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
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 7/01/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 9-10are amended and claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because linewidths for the dashed axis lines (203) interfere with legibly reproducing the structure to which reference numerals (219) and (220) point. 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 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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “a reflector … suspended in the inside of the frame, the reflector including four connection points at an edge, and each of the four connection points is in one of the four quadrants, wherein the four connection points are symmetrically positioned at the edge of the reflector with respect to the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis, and wherein the connection points are equidistant from the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis; a plurality of suspension springs extending from the inside of the frame to the opposite sides of the reflector in a direction of the second rotation axis; a plurality of piezoelectric actuators in the inside of the frame…” (emphasis added). The claim openly includes only four connection points such that the scope of invention appears to explicitly permit (1) only four connection points, (2) only five connection points, and (2) six or more connection points. The claim further requires plural suspension springs to be connected to extend to the reflector and piezoelectric actuators extend to connection points (Claim 18). In Applicant’s Specifications, there are four piezoelectric actuators (205-208) extending to four respective connection points on the reflector edge. Further, there are two torsion springs (219, 220) extending to two connection points on the reflector edge. It is noted that these connection points are not made explicit in the written description, but are depicted in the drawings. In the 7/01/2026 Remarks, Applicant argues against Gritters that it lacks “rotation … by four piezoelectric actuators attached at four connection points around the edge of the reflector”. This statement implies that the claim requires the claimed actuators to be four in number and correspond to the recited four connection points. Were this to be required in the claim construction then a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how there could be agreement with further limitations permitting only four connection points and a plural suspension springs, if those are understood to be distinct elements.
If the claim is to be understood as including only four connection points to the reflector, then the plurality of piezoelectric actuators could not exceed two in number as there are necessarily connection points for plural suspension springs. If the claim is understood as including four piezoelectric actuators and plural suspension springs, then the connection points cannot number fewer than six. There is no reasonably clear definition of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications and 7/01/2026 Remarks as a specie structure within the scope of the claimed invention cannot be determined. Claims 2-19 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the base claim.
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 1-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 7,872,394 to Gritters, et al. (hereinafter Gritters) in view of CN 110031966 to Chen (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Gritters discloses a microelectromechanical (MEMS) mirror comprising: a frame (substantially square frame outlining comb drives 14035, movable structure 14010, etc. Fig. 14) that defines a first rotation axis (up-down relative to Fig. 14) and a second rotation axis (left-right relative to Fig. 14) perpendicular to each other, the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis forming four quadrants (Fig. 14); a plurality of support beams (torsional members 14030, Fig. 14) attached to an outside of the frame and extending away from the frame along the first rotation axis (Fig. 14); a plurality of fixing points (points of intersection between combs 14035 and frame, Fig. 14) on an inside of the frame, wherein one pair of the plurality of fixing points are on one side of the frame (see annotated image below, Fig. 14), and another pair of the plurality of fixing points are on an opposite side of the frame (see annotated image below, Fig. 14); a reflector (movable body 14010 in Fig. 14 shown in cross-section as 110 in Fig. 3A-3B; col. 3, ll. 33-43) with a reflective coating (embodiment of movable body 14010 in Fig. 14 shown in cross-section as mirror 105 in Fig. 3A-3B; col. 3, ll. 33-43) suspended the inside of the frame, the reflector including four connection points at an edge, and each of the four connection points (see annotated image below, Fig. 14) is in one of the four quadrants wherein the four connection points are symmetrically positioned at the edge of the reflector with respect to the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis, and wherein the connection points are equidistance from the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis (Fig. 14); a plurality of suspension springs (torsional members 14025, Fig. 14) extending from the inside of the frame to the opposite sides of the reflector in a direction of the second rotation axis; a plurality of actuators (comb drives 14035, Fig. 14) in the inside of the frame; a double device layer (e.g. lower layer 180, intermediate layer 182, upper layer 184, Fig. 2, 3A-3B) that defines a horizontal plane of the mirror and a vertical direction that is perpendicular to the horizontal plane (Figs. 3A-3B), the double device layer including a first device layer and a second device layer (e.g. lower layer 180, intermediate layer 182, upper layer 184, and insulator layers 205, 210, Fig. 2, 3A-3B), with the first device layer and the second device layer being stacked above each other in the vertical direction; a static support structure in the second device layer adjacent to each of the plurality of support beams (static comb drive portions of comb drives 14040, Figs. 2, 3A-3B, 14); and an electrostatic actuator (comb drives 14040, Fig. 14) at each of the plurality of support beams (col. 6, ln. 37-col. 10, ln. 52 & col. 16, ll. 29-58).
PNG
media_image1.png
900
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The teachings above rely on two disclosed species in Gritters, though a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the cross-sectional view and layer layout of Gritters Fig. 2-3 to be applicable to a different form factor of the overall structure in Fig. 14.
Gritters discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of piezoelectric actuators in the inside of the frame.
Chen discloses a plurality of piezoelectric actuators in the inside of the frame (“U-shaped folding beam 32 of each beam on a plurality of piezoelectric driving block 34 and the U-shaped folding beam 32 fixing the free end of the first connecting end 36 and the second connecting end 38”, Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide piezoelectric drives as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Gritters. The motivation would have been to provide a MEMS deflector with sufficient drive efficiency, stability, and control (see Chen disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Gritters discloses each electrostatic actuator comprises a plurality of static comb fingers on the static support structure alternating with a plurality of moving comb fingers on a corresponding support beam in the first device layer (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Gritters discloses the plurality of support beams comprise elongated edges that are parallel to the first rotation axis, and the plurality of moving comb fingers is along the elongated edges of each support beam in the horizontal plane (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Gritters discloses an additional plurality of static comb fingers is located in the first device layer (Figs. 2-3 & 14).
Regarding claim 5, Gritters discloses an outer anchor point (unlabeled ends of torsional beams 14030, Fig. 14) at an end of each support beam of the plurality of support beams.
Regarding claim 7, Gritters discloses an inner anchor structure inside the frame at each side from the second rotation axis (at intersection with torsion members 14025, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Gritters discloses a torsion bar (torsion members 14025, Fig. 14) extending from each of the opposite sides of the inside of the frame to each of the inner anchor structure.
Regarding claim 9, Gritters discloses each inner anchor structure at each side of the frame comprises an anchoring beam aligned with the horizontal plane, and one anchor point at each end of the anchoring beam, and a torsion bar is attached to the anchoring beam (torsion members 14025, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 10, Gritters discloses each inner anchor structure at each side of the frame comprises an inner anchor point, and a torsion bar is attached to each of the respectiveanchor points (torsion members 14025, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, Gritters discloses the frame is located in the first device layer (Figs. 2-3, 14).
Regarding claim 12, Gritters discloses the frame is located in the first device layer and in the second device layer (movable body is free to tilting out of default plane, Figs. 2-3, 14).
Regarding claim 13, Gritters discloses the actuators are located in the first device layer (Figs. 2-3, 14).
Gritters discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of piezoelectric actuators.
Chen discloses a plurality of piezoelectric actuators (“U-shaped folding beam 32 of each beam on a plurality of piezoelectric driving block 34 and the U-shaped folding beam 32 fixing the free end of the first connecting end 36 and the second connecting end 38”, Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide piezoelectric drives as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Gritters. The motivation would have been to provide a MEMS deflector with sufficient drive efficiency, stability, and control (see Chen disclosure).
Regarding claim 14, Gritters discloses the reflective coating is attached to the second device layer of the reflector (Figs. 2-3, 14).
Regarding claim 15, Gritters discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the reflective coating is attached to the first device layer of the reflector.
Chen discloses the reflective coating is attached to the first device layer of the reflector (reflection layer 16 on a top layer MEMS, Fig. 1A).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reflector on a first MEMS layer as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Gritters. The motivation would have been to provide a MEMS deflector with sufficient drive efficiency, stability, and control (see Chen disclosure).
Regarding claim 16, Gritters discloses each of the plurality of fixing points is in one of the four quadrants (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 17, Gritters discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of piezoelectric actuators.
Chen discloses each piezoelectric actuator (piezoelectric driving block 34, Fig. 1A) comprises a piezoelectric layer deposited on an actuation spring (st5ructure 32, Fig. 1A).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide piezoelectric drives as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Gritters. The motivation would have been to provide a MEMS deflector with sufficient drive efficiency, stability, and control (see Chen disclosure).
Regarding claim 18, Gritters discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of piezoelectric actuators.
Chen discloses each piezoelectric actuator extends from one of the plurality of fixing points to one of the plurality of connection points of the reflector (“U-shaped folding beam 32 of each beam on a plurality of piezoelectric driving block 34 and the U-shaped folding beam 32 fixing the free end of the first connecting end 36 and the second connecting end 38”, Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide piezoelectric drives as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Gritters. The motivation would have been to provide a MEMS deflector with sufficient drive efficiency, stability, and control (see Chen disclosure).
Regarding claim 19, Gritters discloses the frame, the support beams, the reflector and the piezoelectric actuator are in the double device layer (Figs. 2-3, 14).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 7,872,394 to Gritters, et al. (hereinafter Gritters) in view of CN 110031966 to Chen (hereinafter Chen) as applied to Claim 5, further in view of US Pat. 6,349,597 to Folkmer, et al. (hereinafter Folkmer).
Gritters discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a torsion bar that extends from each of the respective outer anchor points to a nearest end of the support beam.
Folkmer discloses a torsion bar (spring beams 504b, Fig. 5) that extends from each of the respective outer anchor points (anchoring 504a, Fig. 5) to a nearest end of the support beam (Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to torsion bars and anchor points as taught by Folkmer with the system as disclosed by Gritters. The motivation would have been to provide variable rigidity and relative motion in the structure to control mirror movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 5-6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Gritters fails to disclose the claimed suspension springs by pointing to clarifying language in the Specifications [0029] and [0049]. Neither these portions of the disclosure nor any other portion of the disclosure amounts to a special definition of “suspension springs”. Further, in [0029], the disclosure explicitly states that the “elongated rigid beams” is an optional embodiment and not a required structure and thus would not understood to be definitional. 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., suspension springs being integral to tuning and elongates) 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).
Further, on Page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Gritters fails to disclose the amended limitations on the connection point structure being four in number and symmetrically arranged. The connection points disclosed by Gritters are more clearly labeled in an annotated version of Fig. 14 above, showing four in number and the claimed symmetry.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant mischaracterizes the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above by asserting that the proposed modification would be to “replace the internal comb structure of Gritters with the piezoelectric arrangement of Chen”. Such a modification is not relied and would not be required to evidence obviousness as articulated above. Applicant further notes that Chen “has no separate suspension springs analogous to springs 219 and 220”. It is noted that the claim does not require a particular degree of distinction between the suspension springs and the actuators. While Applicant provides distinct connection points to the frame and reflector for each of the plurality of suspension springs and piezoelectric actuators, the claim is not so-limited. Lastly, Chen does not teach away from the proposed modification nor the use of the piezoelectric arrangement in the Gritters device as the claim does not require a torsion beam support and thus the rejection does not rely upon evidence of the obviousness of integrating such a support within the MEMS mirror.
On Page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant notes that Chen “positions its piezoelectric actuators so that they attach to the reflector at points that are deliberately closer to one axis than to the other” as a reason for the combination failing to evidence obviousness of the claimed invention. It is noted that there is no support in the originally-filed disclosure for the separation between a first axis and connection points to be the same as a separation between a second axis and connection points – as argued. In [0031] of the Specifications, Applicant discloses “connection points 221-224 may be equidistant form the first rotation axis 202 and the second rotation axis 203”. For illustration purposes, the position of the connection points relative to the intersection of first and second axes may be expressed in Cartesian coordinates (x,y). A person having ordinary skill in the are would not understand the claim language to require that all coordinates (e.g. (x1, y1), (x2, y2), (x3, y3), an (x4, y4)) have equal values for x and y (i.e. |x1| = |x2| = |x3| = |x4| = |y1| = |y2| = |y3| = |y4|). Rather, a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications (Fig. 2a) would include a scope of invention in which |x1| = |x2|, |x3| = |x4|, |y1| = |y2|, and |y3| = |y4| but |x1| ≠ |x3| and |y1| ≠ |y3|. It may also be true that |x1| = |x2| = |x3| = |x4| and |y1| = |y2| = |y3| = |y4| but |x1| ≠ |y1|. This latter embodiment appears to correspond to the configuration depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2a. Gritters and Chen evidence embodiments that can be matched to the embodiments captured within the broad scope of invention limited by the amended “equidistant” language.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 6,647,164, JP 2005-128147, JP 2005-148459, CN 108761773, and US Pat. 11,067,793 disclose a MEMS mirror with four connection points attached to at least four PZT actuators and additional torsional hinges.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST 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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights