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 § 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 4, 5, 8, and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each static comb finger" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no other reference to a “static comb finger” in the claims. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, this limitation will be treated as if reciting --each stator comb finger--.
Claims 5, 8, and 10 depend from claim 4 and inherit its 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liukku et al. (US 2016/0264401).
With regard to claim 1, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, a MEMS structure comprising: a stator (30a) including a stator element (5a) and a row of stator comb fingers (6) that extend away from the stator element in a y-direction (negative x-direction indicated in figure); and a rotor (15) including a rotor element (7a) and a row of rotor comb fingers (8) that extend away from the rotor element in a direction that is opposite to the y-direction (x-direction indicated in figure), wherein the stator comb fingers are interdigitated with the rotor comb fingers, and form an interdigitated row, and each pair of adjacent stator comb finger and rotor comb finger are separated from each other by a x-gap in a x-direction (y-direction indicated in figure) that is perpendicular to the y-direction (see figure).
With regard to claim 2, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that the interdigitated row includes an end portion (portion closer to main portion of 30a) and a central portion (remaining portion), wherein the central portion and the end portion are next to each other.
With regard to claim 3, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that each x-gap includes a width, and wherein the respective widths of the x-gaps in the central portion have a constant value (taking widths between elements 1 and 3), and the widths of the x-gaps gradually decrease in the end portion of the interdigitated row so that the width of an endmost x-gap in the end portion of the interdigitated row is a largest width (taking widths between elements 8 and 6).
With regard to claim 4, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that each static comb finger and the opposite rotor element are separate from each other by a first y-gap in the y-direction, and each rotor comb finger and the opposite stator element are separated from each other by a second y-gap in the y-direction (see figure).
With regard to claim 6, Liukku teaches, in Figs 4 and 11, that the interdigitated row further includes a second end portion with at least two last pairs of the adjacent stator comb fingers and rotor comb fingers, and wherein the second end portion is next to the central portion (see figure 11 for sufficient pairs of fingers demonstrated).
With regard to claim 7, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that each x-gap includes a width, and wherein the respective widths of the x-gaps gradually decrease in the second end portion of the interdigitated row so that the width of an endmost x-gap in the second end portion of the interdigitated row is a largest width (taking widths between elements 8 and 6).
With regard to claim 11, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, a MEMS structure comprising: a stator (30a) including a stator element (5a) and at least one stator comb plate (6) that extends away from the stator element in a y-direction (negative x-direction indicated in figure); and a rotor (15) includes a rotor element (7a) and at least one rotor comb plate (8) that extends away from the rotor element in a direction that is opposite to the y-direction (x-direction indicated in figure), wherein the stator comb plate and the rotor comb plate are parallel to each other, the stator comb plate and the rotor comb plate form a parallel plates structure, and wherein the stator comb plate and the rotor comb plate are separated from each other by a x-gap in a x-direction (y-direction indicated in figure) that is perpendicular to the y-direction (see figure).
With regard to claim 12, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that the parallel plates structure includes a first end portion (portion closer to main portion of 30a) that comprises at least an end of the stator comb plate.
With regard to claim 13, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that the parallel plates structure further include a second end portion (portion closer to 2c) that comprises at least an end of the rotor comb plate.
With regard to claim 14, Liukku teaches, in Figs 4 and 11, that the parallel plates structure further includes a central portion that comprises areas of the parallel plates structure between the respective ends of the stator and the rotor, and the central portion is between the first end portion and the second end portion (see figures).
With regard to claim 15, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that the x-gap includes a width, and wherein the width of the x-gap in the central portion has a constant value (taking widths between elements 1 and 3).
With regard to claim 16, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that the width of the x-gap in the first end portion gradually decreases, such that the width of the x-gap in the first end portion is a largest where the rotor comb plate is attached to the rotor element (taking widths between elements 8 and 6).
With regard to claim 17, Liukku teaches, in Fig 4, that the width of the x-gap in the second end portion gradually decreases, such that the width of the x-gap in the second end portion is the largest where the stator comb plate is attached to the stator element (taking widths between elements 8 and 6).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liukku et al. (US 2016/0264401) in view of Chong et al. (US 2024/0336474).
With regard to claim 5, Liukku teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 4.
Liukku does not explicitly teach that each y-gap includes a width, and wherein the respective widths of the first and the second y-gaps gradually decrease in the end portion of the interdigitated row, such that the width of an endmost first or second y-gaps in the end portion of the interdigitated row is the largest, and wherein widths of the first and the second y-gaps have a constant value in the central portion of the interdigitated row.
Chong teaches, in Fig 3, that each y-gap includes a width (distance between fingers and opposite main bodies of 31 and 32), and wherein the respective widths of the first and the second y-gaps gradually decrease in the end portion of the interdigitated row, such that the width of an endmost first or second y-gaps in the end portion of the interdigitated row is the largest, and wherein widths of the first and the second y-gaps have a constant value in the central portion of the interdigitated row (see figure), “to reduce the size and manufacturing cost of the inertial sensor while improving precision of the inertial sensor,” ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the structure of Liukku with the arrangement of Chong to reduce the size and manufacturing cost of the inertial sensor while improving precision of the inertial sensor.
With regard to claim 8, Chong teaches, in Fig 3, that the widths of the first and the second y-gaps gradually decreases in the second end portion of the interdigitated row, so that the width of the endmost first or second y-gap in the second end portion of the interdigitated row is the largest (see figures).
With regard to claim 10, Liukku/Chong teach(es) most aspects of the instant invention (see above with regard to claim 5). However, Liukku/Chong does not explicitly teach that a ratio between the largest and a smallest widths of the first and the second y-gap is more than 125%. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the width of the y-gaps would impact the electrical properties of the MEMS.
The specific claimed ratio, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” ratio disclosed by Liukku/Chong that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired electrical properties, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the a ratio between the largest and a smallest widths of the first and the second y-gap of more than 125% is used, as already suggested by Liukku/Chong.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the ratio stated and since these ratios are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Liukku/Chong.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ratio or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liukku et al. (US 2016/0264401).
With regard to claim 9, Liukku teach(es) most aspects of the instant invention (see above with regard to claim 3). However, Liukku does not explicitly teach that a ratio between the largest and a smallest widths of the x-gap is more than 125% Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the width of the x-gaps would impact the electrical properties of the MEMS.
The specific claimed ratio, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” ratio disclosed by Liukku that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired electrical properties, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the a ratio between the largest and a smallest widths of the x-gap of more than 125% is used, as already suggested by Liukku.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the ratio stated and since these ratios are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Liukku.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ratio or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights