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 § 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) 1-5, 7, 9, 11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 101858927 A, hereinafter Qiu) in view of Seshia et al. (GB 2561886 A, hereinafter Seshia).
As to claim 1, Qiu teaches an accelerometer comprising:
a frame (comprising at least anchors 7a-d and the substrate, which is a lower layer of silicon described in ¶19; ¶19 further teaches that anchor 4a, 5a is also part of the frame);
one or more proof masses 1 suspended from the frame by one or more flexures 6a and movable relative to the frame along a sensing axis Y (see at least ¶22 and ¶24);
a resonant element assembly (comprising at least resonators 2a-b), the resonant element assembly comprising a first resonant element 2a and a second resonant element 2b coupled to one another, the first resonant element connected between the one or more proof masses 1 and the frame (at least via anchor 4a, 5a), the second resonant element connected between the one or more proof masses 1 and the frame (at least via anchor 4a, 5a), such that movement of the one or more proof masses relative to the frame along the sensing axis results in one of the first and second resonant elements undergoing compression and the other of the first and second resonant elements undergoing tension (¶24); and
drive circuitry configured to drive the resonant element assembly into one or more resonant modes (see ¶21 and ¶24-26),
wherein,
b) a first end of the first resonant element is directly fixed to a common anchor 4a, 5a of the frame, a first end of the second resonant element is directly fixed to the common anchor, and the first resonant element is directly coupled to the second resonant element by the common anchor (see fig. 1).
Qiu does not teach a sensing circuit configured to determine a measure of acceleration based on changes in resonant behaviour of the first and second resonant elements induced by mode localization.
As to claim 1, Seshia teaches an accelerometer (fig. 7) comprising:
a frame (comprising anchors 102);
[AltContent: textbox (CB2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CB1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (102a)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (102b)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (F)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
872
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more proof masses 100 suspended from the frame by one or more flexures F (fig. 7 above) and movable relative to the frame along a sensing axis (vertical in fig. 7);
a resonant element assembly (comprising at least resonant elements 90, 94), the resonant element assembly comprising a first resonant element 90 and a second resonant element 94 coupled to one another (at least indirectly), the first resonant element connected between the one or more proof masses and the frame, a first end of the first resonant element directly fixed to an anchor 102a (fig. 7 above) of the frame, the second resonant element connected between the one or more proof masses and the frame, a first end of the second resonant element directly fixed to an anchor 102b (fig. 7 above) of the frame, such that movement of the one or more proof masses relative to the frame along the sensing axis results in one of the first and second resonant elements undergoing compression and the other of the first and second resonant elements undergoing tension (the resonator elements 90, 94 in fig. 7 are connected to the proof mass similarly to the resonator elements 20, 22 in fig. 1, and the first paragraph of pg. 7, which describes fig. 1, states “Any acceleration of the proof mass along the sensitive axis consequently gets translated into an equal magnitude of strain on each of the oppositely positioned resonant element, but of opposite polarity. In other words, one resonant element undergoes an axial tensile stress while the other undergoes an axial compressive stress”; accordingly, in fig. 7, movement of the proof mass relative to the frame along the sensing axis results in one of the first and second resonant elements undergoing compression and the other of the first and second resonant elements undergoing tension); and
drive circuitry configured to drive the resonant element assembly into one or more resonant modes (line 20 of pg. 12 through line 7 of pg. 13 describes drive electrodes for driving the resonator elements 90, 94 into first and second order modes, which inherently requires drive circuitry as claimed) and a sensing circuit (see line 28 of pg. 12 through line 14 on pg. 13) configured to determine a measure of acceleration based on changes in resonant behaviour of the first and second resonant elements induced by mode localization (see lines 5-14 on pg. 13; additionally, pg. 12 teaches, on lines 10-19, that each of the resonators 90, 94, that is coupled with the proof mass, is weakly coupled to a respective additional resonator 92/96; fig. 7 shows that resonators 90, 94, which are coupled with the proof mass, are each anchored on one end; accordingly, when Qiu is modified in view of Seshia, Seshia’s resonators 90, 94 will be anchored by Qiu’s common anchor 4a, 5a; the Examiner notes that Seshia teaches, from line 25 of pg. 10 to line 10 of pg. 11, that the circuit of fig. 6A is used to control the sensor of fig. 7, and provides a high sensitivity measurement).
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 Qiu to use resonators configured to detect acceleration based on mode localization, as taught by Seshia, for the benefit of a high sensitivity measurement (in Seshia, see line 25 of pg. 10 to line 10 of pg. 11; additionally or alternatively, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of detecting acceleration with resonant elements for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully measured) and/or greater rejection to common mode effects or accounting for limitations in common-mode rejection due to asymmetries introduced by manufacturing tolerances (in Seshia, see lines 5-14 of pg. 13; additionally or alternatively, WO2011/148137, cited by Seshia on lines 23-27 on pg. 12, teaches, on lines 33-38 of pg. 2, that “Measuring…by mode localization offers two key advantages over conventional resonant frequency shift based measurements: (1) insensitivity to unwanted environmental variations; and (2) orders of magnitude enhancement in the output sensitivity and consequently, the resolution of such sensors”).
If Applicant argues that Seshia’s sensing circuit does not determine a measure of acceleration,
Seshia teaches, in a further embodiment (see pg. 2 at lines 12-13), the concept of a sensing circuit that determines a measure of acceleration.
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 Qiu as modified such that the sensing circuit determines a measure of acceleration, as taught by the further embodiment of Sesha, for improved convenience since the measure of acceleration will not have to be determined by someone or something other than the sensing circuit.
As to claim 2, Qiu as modified teaches wherein the first and second resonant elements 90, 94 (Seshia) are substantially identical (pg. 12 lines 10-19 in Seshia).
As to claim 3, Qiu as modified teaches wherein the one or more proof masses comprises a single proof mass 1 (Qiu) and the first and second resonant elements are both coupled to the single proof mass.
As to claim 4, Qiu as modified teaches wherein the first and second resonant elements are surrounded by the single proof mass 1 (Qiu).
As to claim 5, Qiu as modified teaches wherein one or both of the first and second resonant elements is connected to the one or more proof masses through an force amplifying lever 3a (Qiu).
Claims 7 and 9 are directed to the optional, unrequired alternative “a” of claim 1, in which the resonators are coupled to each other by a coupling beam. Since the Examiner relies on the alternative “b” of claim 1, in which the resonators are directly coupled to each other by a common anchor, claims 7 and 9 are considered to recite that which is optional, and fail to provide a structural limitation that distinguishes over the modified Qiu. Accordingly, the requirements of claims 7 and 9 are considered to be met.
As to claim 11, Qiu as modified teaches a third resonant element 92 (Seshia – fig. 7) coupled to one or both of the first and second resonant elements.
As to claim 15, Qiu as modified teaches wherein the sensing circuitry is configured to provide an output based on the amplitudes of vibration of the first resonant element and the second resonant element (in Seshia, see pg. 12 line 23 – pg. 13 line 14).
As to claim 16, Qiu as modified teaches a gravimeter comprising an accelerometer according to claim 1 (the modified Qiu’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).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Seshia, as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of NPL titled “A Three Degree-of-Freedom Weakly Coupled Resonator Sensor With Enhanced Stiffness Sensitivity” (hereinafter “Xie”).
As to claim 12, Qiu as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the third resonant element has different mechanical properties to the first resonant element and the second resonant element.
Xie teaches a sensor comprising 3 weakly and electrostatically coupled resonators (title and fig. 1), wherein “the stiffness of the resonator in the middle is at least twice the value compared to the other two identical resonators” (see the paragraph bridging pgs. 38-39; the abstract teaches that the device having 3 resonators provides more sensitivity compared with sensors with 2 resonators).
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 Qiu as modified such that each pair of resonators (90, 92 and 94, 96 of Seshia) is modified to include a third weakly coupled resonator as taught by Xie for better sensitivity (abstract of Xie).
Qiu as modified teaches a third resonant element (from Xie) coupled to one or both of the first and second resonant elements (of Seshia),
wherein the third resonant element has different mechanical properties to the first resonant element and the second resonant element (Xie teaches “the stiffness of the resonator in the middle is at least twice the value compared to the other two identical resonators” – see the paragraph bridging pgs. 38-39).
As to claim 13, Qiu as modified teaches wherein the third resonant element has a different stiffness to the first resonant element and the second resonant element (Xie teaches “the stiffness of the resonator in the middle is at least twice the value compared to the other two identical resonators” – see the paragraph bridging pgs. 38-39).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Seshia, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the NPL titled “A sensor for stiffness change sensing based on three weakly coupled resonators with enhanced sensitivity” (hereinafter “Wood”) and the NPL titled “Demonstration of Motion Transduction Based on Parametrically Coupled Mechanical Resonators” (hereinafter “Huang”).
As to claim 14, Qiu as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the drive circuitry is configured to provide a parametric pumping signal to the resonant element assembly.
Wood teaches a sensor comprising weakly coupled resonators (fig. 6) that are coupled electrostatically (see lines 1-5 of col. 2 on pg. 883).
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 Qiu as modified such that the resonant elements are coupled electrostatically as taught by Wood since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of weakly coupling resonators to each other for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Huang teaches the concept of electrostatically coupled resonators T, D (title; paragraph bridging pgs. 227202-1 and 227202-2; see the description of fig. 1c on pg. 227202-2) that are coupled such that a change in the resonant behavior of a first resonator T changes the behavior of the second resonator D, and the resonant behavior of the second resonator D is detected in order to detect the change in behavior of the first resonator T (see the paragraph bridging pgs. 227202-1 and 227202-2; see lines 10-15 in col. 1 of pg. 227202-2; see col. 2 lines 16-18 on pg. 227202-3), and
wherein drive circuitry is configured to provide a parametric pumping signal to the resonant element assembly (see fig. 1c and the description of fig. 1c on pg. 227202-2, which teaches “A pumping voltage consisting of the superposition of dc and ac signals is used to generate the coupling between the two resonators via electrostatic force”; the paragraph bridging pgs. 227202-1 and 227202-2 teaches “𝜂(𝑡)=2𝜂cos(𝜔pu𝑡) is the pumping field to realize parametrical coupling between the two resonators with 𝜂 the coupling strength and 𝜔pu the pumping frequency”; see lines 19-21 in col. 1 of pg. 227202-4; lines 7-10 in col. 2 of pg. 227202-3 teaches that the parametric pumping signal strengthens the detection signal at the second resonator D).
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 Qiu as modified such that the drive circuitry is configured to provide a parametric pumping signal to the resonant element assembly as taught by Huang so as to strengthen a detection signal (lines 7-10 in col. 2 of pg. 227202-3 of Huang).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Seshia, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Moody (US 20210262340 A1).
As to claim 17, Qiu as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except a borehole tool comprising one or more accelerometers in accordance with claim 1.
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 Qiu as modified to be applied in a borehole tool 74 as taught by Moody for the benefit that the modified Qiu’s accelerometer can be beneficially used to determine the direction of a drilling assembly (¶18, Moody) if desired by a user.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Seshia, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the NPL titled “An Acceleration Sensing Method Based on the Mode Localization of Weakly Coupled Resonators” (hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 18, Qiu as modified teaches wherein the first resonant element is directly coupled to the second resonant element by the common anchor 4a, 5a (Qiu), and wherein the first and second resonant elements are double ended tuning fork resonant elements (in Seshia, see pg. 12 at lines 10-11), and wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive each double ended tuning fork resonant element to resonate.
Qiu as modified does not teach wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive each double ended tuning fork resonant element in an in-phase mode.
Zhang teaches wherein DETFs are each driven in the in-phase mode (shown, for example in at least fig. 9a; figs. 9-10 and pgs. 15-17 teach that an in-phase mode is used as a “working mode” because it allows vibrations to transfer more easily between DETFs).
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 Qiu as modified such that the resonant elements are driven in an in-phase mode as taught by Zhang for the benefit that the problem of an “extremely small coupling factor and vibration transfer between the DETFs” is avoided (pgs. 15-17 of Zhang).
Qiu as modified teaches wherein the drive circuitry is configured to drive each double ended tuning fork resonant element in an in-phase mode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6, that only element 4a of Qiu can be considered the claimed anchor.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since elements 4a, 5a together perform the anchoring function.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that element 5a of Qiu does not perform an anchoring function.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since elements 4a, 5a together hold the ends of the resonant elements in a substantially stationary state (i.e., together, elements 4a, 5a perform anchoring).
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that element 5a of Qiu cannot be considered part of an anchor because it is freely suspended between element 4a and the resonators 2a-2b.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant provides no evidence that element 5a is “freely” suspended. “Free” suspension implies that element 5a does not stably hold the ends of the resonators in place to such a degree that deflection of the proof mass can be detected. However, elements 4a, 5a together stably hold the ends of the resonators in place such that deflection of the proof mass is measured, meaning that element 5a is not “freely” suspended. Nevertheless, if element 5a is “freely” suspended, which the Examiner does not admit, elements 4a, 5a together still stably hold the ends of the resonators in place (i.e., elements 4a, 5a perform an anchoring function) such that deflection of the proof mass is measured. Accordingly, elements 4a, 5a together read on the claimed anchor.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that Qiu’s resonators 2a-b are not directly coupled to each other by element 4a, and that Qiu does “not disclose the feature "a first end of the first resonant element is directly fixed to a common anchor of the frame, a first end of the second resonant element is directly fixed to the common anchor, and the first resonant element is directly coupled to the second resonant element by the common anchor"” because resonators 2a-2b are not directly connected to element 4a.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Qiu’s elements 4a, 5a together are the claimed anchor, as discussed above.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8 that it would not be obvious to modify Qiu to teach the language "a first end of the first resonant element is directly fixed to a common anchor of the frame, a first end of the second resonant element is directly fixed to the common anchor, and the first resonant element is directly coupled to the second resonant element by the common anchor."
Applicant’s argument is not germane to the rejection of claim 1 since Qiu was not modified to teach the cited language.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that Qiu is unsuitable to modify to use mode localization because the resonators 2a-b are coupled together with element 5a which would prevent the coupling of energy between the resonators. Applicant makes various arguments on the remainder of pg. 9 directed to the lack of energy coupling between the resonators. As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify resonators 2a-b to form a mode localized pair with each other.
While the Examiner agrees that the element 5a would prevent the coupling of energy between resonators 2a-b, Applicant’s overall argument is not persuasive. This is because the modification of Qiu does not result in resonators 2a-b becoming a mode localized pair with each other, as explained next. In Qiu, resonators 2a-b are directly acted on by the proof mass. Seshia teaches wherein resonators 90, 94 are directly acted upon by the proof mass, and wherein the resonators 90, 94 respectively form mode localized pairs with resonators 92, 96 that are not directly acted on by the proof mass. Accordingly, when Qiu is modified in view of Seshia, the resulting combination has two resonators that are acted on directly by the proof mass and that respectively form mode localized pairs with resonators not acted on directly by the proof mass. Accordingly, the modification of Qiu would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that claims 12-14 are patentable in view of Applicant’s arguments above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive at least since claim 1 is properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that claims 17-18 are patentable in view of Applicant’s arguments above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive at least since claim 1 is properly rejected.
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