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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 (and corresponding dependent claims) is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “(MEMS device” should be changed to --(MEMS) device--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong (US 2006/0238530 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Gong discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (page 5, sections [0046]-[0050], Figures 4A,B) comprising: a hinge (Figures 4A,B, “416”); a spring tip coupled to the hinge (Figures 4A,B, “426”); and a top layer having an edge (Figure 4B, “410”), wherein the edge of the top layer is configured to contact the spring tip (Figure 4B, “410, 426”).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Gong discloses wherein the top layer comprises a mirror (page 5, section [0046], Figure 4B, “410”).
Regarding claim 12, Gong discloses wherein the edge of the top layer is a straight edge over the spring tip.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2006/0238530 A1) in view of Anderson et al (US 2002/0186449 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Gong discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (page 3, section [0035] – page 4, section [0037], Figure 3A) comprising: a hinge (Figure 3A, “316”); a spring tip (Figure 3A, “326”); and a top layer comprising a top surface (Figure 3A, “304”), but does not specifically disclose said top layer comprising a recessed shelf coupled to the hinge.
Within the same field of endeavor, Anderson et al teaches wherein it is desirable in MEMs devices for top layers to comprise a recessed shelf coupled to a hinge for the purpose of permitting the micromirror structural film (i.e. top layer) to be considerably shortened (page 3, sections [0032]-[0033], Figures 2A-C, “212”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the top layer of Gong to comprise a recessed shelf coupled to the hinge since Anderson et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of permitting the micromirror structural film (i.e. top layer) to be considerably shortened.
Regarding claim 3, Gong discloses said MEMS device comprising a raised electrode (page 5, section [0059], Figure 18, “128, 130”).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson et al further teaches wherein the top surface is a reflective surface of a mirror (page 3, section [0032], Figures 2A-C, “216”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 14-20: a method of manufacturing a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device as claimed, specifically comprising: depositing a second spacer material on a first metal layer; forming an opening on in the second spacer material; depositing a second metal layer on the second spacer material; patterning the second metal layer; depositing a third spacer material on the second metal layer; etching the third spacer material; depositing a third metal layer on the third spacer material and the second metal layer; patterning the third metal layer; and removing the first spacer material, the second spacer material, and the third spacer material.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 13 are 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: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 2: a MEMs device as claimed, specifically wherein the recessed shelf is configured to contact the spring tip.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 4 and 5: a MEMs device as claimed, specifically wherein the recessed shelf is configured to contact the spring tip with an edge having a radius of curvature (ROC) of less than 50 nanometers.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 7: a MEMs device as claimed, specifically wherein the reflective surface of the mirror extends beyond an edge of the recessed shelf.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 8: a MEMs device as claimed, specifically wherein the recessed shelf comprises an aluminum alloy, an oxide, or a nitride.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 11: a MEMs device as claimed, specifically wherein the top layer has a notch at the edge.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 13: a MEMs device as claimed, specifically wherein the spring tip has a bend, and wherein an end of the spring tip expends past the edge of the top layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sheng et al (US 2019/0268563 A1) and Payne et al (US 2019/0204587 A1) disclose MEMS devices comprising hinges, spring tips, and top layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights