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.
Claim 4 is 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 reads in part, “wherein a surface of the first plate away from the first plate is reflective.” It is unclear how the first plate can be away from itself, and whether it is intended to mean a surface of the plate or another surface entirely. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as meaning a surface away from the first plate is reflective.
Claim 4 has no dependent claims to inherit these 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kartashov (US 20200249466 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kartashov discloses an optical micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) unit (Fig. 1, para. 172), comprising: a MEMS tip-tilt actuator; a polymer layer (Fig. 1, transparent deformable lens body 107, para. 119) disposed on at least a portion of the MEMS tip-tilt actuator; and a first plate (Fig. 1, transparent back window 106, para. 172) disposed on the polymer layer oppositely to the MEMS tip-tilt actuator; wherein the MEMS tip-tilt actuator comprises: an outer frame that is fixed (support structure 101); a second plate that is movable (bendable cover member 102); a motion control structure (sidewall 112) between the outer frame and the second plate; and a bending film (piezoelectric actuators 103-105) configured to deform the motion control structure and thereby control a precise position of the second plate.
Regarding claim 3, Kartashov further discloses the outer frame as fixed to an external fixture (Kartashov discloses optical element can be installed in a final application device, para. 120), and the second plate is movable with respect to the outer frame (Fig. 1, para. 24 and 49).
Regarding claim 5, Kartashov further discloses the bending film as comprising a multi-morphic thin film (piezoelectric actuator 103) including a piezoelectric material that is controllable by applying an electric field to generate actuation torque and bend the multi-morphic thin film, and thereby control tipping or tilting motion of the second plate in tip-tilt mode (see Fig. 1, para. 24).
Regarding claim 6, Kartashov further discloses the bending film as comprising: an active outer thin film (piezoelectric actuator 105) connecting (through attachment to the bendable cover member 102 and piezoelectric actuators 103-104, see Fig. 1) the motion control structure and the outer frame; and an inner thin film (103) connecting (through attachment to the bendable cover member 102, see Fig. 1) the motion control structure and the second plate (para. 172).
Regarding claim 7, Kartashov further discloses the active outer thin film as comprising a piezoelectric material (piezoelectric actuator 104) that is controllable by applying an electric field to generate the actuation torque and bend the active outer thin film, and thereby control tipping or tilting motion of the second plate in tip-tilt mode (see Fig. 1, para. 24).
Regarding claim 9, Kartashov further discloses the motion control structure comprises a set of flexurized mechanical connections (Kartashov discloses structure elements may be added; para. 82) configured to release strains and/or constrain unwanted motion of the second plate.
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.
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartashov (US 20200249466 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the device as previously described above for claim 1 discloses the first plate as transparent (transparent back window 106, para. 173), the polymer layer is also transparent (transparent deformable lens body 107).
The device as previously described above for claim 1 fails to disclose a surface of the second plate facing the first plate is reflective (para. 89).
Kartashov, however, discloses two sides of the second plate may be reflective (Fig. 7, para. 89 and 192).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the second surface of the device as previously described above for claim 1 to have at least the surface facing the first plate as reflective. One would have been motivated to do so to reduce chromatic aberration of the MEMS device (para. 90).
Regarding claim 4, the device as previously described above for claim 2 discloses a surface of the second plate away from the first plate is reflective.
Claims 8, 10-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartashov (US 20200249466 A1) in view of Ko (US 20210294112 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the device of as previously described for claim 7 discloses all of the claim limitations except for the active outer film further comprising a piezoresistive thin film layer to act as a strain gauge for sensing an amount of deformation of the active outer film, and enabling a determination to be made based thereon regarding how much to tip and/or tilt the second plate in the tip-tilt mode.
Ko, however, teaches a MEMS Device (200, Fig. 2) consisting of piezoresistive thin film layers (piezo films 208) configured to accurately determine the pitch and yaw of the micromirror (para. 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the MEMS device of Kartashov to include the piezoresistive thin film layers of Ko. One would have been motivated to include the piezoresistive thin film layers of Ko into the device of Kartashov to gauge the amount of deformation of the second plate.
Regarding claim 10, Kartashov discloses all of the claim limitations except for the MEMS tip-tilt actuator as further comprising: snubbing pads extending from outer corners of the second plate, and aligned with corresponding inner corners of the outer frame, to limit motion of the second plate.
Ko, however, teaches snubbing pads (see Fig. 1, corners of MEMS platform 104) extending from outer corners of the second plate (MEMS platform 104), aligned with corresponding inner corners of the outer frame(MEMS stationary frame 102, see Fig. 1), to limit motion of the second plate (Ko discloses the MEMS platform 104 as rotational coupled to stationary frame 102, reasonably suggesting limited motion of the second plate; para. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the MEMS device of Kartashov to include snubbing pads of Ko on the second plate. One would have been motivated to include the snubbing pads of Ko to confine movement of the second plate to desirable ranges.
Regarding independent claim 11, Kartashov discloses an optical micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) unit (Fig. 1, para. 172) comprising: a MEMS tip-tilt actuator; a polymer layer (Fig. 1, transparent deformable lens body 107, para. 119) disposed on at least a portion of the MEMS tip-tilt actuator; and a first plate (Fig. 1, transparent back window 106, para. 172) disposed on the polymer layer oppositely to the MEMS tip-tilt actuator; wherein the MEMS tip-tilt actuator comprises: an outer frame that is fixed (support structure 101); a second plate that is movable (bendable cover member 102); a motion control structure (sidewall 112) between the outer frame and the second plate; and a bending film (piezoelectric actuators 103-105) configured to deform the motion control structure and thereby control a precise position of the second plate.
Kartashov appears silent about the devices that the MEMS device could be used in (para. 111) and thus, fails to explicitly disclose an optical system comprising an imager and a lens group.
However, Ko teaches an optical system (Fig. 5, electronic device 500, para. 29) comprising and imager (Image sensor module 506) and a lens group (Folded zoom camera 504).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to include the MEMS system of Kartashov in the optical system of Ko. One would have been motivated to incorporate the MEMS device of Kartashov in the device of Ko to decrease the total wavefront error (para. 17 of Kartashov).
Regarding claim 12, the device as previously described for claim 11 discloses the first plate as transparent (transparent back window 106, para. 173) and the polymer layer is also transparent (transparent deformable lens body 107).
The device as previously described above for claim 11 fails to disclose a surface of the second plate facing the first plate is reflective (para. 89).
Kartashov, however, discloses two sides of the second plate may be reflective (Fig. 7, para. 89 and 192).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the second surface of the device as previously described above for claim 11 to have at least the surface facing the first plate as reflective. One would have been motivated to do so to reduce chromatic aberration of the MEMS device (para. 90).
Regarding claim 13, the device as previously described for claim 11 would have rendered obvious the outer frame as fixed to an external fixture (Kartashov discloses optical element can be installed in a final application device, para. 120; see Fig. 5 of Ko), and the second plate is movable respect to the outer frame (Fig. 1, para. 24 and 49).
Regarding claim 15, the device as previously described for claim 11 would have rendered obvious the bending film as comprising a multi-morphic thin film (piezoelectric actuator 103) including a piezoelectric material that is controllable by applying an electric field to generate actuation torque and bend the multi-morphic thin film, and thereby control tipping or tilting motion of the second plate in tip-tilt mode (see Fig. 1, para. 24).
Regarding claim 16, the device as previously described for claim 11 would have rendered obvious the bending film as comprising: an active outer thin film (piezoelectric actuator 105) connecting (through attachment to the bendable cover member 102 and piezoelectric actuators 103-104, see Fig. 1) the motion control structure and the outer frame; and an inner thin film (103) connecting (through attachment to the bendable cover member 102, see Fig. 1) the motion control structure and the second plate (para. 172).
Regarding claim 17, the device as previously described for claim 16 would have rendered obvious the active outer thin film comprises a piezoelectric material (piezoelectric actuator 104) that is controllable by applying an electric field to generate actuation torque and bend the active outer thin film, and thereby control tipping or tilting motion of the second plate in tip-tilt mode (see Fig. 1, para. 24).
Regarding claim 18, the device as previously described for claim 17 discloses all claim limitations except for the active outer film further comprising a piezoresistive thin film layer to act as a strain gauge for sensing an amount of deformation of the active outer film, and enabling a determination to be made based thereon regarding how much to tip and/or tilt the second plate in the tip-tilt mode.
Ko, however, teaches a MEMS Device (200, Fig. 2) consisting of piezoresistive thin film layers (piezo films 208) configured to accurately determine the pitch and yaw of the micromirror (para. 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device as previously described for claim 17 to include the piezoresistive thin film layers of Ko. One would have been motivated to include the piezoresistive thin film layers of Ko into the device of Kartashov to gauge the amount of deformation of the second plate.
Regarding claim 19, the device as previously described for claim 11 would have rendered obvious the motion control structure as comprising a set of flexurized mechanical connections (Kartashov discloses structure elements may be added; para. 82) configured to release strains and/or constrain unwanted motion of the second plate.
Regarding claim 20, the device as previously described for claim 11 would have rendered obvious the MEMS tip-tilt actuator enables optical image stabilization (OIS) by controlling movement of the second plate in the tip-tilt mode to adjust an angle of light reflected from a reflective surface of the second plate towards the lens group, and thereby move an image on the imager to compensate for shaking of the optical system. Ko teaches how a MEMS device of the optical system may be used as an OIS (para. 25).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nystrom (US 20200341236 A1) in view of Ko (US 20210294112 A1).
Regarding independent claim 11, Nystrom discloses an optical micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) unit (Figs. 2-4, resonant scanning mirror system 200, para. 13) comprising: a MEMS tip-tilt actuator; a polymer layer (adhesive 205) disposed on at least a portion of the MEMS tip-tilt actuator; and a first plate (mirror structure 202) disposed on the polymer layer oppositely to the MEMS tip-tilt actuator; wherein the MEMS tip-tilt actuator comprises: an outer frame that is fixed (substrate 216); a second plate that is movable (frame 204); a motion control structure (mounts 218a-b) between the outer frame and the second plate; and a bending film (piezoelectric actuators 206a-d) configured to deform the motion control structure and thereby control a precise position of the second plate.
Nystrom fails to explicitly disclose an optical system comprising an imager and a lens group.
However, Ko teaches an optical system (Fig. 5, electronic device 500, para. 29) comprising and imager (Image sensor module 506) and a lens group (Folded zoom camera 504).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to include the MEMS system of Nystrom in the optical system of Ko. One would have been motivated to incorporate the MEMS device of Nystrom in the device of Ko to benefit from the response time of piezoelectric actuators.
Regarding claim 14, the device as previously described above would have rendered obvious a surface of the first plate facing away from the second plate as reflective (see Fig. 2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS FELIX RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-0652. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900 - 1700.
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.
/Francis F Rivera/ Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/MICHAEL H CALEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
