion (Man fig. 8b-d – 916a-b) on a surface of the first position-limiting part (Man 901) that is opposite the micromirror chip (Man fig. 8b-d – 916a-b are opposite to MS1) and configured to absorb the shock (Man para. 0080 and 0084), and wherein a first distance between the first position-limiting part (Man 901) and the device layer (913) is less than a second distance between the first position-limiting part (Man 901) and the substrate layer (901 is disposed above MS1 with 913 and 912, where 913 is closer to 901 than 912 as shown).
Man does not teach and wherein a gap between the first position-limiting part and the micromirror chip is between 10 micrometers and 200 micrometers, however Man does teach a gap between the first position-limiting part (Man 901) and the micromirror chip (Man 911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) in Figure 9b – g1 defines the gap.
Since Man teaches a gap g1 between the first position-limiting part and the micromirror chip in Figure 9b as g1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the gap be between 10 micrometers and 200 micrometers for the purpose of preventing the flexures from moving out of plane upon exposure to shock (Man para. 0069), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 4, and Man further teaches wherein a second projection (Man fig. 8b-d – 916b) of the protrusion (916a-b) on the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) intersects with the central axis of the first cantilever (Man fig. 8b-d – shows 916b in relation to 915b, when viewed along the optical axis 916b would intersect with the central axis of 914b).
Regarding claim 8, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 5, and Man further teaches wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises a first stopper part (Man fig. 6a-9d - 915a-b) located between the first cantilever (914a-b) and the movable part (Man fig. 6a-9d – shows 915a-b between 914a-b and MS1), wherein the first position-limiting part (901) further comprises a first avoidance groove (Man fig. 6a - 903, 904, see also para. 0065), comprising the protrusion (916a-b) and an opening (902), wherein the opening is opposite the first stopper part (Man fig. 6a), wherein a first width of the first stopper part (915a-b) is greater than a second width of the first cantilever (Man fig. 6b-9d – 915a-b width is greater than 914a-b width, see also para. 0064), and wherein the first stopper part (915a-b) is configured to absorb the shock from the collision with the protrusion (Man para. 0080 – 916a-b rests on 915a-b when exposed to shock).
Regarding claim 9, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 5, wherein the protrusion (916a-b) is located in the first hollow area (Man fig. 8c-d), wherein the micromirror chip (911, MS1, 914a-b, 915a-b) further comprises a first stopper part (Man fig. 6a-9d – 915a-b) located between the first cantilever (914a-b) and the movable part (MS1), wherein a first width of the first stopper part (915a-b) is greater than a second width of the first cantilever (Man fig. 6b-9d – 915a-b width is greater than 914a-b width, see also para. 0064), and wherein the first stopper part (915a-b) is configured to absorb the shock from the collision with the protrusion (Man para. para. 0080 – 916a-b rests on 915a-b when exposed to shock).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man US 20210302717 (hereinafter “Man” of record) in view of Asada et. al US Patent 5,606,447 (hereinafter “Asada” of record).
Regarding claim 19, Man teaches the micromirror assembly of claim 1, and Man further teaches the movable part (MS1), a micromirror (913), and the fastening frame (911).
Man does not teach wherein the movable part comprises a movable frame is disposed around a micromirror, wherein the fastening frame is disposed around the movable frame, wherein the movable frame is connected to the micromirror by a second cantilever, and wherein the movable frame is further connected to the fastening frame by the first cantilever.
In the same field of endeavor, Asada teaches wherein the movable part (Asada fig. 15 – 8, 5A-B) comprises a movable frame (Asada fig. 15 – 5A) is disposed around a micromirror (Asada fig. 15 – 8, 5A is disposed around 8), wherein the fastening frame (Asada fig. 15 - 2) is disposed around the movable frame (Asada fig. 15 – 2 is disposed around 5A), wherein the movable frame (5A) is connected to the micromirror (8) by a second cantilever (Asada fig. 15 – 6B connects 5A to 8), and wherein the movable frame (5A) is further connected to the fastening frame (3) by the first cantilever (Asada fig. 15 – 6A connects 5A to 3) for the purpose of maintaining a swinging space for the movable plates (Asada col. 13 lines 36-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a movable frame and first and second cantilevers as taught by Asada in the micromirror assembly of Man in order to maintain a swinging space for the movable plates (Asada col. 13 lines 36-37).
Conclusion
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
