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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadlec et al., US20230082203 (hereinafter referred to as Kadlec) and in view of Fitzgerald et al., US20160006241 (hereinafter referred to as Fitzgerald).
In regards to Claim 1, Kadlec teaches a circuit breaker circuitry (circuit interrupter 50; [Fig. 2B]), comprising: an input terminal (left node, LINE; [Fig. 2B]) and an output terminal (right node, LOAD; [Fig. 2B]); a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) switch (MEMS crossbar relay 51; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected between the input and output terminals (implicit; [Fig. 2B]), and an electrical overstress (EOS) protection device (Overvoltage Protection 54; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected to the MEMS switch between the input and output terminals (implicit; [Fig. 2B]), wherein in response to an EOS event, the EOS protection device is configured to be activated to provide a shunt current path (implicit of a protection device; [0022] & [Fig. 2B]) (Examiner’s Note: Kadlec uses an example of a varistor as an overprotection device which functions to change its resistance and shunt the current through the device limiting the voltage.).
Kadlec does not teach the MEMS switch comprising: a conductive beam pivoted over a substrate by a conductive post to tilt in opposite directions, first and second contact electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and first and second control electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes.
Fitzgerald teaches the MEMS switch (totter switch 100; [Fig. 1A-C]) (MEMS crossbar relay 51, Kadlec) comprising: a conductive beam (beam 102; [Fig. 1A-1C]) pivoted over a substrate (substrate 201; [Fig. 2]) by a conductive post (anchor 104; [Fig. 1A-1C]) to tilt in opposite directions (implicit; [Fig. 1A-1B]), first and second contact electrodes (electrode 121 and 122; [Fig. 1A-1C]) formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post (implicit of 221 & 222; [0032] & [Fig. 2]), and first and second control electrodes (electrode 111 & 112; [0027] & [Fig. 1A-1C]) formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post (implicit of electrodes 211 & 212; [0032] & [Fig. 2]), and wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes (implicit, placement of anchor 204; [Fig. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec in order to incorporate the MEMS switch comprising: a conductive beam pivoted over a substrate by a conductive post to tilt in opposite directions, first and second contact electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and first and second control electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes as taught by Fitzgerald. The motivation for doing so would be to improve on the MEMS switch as taught by Kadlec.
In regards to claim 3, Kadlec & Fitzgerald disclose the claimed invention except for wherein upon activation of the MEMS switch, the conductive beam tilts in a first direction, thereby open circuiting a path between the input terminal and the output terminal, and wherein the EOS protection device has an activation voltage lower than a breakdown voltage between the conductive beam and an open-circuited one of the first and second contact electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to size the EOS protection device to have an activation voltage lower than a breakdown voltage between the conductive beam and an open-circuited one, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 5, Kadlec teaches the circuit breaker circuitry of Claim 1, further comprising a protective switch (solid state switch 53; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected in parallel to the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device (implicit; [Fig. 2B]).
In regards to claim 6, Kadlec & Fitzgerald disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the protective switch comprises a field effect transistor having a breakdown voltage, and wherein the EOS protection device has an activation voltage lower than the breakdown voltage of the field effect transistor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to size the EOS protection device to have an activation voltage lower than a breakdown voltage between of the field effect transistor, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 8, Kadlec teaches wherein the EOS protection device is electrically connected in parallel to the MEMS switch (implicit; [Fig. 2B]) and configured to provide the shunt current path between the input and output terminals (implicit of the Overvoltage Protection Device being directly tied to the input and output terminals; [Fig. 2B]).
Claim(s) 2, 12-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadlec et al., US20230082203 (hereinafter referred to as Kadlec) in view of Fitzgerald et al., US20160006241 (hereinafter referred to as Fitzgerald) and in further view of Donzel et al., US20250112013 (hereinafter referred to as Donzel).
In regards to claim 2, Kadlec and Fitzgerald do not teach wherein the EOS protection device comprises a spark gap structure configured to arc in response to the EOS event.
Donzel teaches wherein the EOS protection device comprises a spark gap (Spark gaps; [0007]) structure configured to arc in response to the EOS event (inherent of a spark gap device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec and Fitzgerald in order to incorporate wherein the EOS protection device comprises a spark gap structure configured to arc in response to the EOS event as taught by Donzel. The spark gap taught by Donzel would be the overvoltage protection device taught by Kadlec. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a well-known overvoltage component that the overvoltage protection may comprise as taught by Kadlec in Para. [0022].
In regards to claim 12, Kadlec teaches a circuit breaker circuitry (circuit interrupter 50; [Fig. 2B]), comprising: an input terminal (left node, LINE; [Fig. 2B]) and an output terminal (right node, LOAD; [Fig. 2B]); a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) switch (MEMS crossbar relay 51; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected between the input and output terminals (implicit; [Fig. 2B]), and a protection device (Overvoltage Protection 54; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected to the MEMS switch (implicit, the Overvoltage Protection 54 is connected in parallel with the MEMS crossbar relay 51; [Fig. 2B]).
Kadlec does not teach the MEMS switch comprising: a conductive beam pivoted over a substrate by a conductive post to tilt in opposite directions, first and second contact electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and first and second control electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes; and the protection device as a spark gap device comprising a pair of conductive arcing electrodes separated by a gap.
Fitzgerald teaches the MEMS switch (totter switch 100; [Fig. 1A-C]) (MEMS crossbar relay 51, Kadlec) comprising: a conductive beam (beam 102; [Fig. 1A-1C]) pivoted over a substrate (substrate 201; [Fig. 2]) by a conductive post (anchor 104; [Fig. 1A-1C]) to tilt in opposite directions (implicit; [Fig. 1A-1B]), first and second contact electrodes (electrode 121 and 122; [Fig. 1A-1C]) formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post (implicit of 221 & 222; [0032] & [Fig. 2]), and first and second control electrodes (electrode 111 & 112; [0027] & [Fig. 1A-1C]) formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post (implicit of electrodes 211 & 212; [0032] & [Fig. 2]), and wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes (implicit, placement of anchor 204; [Fig. 2]).
Fitzgerald does not teach the protection device as a spark gap device (Spark gaps; [0007]) comprising a pair of conductive arcing electrodes (first and second electrodes; [0014]) separated by a gap (gap or cavity; [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec in order to incorporate the MEMS switch comprising: a conductive beam pivoted over a substrate by a conductive post to tilt in opposite directions, first and second contact electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and first and second control electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes as taught by Fitzgerald. The motivation for doing so would be to improve on the MEMS switch as taught by Kadlec.
Donzel teaches the protection device as a spark gap device comprising a pair of conductive arcing electrodes (first and second terminals 11 & 12; [Fig. 1A]) separated by a gap (spark gap 16; [Fig. 1A]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec & Fitzgerald in order to incorporate the protection device as a spark gap device comprising a pair of conductive arcing electrodes separated by a gap as taught by Donzel. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a well-known overvoltage component that the overvoltage protection may comprise as taught by Kadlec in Para. [0022].
In regards to claim 13, Kadlec teaches wherein the spark gap device is electrically connected in parallel to the MEMS switch (implicit; [Fig. 2B]).
Kadlec & Fitzgerald do not teach wherein in response to an EOS event, the spark gap is configured to are to provide a shunt current path between the input and output terminals.
Donzel teaches wherein in response to an EOS event (overvoltage condition; [Abstract]), the spark gap is configured to are to provide a shunt current path (permanent conductive path 21; [0055]) between the input and output terminals (LINE & LOAD, Kadlec).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec & Fitzgerald in order to incorporate wherein in response to an EOS event, the spark gap is configured to are to provide a shunt current path between the input and output terminals as taught by Donzel. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a well-known overvoltage component that the overvoltage protection may comprise as taught by Kadlec in Para. [0022].
In regards to claim 14, Kadlec & Fitzgerald disclose the claimed invention except for wherein upon activation of the MEMS switch, the conductive beam tilts in a first direction, thereby open circuiting a path between the input terminal and the output terminal, and wherein the EOS protection device has an activation voltage lower than a breakdown voltage between the conductive beam and an open-circuited one of the first and second contact electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to size the EOS protection device to have an activation voltage lower than a breakdown voltage between the conductive beam and an open-circuited one, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 16, Kadlec teaches the circuit breaker circuity of Claim 12, further comprising a protective switch (solid state switch 53; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected in parallel to the MEMS switch and the spark gap device (implicit; [Fig. 2B]).
In regards to claim 17, Kadlec & Fitzgerald disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the protective switch comprises a field effect transistor having a breakdown voltage, and wherein the EOS protection device has an activation voltage lower than the breakdown voltage of the field effect transistor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to size the EOS protection device to have an activation voltage lower than a breakdown voltage between of the field effect transistor, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadlec et al., US20230082203 (hereinafter referred to as Kadlec) in view of Fitzgerald et al., US20160006241 (hereinafter referred to as Fitzgerald) and in further view of Vohra et al., US20200408801 (hereinafter referred to as Vohra).
In regards to claim 11, Kadlec and Fitzgerald do not teach wherein the conductive post is closer to a first end of the conductive beam relative to a second end of the conductive beam opposite the first end (Anchors may be arranged… offset from the rotational axis; [0014] & [Fig. 1A]).
Vohra teaches wherein the conductive post is closer to a first end of the conductive beam relative to a second end of the conductive beam opposite the first end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec & Fitzgerald in order to incorporate wherein the conductive post is closer to a first end of the conductive beam relative to a second end of the conductive beam opposite the first end as taught by Vohra. The motivation for doing so would be to deploy the MEMS switch in high-frequency environments where such increased torsional stiffness is required (Vohra, [Abstract]).
Claim(s) 20-22 & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadlec et al., US20230082203 (hereinafter referred to as Kadlec) in view of Fitzgerald et al., US20160006241 (hereinafter referred to as Fitzgerald) and in further view of Nelson et al., US20250174391 (hereinafter referred to as Nelson).
In regards to claim 20, Kadlec teaches a circuit breaker circuitry (circuit interrupter 50; [Fig. 2B]), comprising: an input terminal (left node, LINE; [Fig. 2B]) and an output terminal (right node, LOAD; [Fig. 2B]); a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) switch (MEMS crossbar relay 51; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected between the input and output terminals (implicit; [Fig. 2B]), and an electrical overstress (EOS) protection device (Overvoltage Protection 54; [Fig. 2B]) electrically connected to the MEMS switch between the input and output terminals (implicit; [Fig. 2B]).
Kadlec does not teach the MEMS switch comprising: a conductive beam pivoted over a substrate by a conductive post to tilt in opposite directions, first and second contact electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and first and second control electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes; wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device are fabricated on a common substrate using a semiconductor fabrication process.
Fitzgerald teaches the MEMS switch (totter switch 100; [Fig. 1A-C]) (MEMS crossbar relay 51, Kadlec) comprising: a conductive beam (beam 102; [Fig. 1A-1C]) pivoted over a substrate (substrate 201; [Fig. 2]) by a conductive post (anchor 104; [Fig. 1A-1C]) to tilt in opposite directions (implicit; [Fig. 1A-1B]), first and second contact electrodes (electrode 121 and 122; [Fig. 1A-1C]) formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post (implicit of 221 & 222; [0032] & [Fig. 2]), and first and second control electrodes (electrode 111 & 112; [0027] & [Fig. 1A-1C]) formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post (implicit of electrodes 211 & 212; [0032] & [Fig. 2]), wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes (implicit, placement of anchor 204; [Fig. 2]).
Fitzgerald does not teach wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device are fabricated on a common substrate using a semiconductor fabrication process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec in order to incorporate the MEMS switch comprising: a conductive beam pivoted over a substrate by a conductive post to tilt in opposite directions, first and second contact electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and first and second control electrodes formed on the substrate at opposite lateral sides of the conductive post, and wherein each of the first and second control electrodes is disposed laterally between the conductive post and a respective one of the first and second contact electrodes as taught by Fitzgerald. The motivation for doing so would be to improve on the MEMS switch as taught by Kadlec.
Nelson teaches wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device are fabricated on a common substrate using a semiconductor fabrication process (formed within the multilayer structure; [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec & Fitzgerald in order to incorporate wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device are fabricated on a common substrate using a semiconductor fabrication process as taught by Nelson. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known manufacturing method to the circuit taught by Kadlec.
In regards to claim 21, Kadlec and Fitzgerald do not teach wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device have one or more corresponding features that are co-fabricated.
Nelson teaches wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device have one or more corresponding features that are co-fabricated (a dielectric layer within the multilayer structure where the connection point is for the MEMS switch and the Overvoltage Protection circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec & Fitzgerald in order to incorporate wherein the MEMS switch and the EOS protection device have one or more corresponding features that are co-fabricated as taught by Nelson. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known manufacturing method to the circuit taught by Kadlec.
In regards to claim 22, Kadlec and Fitzgerald do not teach wherein the features that are co-fabricated have at least one common physical dimension.
Nelson teaches wherein the features that are co-fabricated have at least one common physical dimension (x-y dimension of where the traces would overlap for the MEMS switch and the Overvoltage Protection circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec & Fitzgerald in order to incorporate wherein the features that are co-fabricated have at least one common physical dimension as taught by Nelson. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known manufacturing method to the circuit taught by Kadlec.
In regards to claim 25, Kadlec teaches wherein the EOS protection device is electrically connected in parallel to the MEMS switch (implicit; [Fig. 2B]) and configured to provide a shunt current path between the input and output terminals (Examiner’s Note: Kadlec uses an example of a varistor as an overprotection device which functions to change its resistance and shunt the current through the device limiting the voltage.).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadlec et al., US20230082203 (hereinafter referred to as Kadlec), in view of Fitzgerald et al., US20160006241 (hereinafter referred to as Fitzgerald), in further view of Nelson et al., US20250174391 (hereinafter referred to as Nelson), and in further view of Donzel et al., US20250112013 (hereinafter referred to as Donzel).
In regards to claim 23, Kadlec, Fitzgerald, and Nelson do not teach wherein the EOS protection device comprises a spark gap structure configured to arc in response to an EOS event.
Donzel teaches wherein the EOS protection device comprises a spark gap structure (spark gap 16; [Fig. 1A]) configured to arc (arcing; [0042]) in response to an EOS event (overvoltage condition; [Abstract]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadlec, Fitzgerald & Nelson in order to incorporate wherein the EOS protection device comprises a spark gap structure configured to arc in response to an EOS event. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a well-known overvoltage component that the overvoltage protection may comprise as taught by Kadlec in Para. [0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 is indicated containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 1 & 9, especially "wherein the EOS protection device is electrically connected to the MEMS switch at a first end and to a reference voltage at a second end to provide the shunt current path between the input terminal or the output terminal and the reference voltage."
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 is indicated containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 12, 13, & 19, especially "wherein a first electrode of the spark gap device is electrically connected to the MEMS switch at a first end and a second electrode of the spark gap device is electrically connected to a reference voltage at a second end to provide the shunt current path between the input terminal or the output terminal and the reference voltage."
Claim 26 is 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. Claim 9 is indicated containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 20 & 26, especially “wherein the EOS protection device is electrically connected to the MEMS switch at a first end and to a reference voltage at a second end to provide a shunt current path between the input terminal or the output terminal and the reference voltage.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights