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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 19 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-33 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the cited art below.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claim 33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 33 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 230, 508, 1230, 1232, 1684, 1686, 1700, 1702, 1704, 1750, 1760, 1772, 1774, 2000, 2008, 2112, 2114, 2116, 2120, 2122, 2124, 2132, 2134, 2136, 2138, 2500, 2700, 2702, 2800, 2804, 2930, 2932, 2934, 2936, 2938, 2940, 3202, 3204, 3206, 3252, 3274, 3276, 3300, 3310, 3320, 3330, 3340, 3350, 3352, 3354, 3360, 3362, 3364, 3380, 3400, 3450, 3452, 3420, 3430, 3468, 3466, 3460, 3462, 3470, 3480, 3484, 3600, 3608, 3620, 3640, 3700, 3720, 3820, 3862, 3900, 3902, 3920, 3922, 3942, 3940, 3944, 3946, 3960, 3962, 3980, 4000, 4020, 4022, 4040, 4042, 4060, 4100, 4120, 4140, 4142, 4160, 4210, 4202, 4204, 4206, 4208, 4242, 4300,4304A, 4320, 4327, 4328, 4329, 4340, 4360, 4366, 4402, 4426, 4444A, 4444B, 4444C, 4442, 4500, 4520, 4523, 4540, 4547, 4560, 4569, 4580, 4582, 4600, 4602, 4604, 4620, 4624, 4625, 4626, 4640, 4647, 4648, 4660, 4669, 4680, 4682, 4700, 4705, 4706, 4723, 4741, 4743, 4746, 4760, 4800, 4840, 4846, 4900, 4902, 4904, 4908, 4920, 4940, 4960, 4990, 4992, 5000, 5002, 5007, 5008, 5009, 5020, 5022, 5040, 5044, 5046, 5060, 5066, 5100, 5120, 5128, 5129, 5140, 5147, 5160, 5162, 5200, 5220, 5225, 5229, 5240, 5241, 5460, 5262, 5300, 5320, 5321, 5322, 5323. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al. US 2017/0248422 and Horning US 2011/0290021.
Regarding claim 21, Najafi teaches a stacked resonator structure comprising a support substrate 11, a resonator 13 having a hollow hemispherical shape (see fig. 1C) with an inner concave surface facing the support substrate (the inner surface faces the substrate as seen in fig. 1C and fig. 2), a support post (stem 21) is formed integral with the resonator and extends from a center of the inner concave surface to the support substrate (fig. 2), and an electrode 61 formed on the resonator (paragraph 0043 and Fig. 6A disclose a conductive coating in the form of an electrode 61), where the resonator is nested in the electrode (the electrode 61 is on the exterior of the resonator 13), and the electrode shell is configured to drive the resonator electrostatically (paragraphs 0007 and 0010 disclose the electrostatic drivers and paragraph 0042 discloses the electrode layer as being driven by the drivers, therefore the shell drives the resonator through its excitement). Najafi does not explicitly teach the electrode as being a shell conformed with the sensor in the claimed arrangement.
Horning teaches a resonator with a hollow hemispherical shape as seen in fig. 1A and Fig. 5 which includes an electrode layer (438, paragraph 0065, 0069) which has a hollow hemispherical shape and an inner concave surface conformed with the resonator, wherein the resonator is nested in the electrode shell. Horning further teaches driving electrodes 420 as being used to drive the resonator (paragraph 0068), but does not explicitly teach the driving the resonator with the electrode shell 438. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the shell of Horning to the resonator of Najafi in order to provide an electrode shell on the outer surface of the resonator as taught by Horning to act as the driving electrode of Najafi in order to allow for increased precision due to the uniformity of the resonator (Horning paragraph 0004).
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi and Horning as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Shkel et al. US 2020/0309527.
Regarding claim 22, Najafi and Horning teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the electrode shell including a flange formed along a rim thereof and the flange attached to the support structure as claimed. Shkel discloses as seen in fig. 1, a gyroscope structure in which an outer shell 110 comprises a flange 115 which is attached to a substrate and coated with a thin-film metal conductive coating 229 (paragraph 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Shkel with those of Najafi and Horning to provide a similar electrode shell over the resonator 13 of Najafi to provide an electrical connection between the resonator and the electronics substrate and to enclose the resonator in a pressure-tight cavity during operation.
Regarding claim 23, the resonator and support post of Najafi are composed of fused silica as claimed (abstract) which would remain when combined in with Shkel as above.
Regarding claim 24, in combination, Najafi teaches the external surface of the resonator coated with metal and the inner concave surface patterned with an electrically conductive material as claimed (paragraph 0054) which would function as electrodes in conjunction with the drive electrodes (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 25, the resonator of Najafi when combined with Horning is disclosed as being a micro scale gyroscope (paragraph 0003), but does not explicitly teach it being less than 30 millimeters in the largest dimension. Shkel teaches a shell resonator with similar features to those of Najafi and discloses the resonator as being in the claimed size range (paragraph 00110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufactured the resonator to the specifications of Shkel when combined with Najafi and Horning since it was common with microelectromechanical devices in order to produce a sensor capable of fitting in small devices which require accurate sensing.
Claim(s) 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi and Shkel.
Regarding claim 26, Najafi teaches a stacked resonator structure comprising a support substrate 11, a resonator 13 having a hollow hemispherical shape (see fig. 1C) with an inner concave surface facing the support substrate (the inner surface faces the substrate as seen in fig. 1C and fig. 2), a support post (stem 21) is formed integral with the resonator and extends from a center of the inner concave surface to the support substrate (fig. 2), and an electrode with an inner concave surface conformed with the resonator (paragraph 0043 and Fig. 6C disclose a conductive coating in the form of an electrode 61), where the resonator is nested in the electrode shell (the electrode 61 is a covers a surface of the resonator 13), and the electrode is configured to drive the resonator electrostatically (paragraphs 0007 and 0010 disclose the electrostatic drivers and paragraph 0042 discloses the electrode layer as being driven by the drivers).
Therefore, the device of Najafi differs from that of the claim in that the electrode is located on the outside of the resonator rather than as an inner electrode shell, wherein the inner electrode shell is configured to drive the resonator electrostatically.
Shkel teaches a shell resonator structure in which an inner surface of an inner shell can be coated with a thin-film metal conductive coating which is used for electrostatic actuation of the resonator (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Shkel with those of Najafi in order to provide an inner electrode shell on the resonator to allow for the actuators to more closely interact with the electrodes for accurate lower-powered driving of resonator shell.
Regarding claim 27, Najafi and Shkel as combined above teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the electrode shell including a lip formed along a rim thereof and the lip attached to the support structure as claimed. Shkel discloses as seen in fig. 1, a gyroscope structure in which an outer shell 110 comprises a flange 115 which is attached to a substrate and coated with a thin-film metal conductive coating 229 (paragraph 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the lip of Shkel with those of Najafi to provide a similar electrode shell over the resonator 13 of Najafi to provide an electrical connection between the resonator and the electronics substrate and to enclose the resonator in a pressure-tight cavity during operation.
Regarding claim 28, the resonator and support post of Najafi are composed of fused silica as claimed (abstract) which would remain as the composition when combined with Shkel.
Regarding claim 29, in combination, Najafi teaches the external surface of the resonator coated with metal and the inner concave surface patterned with an electrically conductive material as claimed (paragraph 0054) which would function as electrodes in conjunction with the drive electrodes (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 30, the resonator of Najafi is disclosed as being a micro scale gyroscope (paragraph 0003), but does not explicitly teach it being less than 30 millimeters in the largest dimension. Shkel teaches the resonator as being in the claimed size range (paragraph 00110), however. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufactured the resonator to the specifications of Shkel when combined with Najafi since it was common with microelectromechanical devices in order to produce a sensor capable of fitting in small devices which require accurate sensing.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi and Shkel as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of Horning.
Regarding claim 31, Najafi and Shkel disclose the inner electrode shell wherein the resonator is driven electrostatically (Najafi, paragraph 0030), but do not explicitly teach the outer electrode shell as claimed. Horning teaches a resonator with a hollow hemispherical shape as seen in fig. 1A and Fig. 5 which includes an electrode layer (438, paragraph 0065, 0069) which has a hollow hemispherical shape and an inner concave surface conformed with the resonator, wherein the resonator is nested in the electrode shell. Horning further teaches driving electrodes 420 as being used to drive the resonator (paragraph 0068), however does not explicitly teach the driving the resonator with the electrode shell, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the shell of Horning to the resonator of Najafi in order to provide the drive electrode on the outer surface of the shell to allow for increased precision due to the uniformity of the resonator (Horning paragraph 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach the claimed stacked resonator as in claim 33, wherein the first and second resonators of the claimed design are arranged such that the concave surface of the first resonator is facing the inner concave surface of the second resonator. The prior art of Shkel for example, teaches multiple resonators arranged side by side in a sheet form, but does not teach them as facing each other in the claimed manner.
Claim 32 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not explicitly teach the claimed arrangement of elements as found in claim 32 including the specifics of the second resonator, wherein the resonator is nested within the second resonator and the outer shell of the second resonator is configured to drive the resonator electrostatically. While Shkel teaches multiple resonators, they are not in the claimed, nested arrangement claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855