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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano et al. (US 2007/0284971).
Considering claim 1, Sano teaches electronic devices with a plurality of electrodes (abstract) for MEMS devices (Paragraph 5) used with switches (Paragraph 123). An embodiment is taught in Figure 9 (reproduced below) of piezoelectric film (50) (e.g. a beam) with lower electrode (40) (i.e. a first layer) and upper electrode (62) (i.e. a second layer) where both are formed from an Al alloy doped with 4 at.% nickel (Paragraphs 95-96). This is considered to teach a beam structure of first and second layers comprising a nickel alloy consistent with that which applicant discloses in Paragraph 39 of the originally filed specification. As such, the teachings of Sano anticipate that which is claimed. See MPEP 2131.03.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 4, Sano does not specify the claimed CTE. However, the materials for the upper and lower electrode disclosed by Sano are the same and therefore are expected to possess about the same CTE as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claims 8-9, the recitations of “being deposited by…” are considered product-by-process limitations and are not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed beam. See MPEP 2113. As such, the substantially identical structure taught by Sano is considered to meet the claimed structure, absent an objective showing.
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US 2007/0284971) as applied to claim 1 above.
Considering claim 12, in addition to the disclosure of the materials for the upper electrode as outlined above, Sano teaches where the upper electrode Al-alloy may optionally be doped with at least one of Ni, Co, V, Ta, etc. (Paragraph 116) (e.g. optionally absent Ni).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed beam this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Sano as this considered a combination of an upper electrode with a dopant material not containing Ni and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-10, 12-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitake et al. (US 2011/0220473) in view of Osaka et al. (US 2012/0031764).
Considering claim 1, Yoshitake teaches a switch with a plurality of conductive layers (abstract) including a MEMS switch (Paragraph 38). An embodiment of the device is taught in Fig.1 (reproduced below) of movable substrate (51) (Paragraph 39) (e.g. a beam) coated with a plurality of conductive layers (45,55) and alternating buffer layers (44,54) where the conductive layers comprise Au, Ni, etc. (Paragraph 41). The material of the conductive layers is harder than that of the buffer layers (Paragraph 41). However, Yoshitake does not teach the claimed Ni content.
PNG
media_image2.png
517
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In a related field of endeavor, Osaka teaches gold alloys with excellent electrical and mechanical properties (abstract) used in electrical contacts for electrical components (Paragraph 2). The gold alloy comprises Ni and/or Co in an atomic amount of 1-80% (Paragraph 47). The alloy displays improved hardness and abrasion resistance while having good electrical conductivity (Paragraph 19).
As both Yoshitake and Osaka teach electronic devices they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Yoshitake with the gold alloy taught by Osaka as this is known to improve hardness and abrasion resistance while having good electrical conductivity and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the Ni amount taught by modified Yoshitake overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 2, in addition to the disclosure of Au as outlined above, Yoshitake teaches where the conductive layers comprise Pt and Pd (Paragraph 41).
Considering claim 3, modified Yoshitake does not expressly teach the claimed modulus of elasticity. However, modified Yoshitake teaches plural layers of alternating, different materials substantially identical to that which is claimed and therefore the difference in modulus of elasticity is expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent and objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 4, modified Yoshitake does not expressly teach the claimed CTE. However, modified Yoshitake teaches plural layers optionally of the same material and therefore are expected to possess about the same CTE as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 5, Osaka teaches where the alloy is microcrystalline with an average grain particle size of no greater than 30 nm (Paragraph 44) and is considered nanocrystalline given the size of the particle and as no particular crystal size is claimed. See MPEP 2111.01.
Considering claims 6-7, Yoshitake teaches where each of the thickness of the conductive and buffer layers is thinner than about 10 µm (Paragraph 45). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 8-9, the recitations of “being deposited by…” are considered product-by-process limitations and are not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed beam. See MPEP 2113. Yoshitake also teaches where the conductive and buffer layers may be formed by electrolytic and non-electrolytic plating (e.g. electroplating and electroless plating) (Paragraph 39).
Considering claim 10, Osaka teaches a Ni-Au alloy (Paragraph 47).
Considering claim 12, Yoshitake teaches where the conductive layers optionally comprise non-nickel materials and where the buffer layer comprises polysilicon (Paragraph 41).
Considering claim 13, in addition to the structure and alloy taught by modified Yoshitake as outlined in claim 1 above, Yoshitake teaches the method of forming Pt metal particles on the surface of a conductive layer coated Si substrate (Paragraphs 51 and 53) followed by plating of the conductive layer (e.g. first layer) by electrolytic plating (Paragraph 53) followed by deposition of the buffer layer (Paragraph 54) (i.e. second layer).
Considering claim 14, in addition to the disclosure of Au as outlined above, Yoshitake teaches where the conductive layers comprise Pt and Pd (Paragraph 41).
Considering clams 15-16, Yoshitake teaches where the buffer layer may be formed by electrolytic and non-electrolytic plating (e.g. electroplating and electroless plating) (Paragraph 39).
Considering claim 17, modified Yoshitake does not expressly teach the claimed modulus of elasticity. However, modified Yoshitake teaches plural layers of alternating, different materials substantially identical to that which is claimed and therefore the difference in modulus of elasticity is expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent and objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 18, modified Yoshitake does not expressly teach the claimed CTE. However, modified Yoshitake teaches plural layers optionally of the same material and therefore are expected to possess about the same CTE as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 19, Osaka teaches where the alloy is microcrystalline with an average grain particle size of no greater than 30 nm (Paragraph 44) and is considered nanocrystalline given the size of the particle and as no particular crystal size is claimed. See MPEP 2111.01.
Considering claim 20, Osaka teaches a Ni-Au alloy (Paragraph 47).
Considering claim 22, Yoshitake teaches where the conductive layers optionally comprise non-nickel materials and where the buffer layer comprises polysilicon (Paragraph 41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cunningham et al. (US 2003/0116848), Srinivasan et al. (US 2011/0062003), and Keimel et al. (US 2011/0067983) teach similar MEMS devices as that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights