DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…wherein only a portion of the resonating structure interfacing with the thin-film piezoelectric layer is anchored to the substrate exclusively by the thin-film piezoelectric layer.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear how a portion of the resonant structure, which includes the resonant body, substrate, electrodes and thin-film piezoelectric layer and associated anchors, interfacing with the thin-film piezoelectric layer is anchored to the substrate exclusively by the thin-film piezoelectric layer?
The claim should be consistent with the Application’s Figs.1 and 2, as best understood – at least the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resonating structure” should be referring to “a resonant body” (106 in Application’s Figs.1 and 2). The amendment to the claim must be consistent with the Application’s Figs.1 and 2.
Dependent claims 2-13 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2-13 are depending on the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “…the resonating structure is anchored by the thin-film piezoelectric layer exclusively at zero-displacement nodal points of the resonating structure.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear how the resonating structure is anchored by the thin-film piezoelectric layer exclusively at zero-displacement nodal points of the resonating structure.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “…the zero-displacement nodal points correspond to peripheral corner regions of the resonating structure.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear where are peripheral corner regions located at the resonating structure, which correspond to the zero-displacement nodal points.
Regarding claim 13, the claim limitation “…the resonating structure is mechanically isolated from surrounding substrate regions by etched gap regions formed in the substrate, and wherein the resonating structure is mechanically suspended solely by the thin-film piezoelectric layer.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear over the underlined portions of the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation “…wherein only a portion of the resonating structure interfacing with the thin-film piezoelectric layer is anchored to the substrate by the thin-film piezoelectric layer…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear how a portion of the resonant structure, which includes the resonant body, substrate, electrodes and thin-film piezoelectric layer and associated anchors, interfacing with the thin-film piezoelectric layer is anchored to the substrate by the thin-film piezoelectric layer?
The claim should be consistent with the Application’s Figs.1 and 2, as best understood – at least the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resonating structure” should be referring to “a resonant body” (106 in Application’s Figs.1 and 2). The amendment to the claim must be consistent with the Application’s Figs.1 and 2.
Dependent claims 15-18 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 14 as stated above because the dependent claims 15-18 are depending on the rejected independent claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “…an interposer or base substrate supporting the resonating structure and the oscillator circuitry, wherein the interposer or base substrate includes a cavity positioned directly underneath the resonating structure to mechanically isolate the resonating structure.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear over the underlined portions of the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation “…anchoring only a portion of the resonating structure interfacing with the thin-film piezoelectric layer to the substrate using the thin-film piezoelectric layer.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because according to Application’s specification on paragraph 31, which states “…the terms “resonant structure” and “resonating structure” refer to the complete MEMS resonator assembly, including the resonant body 106, substrate 102, electrodes 108, thin-film piezoelectric layer 104, and associated anchors 110…”, thus it is not clear how to anchor only a portion of the resonant structure, which includes the resonant body, substrate, electrodes and thin-film piezoelectric layer and associated anchors, interfacing with the thin-film piezoelectric layer to the substrate using the thin-film piezoelectric layer?
The claim should be consistent with the Application’s Figs.1 and 2, as best understood – at least the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resonating structure” should be referring to “a resonant body” (106 in Application’s Figs.1 and 2). The amendment to the claim must be consistent with the Application’s Figs.1 and 2.
Dependent claim 20 is also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 19 as stated above because the dependent claim 20 is depending on the rejected independent claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be possible to allow 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 and to include all of the limitations by clearly representing the embodiment shown in application’s Figs.1 and 2.
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference Bhattacharjee et al. (2015/0318838) discloses a MEMS vibrating device includes a substrate, anchors and a vibrating body suspended over the substrate b at least one anchor.
The reference Bhattacharjee (2014/0125201) discloses a MEMS device includes a substrate, anchors and a piezoelectric layer suspended over the first surface of the substrate by the one or more anchors.
The reference Kuypers (8,686,614) discloses a mechanical resonating structure coupled to a substrate by anchors.
Note: The references cited above are similar to prior art shown in Application’s Fig.3, and different from the invention shown in Application’s Figs.1 and 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2836
Prosecution Insights