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 with traverse of Species A1, B1 and C1 in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged. This is not found persuasive because no grounds for the traversal was made. Applicant has stated that claims 1-24 read on Species A1, B1 and C1. However, upon review, claim 19 recites “wherein the back plate is a perforated”, which is clearly directed to withdrawn Species B2, drawn to a perforated back surface/plate, and therefore claim 19 and its dependents 20-21 are considered withdrawn. Further, claim 22 recites “further comprising: one or more stiffening support structures coupled to the back plate”, which is clearly directed to withdrawn Species C2, drawn to a stiffening support structure attached to the mirror body, and therefore claim 22 is also considered withdrawn. Finally, claim 23 recites “wherein the front plate, the back plate, and the hollow core assembly form a one-piece integral member”, which is clearly directed to withdrawn Species A3, drawn to a mirror/oscillator body of one integral part with a front surface/plate a back surface/plate a cavity structure between the two surfaces/plates, and therefore claim 23 is also considered withdrawn. For clarity, claims 19-23 are considered and withdrawn claims 1-18 and 24 are examined below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Comments
Regarding applicant’s statement in the remarks of June 9, 2026 in the paragraph spanning pages 8-9 centered on since a method of forming a single integral mirror body with a front plate-like surface, a back plate-like surface and a hollow core includes a plurality of support structures that extend between the front and the back that define a plurality of cavities is in the specification that there is no conflict (i.e. a 112(b) issue) between claims 1 and 23. The examiner has considered applicant’s statement, but considers it moot, given the election of Species A1, drawn to a mirror/oscillator body of three parts assembled together including two plates (e.g. a front plate and back plate) and a support structure extending between the two plates forming cavities (i.e. a “sandwich structure”) and claim 23 is directed to withdrawn Species A3, drawn to a mirror/oscillator body of one integral part with a front surface/plate a back surface/plate a cavity structure between the two surfaces/plates, claim 23 has been withdrawn, as set forth above.
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.
Claim 11-18 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11, 14 and 24 “wherein the plurality of support structures are configured to reduce a dynamic deformation of the mirror body during oscillation of the mirror body about the one or more rotational axes” in claim 11 and “wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to … reduced inertia and reduced dynamic deformation” in claim 14 and “wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to reduce a dynamic deformation of the oscillator body during oscillation of the oscillator body about the one or more rotational axes” in claim 24 raises clarity issues. The limitation claims the results of the structure, i.e. a motivation to use the structure, and a beneficial reduction in deformation does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because, in this case, it imposed no clear structural or functional limitations on the structure. It has been held that claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008), see MPEP 2173.05(g). For purposes of examination the examiner will assume that the claimed sandwich structure will inherently reduce a dynamic deformation of the mirror body during oscillation of the mirror body about the one or more rotational axes.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 11 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 12-14 and 24 “wherein the plurality of support structures are configured such that a volume of the plurality of cavities enables the mirror body to oscillate at a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz” in claim 12, “wherein the plurality of support structures are configured such that a mass of the plurality of support structures enables the mirror body to oscillate at a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz with a maximum amplitude that is greater than 10°” in claim 13, “wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to enable the mirror body to oscillate at a resonant frequency greater than 10 kHz with reduced inertia and reduced dynamic deformation” in claim 14, and “wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to … enable the oscillator body to oscillate at a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz” in claim 24 fail to definitely set the metes and bounds of the device. The claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements and for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements and necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The claim construction indicates that the mirror body density is the only factor in determining a resonant frequency and max amplitude. The resonant frequency1 and the maximum angle are determined by several unclaimed factors. The major factors include: (1) the length, width, thickness and material stiffness of suspension assembly (a.k.a. torsion bar); and (2) the size/diameter and the density/weight of the mirror body. Adjusting the density of the mirror body is only a single factor in determining the resonant frequency. The examiner contends that the structure and a materials of the suspension assembly/torsion bars and the overall size of the mirror body are essential elements that are interrelated to “enabling” resonant frequencies >10 kHz and amplitudes >10°. Further the passive voice of “enables” makes it unclear if applicant is claiming a capability or a use for the structure. The examiner’s best guess for a definite limitation is that the MEMS/oscillator devices, as a whole, have resonant frequencies >10 kHz and/or amplitudes >10°. For purposes of examination the examiner will use:
“wherein the MEMS device has a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz” in claim 12,
“wherein the MEMS device has a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz with a maximum amplitude that is greater than 10°” in claim 13,
“wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to enable the mirror body to oscillate [[at]] with reduced inertia and reduced dynamic deformation, and the MEMS device has a resonant frequency greater than 10 kHz
“wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to reduce a dynamic deformation of the oscillator body during oscillation of the oscillator body about the one or more rotational axes and the oscillator device has a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz” in claim 24.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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, 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moidu US Patent Application Publication 2008/0018975.
Regarding claim 1 Moidu discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) mirror device (title e.g. figures 2a-3 micro-electro-mechanical/MEMS mirror device 11), comprising: a frame (e.g. substrate 15) that defines a frame cavity (see figures 2b-3); a suspension assembly (e.g. torsional hinges 13 & 14); and a mirror body (e.g. platform 12) coupled to the frame by the suspension assembly such that the mirror body is suspended over the frame cavity (see figures 2b-3), wherein the mirror body comprises a sandwich structure (e.g. sandwich structure 71) that includes a front plate (e.g. upper stiff outer skin 74), a back plate (e.g. lower stiff outer skin 75), and a hollow core (e.g. core 72) assembly arranged between the front plate and the back plate (inter alia paragraph [0030] “upper and lower stiff outer skins 74 and 75 symmetrically attached to both sides of the core 72” see figure 3), wherein the front plate and the back plate define a thickness dimension of the mirror body (see figure 3), and wherein the hollow core assembly includes a plurality of support structures that extend between the front plate and the back plate and define a plurality of cavities between the front plate and the back plate (inter alia paragraph [0008] “cellular structure” see figure 3 e.g. cells 73).
Regarding claim 3 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the plurality of support structures are interconnected to form a honeycomb pattern, and wherein the plurality of cavities (e.g. 73) are hexagonal cavities defined in areas between respective support structures of the plurality of support structures (inter alia paragraph [0031] “[p]referably each closed cell is hexagonal in shape”).
Regarding claim 4 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the plurality of support structures are interconnected to form a polygonal pattern, and wherein the plurality of cavities (e.g. 73) are polygonal cavities defined in areas between respective support structures of the plurality of support structures (paragraph [0031] “[p]referably each closed cell is hexagonal in shape … other closed cellular shapes are also possible including square, rectangular, pentagonal etc.”).
Regarding claim 5 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the plurality of support structures are vertical struts arranged to form a truss framework or a lattice pattern that is integrated into the mirror body (see figures 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 6 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein cavities of the plurality of cavities (e.g. 73) are uniform in size throughout the hollow core assembly (see figures 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 11 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the mirror body (e.g. 12) is configured to oscillate about one or more rotational axes (inter alia paragraph [0009] “a hinge structure enabling the mirrored platform to rotate about an axis of rotation above a substrate”), and wherein the plurality of support structures are configured to reduce a dynamic deformation of the mirror body during oscillation of the mirror body about the one or more rotational axes (inherent given sandwich structure, see 112 section above).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moidu US Patent Application Publication 2008/0018975 in view of Yasumura US Patent Application Publication 2018/0314057.
Regarding claim 2 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the plurality of support structures are interconnected to form a polygonal pattern, and wherein the plurality of cavities are polygonal cavities defined in areas between respective support structures of the plurality of support structures (paragraph [0031] “[p]referably each closed cell is hexagonal in shape … other closed cellular shapes are also possible including square, rectangular, pentagonal etc.”).
Moidu does not explicitly disclose a triangular shape.
Yasumura teaches a similar MEMS mirror device (e.g. figure 3 MEMS mirror assembly 300) including a mirror body (e.g. mirror platform 305) with a front/top surface, a back/bottom surface, and a plurality of support structures (e.g. features 335) defining a cavities (e.g. cavities 330) between the front surface and the back surface, wherein said cavities formed by the support structures form a polygonal patterns (e.g. figures 6A-6C mirror platform 605, 635 & 665 with various shaped cavities 610, 640 & 670); and further teaches a pattern of triangular shaped cavity (e.g. paragraph [0041] “mirror platform 605 include walls surrounding an array of triangular cavities 610” see figure 6A) for the purpose of forming a close packed structure which allows for the removal of a relatively large amount of mass to increase the resonant frequency while leaving a lattice of walls that maintain structural integrity while providing a large surface area of mirror platform (paragraphs [0018 & 0041]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the shape of the cavities in the pattern formed by the support structures in the MEMS mirror device as disclosed by Moidu to have a triangular shape as taught by Yasumura for the purpose of forming a close packed structure which allows for the removal of a relatively large amount of mass to increase the resonant frequency while leaving a lattice of walls that maintain structural integrity while providing a large surface area of mirror platform.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moidu US Patent Application Publication 2008/0018975 in view of Miller US Patent Application Publication 2023/0023348.
Regarding claims 7-10 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 1, as set forth above. Moidu does not disclose wherein the plurality of cavities include a first group of cavities arranged in a central section of the hollow core assembly and a second group of cavities are arranged in a peripheral section of the hollow core assembly, wherein cavities of the first group of cavities are smaller in size than cavities of the second group of cavities, as recited in claim 7; or wherein a spacing of the plurality of support structures has a higher density in a central area of the mirror body than a relatively lower density in a peripheral area of the mirror body, as recited in claim 8; or wherein the hollow core assembly has a higher mass in a central area of the mirror body than a relatively lower mass in a peripheral area of the mirror body, as recited in claim 9; or wherein cavities of the plurality of cavities arranged in a central area of the mirror body have smaller volumes relative to volumes of cavities of the plurality of cavities arranged in a peripheral area of the mirror body, as recited in claim 10.
Miller teaches a similar MEMS mirror device (e.g. figure 3, 4B & 5R actuator 300) including a mirror body (e.g. mirror platform 305) with a front/top surface, a back/bottom surface, and a plurality of support structures (e.g. separations 412) defining a cavities (e.g. recessed areas 410) between the front surface and the back surface; and further teaches a first group of cavities arranged in a central section (e.g. the 6 triangular recesses and their defining structures/ribs seen in the center of figure 4B) and a second group of cavities are arranged in a peripheral section of the hollow core assembly (e.g. outer recesses seen in figure 4B), wherein cavities of the first group of cavities are smaller in size with smaller volumes than cavities of the second group of cavities (see figure 4B), the central area has a higher mass and density than the outer area (see figure 4B) for the purpose of having a symmetrical pattern (paragraph [0055]) which reduces the moment of inertia and thereby increasing the resonant frequency (paragraphs [0004. 0033 & 0037]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the shape of the cavities in the pattern formed by the support structures in the MEMS mirror device as disclosed by Moidu to have smaller volume cavities/more mass from structure/higher density in the center area of the mirror body than in a perpherial area as taught by Miller for the purpose of having a symmetrical pattern which reduces the moment of inertia and thereby increasing the resonant frequency.
Claims 12-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moidu US Patent Application Publication 2008/0018975 with evidence of certain facts provided by Dickensheets et al. “Microfabricated biaxial electrostatic torsional scanning mirror” Proceedings Volume 3009, pp 141-150, 2000.
Regarding claims 12-14 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claims 11 and 1, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to enable the mirror body to oscillate with reduced inertia and reduced dynamic deformation (inherent given sandwich structure, see 112 section above), as required by claim 14.
Moidu does not disclose the MEMS device has a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz, the understood limitations required by claim 12 and 14; or the MEMS device has a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz with a maximum amplitude that is greater than 10° the understood limitations required by claim 13. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Moidu has a MEMS device with a sandwich structure with a front plate a back plate and a hollow cell structure, fulfilling the general conditions of the claims. One would be motivated to have the MEMS device have a resonant frequency >10 kHz and a max amplitude >10°, for the purpose of meeting engineering/design requirements, such as being used in real time video (as evidenced by Dickensheets introduction 1st paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the MEMS device as disclosed by Moidu to have a resonant frequency >10 kHz and a max amplitude >10° for the purpose of meeting engineering/design requirements, such as being used in real time video.
Regarding claim 15 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 14, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the thickness dimension of the mirror body is between 50-400 µm (using the values in paragraph [0031] thickness is 48 to 72 µm) and each support structure of the plurality of support structures has a width dimension between 5-100 µm (e.g. paragraph [0031] “40 to 60 µm”).
Regarding claim 16 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 14, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein the front plate and the back plate each have a thickness dimension between 1-70 µm (e.g. paragraph [0031] “4 to 6 µm”).
Regarding claim 17 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 14, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein each cavity of the plurality of cavities has a width between 2-400 µm (e.g. paragraph [0031] “40 to 60 µm”).
Regarding claim 18 Moidu discloses the MEMS mirror device of claim 14, as set forth above. Moidu further discloses wherein each support structure of the plurality of support structures has a thickness dimension extending between the front plate and the back plate (e.g. paragraph [0031] “4 to 6 µm”) and a width dimension perpendicular to the thickness dimension (e.g. paragraph [0031] “40 to 60 µm”), and wherein a ratio of the width dimension and the thickness dimension of each support structure is in a range of 1:8 to 1:200 (e.g. paragraph [0031] “one tenth to one fifteenth” i.e. 1:10 to 1:15).
Regarding claim 24 Moidu discloses an oscillator device (title e.g. figures 2a-3 micro-electro-mechanical/MEMS mirror device 11), comprising: a frame (e.g. 15) that defines a frame cavity (see figures 2b-3); a suspension assembly (e.g. 13 & 14); and an oscillator body (e.g. 12) coupled to the frame by the suspension assembly such that the oscillator body is suspended over the frame cavity (see figures 2b-3), wherein the oscillator body is configured to oscillate about one or more rotational axes (inter alia paragraph [0009] “a hinge structure enabling the mirrored platform to rotate about an axis of rotation above a substrate”), wherein the oscillator body comprises a sandwich structure (e.g. 71) that includes a front plate (e.g. 74), a back plate (e.g. 75) arranged opposite to the front plate (see figure 3), and a hollow core (e.g. 72) assembly arranged between the front plate and the back plate (see figure 3), wherein the hollow core assembly includes a plurality of support structures that extend between the front plate and the back plate and define a plurality of cavities between the front plate and the back plate (see figure 3), and wherein the hollow core assembly is configured to reduce a dynamic deformation of the oscillator body during oscillation of the oscillator body about the one or more rotational axes (inherent given sandwich structure, see 112 section above).
Moidu does not disclose the oscillator device has a resonant frequency that is greater than 10 kHz. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Moidu has a MEMS device with a sandwich structure with a front plate a back plate and a hollow cell structure, fulfilling the general conditions of the claims. One would be motivated to have the MEMS device have a resonant frequency >10 kHz for the purpose of meeting engineering/design requirements, such as being used in real time video (as evidenced by Dickensheets introduction 1st paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the oscillator device as disclosed by Moidu to have a resonant frequency >10 kHz for the purpose of meeting engineering/design requirements, such as being used in real time video.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Milanović et al. “Gimbal-Less Monolithic Silicon Actuators for Tip–Tilt–Piston Micromirror Applications” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 10, No. 3, May/June 2004, pp 462-471; in regards to similar mirror bodies with more smaller cavities in the central region, see figure 11.
Hall et al. “Mass reduction patterning of silicon-on-oxide–based micromirrors” J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 15(4), 045501 (Oct–Dec 2016); in regards to similar mirror bodies with different patterns, see figure 9.
Dickensheets et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0139542; in regards to similar MEMS mirrors, see figures 4-6.
Piechocinski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0297428; in regards to similar mirror bodies with different patterns, see figures 4-10
Huang US Patent Application Publication 2023/0403514; in regards to similar MEMS device with more smaller cavities in the central region, see figure 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 24, 2026
1 Evidenced by Hamamatsu “Technical notes: MEMS mirrors” 2023.
Prosecution Insights