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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18930259 filed on 10/29/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in 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.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on provisional application US 63/562720, filed on 03/08/2024.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 2-6, 10-13, 16-19 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.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 recite the claim phrase limitation “the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the torsion hinge relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position” in last three lines of each claim. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be understood and treated, given that it is unclear what is meant by the phrase that mirror in the off position “increases coverage of the torsion hinge relative to a projection aperture”? What is the coverage of the torsion hinge, and how can the coverage of the torsion hinge increase (or alternatively decrease) relative to some projection aperture? Moreover, it is unclear if the projection aperture is part of the MEMS device or if it’s external and/or part of some other external device such as display apparatus, projector or light modulator? Since no structural relationship is recited between the MEMS components and projection aperture, it is unclear how one can assess the above increase of torsion hinge coverage relative to the projection aperture? Lastly, the increase appears to be compared to “a mirror aligned with a center position”, which is further confusing at least because it is unclear if this “mirror” is the same mirror as in the base claim, or if it is another and different mirror? Further it is unclear what is meant as “center position” of this additional mirror, and how does this “a mirror” relate to other recited elements of the claimed MEMS device. Similarly and for the same reasons claim 4, 11 and 17 are indefinite reciting “the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the cantilever hinge relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position”. Further, for the same reasons claim 6, 13 and 19 are indefinite reciting “the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the spring tip relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position”, and similarly and for the same reasons claims 12 and 18 reciting “the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the raised electrode relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position” are also indefinite. For the purposes of examination the above limitations will be treated broadly, such that the structure of DMD MEMS device with torsion hinge (or spring tip or raised electrode) may function in the above manner. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and therefore inherits the same deficiencies.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and therefore inherits 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 1-2, 6-7,9-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (hereafter Wang) US 20100202037 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (i.e. as micro electro mechanical (MEM) device, as digital micromirror device (DMD) e.g. 200, with system for on-chip actuations comprising, see abstract, paragraphs [03-06,13-18, 24-29,33-35]):
a mechanical layer (substrate 220 with driver 250, supporting structures e.g. 204 and vias for micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-18, 24-29]);
a mirror (micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]); and
a mirror via coupling the mechanical layer and the mirror (as mechanical coupling via between 202 and torsion hinge 204, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [24-29]),
wherein the mirror is laterally offset from the mechanical layer in a direction (i.e. as micromirror 202 is laterally offset from mechanical substrate layer 220 with support structures, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]).
In regard to independent claim 9, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (i.e. as micro electro mechanical (MEM) device, as digital micromirror device (DMD) e.g. 200, with system for on-chip actuations comprising, see abstract, paragraphs [03-06,13-18, 24-29,33-35]):
an electrode layer (i.e. as electrodes and connections including driver 250, pixel element 226 on 222 connections and electrodes, 212a,212b, 208, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29], Figs.2, 1,3-4);
a mechanical layer (substrate 220 with driver 250, supporting structures layer with e.g. 204 and vias for micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-18, 24-29]);
hinge vias coupling the electrode layer and the mechanical layer (i.e. as support structures under mechanical layer with hinge 204 and electrode layer 222 with mirror electrode 208 on top of substrate 220, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]);
a mirror (micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]);
a mirror via coupling the mechanical layer and the mirror (as mechanical coupling via between 202 and torsion hinge 204, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [24-29]),
the mirror having a first position when the MEMS device is in an on state, the mirror having a second position when the MEMS device is in an off state (i.e. as MEMS DMD device 200 in array 100, as 200 has “on” and “off” state depending on the state/tilt position of the micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]), and the mirror [[is]] laterally offset from the mechanical layer in a direction (i.e. as micromirror 202 is laterally offset from mechanical substrate layer 220 with support structures, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]).
In regard to independent claim 15, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (i.e. as micro electro mechanical (MEM) device, as digital micromirror device (DMD) e.g. 200, with system for on-chip actuations comprising, see abstract, paragraphs [03-06,13-18, 24-29,33-35]):
an electrode layer (i.e. as electrodes and connections including driver 250, pixel element 226 on 222 connections and electrodes, 212a,212b, 208, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29], Figs.2, 1,3-4);
a mechanical layer (substrate 220 with driver 250, supporting structures layer with e.g. 204 and vias for micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-18, 24-29]);
hinge vias coupling the electrode layer and the mechanical layer (i.e. as support structures under mechanical layer with hinge 204 and electrode layer 222 with mirror electrode 208 on top of substrate 220, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]);
a mirror (micromirror 202, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]); and
a mirror via coupling the mechanical layer and the mirror (as mechanical coupling via between 202 and torsion hinge 204, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [24-29]),
wherein the mirror is laterally offset from the mechanical layer in a direction (i.e. as micromirror 202 is laterally offset from mechanical substrate layer 220 with support structures, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mechanical layer includes a torsion hinge, the mirror has an on position and an off position (as due to functionality of the DMD device 200 in array 100, as 200 has “on” and “off” state depending on the state/tilt position of the micromirror 202 linked by mirror via to torsion hinge on 204, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]), and the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the torsion hinge relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position (as best understood due to 112b issues, as the 200 may function in active “off” state regarding hinge 204 relative to projection aperture, assuming the device includes projector setup, compared to center or neutral mirror and hinge position, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [03,13-14,18, 24-29]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mechanical layer includes a spring tip (as free end parts of support structure 204 with hinge, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [18, 24-29]), the mirror has an on position and an off position (as due to functionality of the DMD device 200 in array 100, as 200 has “on” and “off” state depending on the state/tilt position of the micromirror 202 linked by mirror via to torsion hinge on 204, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]), and the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the spring tip relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position (as best understood due to 112b issues, as the 200 may function in active “off” state tilting and increasing coverage of free end parts of structure 204 on at least one side of the device 200 relative to projection aperture, assuming the device includes projector setup, compared to center or neutral mirror with partially exposed free ends of 204 support structure, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [03,13-14,18, 24-29]).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mirror via is centered relative to the mechanical layer (i.e. as mirror via between 202 and structures 204 is centered relative to at least mechanical layer part with support structures and hinge part 204, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mechanical layer includes a raised electrode (i.e. as raised electrode(s) on support(s) (vias) above address portions of pixel element 226 and electrodes 212a,b as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [24-29]), the mirror has an on position and an off position DMD device 200 in array 100, as 200 has “on” and “off” state depending on the state/tilt position of the micromirror 202 linked by mirror via to hinge on 204, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]), and the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the raised electrode relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position (as best understood due to 112b issues, as the 200 may function in active “off” state tilting and increasing coverage of raised electrode(s) on support via above address portion of 226, 212a(b) on at least one side of the device 200 relative to projection aperture, assuming the device includes projector setup, compared to center or neutral mirror with partially exposed free ends of 204 support structure, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [03,13-14,18, 24-29]).
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.
Claims 4-5, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereafter Wang) US 20100202037 A1 in view of Hamlin et al. (hereafter Hamlin) US 20240067519 A1.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mechanical layer includes a hinge, and regarding claim 17 spring tip, the mirror has an on position and an off position (as due to functionality of the DMD device 200 in array 100, as 200 has “on” and “off” state depending on the state/tilt position of the micromirror 202 linked by mirror via to torsion hinge on 204, where layer with 204 includes free end parts, tips of support structure 204 as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [13-14,18, 24-29]), and the mirror in the off position increases coverage of the torsion hinge relative to a projection aperture compared to a mirror aligned with a center position (as best understood due to 112b issues, as the 200 may function in active “off” state regarding hinge 204 relative to projection aperture, assuming the device includes projector setup, compared to center or neutral mirror and hinge position, as depicted in Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [03,13-14,18, 24-29]).
Wang thus discloses the claimed invention except that torsion hinge is used instead of cantilever hinge. However, Hamlin shows that torsion hinge is an equivalent structure in the art to cantilever hinge (see MEMS DMD device 400 with cantilever 408 hinge used for mirror post/via 410 of mirror 412, which is equivalent to MEMS DMD 600 having torsion (twist) hinge 615, see Figs. 4, 6, paragraphs [54-62, 64-68]). Therefore, because these two hinge examples were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute torsion hinge for cantilever, and thereby also provide for fine tuning of the shape of the cantilever to determine the position of the mirror plate (see e.g. paragraphs [56,59]; (See MPEP §2144.06)).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mirror is laterally offset along the direction by at least 0.225um relative to the center position at least 0.225um (i.e. due to 112b issue above, as micromirror 202 have size or pitch of 11 micrometers or less or 17 micrometers or less, the micromirror is laterally offset from center position at least by the above amount with support structures and some center position, as depicted in Fig. 2, see abstract, paragraphs [05, 26,29]).
However, in the case that the above range is not clearly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the lateral offset of the mirror relative to a center position into the above range in order to provide packaged micromirrors of a spatial light modulator with common substrate and on-chip actuation (see e.g. abstract, paragraphs [01,05,13-14]), and since 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).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereafter Wang) US 20100202037 A1 in view of Hamlin et al. (hereafter Hamlin) US 20240067519 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mirror is laterally offset along the direction by at least 0.15um relative to the center position at least 0.225um (i.e. due to 112b issue above, as micromirror 202 have size or pitch of 11 micrometers or less or 17 micrometers or less, the micromirror is laterally offset from center position at least by the above amount with support structures and some center position, as depicted in Fig. 2, see abstract, paragraphs [05, 26,29]).
However, in the case that the above range is not clearly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the lateral offset of the mirror relative to a center position into the above range in order to provide packaged micromirrors of a spatial light modulator with common substrate and on-chip actuation (see e.g. abstract, paragraphs [01,05,13-14]), and since 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).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches (see Figs. 1-3) that the mirror has sculpted edges (i.e. as DMD 200 has mirror 202 with sculpted, edges e.g. in a form of a rectangle or square, Fig. 2, paragraphs [24-29, 35] . However, if certain specific sculpted edge shape or form is desired, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust and modify the mirror edges into desired sculpted form, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of MEMS DMD mirror edge to desired shape or form for the purpose of providing such packaged micromirrors of a spatial light modulator with common substrate and on-chip actuation (see e.g. abstract, paragraphs [01,05,13-14]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hamlin et al. (noted above) US 20240067519 A1 also discloses features of instant invention (see Figs. 1-6 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights