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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “pantograph” in claims 1-2, 4, 6, & 11 is used by the claim to mean “a closed hollow structure,” while the accepted meaning is “an instrument for copying something (such as a map) on a predetermined scale consisting of four light rigid bars jointed in parallelogram form, or various extensible devices of similar construction (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantograph).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
It should be further noted that Figs. 4 & 13 disclose “pantographs” as per the applicant’s interpretation, but that Fig. 4 demonstrates the “pantograph” does not feature the “four light rigid bars” as per the definition of “pantograph” as per above, and Fig. 13 does not disclose “the four light rigid bars” as per the definition of “pantograph” as per above.
As the applicant’s disclosure is unclear on how the applicant interprets the hollow support structure to be a “pantograph,” it is unclear how the term “pantograph” is to be interpreted with regard to claim limitations.
For examination purposes, the term “pantograph” will be interpreted to as --hollow support--.
The use of the term “opposite” is further indefinite, as the limitation “electrodes respectively disposed opposite the oscillators” as no reference point is provided that determines “opposite” positioning. The specification discloses the electrodes as being adjacent to the oscillators, as per Fig. 1, but it is not clear what is meant by “opposite the oscillators,” as no reference point is given such that the electrodes and the oscillators are positioned in opposition.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 & 12 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz et al. (US PGPub 20090153258) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPub 20160164458)
As per claim 1:
Lutz et al. discloses in Fig. 21A:
A MEMS resonator, comprising:
a support (anchor 168) that is a parallelogram having vertexes;
oscillators (resonators 122) connected respectively to the vertexes of the support; and
electrodes (180) respectively disposed opposite the oscillators, and forming capacitors with the oscillators ([0282]).
Lutz et al. does not disclose:
a pantograph that is a parallelogram having vertexes; and oscillators connected respectively to the vertexes of the pantograph.
Nguyen et al. discloses in Fig. 19:
A support (198c) for resonators that is a pantograph that is a parallelogram having vertexes.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the support of Lutz et al. as a hollow support, forming a pantograph that is a parallelogram having vertexes to provide the benefit of reducing energy loss and increasing Q of a resonator as taught by Nguyen et al. ([0067])
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a pantograph that is a parallelogram having vertexes; and oscillators connected respectively to the vertexes of the pantograph.
As per claim 2:
Lutz et al. discloses in Fig. 21A & 19I:
wherein a set of said electrodes disposed opposite to a set of said oscillators along an extension direction of a diagonal line of the pantograph that is the parallelogram have applied thereto a voltage differing in phase by 180º from another set of said electrodes disposed opposite to another set of said oscillators along an extension direction of another diagonal line of the pantograph (a differential drive signal D+/-, differing in phase by 180º as per the definition of differential signals, is shown in Fig. 19I to be applied to electrodes 180a-d & i-l, with differential sense signals being obtained from electrodes 180e-h & m-p, wherein opposite phases are along each diagonal line through the vertices of the center, as seen in Fig. 19I).
As per claim 3:
Lutz et al. discloses in Fig. 21A:
the parallelogram is a square or a rectangle (as seen in 21A).
Nguyen et al. discloses in Fig. 19:
The parallelogram is a square ([0038]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the parallelogram is a square or a rectangle.
As per claim 4:
Lutz et al. discloses in Fig. 21A:
the pantograph and the oscillators are connected to each other by beams (coupling sections 166) disposed along extension directions of diagonal lines of the parallelogram.
As per claim 5:
Lutz et al. discloses in Fig. 21A:
ends of the beams include beam expansion units (stress/strain relief mechanisms) along the oscillators, and the beam expansion units are connected to the oscillators by a plurality of connection units (coupling sections 126).
As per claim 6:
Lutz et al. discloses in Fig. 6F & 21A:
the support and the oscillators are directly connected to each other (Fig. 6 discloses direct connection between anchor 168 and the resonators 122, with related Figs. 4F-4J showing variations of coupling sections 126, and related Figs. 6C, 6F, 14A&C, 15A&C, 16A showing variations of coupling to the anchor, and further in Fig. 21A, wherein the stress/strain relief mechanisms may be considered part of the support).
Nguyen et al. discloses in Fig. 19:
A support (198c) for resonators that is a pantograph that is a parallelogram having vertexes.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the support and the oscillators are directly connected to each other.
As per claim 12:
Lutz et al. discloses in Figs. 2A&B & 21A:
Lutz et al. discloses a resonator array comprising an n x m array of resonatos mechanically coupled ([0183]), Lutz further discloses one or more anchor coupling sections to couple the array to one or more substrate anchors ([0227]).
Nguyen et al. discloses in Fig. 19:
A support (198c) for resonators that is a pantograph that is a parallelogram having vertexes.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple 2x2 array elements as shown in Fig. 2A in the larger n x m array of Fig. 2B using the anchor arrangement of the combination of claim 1 to provide the benefit of reducing energy losses as taught by Lutz et al. ([0230]).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses at least two of MEMS resonators according to claim 1 are connected so as to share one of said oscillators (being formed in the larger array, the oscillators are shared through coupling sections 126).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Lutz et al. (US PGPub 20090153258) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPub 20160164458) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US PGPub 20090058561)
The resultant combination discloses the MEMs resonator of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 7:
The resultant combination discloses in Lutz et al. Fig. 6F & 21A:
The resonators may have different shapes ([0161]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the electrodes are arc-shaped external electrodes provided outside of the oscillators.
Pan et al. discloses in Fig. 4:
Circular resonators (resonator structure 402/404) with arc-shaped or circular electrodes positioned internally (electrodes 403/405), externally (outer rings 412, 416), or both.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the resonators and electrodes of the resultant combination with the resonators and electrodes of Pan et al. as art-recognized alternative/equivalent resonators able to be coupled with other resonators, as taught by Pan et al. (Fig. 4, title)
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the electrodes are arc-shaped external electrodes provided outside of the oscillators.
As per claim 8:
The resultant combination discloses in Lutz et al. Fig. 6F & 21A:
The resonators may have different shapes ([0161]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the electrodes are circular internal electrodes provided inward of the oscillators.
Pan et al. discloses in Fig. 4:
Circular resonators (resonator structure 402/404) with arc-shaped or circular electrodes positioned internally (electrodes 403/405), externally (outer rings 412, 416), or both.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the resonators and electrodes of the resultant combination with the resonators and electrodes of Pan et al. as art-recognized alternative/equivalent resonators able to be coupled with other resonators, as taught by Pan et al. (Fig. 4, title)
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the electrodes are circular internal electrodes provided inward of the oscillators.
As per claim 9:
The resultant combination discloses in Lutz et al. Fig. 6F & 21A:
The resonators may have different shapes ([0161]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
said oscillators are ring-shaped and said electrodes are arc-shaped.
Pan et al. discloses in Fig. 4:
Circular resonators (resonator structure 402/404) with arc-shaped or circular electrodes positioned internally (electrodes 403/405), externally (outer rings 412, 416), or both.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the resonators and electrodes of the resultant combination with the resonators and electrodes of Pan et al. as art-recognized alternative/equivalent resonators able to be coupled with other resonators, as taught by Pan et al. (Fig. 4, title)
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses said oscillators are ring-shaped and said electrodes are arc-shaped.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Lutz et al. (US PGPub 20090153258) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPub 20160164458) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phan et al. (US PGPub 20130009716)
The resultant combination discloses the MEMs resonator of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 10:
The resultant combination discloses in Lutz et al. Fig. 6F & 21A:
The resonators may have different shapes ([0161]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
said oscillators are comb-shaped and said electrodes are comb-shaped.
Phan et al. discloses in Fig. 3:
The use of comb-shaped oscillators (comb 32) and electrodes (fixed comb 34), as MEMs resonators (title) able to be coupled (through frame 20).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to replace the resonators and electrodes of the resultant combination with the resonators and electrodes of Phan et al. as art-recognized alternative/equivalent resonators able to be coupled with other resonators, as taught by Pan et al. (Fig. 3, title, abstract)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of limitations found in claims 1 & 11 were not disclosed or rendered obvious over the prior art, particularly the closest relevant prior art of Lutz et al. and Nguyen et al., which fail to disclose the particular switching mechanism connected to the pantograph vertex for turning a direct current voltage on and off through oscillator oscillation as per claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
