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 .
Election/Restriction
Claims 18-20 remain withdrawn
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, and 9 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); and
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 monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch (the first resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch), and
wherein the second resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch (the second resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch).
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 each of the first laser etch or the second laser etch comprises a laser selective etch (in that each of the first and second resonators is able to have been made via a laser selective etch).
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).
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, 10-12 and 14-17 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).
As to claim 10, ‘440 teaches a vibrating beam accelerometer comprising:
at least one dampening plate 36; and
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 at least one dampening plate and the proof mass assembly comprise the same material (¶19),
wherein the first resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch (the first resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch), and
wherein the second resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch (the second resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch).
‘440 does not teach at least one strain isolator;
wherein the at least one dampening plate, the at least one strain isolator, and the proof mass assembly comprise the same material.
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).
‘440 as modified teaches at least one strain isolator (Foote);
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, the at least one strain isolator is monolithically formed with the proof mass support of the proof mass assembly).
As to claim 11, ‘440 teaches wherein the material is crystalline quartz (¶19).
As to claim 12, ‘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 14, ‘440 teaches wherein each of the first laser etch or the second laser etch comprises a laser selective etch (the first and second resonators are able to have been formed with a selective laser etch).
As to claim 15, ‘440 as modified teaches wherein the at least one dampening plate 36 (‘440) and the at least one strain isolator (Foote) are formed within the monolithic substrate via the laser selective etch (in view of Foote, the strain isolator is monolithically formed with the proof mass support of the proof mass assembly; accordingly, the at least one dampening plate and the at least one strain isolator are able to have been formed within the monolithic substrate via the laser selective etch).
As to claim 16, ‘440 teaches wherein the first resonator and the second resonator are not coplanar (fig. 1).
As to claim 17, ‘440 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 (fig. 1; ¶21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9 that “As an initial matter, Applicant submits that Office has not shown that Starzynski recites "a monolithic substrate, the monolithic substrate comprising: a proof mass, a proof mass support; and a flexure connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support" as recited in amended claim 1.
The Office alleged that "¶22 [of Starzynski] 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." Applicant respectfully submits that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the Office's prior definition for "monolithic", which was "meaning the parts thereof are etched from a single block of material." Additionally, Starzynski merely describes that "the components are placed and held together at a predefined pressure of between 0.2 and 40 atmospheres with tooling (not shown) and heated to a temperature above 200° C. for several hours. Atoms from the components will interdiffuse and form a direct bond. " Thus, Applicant submits that the Office has not shown that Starzynski describes "a monolithic substrate comprising: a proof mass, a proof mass support and a flexure connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support", as recited in amended claim 1.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As admitted by Applicant, “Atoms from the components will interdiffuse.” Accordingly, as a result of the atoms interdiffusing, the substrate is monolithic (i.e. formed of a single block of material) and monolithically comprises: a proof mass, a proof mass support; and a flexure connecting the proof mass to the proof mass support.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that “Furthermore, the Office has not shown that Starzynski discloses "wherein the first resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch, and wherein the second resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch" as recited in amended claim 1.⁷ Starzynski merely describes that [a]s shown in FIG. 8, an RBA 120 is assembled by employing direct bonding using the proof mass 100 shown in FIG. 7-2. Damping plates 36-2, 38-2 and resonators 26-2, 28-2 are direct bonded to the proof mass 100. The highlighted lines 124 indicate where direct bonds occur.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, the substrate is monolithic due to the interdiffusion of atoms that causes the substrate to be one single piece of material. Accordingly, ‘440 teaches wherein the first resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch, and wherein the second resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch. For example, layers for the resonators could have been attached with the other element layer(s) via the interdiffusion of atoms, forming a monolithic piece of material. Subsequently, selective laser etching could have been used to etch the resonators. Accordingly, the first resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch, and the second resonator is able to have been monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that “For at least the reasons discussed above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Starzynski. The dependent claims, i.e., claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 9, incorporate the requirements of the respective independent claims.⁹ Accordingly, the dependent claims are likewise patentable. For at least these reasons, Starzynski is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for anticipation of Applicant's claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2). Applicant therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection.”
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons above.
Applicant argues on pgs. 10-11 that
“Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections to the extent the rejections may be considered applicable to the claims as amended. The applied references, alone or in any combination, fail to disclose or suggest the features defined by Applicant's claims, and there would have been no apparent reason that would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applied references to arrive at the claimed features.
For example, none of Foote, Amand, or Heinouchi, alone or in any combination with Starzynski, discloses or suggests "wherein the first resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a first laser etch, and wherein the second resonator is monolithically formed within the monolithic substrate via a second laser etch" as recited in amended claims 1 and 10.”
and
“For at least the reasons discussed above, amended independent claims 1 and 10 are patentable over the applied references. The dependent claims, i.e., claims 8, 11-12, and 14-17 incorporate the requirements of the respective independent claims. 12 Accordingly, the dependent claims are likewise patentable.
For at least these reasons, the applied references are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for non-patentability of Applicant's claims 8, 10-12, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Foote was not relied on for the features cited by Applicant since ‘440 already teaches them.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections relying on Amand and Heinouchi have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Conclusion
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 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