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Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a structure for a micro-electromechanical system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/16/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of structure for a micro-electromechanical system in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claim 7 depends from claim 1 and requires every feature of the method claim. This is not found persuasive because the only structural limitation in claim 7 that is explicitly required linking to claim 1 is the formation is bent at least in some places in one direction which was satisfied by the 371 unity of invention indicated in the requirement for restriction/election. The product claim does not explicitly require the other structural limitations of the method claim such as structuring and/or partial coverings as those limitations were not reiterated in claims 7-12.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-6 and 13 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 “at least one of the outer sides” (Line 8/9) and “the different outer sides” (Line 13). There is precedent for “at least one” outer side; in this instance for one outer side, there is no express introduction for what “the different outer sides” should encompass. The “different outer sides” should be properly introduced. The shape of the structure has not been defined by the claim; as such, the different outer sides does not explicitly exist. For example, if the structure has a circular shape, then the “at least one” outer side is the circumference and no “different outer sides” exists. Correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a structuring… and/or by partial coverings”, wherein the claim 1 language could be [either] structuring or partial coverings. Claims 2-4 relies on the embodiment requiring the “structuring”. Claims 2-4 are indefinite because the structuring is not strictly required.
Claim 1 Line 11 recites “layers”. It is not clear regarding what is considered as a layer. Are there layers of compressive stresses and tensile stresses? Multiple layers of each? How is the layer discretized?
Claim 1 recites “a treatment by which compressive stresses and/or tensile stresses in uncovered regions” wherein the only other “cover” limitation is the “partial coverings” of line 9. The structuring is not specifically a covering nor generates a covered region. For the “structuring” embodiment, has there been “compressive stresses and/or tensile stresses in uncovered regions” introduced? The Examiner believes claim 1 is a single claim that is written to include 2 embodiments/distinctively different species of the invention. Dependent claims 2-6 and 13 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 3 depends from claim 12. The Examiner believes this is a typo. Claim 3 should depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Giusti et al (US-20200194659-A1) and further in view of Cho et al (WO-2020060107-A1, English translation provided by Espacenet) and Luo et al (US-20180009706-A1).
Regarding claim 1/6, Giusti teaches a method for producing a structure for a microelectromechanical system [0016], the method comprising: deforming a projecting or overhanging formation of the structure [0016-17] (Fig. 2a-2b) which is bent/curved.
Giusti teaches of using piezoelectric actuators to obtain the deformation on a glass substrate [0016], not while in a rest position. In related bent/curved glass art, Cho teaches a method for producing a structure (Line 33-37) by deforming an overhanging formation of the structure (bending portion 120) within or out of a main plane of extent (flat plate part 110), a shape which is bent/curved at least in some places with an upper side of the formation forming a convex outer side and with an underside of the formation forming a concave outer side (Fig. 2a), the shape being obtained by a structuring having been introduced at least in some places into at least one of the outer sides (pattern 200, Line 157), and the structure then having been subjected to compressive stresses and/or tensile stresses are introduced (Line 114-116) such that a desired deformation is generated in the deforming of the formation (Line 118). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique in glass bending art that uses structuring on the outer side of the substrate to manufacture a curved shape substrate with compressive stresses and/or tensile stresses by virtue of the difference in the compressive stresses and/or tensile stresses (Fig. 2b) at the outer sides of the formation (Line 114-118) compatible with the same material as Giusti.
Cho teaches of using a partial covering embodiment to generate the structuring (Line 290-297); Cho also teaches of a strengthening step (Line 304-307). Cho does not expressly teach their partial covering remain on their substrate; Cho does not expressly teach how the compressive stress or tensile stress is introduced (Line 114-116). In related bent/curved glass art, Luo teaches of introducing compressive stress to glass by an ion exchange method [0015, 51] (and tensile stress [0073]) by partial coverings applied and treating to introduce said compressive stress [0066-67] into layers close to a surface (Fig. 1a) such that a desired deformation is generated (Fig. 4b) [0019]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known treatment that introduces compressive/tensile stress to partially covered/uncovered areas introduced in layer close to a surface such that a desired deformation is achieved as a known glass bending technique.
Though Giusti does not expressly teach how to achieve the desired deformation, Giusti desires a deformation for the structure of their microelectromechanical system; Cho and Luo teach of achieving the desired deformation for the compatible material. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, modified Giusti relies on the structuring of Cho. Cho teaches the structuring is introduced into the at least one of the outer sides with an orientation at least substantially parallel to the main direction of extent of the formation (Line 215-216/Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, modified Giusti relies on the structuring of Cho. Cho teaches the structuring is a plurality of parallel groove-shaped depressions introduced into the outer sides (Line 259-263).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, modified Giusti relies on the structuring of Cho. Cho teaches the structuring is introduced transversely to the main direction of extent of the formation (Line 165-172, Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 1, Giusti teaches the structure is microactuator [0040-43].
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Giusti et al (US-20200194659-A1), Cho et al (WO-2020060107-A1) and Luo et al (US-20180009706-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nieber et al (US-20160311717-A1).
Regarding claim 5, depending rom claim 1 above, modified Giusti relies on the structuring and partial covering of Cho and Luo. Neither Cho and Luo teach how to expressly control the curvature degree. In the same field of endeavor, Nieber teaches that the curvature degree is dependent on the spacing of structuring [0055]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the spacing of coverings/structuring is a known cause effective variable that adjusts the curvature degree of the formation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR-20210074670-A, KR-20190123428-A, CN-107867793-A teach of structuring
US-20210347637-A1 teaches structuring for MEMS pressure sensor
US-6236491-B1 teach the shape of MEMs with a glass substrate but composite bend portion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights