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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reinke (US 20200025790 A1).
As to claim 1, Reinke teaches an accelerometer (fig. 1A) comprising:
a frame 16 (although reference character “16” is not shown in the drawings, ¶32 teaches that the frame 16 includes frame portions 16A-B)
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (S)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (F2)][AltContent: textbox (F1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
704
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a single proof mass 12 suspended from the frame by one or more flexures F1-F2 (see fig. 1A above; ¶34 teaches that points 24A-D are fulcrums, meaning that beams F1-F2 are flexible) and movable relative to the frame along a sensing axis X (¶24);
a first resonant element 18A fixed between an anchor 14 on the frame and the single proof mass 12, and extending from the anchor to the single proof mass along the sensing axis (see fig. 1A);
a second resonant element 18B fixed between the anchor and the single proof mass and extending from the anchor to the single proof mass along the sensing axis in an opposite direction to the first resonant element (see fig. 1A),
a first force amplifying lever 22A (¶34) between the first resonant element and the single proof mass, and second force amplifying lever 22C (¶34) between the second resonant element and the single proof mass,
wherein the single proof mass surrounds the anchor,
[AltContent: textbox (PR2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (PR1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
704
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the force amplifying levers are fixed to the frame at pivot points (¶34 teaches “Resonators 18 connect to the second end of lever arms 22 at a distance R2 from fulcrums 24A-24D, which is the center of rotation for each of lever arms 22,” meaning that each end of each force amplifying lever of Reinke is associated with a respective pivot point; accordingly, one of Reinke’s pivot points is contained within pivot region PR1 and another of Reinke’s pivot points is contained within another pivot region PR2 in fig. 1A above) separate to the anchor, and
wherein at least a portion of the single proof mass is positioned adjacent to the first and second resonant elements and directly horizontally between a pivot point (in region PR1) of the first force amplifying lever and a corresponding pivot point (within region PR2) of the second force amplifying lever.
As to claim 3, Reinke teaches wherein the sense circuitry provides an output (a signal based on differential frequency - ¶57) based on a difference between a resonant frequency of the first resonant element (indicated by one of signals 108A-B) and a resonant frequency of the second resonant element (indicated by the other of signals 108A-B).
As to claim 6, Reinke teaches wherein the first and second resonant elements 18A-B are substantially identical to one another (as broadly recited; see ¶28 and fig. 1A).
As to claim 10, Reinke teaches wherein the frame, the single proof mass and flexures all formed from a single piece (¶26) of semiconductor material (silicon - ¶25).
As to claim 11, Reinke teaches wherein the accelerometer is a micro electrical mechanical systems (MEMS) device “MEMS VBA” (¶25).
As to claim 12, Reinke teaches a gravimeter comprising an accelerometer in accordance with claim 1 (Reinke’s accelerometer is capable of use as a gravimeter, for example by orienting the sensitive axis vertically for measuring gravitational acceleration; note that evidentiary reference US 20190257652 A1 teaches in ¶143 that a vibrating beam accelerometer is capable of use as a gravimeter).
As to claim 14, Reinke teaches drive circuity 104A-B configured to drive the first and second resonant elements into resonance (¶55-56 and fig. 3) and sense circuitry (the circuitry of fig. 3 inherently includes the claimed sense circuitry because ¶57 teaches that there is circuitry in fig. 3 that determines a differential frequency based on sense signals 108A-B produced by the first and second resonant elements 18A-B, as taught by ¶55-57 and fig. 3) configured to detect changes (the changes being described in at least ¶28-29) in the resonant behaviour of the first and second resonant elements.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinke in view of Zou et al. (WO 2018197857 A1, hereinafter Zou).
As to claim 4, Reinke teaches wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive the first and second resonant elements.
Reinke does not teach wherein the drive circuitry drives the first and second resonant elements into different resonant modes to one another.
Zou teaches an accelerometer comprising a proof mass 10,
two resonant elements 20, 22, wherein the proof mass exerts a force on two resonant elements 20, 22, and
drive circuitry for driving the resonant elements (pg. 6 lines 25-28 teach that the resonant elements are driven to resonance by the application of alternating current), wherein a differential measurement from the resonant elements is used (pg. 7 lines 13-16), and
wherein the drive circuitry drives the first and second resonant elements into different resonant modes to one another (fig. 4 and pg. 7 line 30 to pg. 8 line 27 teaches that one resonant element is driven in a first resonant mode 50 and the other resonant element is driven in a second resonant mode 52, for the benefit of a higher scale factor and of avoiding one or more problems such as mode-shape distortion, injection locking and signal cross-talk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinke to be configured such that the drive circuitry drives the first and second resonant elements into different resonant modes to one another, as taught by Zou, for the benefit of a higher scale factor (in Zou, pg. 8 lines 22-27) and of avoiding one or more problems such as mode-shape distortion, injection locking and signal cross-talk (in Zou, see the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinke in view of Moody (US 20210262340 A1).
As to claim 13, Reinke teaches the limitations of the claim except a borehole tool comprising a gravimeter according to claim 12.
Moody teaches a borehole tool 74 comprising a gravimeter (accelerometer - ¶18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinke to be applied in a borehole tool 74 as taught by Moody for the benefit that Reinke’s accelerometer can be beneficially used to determine the direction of a drilling assembly (¶18, Moody) with minimized bias errors (abstract of Reinke).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinke in view of Becka (US 20160139171 A1).
As to claim 15, Reinke teaches wherein the first and second resonant elements 18A-B are double ended tuning fork resonant elements (¶31), and
wherein in the drive circuitry is configured to drive the first double ended tuning fork resonant element (¶28 and ¶56-57 teach that circuit element 104A drives first resonant element 18A and that circuit element 104B drives second resonant element 18B), and
wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive the second double ended tuning fork resonant element (¶28 and ¶56-57 teach that circuit element 104A drives first resonant element 18A and that circuit element 104B drives second resonant element 18B).
Reinke does not teach wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive the first double ended tuning fork resonant element in an out-of-phase mode, and
wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive the second double ended tuning fork resonant element in an out-of-phase mode.
Becka teaches an accelerometer comprising first and second double ended tuning fork resonant element 16A-B (fig. 1) and drive circuitry 18A-B for driving the resonant elements 16A-B (¶23),
wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive the first double ended tuning fork resonant element in an out-of-phase mode, and
wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive the second double ended tuning fork resonant element in an out-of-phase mode (¶24 teaches “The respective resonator drive signals may be provided by oscillator circuits 18 to the respective electrodes 14A and 14B to maintain resonance (e.g., in-plane and out-of-phase) of tines 4”; ¶23 teaches that the resonators 16A-B have the tines; accordingly each of the resonators 16A-B is driven in the out-of-phase mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinke such that the drive circuitry drives each resonator in the out-of-phase mode as taught by Becka since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of maintaining resonance (¶24 - Becka) for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that Reinke does not teach “the single proof mass is positioned adjacent to the first and second resonant elements and directly horizontally between a pivot point of the first force amplifying lever and a corresponding pivot point of the second force amplifying lever.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Reinke teaches wherein at least a portion of the single proof mass is positioned adjacent to the first and second resonant elements and directly horizontally between a pivot point (in region PR1) of the first force amplifying lever and a corresponding pivot point (within region PR2) of the second force amplifying lever. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that portions 16A-B of Reinke are not the proof mass or part of the proof mass.
Applicant’s argument is not germane to the rejections since portions 16A-B are not relied on to teach the proof mass.
As to claim 4, Applicant argues on pg. 7 that Reinke does not teach claim 1, and that, as a result, Reinke allegedly should not be combined with any other reference.
Applicant’s argument(s) regarding claim 4 are unpersuasive because Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive.
As to claim 13, Applicant argues on pg. 7 that Reinke does not teach claim 1, and that, as a result, Reinke allegedly should not be combined with any other reference.
Applicant’s argument(s) regarding claim 13 are unpersuasive because Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive.
On pg. 8, Applicant argues that the addition of Moody to Reinke allegedly does not overcome the alleged deficiencies of Reinke with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Moody was not relied on for rejecting claim 1.
As to claim 15, Applicant argues on pg. 8 that Reinke does not teach claim 1, and that, as a result, Reinke allegedly should not be combined with any other reference.
Applicant’s argument(s) regarding claim 15 are unpersuasive because Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive.
On pg. 8, Applicant argues that the addition of Becka to Reinke allegedly does not overcome the alleged deficiencies of Reinke with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Becka was not relied on for rejecting claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights