DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 8, 12-13, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species of respective Figures 4, 5, 6, or 7, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/14/26.
Claims 10-11 and 14-16 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species of Figure 6. Specifically, the species of Fig. 6 requires a first stage contact coupled to a beam configured to provide a non-linear reaction force response upon impact” which is not required by or disclosed as a feature of any of the alternative species, see published paragraph [0035]. Therefore, claims 10-11 and 14-16 are additionally withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 20 is 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 20 states “The method of claim 17, further including rotating the first stage contact while flexing the first beam.” However, it is unclear from the disclosure how the first stage is actively rotating while the first beam is flexing. The specification [0025] merely states Flexing of the beam 314 also results in a rotation of the first stage contact 312 with respect to the opposing surface 331. Rotation of the first stage contact 312 results in a smaller surface area in actual contact with the opposing surface 331. The reduced contact area results in lower amounts of stiction. Does the beam cause the “rotating” of the stage contact or is there a different force that causes the rotating of the stage contact? What direction does the stage contact rotate in order to reduce the contact area?
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant-cited Nagel et al. (US20220091154).
Claim 1: Nagel discloses an electromechanical device, comprising: a mass (seismic mass 3) movably coupled over a substrate (substrate 2); at least one stopper (spring stop 61, spring stop 62, Figs. 2, 3) fixed to the substrate; a controlled contact system (graduated stop 6) coupled between the mass and the at least one stopper, the controlled contact system including; a first stage contact (spring stop 61 including projection 64, Fig. 7, [0047]) coupled to a flexible beam (stop spring 71), the first stage contact configured to contact an opposing surface first in an impact (the spring stop 61 will contact the opposing stop 61 on the substrate 2); and a second stage contact (spring stop 62) configured to contact the opposing surface (the stop 62 connected to the substrate 2) subsequent to the first stage contact in the impact ([0035]).
Claim 2: Nagel discloses the electromechanical device of claim 1, wherein the second stage contact (spring stop 62) is coupled to a second flexible beam (stop spring 72).
Claim 3: Nagel discloses the electromechanical device of claim 1, wherein the flexible beam (stop spring 61) is cantilevered from one end (see Figs. 2-3, 7, 9).
Claim 4: Nagel discloses the electromechanical device of claim 1, wherein the first stage contact is located adjacent to the second stage contact (Fig. 6 shows the structure 1 of Fig. 1 wherein the first and second stage contacts are adjacent [0046]).
Claim 6: Nagel discloses the electromechanical device of claim 1, wherein the at least one stopper includes a first stopper (the projection of 61 fixed to the substrate 2, Fig. 2) fixed to the substrate and a second stopper (the projection of 62 fixed to the substrate 2, Fig. 3) fixed to the substrate; wherein the first stage contact is coupled between the mass and the first stopper (the projection of 61 is between the mass 3 and the fixed portion of 61 attached to the substrate, Fig. 2) ; and wherein the second stage contact is coupled between the mass and the second stopper (the projection of 62 is between the mass 3 and the fixed portion of 62 attached to the substrate, Fig. 3).
Claim 9: Nagel discloses the electromechanical device of claim 1, further including a third stage (fixed stop 63) contact configured to contact the opposing surface subsequent to the second stage contact in the impact ([0035] the third stop 63 comes into mechanical contact after the first stop 61 and second stop 62 come into mechanical contact.).
Claim 17: Nagel discloses a method of operating an electromechanical device, comprising: moving a mass (seismic mass 3, Figs. 2, 3) over a substrate (substrate 2) in response to external motion, the mass being movably coupled over the substrate ([0035] movement of the seismic mass 3); engaging a controlled contact system (graduated stop 6) located in a gap (second functional layer 82) between the mass and a stopper (spring stop 61, spring stop 62, Figs. 2, 3) fixed to the substrate, including; flexing a first beam (first stop spring 71 including projection 64, Fig. 7, [0047]) upon impact when a first stage contact (projection 64, labeled in Fig. 7) of the first beam (first stop spring 71) impacts a first opposing surface (the first stage contact 64 contacts the spring stop 61, Fig. 2) within the gap; and providing a reaction force from a second stage contact (spring stop 62) when a second stage contact (the projection 65 of the second stop spring 72) impacts a second opposing surface within the gap (The projection 65 contacts the spring stop 62).
Claim 18: Nagel discloses the method of claim 17, wherein providing a reaction force includes flexing a second beam (second spring stop 72) upon impact when the second stage contact (projection 65) impacts the second opposing surface within the gap (the projection 65 impacts the second spring stop 62, Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Chong et al. (US2023/0348259).
Claim 7: Nagel teaches the electromechanical device of claim 1. Nagel teaches that the stop springs 71, 72 can be situated at the substrate 2 (Figs. 4-5) or situated at the mass 3 (Figs. 2-3, 7, 9), as long as they are at least partially within the same functional layer (claim 2, [0010]). Therefore, the functionality of the spring stops 61, 62 depends on the positioning between the substrate 2 and the mass 3 without limitation on which element (substrate 2 or mass 3) is coupled to the springs 71, 72.
Nagel fails to teach wherein the controlled contact system is coupled to the stopper.
However, Chong teaches a MEMS system including a stopper 103, substrate 101, and proof mass 121 (Figs. 1-2). Chong teaches that the stopper 103 may be integral to the supporting substrate 102 [0020].
Therefore, Chong teaches that it is known to form stoppers integrally with the substrate and Nagel teaches that it is known to situate the stoppers on the substrate. Forming the stoppers integrally with a substrate is applying a known technique which would not change the function of the stoppers and produce predictable results.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the stoppers of Nagel (which can be part of the substrate) integral with a stopper (which can be integral with a substrate), as taught by Chong, in order to simplify construction by using a single material and single piece substrate (Chong [0020]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Classen et al. (US20130299923).
Claim 20, as best understood: Nagel teaches the method of claim 17, but fails to teach rotating the first stage contact while flexing the first beam.
However, Classen teaches a flexible stop including a beam (flexible layer 35, Figs. 3A-3C) and stage contact (projection 80 [0029], labeled in Fig. 5) wherein the projection 80 rotates. The far end of the projection 80, i.e. the end away from the connection at the flexible layer 35, begins to lift away from the electrode 71 when the flexible layer 35 is overstressed (see progression from Fig. 3A to 3C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rotate the first stage contact while flexing the first beam, as taught by Classen, with the device of Nagel, in order to accommodate overstress and use the flexible stop as a rigid stop (Classen [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/24/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights