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 group I in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krylov et al. (US 20140165724 A1, hereinafter Krylov) in view of Hennes et al. (US 20200369513 A1, hereinafter Hennes) and Xie (US 6940630 B2).
As to claim 1, Krylov teaches a MEMS device 100 (see fig. 16; note that ¶31, ¶136 and fig. 8 teach that device 100 of fig. 16 is a MEMS device similar to the device 100 of fig. 8) comprising:
a substrate (comprising at least anchors 102 and/or a handle layer- ¶83 and ¶120-121) having a first main surface (facing out of the page in fig. 16, and corresponding to the upward facing surface of the substrate in fig. 8) and a second main surface (at the lower side of the substrate) opposite to the first main surface, wherein a cavity (that accommodates the movable structures in figs. 8 and 16; see ¶120-121, which teach that the device is made by etching an SOI substrate, which indicates that the movable structures of fig. 16 are in a cavity recessed from the first main surface side of the SOI substrate) recessed from the first main surface side toward the second main surface side is disposed; and
a MEMS electrode (comprising at least the “moving” electrodes described in ¶136 and shown in fig. 16, and the fixed electrode 106 described in at least ¶136) disposed in the cavity and spaced apart toward the first main surface with respect to a bottom surface of the cavity (as described in ¶120-121, the device is fabricated from an SOI substrate with a device layer separated from a handle layer by a 1 micrometer layer of silicon dioxide, meaning the MEMS electrode is in the device layer and separated by a gap from the handle layer so as to be movable with respect to the handle layer), wherein
the MEMS electrode includes:
a movable electrode finger (fig. 16 and ¶136) connected to the substrate (at least through anchors 102), the movable electrode finger being relatively movable with respect to the substrate (¶85 and ¶136);
a fixed electrode finger (a beam element of comb electrode 106 – see ¶136 and fig. 16) disposed at an interval (¶136 and fig. 16) from the movable electrode finger, the fixed electrode finger facing the movable electrode finger; and
a beam portion 510,
an interval between the fixed electrode finger and the movable electrode finger is narrowed due to deformation of the beam portion as compared with an interval formed before the deformation of the beam portion (¶136-137 teach that the interval can be selectively increased or decreased).
Krylov does not teach wherein the beam portion is cantilevered on the substrate and connects the fixed electrode finger to the substrate (Krylov is silent as to whether the beam and fixed electrode are on the same substrate),
the beam portion includes:
a first portion having a first thermal expansion coefficient; and
a second portion disposed adjacent to the first portion, the second portion having a second thermal expansion coefficient different from the first thermal expansion coefficient, and
the beam portion is deformed due to a difference between thermal stress generated in the first portion and thermal stress generated in the second portion.
Hennes teaches a MEMS sensor comprising a beam portion 608 that is a thermal actuator that provides an actuator force to a MEMS structure 104 (¶78-79 and fig. 6) and that also connects the MEMS structure 104 to a substrate (see ¶51 and ¶98, which teach that the structures shown in fig. 6 are fabricated with SOI technology; when Krylov is modified in view of Hennes, the actuator structure is also formed with SOI technology along with the fixed electrode and connects the fixed electrode to the substrate that is also the substrate having the claimed cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Krylov such that the beam portion is fabricated with SOI technology as taught by Hennes so as to minimize the complexity of the apparatus since the beam portion will also be supported on the same substrate as the fixed electrode.
Xie teaches a MEMS displacement device (abstract; figs. 2-3A) comprising a beam portion 30 cantilevered on a substrate 14, 28, wherein
the beam portion includes:
a first portion 32 having a first thermal expansion coefficient (col. 5 lines 13-35 and col. 7 lines 38-60); and
a second portion 36 disposed adjacent to the first portion, the second portion having a second thermal expansion coefficient different from the first thermal expansion coefficient (col. 5 lines 13-35 and col. 7 lines 38-60), and
the beam portion is deformed due to a difference between thermal stress generated in the first portion and thermal stress generated in the second portion (col. 5 lines 13-35 and col. 7 lines 38-60; note that col. 5 lines 7-12 teach that the use of plural beams 30-31 allows MEMS element 12 to be vertically displaced while remaining parallel to the substrate, meaning the MEMS element 12 is displaced substantially along an axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Krylov as modified such that the fixed electrode is displaced by at least one beam portion comprising materials with different thermal expansion coefficients as taught by Xie since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of using a thermal actuator for another for the predictable result that the electrode spacing is still successfully adjusted (additionally or alternatively, the actuation device of Xie is relatively compact and/or time efficient – see the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2 of Xie).
Krylov as modified teaches a beam portion 30 (Xie) that is cantilevered on the substrate (as taught by Xie) and connects the fixed electrode finger to the substrate (in view of Hennes’s teachings).
As to claim 2, Krylov as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the substrate includes a restriction portion that restricts displacement of the fixed electrode finger by coming into contact with the fixed electrode finger when the fixed electrode finger is displaced toward the movable electrode finger by a predetermined distance or more due to the deformation of the beam portion.
Hennes further teaches (figs. 10A-10B) wherein a support structure is provided with a restriction portion 10091-10092 that restricts displacement of a structure 1005 by coming into contact with the structure 1005 when the structure 1005 is displaced by a predetermined distance or more due to the actuation performed by actuators (at least actuators 10021-10022; see ¶88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Krylov as modified such that the support structure (substrate) is provided with a restriction portion that restricts displacement of the structure, that is moved by an actuator, by coming into contact with the structure when the structure is displaced by a predetermined distance or more due to the actuation performed by the actuator, as taught by Hennes, so as to protect one or more MEMS structures from potential damage/malfunction.
Krylov as modified teaches wherein the substrate includes a restriction portion (in view of Hennes) that restricts displacement of the fixed electrode finger by coming into contact with the fixed electrode finger when the fixed electrode finger is displaced toward the movable electrode finger by a predetermined distance or more due to the deformation of the beam portion.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krylov in view of Hennes and Xie as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Tanaka (US 20150013458 A1).
As to claim 3, Krylov as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a portion of the restriction portion, the portion being in contact with the fixed electrode finger, is connected at a same potential as the fixed electrode finger.
Tanaka teaches that a restriction portion 70 is set to the same potential as a portion 50, which will touch the restriction portion, to prevent stiction (¶97-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Krylov as modified such that the restriction portion is set to the same potential as the portion that will touch the restriction portion, as taught by Tanaka, so as to prevent stiction (¶98 - Tanaka).
Krylov as modified teaches wherein a portion of the restriction portion, the portion being in contact with the fixed electrode finger, is connected at a same potential as the fixed electrode finger (in view of Tanaka).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240044932 A1 teaches the concept of adjusting electrode spacings by using capacitive actuators and pivot points
US 20170233244 A1 teaches, in fig. 3a, the concept of moving the position of fixed electrodes using a bimorph element, but does not teach that the movement is selective or adjustable, and does not teach that an interval between the fixed and movable electrode is adjusted by the bimorph element
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights