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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/00408805 (Hu et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0205866 (Brockhaus).
With regards to claim 1, Hu et al. discloses a MEMS accelerometer self-test system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-7D, a testing apparatus for a sensor 12 (e.g. accelerometer sensor; paragraph [0020]) comprising a control device 14,40 (e.g. ASIC having a self-test circuit; paragraphs [0020],[0023],[0038][0039]) configured to supply test signals F1,F2 (e.g. test signals; paragraph [0023]) to the sensor and to subsequently read the sensor to ascertain a sensor value (e.g. paragraph [0023]; Figures 2,5); the control device 14,40 is configured to supply the test signal to the sensor multiple times in succession, each for a predetermined first time period (e.g. paragraphs [0023],[0024]); the sensor is subsequently read during a predetermined second time period (e.g. paragraphs [0023],[0024]); the control device 14,40 is further designed to vary the first predetermined time period for supplying the test signal to the sensor and to ascertain a corresponding sensor value for at least two different first time periods in each case (e.g. Figures 3A-3B,6A-7D); the control device 14,40 is configured to determine a state value of the sensor using the ascertained sensor values for at least two different first time periods (e.g. error operation signal Err; paragraphs [0024],[0026] to [0033]). (See, paragraphs [0020] to [0045]).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the control device is configured to repeat supplying the test signal and reading until a stationary sensor value is produced such that the stationary sensor value is used to determine the state value of the sensor.
Brockhaus discloses a testing of a measurement device arrangement comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-8, a testing apparatus 1 (e.g. measuring device arrangement; paragraph [0032]) for a sensor 2 (e.g. measuring device; paragraph [0032]) comprising a control device 4,6 (e.g. control element along with test apparatus; paragraph [0032]) configured to supply a test signal to the sensor and to subsequently read the sensor to ascertain a sensor value wherein the control device is configured to determine a state value of the sensor such that the control device is configured to repeat supplying the test signal and reading until a stationary sensor value (e.g. a constant definable value; paragraph [0050]) is produced such that the stationary sensor value is used to determine the state value of the sensor (e.g. evaluates what amount signal must be compensated until the measurement signal or the constant definable value is established as the pick-off signal where the testing is ended and the result is communicated and the progression is repeated in order to optionally generate another test signal; paragraphs [0048], [0049],[0050],[0014]; Figure 8). (See, paragraphs [0031] to [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the control device is configured to repeat supplying the test signal and reading until a stationary sensor value is produced such that the stationary sensor value is used to determine the state value of the sensor as suggested by Brockhaus to the system of Hu et al. to have the ability to provide a monitoring device arrangement system which enables inline testing without interrupting the measurement or the transfer of the measured values. (See, paragraphs [0009],[0050] of Brockhaus).
With regards to claim 2, Hu et al. furthers disclose the control device 14,40 is configured to provide a predetermined electric voltage at the sensor to excite the sensor (e.g. paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
With regards to claim 4, Hu et al. further discloses the control device 14,40 is configured to adjust an operating parameter using the ascertained sensor values for at least two different first time periods (e.g. airbag deployment, seat belt tensioning; paragraph [0003]).
With regards to claim 5, Hu et al. further discloses the control device 14,40 includes an application-specific integrated circuit (e.g. ASIC; paragraph [0020])
With regards to claim 6, the claim is directed to a sensor system 10 (e.g. accelerometer sensing system, paragraph [0035]) and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Further, the sensor 12 configured to provide an output signal which corresponds to a physical parameter (e.g. acceleration; paragraph [0020]).
With regards to claim 7, Hu et al. further discloses the sensor 12 includes a micro-electromechanical system (e.g. paragraph [0020]).
With regards to claim 8, Hu et al. further discloses the sensor 12 includes an acceleration sensor (e.g. accelerometer, paragraph [0020]).
With regards to claim 10, the claim is directed to a method claim and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason as set forth above.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/00408805 (Hu et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0205866 (Brockhaus), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2014/0260515 (Hazel et al.)
With regards to claim 3, Hu et al. does not disclose the control device is configured to ascertain a damping property of the sensor using the ascertained sensor values for at least two different first time periods.
Hazel et al. discloses a system for detecting capped MEMS device comprising, as
illustrated in Figures 1-5, a testing apparatus for a sensor 100,501 (e.g. accelerometer; paragraph [0030]; Figures 1,4) comprising a control device 505 (e.g. Figure 4) configured to supply test signals (e.g. test signal; paragraph [0035],[0036]) to the sensor at a time period and to subsequently read the sensor to ascertain a sensor value at a time period (e.g. step 602 in Figure 5; paragraph [0039]); the control device 505 is configured to determine a state value of the sensor using the ascertained sensor values (e.g. error signal Err; paragraphs [0037],[0039]); the control device is configured to ascertain a damping property of the sensor using the ascertained sensor values for at the time period (e.g. paragraphs [0031] to [0034]). (See, paragraphs [0030] to [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the control device is configured to ascertain a damping property of the sensor using the ascertained sensor values for at the time period as suggested by Hazel et al. to the system of Hu et al., as modified by Brockhaus, to have the ability to provide a Q-factor parameter value which is a measure of its resonance characteristics which describes how damped an oscillator is. (See, paragraphs [0031],[0033] of Hazel et al.)
With regards to claim 9, Hazel et al. further discloses the sensor 100 includes a cavity filled with a medium (e.g. fluid, gas; paragraphs [0007],[0033]) such that the testing apparatus is configured to detect a leak in the cavity filled with the medium (e.g. leak; paragraph [0033]).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection and/or because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights