DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract
The abstract filed 08/16/2024 appears to be NOT acceptable.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 3 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mlcak et al. (US 20030119220 A1, hereinafter Mlcak’220).
Regarding independent claim 3, Mlcak’220 teaches, “A method of fabricating a micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) structure (fig. 1-10; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0050]), the method comprising:
laminating an intermediate conductive layer (54, fig. 7) of an electromechanical layer of the MEMS structure (56) to a structural layer (18a) of a micromechanical structure of the MEMS structure,
the electromechanical layer further comprising an outer conductive layer (22) and a piezoelectric layer (12) between the intermediate conductive layer (54) and the outer conductive layer (22),
the micromechanical structure further comprising a spacing layer (18b) defining a space (16) open to the structural layer (18a),
wherein laminating the intermediate conductive layer (54) to the structural layer (18a) comprises positioning an actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer across the structural layer (18a) from the space (16),
the actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer comprising at least a portion of the intermediate conductive layer (54), at least a portion of the piezoelectric layer (12), and at least a portion of the outer conductive layer (22)”.
Regarding claim 73, Mlcak’220 further teaches, “The method of any one of claims claim 3, further comprising laminating the structural layer (18a) to the spacing layer (18b) before laminating the intermediate conductive layer (54) to the structural layer (18a)”.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 20040029481 A1, hereinafter Gross’481) in view of Pogge et al. (US 20040097002 A1, hereinafter Pogge’002).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gross’481 teaches, “A method of fabricating a micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) structure (‘MEMS’, ¶ [0003], ¶ [0007], ¶ [0011] - ¶ [0015]), the method comprising: aligning a first layer of the MEMS structure with a second layer of the MEMS structure by positioning alignment posts (‘rigid fibers’, ¶ [0007], ‘alignment jig’, ¶ [0012], ‘fixed poles’, ¶ [0014]) through corresponding alignment openings (‘Alignment openings’, ¶ [0007]) in each of the first layer and the second layer; and when the alignment posts are positioned through the corresponding alignment openings, laminating the first layer to the second layer”.
But Gross’481 is silent upon the provision of wherein the first layer is laminated to the second layer.
However, Pogge’002 teaches laminating multiple layers in a MEMS (¶ [0004], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Gross’481 and Pogge’002 to laminate multiple layers in a MEMS according to the teachings of Pogge’002 with a motivation of achieving structural integrity, material optimization, and design flexibility.
Regarding claim 116, Gross’481 modified with Pogge’002 further teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein aligning the first layer with the second layer further comprises overlaying the first layer and the second layer with the alignment posts serving as 3D alignment references (Gross’481, ¶ [0007])”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross’481 and Pogge’002 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Mlcak’220.
Regarding claim 6, Gross’481 modified with Pogge’002 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Gross’481 modified with Pogge’002 is silent upon the provision of wherein the method of claim 1, wherein: the first layer comprises an electromechanical layer comprising an intermediate conductive layer, an outer conductive layer, and a piezoelectric layer between the intermediate conductive layer and the outer conductive layer; the second layer comprises a micromechanical structure comprising a structural layer and a spacing layer defining a space open to the structural layer; aligning the first layer with the second layer comprises positioning an actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer across the structural layer from the space, the actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer comprising at least a portion of the intermediate conductive layer, at least a portion of the piezoelectric layer, and at least a portion of the outer conductive layer; and laminating the first layer to the second layer comprises laminating the intermediate conductive layer to the structural layer.
However, Mlcak’220 teaches a MEMS device, wherein the first layer comprises an electromechanical layer comprising an intermediate conductive layer (54), an outer conductive layer (22), and a piezoelectric layer (12, fig. 8) between the intermediate conductive layer (54) and the outer conductive layer (22); the second layer comprises a micromechanical structure comprising a structural layer (18a) and a spacing layer (18b) defining a space (16) open to the structural layer (18a); aligning the first layer with the second layer comprises positioning an actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer across the structural layer from the space, the actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer comprising at least a portion of the intermediate conductive layer, at least a portion of the piezoelectric layer, and at least a portion of the outer conductive layer; and laminating the first layer to the second layer comprises laminating the intermediate conductive layer (54) to the structural layer (18a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Gross’481, Pogge’002 and Mlcak’220 to form according to the teachings of Mlcak’220 with a motivation of achieving ‘micromechanical device with highly reproducible properties and improved functionality that is capable of operating at higher temperatures and in more corrosive environments than previous devices’. See Mlcak’220, ¶ [0004].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-18, 22, 29, 33 and 48 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 4, the prior arts of record do not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: wherein positioning the actuatable portion of the electromechanical layer across the structural layer from the space comprises positioning alignment posts through corresponding alignment openings in each of the electromechanical layer and the micromechanical structure.
Claims 5-18, 22, 29, 33 and 48 are also objected as they depend on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights