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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 16 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 claims 2 and 16 the metes and bounds of resistor coupled to an output of the beam configured to convert the oscillating current to a voltage such that the voltage may be read by the waveform capture device is unclear. It appears that a resistor by itself is not capable of converting current to voltage. Therefore it is unclear as to how a resistor converts current to voltage.
The term “ high voltage” in claims 3 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “low voltage” in claims 3 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims and 4 and 13 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected 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, 3, 5-7,9, 11, 12, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deligianni et al. (US 20070090902) in view of Ledbetter (US 5065101).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Deligianni et al. teach a test circuit structure for determining a dynamic of a beam of a micro-electrical-mechanical-system (MEMS) device comprising a gate electrode (Actuator Fig. 8) , a switch contact (area in which switch makes contact in a closed position), and the beam (86, Fig. 8), the test circuit structure comprising:
a voltage supply configured to sequentially produce (i) a switch-close voltage configured to bring the beam in contact with the switch contact, (Note claim 7, voltage potential, and having a ring initiation pulse inputted to a first actuator line of a first MEMS switch in said cascading configuration.) Examiner’s position is that the MEMS switch is not activated only once and never activated again but instead is activated and therefore any activation after is interpreted as voltage is sequentially produced.
(ii) a non-zero switch-open voltage configured to release the beam from contact with the switch contact and cause the MEMS switch to produce an oscillating current; ([0059] For drop-out voltage, a similar activity is performed using the shift register structure; however, the applied actuation voltage is stepped down rather than increased, and the number of OPENED switches is counted.)
Deligianni et al. does not teach a waveform capture device configured to determine the dynamic of the beam by an analysis of a waveform produced by the oscillating current upon release of the beam.
Ledbetter teach a waveform capture device (oscilloscope 40, Fig. 1) configured to determine the dynamic of the beam by an analysis of a waveform produced by the oscillating current upon release of the beam. (Note column 2, lines 41-55, Cycling the relay contacts at about 1000 Hz is designed to unmask any hidden intermittent malfunction. Contact opening and closing is observed by monitoring the voltage pattern at the relay output terminal. The voltage pattern generated at the relay output terminal from the opening and closing of the contacts constitutes a square wave "test" signal. The square wave "test" signal is compared, preferably by a dual-trace oscilloscope, to the square wave "reference" signal generated by the pulse generator. When a discrepancy between the "reference" signal and the "test" signal is observed, it is an indication that the relay under test has failed or is failing and therefore should be replaced.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deligianni et al. to include the teaching of a waveform capture device configured to determine the dynamic of the beam by an analysis of a waveform produced by the oscillating current upon release of the beam to a waveform capture device configured to determine the dynamic of the beam by an analysis of a waveform produced by the oscillating current upon release of the beam to indicate that the relay under test has failed or is failing and therefore should be replaced.(Note Ledbetter column 2, lines 53-55)
Regarding claim 7, Deligianni et al. teach a first cantilever beam (86, Fig. 8)comprising a first gate electrode (Actuator Fig. 8), and a first switch contact; (area in which switch makes contact in a closed position) a second cantilever beam (Note 86 in 80b, Fig. 8) comprising a second gate electrode (Actuator Fig. 8) and a second switch contact; (area in which switch makes contact in a closed position) the voltage supply configured to sequentially produce the switch close voltage and the switch open voltage to at least one of the first cantilever beam and the second cantilever beam; (Note claim 7, voltage potential, and having a ring initiation pulse inputted to a first actuator line of a first MEMS switch in said cascading configuration.) Examiner’s position is that the MEMS switch is not activated only once and never activated again but instead is activated and deactivated and therefore any activation after is interpreted as voltage is sequentially produced.
the oscillating current being produced in at least the first cantilever beam and the second cantilever beam; (Examiner’s position that the opening and closing of the switches 80 creates a pulse signal (High and low caused by pull in voltage and drop out voltage , abstract)
Deligianni et al. does not teach the waveform capture device configured to determine the dynamic of the MEMS switch by an analysis of either: (i) a waveform produced by the oscillating current of the first cantilever beam or the second cantilever beam upon beam release, or (ii) an average combined waveform produced by averaging the oscillating current of the first cantilever beam and the second cantilever beam upon beam release.
Ledbetter teach the waveform capture device (oscilloscope 40, Fig. 1) configured to determine the dynamic of the MEMS switch by an analysis of either: (i) a waveform produced by the oscillating current of the first cantilever beam or the second cantilever beam upon beam release, or (ii) an average combined waveform produced by averaging the oscillating current of the first cantilever beam and the second cantilever beam upon beam release. (Note column 2, lines 41-55, Cycling the relay contacts at about 1000 Hz is designed to unmask any hidden intermittent malfunction. Contact opening and closing is observed by monitoring the voltage pattern at the relay output terminal. The voltage pattern generated at the relay output terminal from the opening and closing of the contacts constitutes a square wave "test" signal. The square wave "test" signal is compared, preferably by a dual-trace oscilloscope, to the square wave "reference" signal generated by the pulse generator. When a discrepancy between the "reference" signal and the "test" signal is observed, it is an indication that the relay under test has failed or is failing and therefore should be replaced.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deligianni et al. to include the teaching of the waveform capture device configured to determine the dynamic of the MEMS switch by an analysis of either: (i) a waveform produced by the oscillating current of the first cantilever beam or the second cantilever beam upon beam release, or (ii) an average combined waveform produced by averaging the oscillating current of the first cantilever beam and the second cantilever beam upon beam release to indicate that the relay under test has failed or is failing and therefore should be replaced.(Note Ledbetter column 2, lines 53-55)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Deligianni et al. teach wherein the voltage supply produces a high voltage to supply the switch-close voltage and produces a low voltage to supply the switch-open voltage. (Note par. 0016, The predetermined voltage comprises a step function of increasing voltage levels (higher) such that the shift register readout determines a pull-in voltage for each of the MEMS switches. Alternatively, the predetermined voltage comprises a step function of decreasing voltage levels (lower) such that the shift register readout determines a drop-out voltage for each of the MEMS switches.)
Regarding claim 6, Deligianni et al. teach wherein the beam is a cantilever beam. (Note 42, par. 0041)
Regarding claim 5, Deligianni et al. teach a gate driver, wherein the gate driver: (i) induces mechanical resonance in the beam, and (ii) provides a constant voltage to the beam while the beam is in motion. (By applying an actuation voltage, the switch beam is brought into physical contact with the lower contact pad by an electrostatic force. The applied actuation voltage is called the pull-in voltage because the beam is physically pulled down to the lower contact.) Note par. 0034. Examiner’s position is that the voltage is constantly applied while the beam is being closed and that the voltage device supplying the voltage is broadly interpreted as the gate driver.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Deligianni et al. teach wherein the voltage supply induces mechanical resonance in the beam and provides a constant voltage to the gate electrode while the beam is in motion. (By applying an actuation voltage, the switch beam is brought into physical contact with the lower contact pad by an electrostatic force. The applied actuation voltage is called the pull-in voltage because the beam is physically pulled down to the lower contact.) Note par. 0034. Examiner’s position is that the voltage is constantly applied while the beam is being closed.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Deligianni et al. does not teach the waveform capture device is an oscilloscope, an analog to digital converter, or any combination thereof.
Ledbetter teach the waveform capture device is an oscilloscope, an analog to digital converter, or any combination thereof. (Note 40, Fig. 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deligianni et al. to include the teaching of the waveform capture device is an oscilloscope, an analog to digital converter, or any combination thereof so that a technician or an engineer compares, preferably visually, the two signals on the dual-trace oscilloscope so that a judgment of the relay's condition can be made. (Note Ledbetter column 45-53)
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deligianni et al. (US 20070090902) in view of Ledbetter (US 5065101) further in view of Nakamura (US 20240356638).
Deligianni et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Deligianni et al. does not teach a transimpedance amplifier configured to convert the current into a voltage signal.
Nakamura teach a transimpedance amplifier configured to convert the current into a voltage signal. (Note par. 0170)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deligianni et al. to include the teaching of a transimpedance amplifier configured to convert the current into a voltage signal provide a diagnostic signal to determine where or not the path of a switch elements can be switched or not. (Note Nakamura par. 0008 and par. 0173)
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deligianni et al. (US 20070090902) in view of Ledbetter (US 5065101) further in view of Bezooijen et al. (US 20100001768).
Deligianni et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Deligianni et al. does not teach wherein the high voltage is 90 volts or higher and the low voltage is 5 volts or lower.
Bezooijen et al. teach wherein the high voltage is 60 volts or higher and the low voltage is 30 volts or lower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the high voltage to 90V or higher and lower voltage 60V to 5 volts or lower tuahg by Bezooijen et al. since it has been held where the where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to test for voltages of operation and identification of various conditions under which the switch would transition from one state to another.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deligianni et al. (US 20070090902) in view of Ledbetter (US 5065101) further in view of Cooper et al. (US 20210389375).
Deligianni et al. does not teach the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Deligianni et al. does not teach wherein the dynamic of the beam represents the resonant frequency, amplitude, damping ratio, phase shift, or any combination thereof.
Cooper et al. teach wherein the dynamic of the beam represents the resonant frequency, amplitude, damping ratio, phase shift, or any combination thereof. (Note amplitude of the signal displayed in Fig. 13 also note par. 0029)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deligianni et al. to include the teaching of wherein the dynamic of the beam represents the resonant frequency, amplitude, damping ratio, phase shift, or any combination thereof to provide a visual representation of the voltage various stages of the switch. (Note Cooper et al. par. 0029)
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deligianni et al. (US 20070090902) in view of Ledbetter (US 5065101) further in view of Okawa (US 20070013407).
Deligianni et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Deligianni et al. does not teach a resistor coupled to an output of the beam configured to convert the oscillating current to a voltage such that the voltage may be read by the waveform capture device.
Okawa teach a resistor coupled to an output of the beam configured to convert the oscillating current to a voltage such that the voltage may be read by the waveform capture device. ([0025] In order to achieve the foregoing object, the present invention further provides an FET-characteristic measuring method in which a bias voltage output from a bias output terminal of a bias tee is applied to a drain of an FET and a pulse output from a pulse generator is applied to a gate of the FET to generate drain current in the FET; the generated drain current is converted by an impedance of a shunt resistor, connected to AC output terminal of the bias tee, into a corresponding voltage; and the converted voltage is measured by voltage measuring unit connected to the AC output terminal.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deligianni et al. to include the teaching of a resistor coupled to an output of the beam configured to convert the oscillating current to a voltage such that the voltage may be read by the waveform capture device to determine a drain bias voltage actually flowing in the FET . (Note par. 0027)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 20 , patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
An apparatus for testing a micro-electrical-mechanical-system (MEMS) switch to determine a dynamic of a beam of the MEMS switch, comprising: a first voltage supply and a second voltage supply, the first voltage supply coupled to a first amplifier configured to set a voltage level, the second voltage supply coupled to a second amplifier configured to set a voltage offset; a first amplifier circuit configured to add the voltage level and the voltage offset as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 20.
Prior Art:
Deligianni et al. (US 20070090902) teach multiple test structures for performing reliability and qualification tests on MEMS switch devices. A Test structure for contact and gap characteristic measurements is employed having a serpentine layout simulates rows of upper and lower actuation electrodes. A cascaded switch chain test is used to monitor process defects with large sample sizes. A ring oscillator is used to measure switch speed and switch lifetime. A resistor ladder test structure is configured having each resistor in series with a switch to be tested, and having each switch-resistor pair electrically connected in parallel.
Deligianni et al. does not teach the limitations above.
Ledbetter (US 5065101) teach a mini-relay signal tester designed to simplify, speed up, and test the operation of "mini" or "reed" relays which are suspected of intermittent failure.
Ledbetter does not teach the limitations above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858