CTFR 17/648,589 CTFR 89897 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment/Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of the claims have been considered but are not entirely persuasive. The amendments to the claim 1 addresses the prior rejections, but introduces a separate issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claim 9 was not amended, nor were the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) challenged, and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) are accordingly being maintained. Because claims 9 and 10 were not amended, nor were the rejections challenged, the art rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are also maintained. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sampler including a first set of switches and capacitors, and the filter including a second set of switches and capacitors (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires a sampler including a first set of switches and capacitors, and a filter including a second set of switches and capacitors. However, the sampler and the filter are only described in functional language throughout the specification, and the specification does not describe these specific configurations for the sampler and the filter involving corresponding sets of switches and capacitors. Claim 9 requires a sampler and a filter. The sampler, as best understood, is an element operating in the digital domain. The sampler samples the differential output of the CV converter and generates a discrete-time signal (a sampled differential signal). The sampler also is preferably configured to sample at a frequency that is preferably at least the Nyquist frequency (see [0054] as filed, also claim 4). However, the filter unit is a now explicitly required to be a passive filter. In other words, a filter operating in the analog domain. The specification does not describe how the feedback circuit is configured to operate across these two (digital and analog) domains. No specific examples for either the sampler or the filter have been given, and nothing else is seen to address this cross-domain issue. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9, and by extension dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 10, are found to contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9-10 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. Claim 9 requires a sampler and a filter. The sampler, as best understood, is an element operating in the digital domain. The sampler samples the differential output of the CV converter and generates a discrete-time signal (a sampled differential signal). The sampler also is preferably configured to sample at a frequency that is preferably at least the Nyquist frequency (see [0054] as filed, also claim 4). However, the filter unit is a now explicitly required to be a passive filter. In other words, a filter operating in the analog domain. The specification does not describe how the feedback circuit is configured to operate across these two (digital and analog) domains. No specific examples for either the sampler or the filter have been given. For the purpose of examination, the passive filter is presumed to somehow operate in the digital domain. By extension claim 10 is also deficient under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is similarly rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,715,096 to Kraver et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kraver), US 8,300,732 to Magdaleno et al. (hereinafter referred to as Magdaleno), and US 6,018,407 to Hatakeyama et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hatakeyama) . With regards to claim 9 , Kraver teaches a sensor system (see fig. 3), comprising: a capacitive differential sensor (capacitive device 22, such as described in col. 1, ll. 20-32) having periodic output signals (variable capacitance signals 300); and a readout circuit including: a capacitance-to-voltage converter (capacitance-to-voltage converter 24) configured to output signals of the sensor (voltage output signals 308, 310); a feedback circuit (DC feedback circuit 38 for removing offset). Kraver does not teach the feedback circuit including a sampler and a filter, the sampler configured to sample a differential signal of two oppositely-phased output signals of the capacitance-to-voltage converter and to generate a sampled differential signal, and the filter being a passive filter, wherein the filter is configured to average the sampled differential signal over at least one period, or a plurality of successive periods, of the oppositely-phased output signals of the capacitance-to-voltage converter. Magdaleno teaches that DC offset can be removed using digital components in a feedback circuit (col. 3, ll. 1-10), the feedback circuit (see fig. 3) including a sampler (A/D converter) configured to sample the output of a component and generate a sampled signal (see fig. 3 and col. 3, ll. 1-10), and a filter (DSP and D/A converter) configured determine the DC offset level, generate a correction signal, and feed the correction signal as feedback into the component (see fig. 3 and col. 3, ll. 1-10). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kraver based on the teachings of Magdaleno such that the feedback circuit similarly comprises a sampler and a filter operating in the digital domain, as stated above under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, modified as appropriate for the differential architecture taught by Kraver, specifically such that the sampler is configured to sample a differential signal of the two oppositely-phased output signals of the capacitance-to-voltage converter (voltage output signals 308, 310 in Kraver) and to generate a sampled differential signal, and the filter is configured to determine the DC offset level and generate a differential correction signal. Doing so would enable DC offset to be determined and corrected in a flexible manner that could be modified as needed. The combination of Kraver and Magdaleno does not teach the specific technique employed by the filter wherein a differential signal is averaged over at least one period, or a plurality of successive periods, of the oppositely-phased output signals of the capacitance-to-voltage converter, and then the feedback circuit feeds the averaged differential signal to the capacitance-to-voltage converter as feedback. Nevertheless, Hatakeyama teaches the feature of averaging a differential signal output from a component (an amplifier chain from DAMP(0) to DAMP(N) in this example) to generate an averaged differential signal, then feeding the averaged differential signal as feedback into the component to eliminate DC offset (see fig. 6 and col. 1, ll. 28-35). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known differential signal line DC offset calculation technique of Hatakeyama to the system of Kraver and Magdaleno such that the filter is similarly configured to average the sampled differential signal and to generate an averaged differential signal, and the feedback circuit is configured to feed the averaged differential signal over at least one period, or a plurality of successive periods, of the oppositely-phased output signals of the capacitance-to-voltage converter (at least one period's worth of signal capture would be needed to capture the full range of signals and realize a true average) as feedback into the capacitance-to-voltage converter. Doing so would improve the DC offset characteristics in the system of Kraver and Magdaleno in the same way and enable DC offset in each of the differential signal lines to be corrected as appropriate for each line based on average values . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraver, Magdaleno, and Hatakeyama as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 8,794,066 to Merz et al. (hereinafter referred to as Merz) With regards to claim 10 , the combination of Kraver, Magdaleno, and Hatakeyama teaches the sensor system as recited in claim 9. However, this combination does not expressly teach the sensor being a capacitive rotation rate sensor. That said, the capacitive sensor taught in Kraver is not limited to any particular type of sensor. Merz teaches a capacitive rotation rate sensor (see the title) that supplies differential capacitances to detect a rate of rotation (col. 10, ll. 27-57). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kraver, Magdaleno, and Hatakeyama such that the sensor is a capacitive rotation rate sensor like that taught by Merz. Doing so would enable a rate of rotation of an element to be determined that is not influenced by DC offset. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30. 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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. /JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 17/648,589 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights