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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/02/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
Claims 18-20 remain withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 21-22 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 recites
“A proof mass assembly comprising:
a monolithic substrate, the monolithic substrate comprising:
…
a first resonator…
a second resonator…
wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a first laser weld,
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second laser weld...”
Accordingly, claim 1 recites that the “monolithic” substrate is formed of resonators that are attached by welding. ¶4, ¶23 and ¶29 make it clear that an embodiment in which the substrate is monolithic (meaning the parts thereof are etched from a single block of material) is an alternative to an embodiment in which the substrate is formed by resonators attached by welding. Accordingly, a monolithic substrate cannot comprise resonators that are attached by welding, and claim 1 contains new matter.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 contain new matter for depending from claim 1.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate.” However, as discussed above, claim 1 requires the resonators to be attached by welding. There is no support in the original disclosure for the claimed resonators being both attached by welding and “monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate.”
Therefore, claim 21 contains further new matter.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate.”
However, claim 10 requires
“wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a first laser weld,
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second laser weld.”
If the resonators are attached by welding (as recited in claim 10), then they could not have been monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate (as recited in claim 22). Accordingly, there is no support for resonators that are attached by welding, while also being monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate, meaning claim 22 contains new matter.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 21-22 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 1 recites
“A proof mass assembly comprising:
a monolithic substrate, the monolithic substrate comprising:
…
a first resonator…
a second resonator…
wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a first laser weld,
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second laser weld...”
Accordingly, claim 1 recites that the “monolithic” substrate is formed of resonators that are attached by welding. ¶4, ¶23 and ¶29 make it clear that an embodiment in which the substrate is monolithic (wherein the substrate is etched from a single block of material) is an alternative to an embodiment in which the substrate is formed by resonators that are attached by welding. Accordingly, it is unclear how a monolithic substrate can comprise resonators that are attached by welding, meaning claim 1 is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the resonators are not attached by welding.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the laser etch comprises a laser selective etch.” Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, does not recite a laser etch, so it is unclear what laser etch is being referred to. Accordingly, claim 5 is further indefinite.
Claim 14 recites wherein the proof mass assembly is formed within a monolithic substrate.
However, claim 10 recites that the proof mass assembly comprises resonators that are attached by welding. If the resonators are attached by welding, then it is unclear how the proof mass assembly is formed within a monolithic substrate, as recited by claim 14.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that claim 14 includes an interpretation in which at least part of the proof mass assembly is formed within a monolithic substrate.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate.” However, as discussed above, claim 1 requires the resonators to be attached by welding. It is unclear how the claimed resonators can be both attached by welding, and “monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate.”
Therefore, claim 21 is further indefinite. Like claim 1, for the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the resonators are not attached by welding.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate.”
However, claim 10 requires
“wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a first laser weld,
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second laser weld.”
If the resonators are formed and then attached by welding (as recited in claim 10), then they could not have been monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate (as recited in claim 22). Accordingly, claim 22 is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the resonators are not monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the laser etch comprises a laser selective etch.” Claim 1 does not recite a laser etch. Accordingly, claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites wherein the proof mass assembly is formed within a monolithic substrate. However, claim 10 recites that the proof mass assembly comprises resonators that are attached by welding, meaning the proof mass assembly could not be formed within a monolithic substrate. Accordingly, claim 14 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate.” However, as discussed above, claim 1 requires the resonators to be attached by welding.
Therefore, claim 21 fails to include all the limitations (e.g., wherein the resonators are attached by welding) of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate.”
However, claim 10 requires
“wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a first laser weld,
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second laser weld.”
Therefore, claim 22 fails to include all the limitations (e.g., wherein the resonators are attached by welding) of the claim upon which it depends.
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, 5, 7, 9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Starzynski (US 20110239440 A1, hereinafter ‘440).
As to claim 1, ‘440 teaches a proof mass assembly (fig. 1) comprising a monolithic substrate (¶19 teaches that all the components are made of the same material, being single crystal quartz, and ¶22 teaches that the components are directly bonded together such that their atoms “interdiffuse and form a direct bond”; accordingly, the elements of the substrate form a monolithic substrate; additionally or alternatively, the prior art substrate is able to have been made by first performing the direct bonding, and then performing selective etching, such as by selective laser etching), the monolithic substrate comprising:
a proof mass 44 (¶21 and fig. 2-2);
a proof mass support 42 (¶21 and fig. 2-2);
a flexure 40 connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support, wherein the proof mass is configured to rotate relative to the proof mass support via the flexure (¶21);
a first resonator 26 connected to a first major surface (upper surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass and a first major surface (upper surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass support; and
a second resonator 28 connected to a second major surface (lower surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass and a second major surface (lower surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass support,
wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support (figs. 1 and 2-2) via a first laser weld (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim),
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support (figs. 1 and 2-2) via a second laser weld (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim), and
wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface and the second resonator is connected to the second major surface without a bonding adhesive (¶22).
As to claim 2, ‘440 teaches wherein the substrate is crystalline quartz (¶19).
As to claim 3, ‘440 teaches wherein the first major surface of the proof mass is opposite the second major surface of the proof mass, wherein the first major surface of the proof mass support is opposite the second major surface of the proof mass support (fig. 1).
As to claim 5, ‘440 teaches wherein the laser etch comprises a laser selective etch (as discussed above, claim 5 fails to provide a further limitation of claim 1; additionally, the laser etch is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, ‘440 is considered to teach all the structure required by claim 5, and/or claim 5 is not considered to structurally distinguish over the apparatus of ‘440).
As to claim 7, ‘440 teaches wherein the first resonator is configured to have a compressive force and the second resonator is configured to have a tensile force upon rotation of the proof mass in a first direction (¶21).
As to claim 9, ‘440 teaches wherein the monolithic substrate further comprises:
a dampening plate 36 connected to the proof mass support and configured to limit a range of rotation of the proof mass (¶19 teaches that the dampening plate 36 provides a damping function to the proof mass by providing resistance to the proof mass’s motion; accordingly, the motion of the proof mass is limited in comparison to the motion of the proof mass without the dampening plate).
As to claim 21, ‘440 teaches wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate (¶19 and ¶22 teach that the first resonator, the second resonator, the proof mass, the proof mass support and the flexure are all made of crystalline quartz and connected as a single piece of quartz; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘440 in view of Foote et al. (US 6874363 B1, hereinafter Foote).
As to claim 8, ‘440 teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the monolithic substrate further comprises:
a strain isolator connected to the proof mass support and configured to reduce a strain of at least one of the proof mass, the proof mass support, the flexure, the first resonator, or the second resonator upon application of a force to the proof mass assembly.
Foote teaches an accelerometer, wherein the monolithic substrate (col. 6 lines 8-11 teach a strain isolator 6, 10, 12 monolithically formed with a proof mass support 8 by etching slots 36, 38 in substrate 32) further comprises:
a strain isolator 6, 10, 12 connected to the proof mass support 8 and configured to reduce a force of at least one of the first resonator or the second resonator upon application of the force to the proof mass assembly (col. 6 lines 7-23).
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 ‘440 to use a strain isolator connected to the proof mass support and configured to reduce a force of at least one of the first resonator or the second resonator upon application of the force to the proof mass assembly, as taught by Foote for the benefit of decreasing the effects of thermal mismatching on the resonators (Foote, col. 6 lines 19-23).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amand (US 4939935 A) in view of Foote et al. (US 6874363 B1, hereinafter Foote), Starzynski (US 20110239440 A1, hereinafter ‘440) and Heinouchi (US 5913244 A).
As to claim 10, Amand teaches a vibrating beam accelerometer (title and abstract) comprising:
at least one dampening plate 26 (see col. 4 lines 13-38 and col. 2 lines 55-60, which teach that the plates 26, 30 form a sealed compartment and act as damping plates); and
a proof mass assembly (described below) comprising:
a proof mass 12;
a proof mass support 16;
a flexure 14 connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support, wherein the proof mass is configured to rotate relative to the proof mass support via the flexure (col. 2 lines 50-55);
a first resonator 20a connected to a first major surface (upper surface – fig. 1) of the proof mass and a first major surface (upper surface – fig. 1) of the proof mass support; and
a second resonator 20b connected to a second major surface (lower surface – fig. 1) of the proof mass and a second major surface (lower surface – fig. 1) of the proof mass support,
wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a first weld (col. 3 lines 60-62 teaches that the beams 20a-b are fixed by welding; accordingly, the first resonator is directly and/or indirectly connected to the first major surface of the proof mass and to the first major surface of the proof mass support via a weld),
wherein the second resonator is connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second weld (col. 3 lines 60-62 teaches that the beams 20a-b are fixed by welding; accordingly, the second resonator is directly and/or indirectly connected to the second major surface of the proof mass and to the second major surface of the proof mass support via a second weld), and
wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface and the second resonator is connected to the second major surface without a bonding adhesive (in composite welding, two surfaces are melted and directly contacted with each other such that a bond is formed upon cooling, meaning there is no bonding adhesive).
Amand does not teach wherein the accelerometer comprises:
at least one strain isolator; and
wherein the at least one dampening plate, the at least one strain isolator, and the proof mass assembly comprise the same material (this is because Amand lacks a strain isolator and is silent as to the material of the at least one dampening plate 26),
wherein the first and second welds are laser welds.
As to the claimed strain isolator,
Foote teaches an accelerometer, wherein the monolithic substrate (col. 6 lines 8-11 teach a strain isolator 6, 10, 12 monolithically formed with a proof mass support 8 by etching slots 36, 38 in substrate 32; this means the proof mass and strain isolator are made of the same material) further comprises:
a strain isolator 6, 10, 12 connected to the proof mass support 8 and configured to reduce a force of at least one of the first resonator or the second resonator upon application of the force to the proof mass assembly (col. 6 lines 7-23).
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 Amand to use a strain isolator connected to the proof mass support and configured to reduce a force of at least one of the first resonator or the second resonator upon application of the force to the proof mass assembly, wherein the strain isolator and proof mass are made of the same material, as taught by Foote for the benefit of decreasing the effects of potential thermal mismatching on the resonators (Foote, col. 6 lines 14-23).
‘440 teaches a proof mass assembly (fig. 1) comprising a monolithic substrate (¶19 teaches that all the components are made of the same material, being single crystal quartz, and ¶22 teaches that the components are directly bonded together such that their atoms “interdiffuse and form a direct bond”; accordingly, the elements of the substrate form a monolithic substrate), the monolithic substrate comprising:
a proof mass 44 (¶21 and fig. 2-2);
a proof mass support 42 (¶21 and fig. 2-2);
a flexure 40 connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support, wherein the proof mass is configured to rotate relative to the proof mass support via the flexure (¶21);
a first resonator 26 connected to a first major surface (upper surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass and a first major surface (upper surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass support; and
a second resonator 28 connected to a second major surface (lower surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass and a second major surface (lower surface in fig. 1) of the proof mass support,
wherein the monolithic substrate further comprises:
a dampening plate 36 (and dampening plate 38) connected to the proof mass support and configured to limit a range of rotation of the proof mass (¶19 teaches that the dampening plate 36 provides a damping function to the proof mass by providing resistance to the proof mass’s motion; accordingly, the motion of the proof mass is limited in comparison to the motion of the proof mass without the dampening plate (¶19 teaches that all the components, including the dampening plates, resonators and proof mass, are made of the same material, being single crystal quartz; accordingly, when ‘440 is applied to Amand as modified, the result is that the at least one dampening plate, the at least one strain isolator, and the proof mass assembly comprise the same material).
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 Amand as modified such that the dampening plate is made of the same material as the proof mass and resonators, as taught by ‘440 so as to reduce the design complexity of the apparatus and/or to minimize the number of materials required.
As to the claimed laser welds,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (12X)]
PNG
media_image1.png
472
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Heinouchi teaches a vibrating element 12X (fig. 3 above) for use in an accelerometer (see abstract and col. 1 lines 1-10), the vibrator being attached via laser welding (col. 4 lines 45-51).
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 Amand as modified such that the resonators are attached via laser welding as taught by Heinouchi since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one welding method for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully sensed.
Amand as modified teaches wherein the accelerometer comprises:
at least one strain isolator (form Foote); and
wherein the at least one dampening plate, the at least one strain isolator, and the proof mass assembly comprise the same material (in view of Foote and ‘440),
wherein the first and second welds are laser welds (in view of Heinouchi).
If Applicant argues that the composite welding of Amand does not teach wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface and the second resonator is connected to the second major surface without a bonding adhesive, then Amand is still modified in view of Foote, ‘440 and Heinouchi as discussed above, and the replacement of Amand’s composite welding with the laser welding of Heinouchi results in the limitation of wherein the first resonator is connected to the first major surface and the second resonator is connected to the second major surface without a bonding adhesive.
As to claim 11, Amand teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the material is crystalline quartz.
‘440 teaches wherein the quartz of the apparatus is crystalline quartz (¶19).
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 Amand as modified such that the quartz is crystalline quartz as taught by ‘440 since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one kind of quartz for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully sensed.
As to claim 12, Amand teaches wherein the first major surface of the proof mass is opposite the second major surface of the proof mass, wherein the first major surface of the proof mass support is opposite the second major surface of the proof mass support (fig. 1).
As to claim 14, Amand teaches wherein the proof mass assembly is formed within a monolithic substrate (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim; col. 4 lines 15-20) via a laser selective etch (the frame and mass 12, as described in col. 4 on lines 15-20, are able to have been etched from the monolithic substrate by a laser selective etch).
As to claim 15, Amand as modified teaches wherein the at least one strain isolator (Foote) is formed within the monolithic substrate via the laser selective etch (col. 6 lines 8-11 of Foote teach a strain isolator 6, 10, 12 monolithically formed with a proof mass support 8 by etching slots 36, 38 in substrate 32).
Amand as modified does not teach wherein the at least one dampening plate 26 (Amand) and the at least one strain isolator (Foote) are formed within the monolithic substrate via the laser selective etch.
‘440 teaches wherein the dampening plates 36, 38 and proof mass assembly layer (including the proof mass 30) are formed of crystalline quartz (¶19), wherein the dampening plates and proof mass assembly are joined via a direct bond in which the components’ atoms interdiffuse (resulting in a monolithic structure).
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 Amand as modified such that the dampening plates and proof mass assembly layer are formed of crystalline quartz as taught by ‘440 since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one material for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
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 Amand as modified such that the dampening plates and proof mass assembly layer are joined via a direct bond in which the components’ atoms interdiffuse, as taught by ‘440 since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of connecting the dampening plates for another for the predictable result that damping is still successfully performed.
Amand as modified teaches wherein the at least one dampening plate and the at least one strain isolator are formed within the monolithic substrate via the laser selective etch (the at least one dampening plate and the at least one strain isolator of the prior art device are able to have been formed from a monolithic substrate via a laser selective etch; additionally or alternatively, the at least one dampening plate and the at least one strain isolator are able to have been formed by a monolithic substrate formed by directly bonded layers, in the manner of ‘440, which is then selectively laser etched to form the at least one dampening plate and at least one strain isolator).
As to claim 16, Amand teaches wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are not coplanar (fig. 1).
As to claim 17, Amand teaches wherein the first resonator is configured to have a compressive load and the second resonator is configured to have a tensile load upon rotation of the proof mass in a first direction (abstract; figs. 1-2).
As to claim 22, Amand teaches wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass assembly within a same monolithic substrate (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim; as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, the prior art resonators are attached by welding).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9 that ‘440 does not teach the claimed laser welds and wherein the resonators are connected to the first and second major surfaces without a bonding adhesive.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In view of the 112b rejection of claim 1, the resonators are not interpreted as being attached by laser welding. Furthermore, ¶22 teaches that the resonators are attached by inter-diffusing the atoms of the resonators and the first and second major surfaces, meaning a bonding adhesive is not used.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 are patentable for including the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all the pending elected claims are properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that the applied references fail to disclose or suggest the features of claim 21, and would have provided no apparent reason for modification to arrive at the claimed features.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As to claim 21, ‘440 teaches wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are monolithically formed with the proof mass, the proof mass support, and the flexure within the same monolithic substrate (¶19 and ¶22 teach that the first resonator, the second resonator, the proof mass, the proof mass support and the flexure are all made of crystalline quartz and connected as a single piece of quartz; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-12, 14-17 and 22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Conclusion
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