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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0023] a non-English character appears unexpectedly in the first line following reference numeral 21B.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–13 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.
Regarding Claim 1 (and Claims 2–13 through their dependence thereon), the description of “wing-shaped” for the actuators is unclear. The term does not appear to be a term of art (though evidence to the contrary will be considered). The drawings illustrate what appears to be a thin, flat, planar portion for the actuators, illustrated as comprising two symmetrical quarter arc portions, spreading in width from a central portion (e.g., Fig. 1A). The actuators do not appear to have shape characteristics of, for example, an airplane wing. Accordingly, it is unclear how the descriptive “wing-shaped” should be interpreted. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted to mean a thin, flat, planar portion or portions.
Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–4, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0249467 to Grutzeck et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Grutzeck discloses (e.g., Figs. 1A–E and their description) an actuating device comprising: a micro-mirror 10 swinging around an axial line (e.g., x or y axis); and two wing-shaped actuators (e.g., 2a/3a and 2b/3b) encompassing the micro-mirror, wherein each of the two wing-shaped actuators comprising: two actuating units which are separate from each other and are respectively disposed on two sides of the axial line (e.g., 2a/3a and 2b/3b), wherein there is an interval between the two actuating units (e.g., cutout AS); a supporting part (e.g., extensions 6a or 7a, Fig. 1d), wherein at least one part of the supporting part is disposed in the interval and is connected to the two actuating units (Figs. 1a and 1d); and a torsional part (e.g., 4a/b and 5a/b), wherein at least one part of the torsional part is disposed in the interval and is connected to the supporting part and the micro-mirror (Figs. 1a and 1d); wherein, each of the four actuating units receives a driving signal to drive the micro-mirror to swing (where Grutzeck teaches piezoelectric drive devices 81a/b and 82a/b associated with pivoting vane devices 2a/b and 3a/b; and teaches that piezoelectric layers activate through applied voltage, paragraph [0003], and in another embodiment voltages are applied to the pivoting vane devices, paragraph [0075], all reasonably suggesting that each of the four actuating units receives a driving signal to drive the micro-mirror to swing).
Regarding Claim 2, Grutzeck would have rendered obvious wherein the driving signals received by the actuating units on the same side of the axial line are same (where selecting the desired driving signals would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results based on the driving of the piezoelectric actuator, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 3, Grutzeck would have rendered obvious wherein a phase difference of the driving signals received by the two actuating units of each of the two wing-shaped actuators is 180 degrees (e.g., paragraph [0075]; also where selecting the desired driving signals would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results based on the driving of the piezoelectric actuator, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 4, Grutzeck would have rendered obvious wherein the two actuating units of each of the two wing-shaped actuators are symmetrically disposed with respect to the micro-mirror (where the exact shapes do not appear symmetric, though their placement is symmetric; further, where selecting the desired shape of the actuators would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 9, Grutzeck would have rendered obvious wherein a width of the supporting part is greater than a width of the torsional part (e.g., Fig. 1d).
Regarding Claim 12, Grutzeck would have rendered obvious wherein the two wing-shaped actuators are separate (Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 13, Grutzeck would have rendered obvious wherein a swinging level of the micro-mirror is greater than swinging levels of the two wing-shaped actuators (where Grutzeck does not explicitly disclose the specific swinging levels or angular displacement of the components, but designing the device to have desired angular displacement or swinging levels based on design needs, such as speed or needed angular sweep would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality of the claim feature or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutzeck in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0137756 to Yao et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Grutzeck appears silent regarding further constructional details, such that Grutzeck does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the four actuating units comprises a first substrate, a first electrode, a piezoelectric material layer and a second electrode, the first electrode is disposed on the first substrate, the piezoelectric material layer is disposed on the first electrode, and the second electrode is disposed on the piezoelectric material layer.
Yao discloses a MEMS micromirror unit, and teaches that the actuating units may include a substrate, and a piezoelectric material sandwiched between two electrodes on the substrate, as a suitable configuration (e.g., paragraph [0010]; also Claim 18 of Yao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Grutzeck such that each of the four actuating units comprises a first substrate, a first electrode, a piezoelectric material layer and a second electrode, the first electrode is disposed on the first substrate, the piezoelectric material layer is disposed on the first electrode, and the second electrode is disposed on the piezoelectric material layer, as suggested by Yao as a suitable configuration for actuating units of a MEMS micromirror device (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Grutzeck and Yao would have rendered obvious a driving circuit coupled to the second electrode of the actuating unit to provide the driving signal; the first electrode is coupled to a ground terminal or to a fixed voltage (e.g., paragraph [0032], where the specific voltages are not discussed, but selecting a drive voltage and a ground or common voltage would have been obvious as a known and typical arrangement, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 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, and subject to the §112 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights