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
The amendments to the claims and specification in the submission dated 12/18/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/21/2023 and 02/29/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13—14, 17-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mortis et al., US 2024/0369826 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mortis).
As to claim 1, Mortis teaches a microscanner for projecting electromagnetic radiation onto an observation field (Mortis, Fig. 5, 500, paragraph [0033], “MEMS mirror apparatus”), wherein the microscanner comprises:
a deflection element having a mirror surface designed as a micromirror (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, paragraph [0033], “MEMS mirror apparatus 500 may comprise MEMS mirror 110”) for deflecting an incident electromagnetic beam (Mortis, Fig. 2, 120, paragraphs [0023] and [0028], the scanning MEMS mirror 110 reflects the normally incident laser beam 120);
a support structure (Mortis, Fig. 5, 514a-d, paragraph [0033], the outer actuators 514a-d are considered the support structure) laterally adjacent at least in sections to the deflection element in its idle position (Mortis, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0019]-[0021], the figure 2 illustrates the displacement of the MEMS mirror in the vertical direction, thus when idle the support structure and mirror are laterally adjacent in the horizontal direction); and
a spring device having a plurality of springs (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraphs [0033]-[0035], the stress relief units 530a-d are the plurality of springs in the spring device), by means of which the deflection element is suspended on the support structure in an oscillating manner (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0038], the stress relief units 530a-d are coupled to MEMS mirror 110 and to the inner actuators 512a-d which are connected to the outer actuators 514a-d, respectively) in such a way that it can simultaneously carry out a first rotational oscillation around a first oscillation axis and a second rotational oscillation around a second oscillation axis orthogonal thereto relative to the support structure (Mortis, Fig. 5, paragraph [0036], the MEMS mirror apparatus scans 2D area by driving both X and Y axes, i.e., in horizontal and vertical directions), in order to be able to effectuate a Lissajous projection in an observation field by reflection of an electromagnetic beam incident on the deflection element during the simultaneous oscillations (Mortis, Fig. 3, paragraph [0022], “the scanning motion may be referred to as a Lissajous mode for example if MEMS mirror 100 is tilted horizontally and vertically”);
wherein at least one of the springs comprises a spring section which is designed as a meander spring (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures) having a sequence of two or more meanders which follow one another along its longitudinal direction and extend transversely thereto (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, as shown in figure 5 the stress relief unit 530 consists of more than two meanders that follow one another along it's longitudinal direction and extend in the transverse); and
wherein the spring section is arranged within a space between the deflection element and the support structure (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, as shown in figure 5 the stress relief units 530a-d are located in the space between the MEMS mirror 110 and the support structure 514a-d) and is guided with its longitudinal direction along a line which extends deviating from a radial direction in relation to the geometric center point of the micromirror (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, as shown in figure 5 the stress relief units 530a-d have a longitudinal direction that curves about the center point of the micromirror 110).
As to claim 2, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 1, wherein one of the meanders comprises a first and a second linear meander leg (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures, as shown in the annotated and zoomed in portion of figure 5 below the meanders comprise a first and second linear meander leg), each extending along a respective radial direction relative to the geometric center point of the micromirror (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures, as shown in figure 5 the first and second meander legs extend along in radial directions relative to the center of the micromirror), and a third meander leg, which connects the first meander leg and the second meander leg and at the same time completes the meander (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures, as shown in the annotated and zoomed in portion of figure 5 below the meanders comprise a third meander leg connecting the first and second meander leg, and completing the meander).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 2, wherein the first meander leg and the second meander leg each have a structure width determined in the azimuthal direction relative to the center point of the micromirror (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures, as seen in the annotated and zoomed in portion of figure 5 above the distance between the first and second meander legs is curved along the circumference of the mirror), which is in the range of a minimum of 0.05° and a maximum of 5.00° or extends therein (Mortis, Fig. 5, 550, paragraph [0039], an imaginary line 550 passes through the geometrical center of the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 connecting points 540a and 540c meaning there is 180° between point 540a and 540c, also there are 38 meander structures from point 540a to 540c, thus each meander structure has an azimuthal structure width relative to the center point of the micromirror of 4.74°).
As to claim 4, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 2, wherein the third meander leg is guided in an arc shape along the azimuthal direction (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures, as seen in the annotated and zoomed in portion of figure 5 above the third meander leg is curved along the circumference of the mirror and thus has an arc shape along the azimuthal direction).
As to claim 5, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 1, wherein the deflection element comprises a curved circumferential section (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, as shown in figure 5 the MEMS mirror 110 is circular and thus comprises a curved circumferential section) and the spring section is guided along its longitudinal extent at least in sections parallel to the course of this circumferential section of the deflection element (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 comprises four actuations units, each unit comprises a stress relief unit 530, as seen in figure 5 each stress relief unit 530a-d is curved along the circumference of the MEMS mirror, thus is guided along its longitudinal parallel to the circumferential section of the deflection element).
As to claim 6, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 5, wherein the circumference of the deflection element extends in the shape of a circular arc at least in a circumferential section (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, as shown in figure 5 the MEMS mirror 110 is circular and thus extends in the shape of a circular arc in the circumferential section) and the spring section is guided with its longitudinal direction along a line which is at least partially parallel to the circular arc-shaped course of this peripheral section of the deflection element (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 comprises four actuations units, each unit comprises a stress relief unit 530, as seen in figure 5 each stress relief unit 530a-d is curved along the circumference of the MEMS mirror, thus is guided along its longitudinal parallel to the circular arc-shaped course of the deflection element).
As to claim 8, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 1, wherein the number of springs of the spring device is 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, , paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 comprises four actuations units, each unit comprises a stress relief unit 530a-d, thus the number of springs is four).
As to claim 9, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim1, furthermore comprising a drive device for directly or indirectly driving the oscillations of the microscanner around the two oscillation axes (Mortis, Fig. 5, paragraph [0028], a control device may be configured to generate control signals for each actuation unit for operation of the MEMS mirror apparatus, paragraphs [0036]-[0037], the control signals drive oscillations in both X and Y axes, therefore, MEMS mirror 110 may be caused to oscillate in Lissajous mode).
As to claim 10, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 9, wherein the drive device comprises at least one drive element having a piezo actuator which is arranged on one of the springs in order to cause it to oscillate (Mortis, Fig. 5, 512a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus includes four inner actuators 512a-d, paragraph [0038], one end of the inner actuators 512a-d may be coupled to stress relief units 530a-d, respectively, paragraph [0043], the actuators are piezoelectric actuators allowing for low voltage excitation).
As to claim 11, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 9, wherein the drive means is configured so that it can cause the deflection element to undergo double-resonant oscillation with respect to the first and second oscillation axes (Mortis, Fig. 5, 512a-d, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], the actuation units may work in resonance with frequency signals driving both X and Y axes, i.e., in horizontal and vertical directions, where each actuation unit may be excited by an individual control, thus different pairs of actuation units may have different frequencies).
As to claim 13, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 1, which is designed such that the deflection element can simultaneously oscillate freely around both mutually orthogonal oscillation axes at a respective axis-specific individual resonance frequency (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, paragraph [0040], “actuation units can be configured to provide mechanical resonances a different frequencies optimally for Lissajous scanning. Lissajous scanning requires oscillation frequencies of X- and Y-axis to be different and asymmetry of the actuation units makes it possible to have optimal resonance frequencies for X- and Y-axis”).
As to claim 14, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 13, wherein the ratio of the greater of the resonance frequencies of the first and second oscillations to the lesser of these oscillations corresponds to an integer value (Mortis, Fig. 5, paragraph [0022], “in synchronous Lissajous scanning the scanning pattern may be stable (ratio of the horizontal and vertical oscillation frequencies is n m where n and m are integers),” thus because n and m are integers the ratio is an integer value) or deviates by at most 10%, preferably at most 5%, from the integer value closest to the ratio.
As to claim 17, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 3, wherein the third meander leg is guided in an arc shape along the azimuthal direction (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0035], the stress relief units 530a-d have meander structures, as seen in the annotated and zoomed in portion of figure 5 above the third meander leg is curved along the circumference of the mirror and thus has an arc shape along the azimuthal direction).
As to claim 18, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 2, wherein the deflection element comprises a curved circumferential section (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, as shown in figure 5 the MEMS mirror 110 is circular and thus comprises a curved circumferential section) and the spring section is guided along its longitudinal extent at least in sections parallel to the course of this circumferential section of the deflection element (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 comprises four actuations units, each unit comprises a stress relief unit 530, as seen in figure 5 each stress relief unit 530a-d is curved along the circumference of the MEMS mirror, thus is guided along its longitudinal parallel to the circumferential section of the deflection element).
As to claim 19, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 3, wherein the deflection element comprises a curved circumferential section (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, as shown in figure 5 the MEMS mirror 110 is circular and thus comprises a curved circumferential section) and the spring section is guided along its longitudinal extent at least in sections parallel to the course of this circumferential section of the deflection element (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 comprises four actuations units, each unit comprises a stress relief unit 530, as seen in figure 5 each stress relief unit 530a-d is curved along the circumference of the MEMS mirror, thus is guided along its longitudinal parallel to the circumferential section of the deflection element).
As to claim 20, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 4, wherein the deflection element comprises a curved circumferential section (Mortis, Fig. 5, 110, as shown in figure 5 the MEMS mirror 110 is circular and thus comprises a curved circumferential section) and the spring section is guided along its longitudinal extent at least in sections parallel to the course of this circumferential section of the deflection element (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus 500 comprises four actuations units, each unit comprises a stress relief unit 530, as seen in figure 5 each stress relief unit 530a-d is curved along the circumference of the MEMS mirror, thus is guided along its longitudinal parallel to the circumferential section of the deflection element).
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortis et al., US 2024/0369826 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mortis).
As to claim 15, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 13, wherein the spring device for suspension of the deflection element on the support structure has an even number N of identical springs (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the stress relief units 530a-d may be identical). The current embodiment of Mortis does not teach that the springs overall arrangement is selected deviating from an N-fold rotational symmetry with respect to an axis of symmetry orthogonal to both oscillation axes so that the resulting overall spring stiffness of the spring device caused by the N springs and/or the effective moment of inertia of the oscillatory arrangement of the deflection element in addition to the springs differs for the two oscillation axes.
However, an alternate embodiment of Mortis teaches a microscanner wherein the spring device for suspension of the deflection element on the support structure has an overall arrangement is selected deviating from an N-fold rotational symmetry with respect to an axis of symmetry orthogonal to both oscillation axes so that the resulting overall spring stiffness of the spring device caused by the N springs and/or the effective moment of inertia of the oscillatory arrangement of the deflection element in addition to the springs differs for the two oscillation axes (Mortis, Fig. 7, 732a-d, paragraph [0052], stress relief units 732a-d may be identical, as shown in figure 7 the stress relief units 732a-d deviate from an N-fold rotation with respect to axis of symmetry as defined by 720ad, 720bc, 750ab, and 750cd).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microscanner of one embodiment of Mortis with an alternate embodiment of Mortis wherein the spring device for suspension of the deflection element on the support structure has an overall arrangement is selected deviating from an N-fold rotational symmetry with respect to an axis of symmetry orthogonal to both oscillation axes so that the resulting overall spring stiffness of the spring device caused by the N springs and/or the effective moment of inertia of the oscillatory arrangement of the deflection element in addition to the springs differs for the two oscillation axes, because the asymmetric design allows optimization of resonant frequencies (Mortis, paragraph [0014]).
As to claim 16, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 15 wherein:
the number N of springs by means of which the deflection element is suspended from the support structure is even (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, paragraph [0033], the MEMS mirror apparatus comprises four stress relief units 530a-d);
the overall arrangement of the N springs has an N-fold rotational symmetry with respect to an axis of symmetry that is orthogonal to both oscillation axes (Mortis, Fig. 5, 530a-d, as shown in figure 5 the stress relief units have four fold rotational symmetry with respect to an axis of symmetry). The current embodiment of Mortis does not teach the respective spring width profiles of the N springs, however, are selected differently along their respective course or their respective longitudinal extension in such a way that N/2 of the springs have a first spring width profile and the other N/2 springs each have a corresponding second spring width profile different therefrom, so that the resulting spring stiffness of the spring device caused overall by the N springs and/or the effective moment of inertia of the oscillatory arrangement of the deflection element together with the springs differs for the two oscillation axes.
However, an alternate embodiment of Mortis teaches a microscanner wherein the respective spring width profiles of the N springs, however, are selected differently along their respective course or their respective longitudinal extension in such a way that N/2 of the springs have a first spring width profile and the other N/2 springs each have a corresponding second spring width profile different therefrom, so that the resulting spring stiffness of the spring device caused overall by the N springs and/or the effective moment of inertia of the oscillatory arrangement of the deflection element together with the springs differs for the two oscillation axes (Mortis, Fig. 7, 732a-d, and 734a-d, paragraph [0052], there are four inner stress relief units 732a-d and four outer stress relief units 734a-d, giving a total of eight stress relief units, as shown in figure 7 the four inner stress relief units 732a-d have a width profile less than the four outer stress relief units 734a-d width profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microscanner of one embodiment of Mortis with an alternate embodiment of Mortis wherein the respective spring width profiles of the N springs, however, are selected differently along their respective course or their respective longitudinal extension in such a way that N/2 of the springs have a first spring width profile and the other N/2 springs each have a corresponding second spring width profile different therefrom, so that the resulting spring stiffness of the spring device caused overall by the N springs and/or the effective moment of inertia of the oscillatory arrangement of the deflection element together with the springs differs for the two oscillation axes, because the asymmetric design allows optimization of resonant frequencies (Mortis, paragraph [0014]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortis et al., US 2024/0369826 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mortis) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Staker et al., US 6,935,759 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Staker).
As to claim 7, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Mortis does not teach the microscanner according to claim 1, wherein at least two of the following functional elements of the microscanner are at least partially manufactured from the same plate-shaped substrate: the spring device, the deflection element, the support structure.
However in the same field of endeavor Staker teaches a microscanner (Staker, Fig. 2, column 5, line 46, “double-gimbaled mirror structure 100”), wherein at least two of the following functional elements of the microscanner are at least partially manufactured from the same plate-shaped substrate: the spring device, the deflection element, the support structure (Staker, Fig. 13, 120, 122, column 8, lines 52-54, “the longitudinal hinge structure fabricated in conjunction with a surrounding region 120 and a gimbal 122”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microscanner of Mortis wherein at least two of the following functional elements of the microscanner are at least partially manufactured from the same plate-shaped substrate: the spring device, the deflection element, the support structure as in Staker, because it is a better candidate for bulk silicon processes (Staker, column 8, lines 50-51).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortis et al., US 2024/0369826 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mortis), and further in view of Schenk et al., Sensors and Actuators 2001 Article (hereinafter referred to as Schenk).
As to claim 12, Mortis teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Mortis further teaches the microscanner according to claim 9, wherein the drive means is configured so that it can cause the deflection element to undergo double-resonant oscillation with respect to the first and second oscillation axes (Mortis, Fig. 5, 512a-d, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], the actuation units may work in resonance with frequency signals driving both X and Y axes, i.e., in horizontal and vertical directions, where each actuation unit may be excited by an individual control, thus different pairs of actuation units may have different frequencies).
Mortis does not teach the microscanner wherein the mircoscanner undergoes a double-resonant oscillation with respect to the first and second oscillation axes in such a way that the following applies to the frequency ratio of the oscillation frequency f1 with respect to the faster of the two oscillation axes to the oscillation frequency f2 with respect to the slower of the two oscillation axes: f1/f2 = F + v, wherein F is a natural number and the following applies to the detuning v: v = (f1-f2)/f2 with (f1-f2) < 200 Hz, wherein vis not an integer.
However, in the same field of endeavor Schenk teaches a microscanner (Schenk, Fig. 1, Section 2, paragraphs 1-2, 2D-scanner chip with a mirror plate suspended by two torsional springs) wherein the drive means (Schenk, Fig. 2, Section 2, paragraphs 4-6, the electrical connections of the anchors of the movable frame is done by wire bonding and provides a driving voltage to the driving electrodes) is configured so that it can cause the deflection element to undergo double-resonant oscillation with respect to the first and second oscillation axes (Schenk, Fig. 1, Section 2, last paragraph, an ac voltage of suitable frequency excites the torsional oscillation of the mirror plate with an amplitude given by the resonance curve) in such a way that the following applies to the frequency ratio of the oscillation frequency f1 with respect to the faster of the two oscillation axes (Schenk, Section 4, Table 1, Type 1 column, f0,frame, the faster frequency is f0,frame=f1=0.90 kHz=900Hz) to the oscillation frequency f2 with respect to the slower of the two oscillation axes (Schenk, Section 4, Table 1, Type 1 column, f0,mirror, the slower frequency is f0,mirror=f2=0.72kHz=720Hz): f1/f2 = F + v (Schenk, Table 1, given the above values of f1 and f2 the condition f1/f2=900Hz/720Hz=1.25), wherein F is a natural number (Schenk, Table 1, given the above values of f1 and f2, and the value of v below the condition f1/f2=F+v=1.25 gives F=1.00) and the following applies to the detuning v: v = (f1-f2)/f2 with (f1-f2) < 200 Hz, wherein v is not an integer (Schenk, Table 1, given the above values of f1 and f2 the condition (f1-f2)/f2=v=0.25 and (f1-f2)=180Hz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microscanner of Mortis such that the mircoscanner undergoes a double-resonant oscillation with respect to the first and second oscillation axes in such a way that the following applies to the frequency ratio of the oscillation frequency f1 with respect to the faster of the two oscillation axes to the oscillation frequency f2 with respect to the slower of the two oscillation axes: f1/f2 = F + v, wherein F is a natural number and the following applies to the detuning v: v = (f1-fa)/f2 with (f1-f2) < 200 Hz, wherein vis not an integer of Schenk, because doing so enables stable operation with maximum deflection angle where the excitation can be synchronized electronically with the oscillation (Schenk, Section 4, paragraph 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Torkkeli et al., US 2019/0064508 A1, A MEMS Reflector System, relevant to claims 1-20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/JENNIFER A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872