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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1–7, drawn to a product, in the reply filed on 30 Apr 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
In the reply filed on 30 Apr 2026, Applicant has cancelled claims 8–18, pertaining to nonelected Invention II, drawn to a method for reducing variability of a mechanical beam in a microelectromechanical (MEM) device.
Additionally, Applicant has added new claims 19–31, pertaining to the elected invention I.
Additionally, Applicant has amended claims 1–7 by
referring to a “Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) device” / “MEMS device” instead of the original terminology of “microelectromechanical (MEM) device” / “MEM device”;
having claim 3 now depend on claim 19 instead of on claim 2; and
deleting some text from claims 2, 3, and 7.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 Sep 2024 and 20 Dec 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: although the new version of the claims dated 30 Apr 2026 now refer to a “Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) device” / “MEMS device” instead of the original terminology of “microelectromechanical (MEM) device” / “MEM device”, the specification still refers to a “microelectromechanical (MEM) device” or “MEM device” in at least paragraphs [0004–0006], [0035], [0042], [0067], and [0082]. It is unclear to the examiner whether Applicant is intending to point out a difference between a microelectromechanical (MEM) device and a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (such as a MEM device being an individual part of a larger “system” composed of such devices), or if the two terms are intended to be understood as synonymous with each other.
Since the claims have been amended to refer to the claimed invention as a MEMS device, the examiner recommends for Applicant to amend the specification to be consistent with the “MEMS device” terminology used in the amended claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 3, in operation 312 of the flowchart, includes a typographical error: “Reducing the variability of the eight of the mechanical beam to less than one or more of 20%, 10%, or 5% of a target height of the mechanical beam”, in which “eight” should be changed to “height”.
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 22 is objected to because “The MEMS of claim 1” should be changed to “The MEMS device of claim 1”.
Claim 30 is objected to because “The MEM device of claim 27” should be changed to “The MEMS device of claim 27”. Also, “disposed adjacent a lower portion” should be changed to “disposed adjacent to a lower potion”.
Claim 31 is objected to because “The MEM device of claim 27” should be changed to “The MEMS device of claim 27”. Also, “disposed adjacent” should be changed to “disposed adjacent to” (in two instances in line 2 of claim 31).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 31 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.
Regarding claim 4, when the examiner attempts to understand the claim in view of the drawings, only a single “body width” W3 is seen in FIG. 1B. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by “a first body width” (in line 3 of claim 4) and “a second body width” (in line 5 of claim 4). The examiner suggests to amend the claim to only have a single body width as follows:
4. (Currently Amended) The MEMS device of claim 1, wherein:
the first notch has a first width at the first portion of the beam structure that is less than a width of a body of the beam structure; and
the second notch has a second width at the second portion of the beam structure that is less than the width of the body of the beam structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
190
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the lower portion of the beam structure” in lines 2–3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because neither claim 31 nor claim 27, upon which claim 31 depends, has previously introduced “a lower portion of the beam structure”. The examiner proposes the following amendment:
31. (New) The MEMS device of claim 27, wherein the first notch is disposed adjacent to the masking layer, wherein the second notch is disposed adjacent to a lower portion of the beam structure, and wherein a first width of the first notch is different from a second width of the second notch.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowed. The closest prior art (cited below) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
”a mechanical beam comprising
a beam structure on a first side of the substrate, wherein a first portion of the beam structure comprises a first notch and a second portion of the beam structure comprises a second notch”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art of Patent Application Publication US 2012/0205753 A1 by Adams et al. (“Adams” hereafter, corresponding to Patent US 8,853,803 B2 from the IDS) teaches:
A Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) device (FIG. 20, “exemplary MEMS device” ¶[0049]) comprising:
a substrate 282 (“floor 282 of the substrate 120” ¶[0049]); and
a mechanical beam 107 (“beams 106, 107, and 108” ¶[0049]) comprising
a beam structure 107 on a first side (top) of the substrate 282, wherein a first portion of the beam structure 107 comprises a first notch (the undercut portion at the bottom of the beam structure 107 may be called a notch),
a masking layer 190 (see FIGS. 12 and 16, “Passivation layer 190 can also be used as a mask to pattern a beam such as beam 108” ¶[0039]) positioned on a horizontal surface (top surface) of the beam structure 107, and
an oxide layer 250 (“The fourth dielectric layer 250 can be an oxide” ¶[0046]) positioned on a vertical surface (as shown in FIG. 20) of the beam structure 107.
However, FIG. 20 does not show a second notch in the beam structure 107. Furthermore, the first notch (i.e., the undercut portion between the oxide layers 250 at the bottom of the beam structure 107) is no longer present after the next manufacturing step shown in FIG. 21. Likewise, the masking layer 190 and the oxide layer 250 have been removed at the manufacturing step shown in FIG. 21. Thus, in the final structure shown in FIG. 23, the beam structure 107 does not have first or second notches, a masking layer, or an oxide layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
358
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
414
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Patent US 7,214,625 B2 by Asami et al. (“Asami” hereafter, from the IDS) shows in FIG. 9 a mechanical beam 20 (“the movable portion 20 includes a beam”) having a mask layer 100 (“The mask 100 has a predetermined pattern, which corresponds to a movable portion 20”). The bottom portion of the mechanical beam 20 has a first notch (i.e., the notch is the tapered bottom end of the mechanical beam 20). However, Asami’s beam 20 lacks a second notch and an oxide layer on the vertical surfaces of the beam 20.
PNG
media_image4.png
364
439
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Asami shows in FIGS. 6A, 7B, 7C, 12, and 18B the formation of notches 110 to undercut the mechanical beams 20 (“moveable portion 20”), thereby separating the mechanical beams 20 from the insulation layer 13. From Asami: “The notch 110 is a local concavity on the sidewall of the trench 14, and the notch 110 becomes larger as it goes with time of the over-etching process … Therefore, when neighboring two trenches 14 on the substrate 10 are over-etched so that the notches 110 are formed on each sidewall of the trenches 14, the second silicon layer 12 disposed between the neighboring trenches 14 is partially removed. This is, two notches 110 on both sides are connected. Specifically, the bottom portion of the second silicon layer 12 is etched so that the remained second silicon layer, which is an upper portion, is separated from the embedded oxide layer 13. Thus, the movable portion 20 is completed”.
Note that the examiner is interpreting a “notch” in the same way as presented in the present application’s specification and drawings; that is, a notch is understood to be a region of a mechanical beam having a narrower width compared to the width of the main body of the beam.
PNG
media_image5.png
335
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
419
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
237
355
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
414
224
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus, the examiner is referring to the tapered bottom portion of Asami’s mechanical beams 20 (e.g., see FIGS. 9 and 7C) as a single notch, even though Asami’s specification, as quoted above, describes the tapered bottom portion of Asami’s mechanical beams 20 as being formed from two notches 110 that connect to each other from the left and right side of each mechanical beam 20. Since Asami’s mechanical beams 20 each only have a single tapered portion having a narrowed width, Asami’s mechanical beams 20 cannot be said to have a second notch as required by claim 1.
The prior art of Patent Application Publication US 6,756,247 B1 by Davis and Adams (“Davis” hereafter) shows in FIG. 8 mechanical beams 102 and 104 (“cantilever beams 102 and 104”) that are undercut by etching to form a tapered/narrowed bottom portion of the mechanical beams 102 and 104. However, as explained in reference to the Asami reference above, the tapered/narrowed bottom portion of the mechanical beams 102 and 104 is analogous to a first notch of the present application. Having only a single tapered/narrowed portion, Davis’s mechanical beams 102 and 104 lack a second notch.
PNG
media_image9.png
361
428
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The prior art of US 2002/0160611 A1 by Horsley shows in FIG. 3b mechanical beams 15 (“flexure 15” ¶[0037]) that hold a suspended platform 17 as part of a MEMS device (“Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) are one example of a system that can incorporate a suspended platform” ¶[0002]). However, Horsley’s mechanical beams 15 do not have any notches.
PNG
media_image10.png
301
438
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Patent US 6,199,874 B1 by Galvin et al. (“Galvin” hereafter) shows in FIG. 12 mechanical beams 198, 199, and 200 (“released beams 198, 199, 200”), each having a masking layer 12 (see FIG. 7, “the patterned mask 12 serves as a mask for a deep vertical silicon trench etch”) on the horizontal top surface of each mechanical beam 198, 199, and 200, as required by claim 1 of the present application. Also, the mechanical beams 198, 199, and 200 each have an oxide layer 30 (“a conformal coating of a second mask such as PECVD oxide or other etch mask 30 is deposited to protect the side walls of the trenches during the subsequent release etch”) on vertical surfaces, as required by claim 1 of the present application. The bottom portions of the mechanical beams 198, 199, and 200 are each narrowed/tapered, analogous to the first notch of the present application. However, Galvin’s mechanical beams 198, 199, and 200 do not have a second portion having a narrowed width, and thus do not have a second notch as required by claim 1 of the present application.
PNG
media_image11.png
415
434
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Patent US 5,426,070 A by Shaw et al. (“Shaw” hereafter, from the IDS) shows in FIG. 1I a mechanical beam 36. Shaw states: “Step 9, FIG. 1I, illustrates the isotropic release etch step which separates and releases the islands from the underlying substrate to produce released beams such as the beam 36, which may, for example, be connected at one end to extend in a cantilevered fashion over the floor of the trench.” The mechanical beam 36 has a masking layer 12 (“a layer 12 of oxide (SiO2), this layer serving as a mask”) on a horizontal surface (i.e., the top surface), as required by claim 1 of the present application. Also, the mechanical beam 36 has an oxide layer 28 (“protective oxide layer 28”) on a vertical surface (i.e., the sidewalls) as required by claim 1. The tapered bottom portion of the mechanical beam 36 is analogous to the first notch of claim 1. However, Shaw’s mechanical beam 36 does not have a second notch as required by claim 1 of the present application.
PNG
media_image12.png
263
436
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Patent US 5,198,390 A by MacDonald and Zhang (“MacDonald” hereafter, from the IDS) shows in FIG. 1F a mechanical beam 22 (“island 22”) having a masking layer 14 on its horizontal (top) surface (“This silicon dioxide layer 14 is used as an etch mask, and accordingly this layer is patterned in the shape of the desired mechanical structure”) and an oxide layer 32 on its vertical (sidewall) surfaces (“a side wall silicon dioxide layer 32”), in agreement with claim 1 of the present application. However, MacDonald’s mechanical beam 22 only has a single tapered/narrowed portion 54 and therefore does not have a second notch.
PNG
media_image13.png
192
411
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claims 2–3, 5–7, 19–21, and 23–26 are allowed at least for the reason that they depend on allowed claim 1 (claims 3, 23, and 24 depend on claim 1 through claim 19).
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection (see Claim Objections section)
Claim 27 is allowed. The closest prior art of Adams, Asami, Davis, Horsley, Galvin, Shaw, and MacDonald, as cited above in reference to claim 1, either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
” a mechanical beam comprising
a beam structure including a body positioned between a first notch at a first portion of the beam structure and a second notch at a second portion of the beam structure”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Claims 28–29 are allowed at least for the reason that they depend on allowed claim 27.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection (see Claim Objections section)
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection (see Claim Objections section) and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Mott whose telephone number is (571)272-2367. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/A.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights