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 Interpretation
Claim(s) 1-20 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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 1-20 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 1-20]
Claims 1, 11 and 18 various recite “control a precision position of the moving stage relative to the fixed stage”.
The term “precise” in these claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “precise” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the claims require an amount of precision in the controlled position, but neither the claims nor the specification describes the particular amount of precision required. For example, a control system may be designed to repeat a specific position within a range of ± 5mm. Another more precise system may be designed to repeat the specific position within a range of ± 1mm.
Therefore, as the required precision for the “control a precise position” is not defined, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of which control systems “control a precise position” and which control systems control position, but not a “precise position” as required by the claims.
For the purposes of applying prior art, the claims will be read as requiring “control a position of the moving stage relative to the fixed stage” and it is suggested that the claims be so amended to overcome this rejection.
Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are similarly rejected for their dependence on claim 1, 11 or 18.
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 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0084381 A1) in view of Ba-Tis et al. (US 10,582,100 B1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) piezoelectric autofocus actuator comprising:
a fixed stage that is stationary (e.g. Figure 7, frame 260; Paragraph 0057);
a moving stage that is movable along a travel direction (Z-axis) (Figure 7, movable stage 262);
a plurality of piezoelectric bending elements configured to deform the motion control system and thereby control a precise position of the moving stage relative to the fixed stage (Figure 7, MEMS actuator 258; Paragraphs 0057-0058); and
a plurality of integrated piezoelectric motion stops that are actuatable to restrict out-of-plane motion of the moving stage along the travel direction (Z-axis) (Figure 9, locking assemblies 354; Paragraphs 0064-0067).
Liu does not disclose a plurality of integrated piezoelectric motion stops that are actuatable to restrict out-of-plane motion of the moving stage along the travel direction (Z-axis).
Ba-Tis teaches a similar actuator including a motion control system comprising a plurality of motion control springs arranged to couple a fixed frame and a moving frame (Figure 1D, Mechanical springs of the outer rotor 421). Ba-Tis discloses that the use of springs which are compliant/elastic along the out-of-plane direction (z) and highly stiff along the in-plane axes (x and y) which would control motion along the in-plane axes (c. 3, ll. 19-31) which enables better performance when achieving autofocus (c. 3, ll. 32-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide springs as taught by Ba-Tis to control motion in the in-plane direction and achieve better autofocus performance.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the integrated piezoelectric motion stops are disposed along outer peripheral edges of the fixed stage (Figure 9; note the stops are formed along out edges of fixed stage 350/352; Paragraph 0066).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the fixed stage comprises a MEMS outer frame and a MEMS inner frame (e.g. Figure 1, outer frame: recess of circuit board 12 holding inner frame: fixed frame 30; Paragraphs 0027, 0030; note that the claim as written does not define the shape or arrangement of the outer and inner frames).[claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a plurality of MEMS electrical connection flexures connecting the fixed stage to the moving stage (Figure 3, 32; Paragraph 0032); wherein the plurality of piezoelectric bending elements include a plurality of MEMS piezoelectric bending films (Paragraphs 0057-0052; multi-morph piezoelectric actuator).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.[claims 4-9]
Regarding claims 4-9, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the MEMS piezoelectric autofocus actuator of claim 3, wherein the integrated piezoelectric motion stops comprise: a motion stop subframe, wherein the motion stop subframe is integrated with the MEMS outer frame of the fixed stage; a deployment lock spring connected to the motion stop subframe; a deployment lock connected to the deployment lock spring; a deployment hinge disposed on the motion stop subframe; a deployment pad that is rotatable about the deployment hinge to a deployed position; one or more piezoelectric hinges connected to the deployment pad; and a locking block connected to the one or more piezoelectric hinges, wherein the locking block is actuatable via the one or more piezoelectric hinges to restrict the out-of-plane motion of the moving stage when in the deployed position.[claims 11-17]
Regarding claims 11-17, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) piezoelectric autofocus actuator comprising: a fixed stage that is stationary; a moving stage that is movable along a travel direction (Z-axis), wherein the moving stage has a plurality of assembly slots disposed thereon; a motion control system coupling the fixed stage to the moving stage and comprising a plurality of motion control springs; a plurality of piezoelectric bending elements configured to deform the motion control system and thereby control a precise position of the moving stage relative to the fixed stage; a plurality of integrated motion limiting snubbers configured to limit in-plane motion of the moving stage; a plurality of integrated motion stoppers configured to restrict out-of-plane motion of the moving stage along the travel direction (Z-axis); and a plurality of assembled motion stoppers disposed in the plurality of assembly slots and configured to restrict out-of-plane motion of the moving stage along the travel direction (Z-axis).[claims 18-20]
Regarding claims 18-20, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) piezoelectric autofocus actuator comprising: a fixed stage that is stationary; a moving stage that is movable along a travel direction (Z-axis); a motion control system coupling the fixed stage to the moving stage and comprising a plurality of motion control springs; a plurality of piezoelectric bending elements configured to deform the motion control system and thereby control a precise position of the moving stage relative to the fixed stage; an alignment substrate having a plurality of assembly slots; and a plurality of assembled piezoelectric motion stops disposed in the plurality of assembly slots of the alignment substrate, wherein the assembled piezoelectric motion stops are configured to be actuated to restrict out-of-plane motion of the moving stage along the travel direction (Z-axis) thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references show additional prior art systems for MEMS actuators:
Gutierrez US 2016/0227117 A1
Park et al. US 2007/0290572 A1
Makii US 2006/0215283 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639