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
Claim 12 remains withdrawn.
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, 3, 9-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anac et al. (US 20170314960 A1, hereinafter Anac) in view of Seeger et al. (US 20130068018 A1, hereinafter Seeger).
As to claim 1, Anac teaches a three-axis gyroscope (fig. 2, ¶37), comprising:
a substrate (not shown, but ¶29 teaches that device 1300 of fig. 2 is built on and connected to the substrate by anchors 406a-b) on which a first plate element (comprising plate element 102a, except for its lower surface, wherein the first plate element of Anac is hereinafter referred to as “102ax”), a second plate element 650a, a third plate element (comprising plate element 102d, except for its lower surface, wherein the third plate element of Anac is hereinafter referred to as “102dx”), a first drive module 102b (¶31), and a second drive module 102c (¶31) are disposed;
wherein the first drive module, the first plate element, the second plate element, the third plate element, and the second drive module are disposed along a first axial direction Y;
wherein the first plate element is connected with the second plate element by a first flexible member 652a while the third plate element is connected with the second plate element by a second flexible member 652b; the first flexible member and the second flexible member are located on two sides of the second plate element correspondingly in the first axial direction;
wherein the first drive module 102b is connected with the first plate element 102ax by a third member 302a for driving (¶31) the first plate element to reciprocate in a second axial direction X while the second axial direction is perpendicular to the first axial direction; the second drive module 102c is connected with the third plate element 102dx by a fourth member 302b for driving (¶31) the third plate element to reciprocate in the second axial direction (see fig. 3).
Anac does not explicitly teach wherein the third member and fourth member are flexible.
Seeger teaches a device similar to the device of Anac, wherein elements 102a-b are connected to each other with a flexible member 302a and wherein elements 102c-d are connected to each other with another flexible member 302b (¶57).
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 Anac such that the connection elements connecting elements 102a-b and connecting elements 102c-d are flexible coupling elements as taught by Seeger, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one set of connection elements for another for the benefit of facilitating the motion of plate elements 102a-d (Anac; noted that ¶35 of Anac teaches that out-of-plane motion of plate elements 102a-d is used for detecting rotational speed about roll-axis Y) for detecting rotational velocity about the roll-axis Y (¶59-60, ¶68 and fig. 12D of Seeger).
As to claim 3, Anac teaches wherein there is a phase difference of 180 degrees between a direction of the first plate element driven to reciprocate by the first drive module and a direction of the third plate element driven to reciprocate by the second drive module (fig. 3).
[AltContent: textbox (IH3)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
262
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Anac teaches that limitations of the claim except wherein the second plate element is provided with an insertion hole therein and an inner edge of the second plate element around the insertion hole is connected with at least one anchor point by at least one flexible member.
Seeger further teaches wherein the second plate element 650a has an insertion hole IH3 (see fig. 12D above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the second plate element of the modified Anac to have an insertion hole as further taught by Seeger since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the second plate element for the predictable result that the modified apparatus still successfully detects angular velocities.
Anac as modified teaches wherein the second plate element is provided with an insertion hole IH3 (Seeger) therein and an inner edge of the second plate element around the insertion hole is connected with at least one anchor point (406a or 406b of Anac) by at least one flexible member (408a or 408c, respectively, in Anac).
As to claim 10, Anac teaches wherein the first drive module and the second drive module are fixed on the substrate by at least one positioning member (406a or 406b).
As to claim 11, Anac teaches a three-axis gyroscope (fig. 2, ¶37) comprising:
a substrate (not shown, but ¶29 teaches that device 1300 of fig. 2 is built on and connected to the substrate by anchors 406a-b) on which a first plate element 102a, a second plate element 650a, a third plate element 102d, a first drive module 102b (¶31), and a second drive module 102c (¶31)are disposed;
wherein the first plate element, the first drive module, the second plate element, the second drive module, and the third plate element are disposed along a first axial direction Y;
wherein the first drive module is connected with the second plate element by a first flexible member 652a and the second drive module is connected with the second plate element by a second flexible member 652b while the first flexible member and the second flexible member are located on two sides of the second plate element correspondingly in the first axial direction;
wherein the first drive module is connected with the first plate element by a third member 302a for driving (¶31) the first plate element to have reciprocating movement in a second axial direction X while the second axial direction is perpendicular to the first axial direction; the second drive module is connected with the third plate element by a fourth member 302b for driving (¶31) the third plate element to have reciprocating movement in the second axial direction.
Anac does not explicitly teach wherein the third member and fourth member are flexible.
Seeger teaches a device similar to the device of Anac, wherein elements 102a-b are connected to each other with a flexible member 302a and wherein elements 102c-d are connected to each other with another flexible member 302b (¶57).
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 Anac such that the connection elements connecting elements 102a-b and connecting elements 102c-d are flexible coupling elements as taught by Seeger, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one set of connection elements for another for the benefit of facilitating the motion of plate elements 102a-d (Anac; noted that ¶35 of Anac teaches that out-of-plane motion of plate elements 102a-d is used for detecting rotational speed about roll-axis Y) for detecting rotational velocity about the roll-axis Y (¶59-60, ¶68 and fig. 12D of Seeger).
As to claim 13, Anac teaches wherein there is a phase difference of 180 degrees between a direction of the first plate element driven to have reciprocating movement by the first drive module and a direction of the third plate element driven to have reciprocating movement by the second drive module (fig. 3).
As to claim 14, Anac as modified teaches wherein the first plate element and the third plate element have a first rotational motion (see ¶35 and ¶39 of Anac; Anac was modified such that elements 302a-b are flexible as taught by Seeger, meaning the first and third plate elements exhibit a Coriolis force induced rotation similar to what is shown in fig. 12D of Seeger) correspondingly while respectively being driven by the first drive module and the second drive module.
As to claim 15, Anac teaches wherein the first drive module and the second drive module drive the second plate element respectively through the first flexible member and the second flexible member so that the second plate element has a second rotational motion correspondingly (see fig. 3).
As to claim 16, Anac teaches wherein the first plate element and the third plate element are fixed on the substrate by a positioning member (at least one of anchors 406a-b).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anac in view of Seeger as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ohms et al. (US 20110132087 A1, hereinafter Ohms).
As to claim 6, Anac teaches wherein the three-axis gyroscope further includes:
a set of first out-of-plane sensing electrodes (the bottom surfaces of plate elements 102a, 102d) disposed under the first plate element 102ax and under the third plate element 102dx correspondingly for sensing rotational motion in the first axial direction Y (¶35);
a set of second out-of-plane sensing electrodes 660a-b disposed under the second plate element for sensing rotational motion in the second axial direction (¶40);
a set of in-plane sensing electrodes 522a-b for sensing rotational motion in the third axial direction Z (¶38).
Anac as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the in-plane sensing electrodes are mounted in the first plate element and the third plate element correspondingly.
Ohms teaches plate elements 10, 20 having in-plane sensing electrodes 300 mounted therein (figs. 9-10 and ¶46).
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 Anac as modified such that Anac’s Coriolis elements 518a-b are configured similarly to Ohms’ Coriolis elements 10, 20 so as to have in-plane sensing electrode structures, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of detecting in-plane detection for another for the predictable result that an angular velocity about the Z axis is still successfully detected.
Anac as modified teaches wherein the in-plane sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms) are mounted in the first plate element 102ax (Anac) and the third plate element 102dx (Anac) correspondingly.
[AltContent: textbox (IH1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (IH2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
840
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Anac as modified teaches wherein the first plate element is provided with an insertion hole IH1 (fig. 2 of Anac above) for mounting one of the in-plane sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms) while the third plate element is provided with another insertion hole IH2 (fig. 2 of Anac above) for mounting the other one of the in-plane sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms); an inner edge of the first plate element around the insertion hole is connected with the one of the in-plane sensing electrodes by a fifth flexible member 520a (¶32 of Anac) while an inner edge of the third plate element around the another insertion hole is connected with the other one of the in-plane sensing electrodes by a sixth flexible member 520e (¶32 of Anac).
As to claim 8, Anac as modified teaches wherein the first plate element is provided with an insertion hole IH1 (fig. 2 of Anac above) for mounting one of the in-plane sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms) and the one of the in-plane sensing electrodes is connected with an anchor point (one of anchors 406a-b in Anac); the third plate element is provided with another insertion hole IH2 (fig. 2 of Anac above) for mounting the other one of the in-plane sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms) and the other one of the in-plane sensing electrodes is connected with another anchor point (another one of anchors 406a-b in Anac); wherein (bottom surface of element 102a in Anac) one of the first out-of-plane sensing electrodes disposed under the first plate element is connected with the one of the in-plate sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms) by a fifth flexible member 520b (Anac) while the other one of the first out-of-plane sensing electrodes (bottom surface of element 102d) disposed under the third plate element is connected with the other one of the in-plate sensing electrodes 300 (Ohms) by a sixth flexible member 520f (Anac).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Seeger et al. (US 20130068018 A1, hereinafter Seeger) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seeger in view of Anac et al. (US 20170314960 A1, hereinafter Anac).
As to claim 1, Seeger teaches a three-axis gyroscope (fig. 12A and ¶22), comprising:
a substrate (being the structure to which anchors 406a-b are attached - ¶36) on which a first plate element 102b, a second plate element 650a, a third plate element 102c, a first drive module 102a (¶66), and a second drive module 102d (¶66) are disposed;
wherein the first drive module, the first plate element, the second plate element, the third plate element, and the second drive module are disposed along a first axial direction Y;
wherein the first plate element is connected with the second plate element by a first flexible member 652a (¶50) while the third plate element is connected with the second plate element by a second flexible member 652b (¶50); the first flexible member and the second flexible member are located on two sides of the second plate element correspondingly in the first axial direction;
wherein the first drive module is connected with the first plate element by a third flexible member 302a (¶59) for driving the first plate element (¶66 teaches that elements 109a-b are actuators, which means that the first drive module 102a is capable of being used to drive the first plate element 102b via the third flexible member 302a) to reciprocate in a second axial direction X while the second axial direction is perpendicular to the first axial direction Y; the second drive module 102d is connected with the third plate element by a fourth flexible member 302b (¶60) for driving the third plate element (¶66 teaches that elements 109g-h are actuators, which means that the second drive module 102d is capable of being used to drive the second plate element 102c via the fourth flexible member 302b) to reciprocate in the second axial direction (see fig. 13).
If Applicant argues that Seeger does not teach that the first plate element, second plate element, third plate element, first drive module, and the second drive module are all disposed on the same substrate,
Anac teaches a three-axis gyroscope (fig. 2, ¶37), comprising:
a substrate (not shown, but ¶29 teaches that device 1300 of fig. 2 is built on and connected to a single substrate by anchors 406a-b) on which a first plate element (comprising plate element 102a, except for its lower surface, wherein the first plate element of Anac is hereinafter referred to as “102ax”), a second plate element 650a, a third plate element (comprising plate element 102d, except for its lower surface, wherein the third plate element of Anac is hereinafter referred to as “102dx”), a first drive module 102b (¶31), and a second drive module 102c (¶31) are disposed.
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 Seeger such that the triaxial gyroscope is disposed on a single substrate as taught by Anac so as to minimize the number of parts and the complexity of the device.
Seeger as modified teaches wherein the first plate element, second plate element, third plate element, first drive module, and the second drive module are disposed on the substrate.
As to claim 2, Seeger teaches wherein the first flexible member 652a and the third flexible member 302a are connected with two sides of the first plate element 102b correspondingly in the first axial direction Y and disposed in an asymmetric manner with respect to the first plate element (at least because the first and third flexible members are attached at asymmetrically disposed attachment points); the second flexible member 652b and the fourth flexible member 302b are connected with two sides of the third plate element 102c correspondingly in the first axial direction and disposed in an asymmetric manner with respect to the third plate element (at least because the second and fourth flexible members are attached at asymmetrically disposed attachment points).
As to claim 4, Seeger teaches wherein the first plate element and the third plate element have a first rotational motion (see fig. 12D and ¶68) correspondingly while respectively being driven by the first drive module and the second drive module (i.e. the first and second drive modules are capable of being used to drive the first and third plate elements).
As to claim 5, Seeger teaches wherein the first plate element and the third plate element drive the second plate element respectively through the first flexible member and the second flexible member so that the second plate element has a second rotational motion correspondingly (fig. 12B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 3 that Anac’s elemnets 102b-c are not “independent” drive modules, and wherein
“1. Anac Expressly Discloses That 102b and 102c Are Parts of Proof Mass 650a - Not Independent Drive Modules
As an initial matter, Anac's own specification directly refutes the Examiner's characterization of elements 102b and 102c as independent "drive modules." Anac at paragraph [0030] expressly states: "The proof mass 650a is shown partially surrounded, on top, by a sub-frame 102c, and partially surrounded at the bottom by a sub-frame 102b, each of the sub-frames 102c and 102b may be a part of the proof mass 650a, in some embodiments."…
Similarly, Anac at paragraph [0030] discloses that sub-frame 102a "may be regarded as a part of the proof mass 518a" and sub-frame 102d "may be regarded as a part of the proof mass 518b."
These disclosures are of critical significance. Anac's own specification identifies 102b and 102c not as structurally and functionally independent "drive modules," but rather as sub-frames that are integral parts of the pitch proof mass 650a. The Examiner's re-characterization of these sub-frames as dedicated "drive modules" ======= structurally distinct from and functionally dominant over adjacent "plate elements" ------ is flatly contradicted by Anac's own disclosure and constitutes an impermissible hindsight reconstruction. See MPEP § 2145(X)(A); In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “independent” drive modules, “structurally and functionally independent” drive modules, dedicated "drive modules"…structurally distinct from and functionally dominant over adjacent "plate elements,") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, ¶30 of Anac states “each of the sub-frames 102c and 102b may be a part of the proof mass 650a, in some embodiments,” which implies that there is at least one embodiment in which the sub-frames 102b-102c are not parts of proof mass 650a. The Examiner relies on this at least one embodiment.
Even if the sub-frames 102b-102c are parts of proof masses 650a, which the Examiner does not admit, sub-frames 102b-102c can still be considered drive modules because they perform a driving function with respect to element 650a suspended by elements 652a-b. As admitted by Applicant on pg. 5, ¶31 teaches that sub-frames 102b-c are driven by a single drive circuit coupled to actuators 109c-f, which only cooperate directly with sub-frames 102b-c. Furthermore, ¶31 also states “Electrostatic actuators 109c-f, such as comb drives, are connected to the sub-frames 102b and c to drive the system 1300.” Accordingly, the sub-frames 102b-c, under the actuation of actuators 109c-f, drive the whole system 1300, meaning they are drive modules whether or not they are part of mass 650a.
Applicant’s argument regarding impermissible hindsight reconstruction is not germane to the rejection since Anac is not being modified to teach the first and second drive modules.
Applicant argues in the paragraph bridging pgs. 3-4 that
“The claimed invention establishes a specific structural relationship in which the "first drive module" and "second drive module" are dedicated elements whose purpose is to generate and transmit driving force to adjacent plate elements. The drive modules themselves do not serve as proof masses for sensing angular velocity.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The drive modules themselves do not serve as proof masses for sensing angular velocity”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 5 that ¶31 of Anac teaches ”The sub-frames 102a-d and the proof mass 650a are driven together at a drive frequency by a single drive circuit coupled to the actuators 109c-f." (Emphasis added.),” and
“There is no hierarchy among the sub-frames - no sub-frame serves as a dedicated driver for another. Actuators 109c-f are connected to sub-frames 102b and 102c (Anac, paragraph [0031]), but these actuators drive the entire system 1300 as a unit, not just 102b or 102c individually, and certainly not for the purpose of transmitting force from 102b to 102a or from 102c to 102d.
Accordingly, the Examiner's assertion that element 102b "drives" element 102a (as mapped to the claimed "first drive module" driving the "first plate element") is directly contrary to Anac's express teaching that all sub-frames are driven together by a single circuit.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant correctly admits, and ¶31 of Anac teaches, that sub-frames 102b-c drive the whole system 1300 under the actuation of actuators 109c-f. Sub-frames 102a, 102d and 650a are part of system 1300. This means sub-frames 102b-c are the drive modules, and sub-frames 102a, 102d and 650a are analogous to the claimed plate elements.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 “The Coupling Members 302a/302b in Anac Synchronize Co-Equal Masses - They Do Not Transmit Driving Force from a Dedicated Driver to a Driven Mass.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Not Transmit Driving Force from a Dedicated Driver to a Driven Mass”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to Seeger, Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “The language "move together" confirms that the coupling springs 302a and 302b serve to synchronize the motion of two co-equal proof masses ----- not to transmit driving force from a dedicated, non-sensing driver to a passive proof mass. This is fundamentally different from the claimed third and fourth flexible members, which connect dedicated drive modules (that are not proof masses) to plate elements (that are proof masses) for the specific purpose of unidirectional force transmission.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. 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). Anac already teaches the concept of couplers transferring force from a drive module, per se, to a driven mass element. Seeger is relied on to teach that couplers, per se, transferring driving force between elements in a driving mode are flexible.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “transmit driving force from a dedicated, non-sensing driver to a passive proof mass” and “dedicated drive modules (that are not proof masses) to plate elements (that are proof masses) for the specific purpose of unidirectional force transmission”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant correctly admits on pgs. 5-6 that Seeger teaches “The coupling spring 302a is stiff in the X-direction such that roll proof-mass 102a and 102b move together in the X-direction” and “The coupling spring 302b is stiff in the X-direction such that roll proof-mass 102c and 102d move together in the X-direction,” but Applicant incorrectly interprets Seeger’s teachings. The stiffness of the coupling elements 302a-b allows a driving force to be transferred, which is why the elements connected by the coupling springs 302a-b move together. If the coupling elements 302a-b did not transfer a driving force, then the elements connected thereby would move independently from each other.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8
“To arrive at the claimed invention from Anac, one would need to:
(i) Strip elements 102b and 102c of their proof-mass sensing functions and their role as parts of proof mass 650a (despite Anac's express teaching that they "may be a part of the proof mass 650a");
(ii) Re-designate 102b and 102c as dedicated, non-sensing drive modules whose sole function is to drive adjacent elements 102a and 102d, respectively;
(iii) Establish a serial force-transfer path in which 102b drives 102a, which in turn drives 650a through flexible member 652a ------ a force-transfer topology that is entirely absent from Anac's disclosure;
(iv) Eliminate the single-drive-circuit architecture (Anac, paragraph [0031]) and replace it with dedicated drive modules that independently actuate different plate elements; and
(v) Remove or fundamentally alter the role of the stress relief frame 402 and the guiding arms 104a-f, which are integral to Anac's architecture for stress management and motion guidance.
Such modifications would destroy Anac's unified multi-axis sensing scheme and its self-testing capability, rendering the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See MPEP § 2143.01(V); In re Gordon. 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (a proposed modification that renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose cannot support a finding of obviousness).”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to element “i,” 102b-c already read on the claimed drive modules, so no such modification would be necessary.
Regarding element “ii,” in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dedicated, non-sensing drive modules whose sole function is to drive adjacent elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to element “iii,” in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., serial force-transfer path) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, element 102b of Anac drives or is capable of driving element 102a (¶31).
As to element “iv,” in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dedicated drive modules that independently actuate different plate elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to element “v,” Applicant provides no explanation as to why Anac’s stress relief frame would have to be altered or removed. Additionally, nothing in the claim specifically excludes Anac’s stress relief frame.
Accordingly, the modifications proposed by Applicant are not necessary.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that Anac has no dedicated driver-to-mass hierarchy.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dedicated driver-to-mass hierarchy) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that Seeger does not teach coupling springs that transmit driving force from a dedicated, substrate-fixed driver to an adjacent proof mass. Applicant also argues “Seeger does not teach or suggest: (i) that any one of its masses functions as a dedicated drive module for an adjacent mass; (ii) a serial, outside-to-inside force-transfer path; or (iii) that three plate elements can achieve two distinct rotational motions through such a serial driving arrangement without auxiliary frames.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., transmit driving force from a dedicated, substrate-fixed driver to an adjacent proof mass, “a dedicated drive module for an adjacent mass,” “a serial, outside-to-inside force-transfer path,” and “three plate elements can achieve two distinct rotational motions through such a serial driving arrangement without auxiliary frames”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 10 “This architectural distinction further confirms that the Examiner's mapping of Anac's co-equal sub-frames to the claimed dedicated drive modules is improper. Mapping 102b as a "drive module" and 102a as a "plate element" ignores the fact that both 102a and 102b depend on guiding arms 104a-b for their motion and are part of a frame-dependent guided mass system ------- a structural paradigm that is antithetical to the claimed frame-less architecture.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., frame-less architecture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument on pg. 10 that Anac and Seeger fail to teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1 is not persuasive since Anac in view of Seeger teaches all of claim 1.
As to claim 9, Applicant argues on pg. 10 that a deficiency in the mapping of claim 1 is “the absence of a dedicated drive module that transmits force to a plate element in a serial force-transfer path.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a dedicated drive module that transmits force to a plate element in a serial force-transfer path) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to claim 11, Applicant argues that “The same arguments presented above with respect to Claim 1 apply with equal force to Claim 11. In the arrangement of Claim 11, each drive module is interposed between two plate elements and serves as a dedicated force-transmission intermediary - a configuration that is fundamentally absent from Anac's disclosure.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 are not persuasive at least because Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., each drive module…serves as a dedicated force-transmission intermediary) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument that claims 13-16 are patentable due to their dependence from claim 11 is not persuasive because claims 11 and 13-16 are properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 “As to Claim 14, the claimed "first rotational motion" of the first and third plate elements is a direct consequence of being driven by dedicated drive modules through asymmetrically disposed flexible members - a structural arrangement absent from Anac.”
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed "first rotational motion" of the first and third plate elements is a direct consequence of being driven by dedicated drive modules through asymmetrically disposed flexible members) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to claim 14, Anac as modified teaches wherein the first plate element and the third plate element have a first rotational motion (see ¶35 and ¶39 of Anac; Anac was modified such that elements 302a-b are flexible as taught by Seeger, meaning the first and third plate elements exhibit a Coriolis force induced rotation similar to what is shown in fig. 12D of Seeger) correspondingly while respectively being driven by the first drive module and the second drive module. Accordingly, Anac as modified teaches claim 14.
Applicant argues on pg. 11, “As to Claim 15, the claimed "second rotational motion" of the second plate element arises because the drive modules drive the second plate element indirectly through the first and second flexible members ------ i.e., the serial force-transfer path discussed above. Anac does not teach this indirect driving mechanism.”
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed "second rotational motion" of the second plate element arises because the drive modules drive the second plate element indirectly through the first and second flexible members ------ i.e., the serial force-transfer path discussed above” and “indirect driving mechanism”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 12 “For the reasons set forth in Section I above, the combination of Anac and Seeger fails to render Claim 1 obvious.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all of Applicant’s previous arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Ohms does not address, and therefore cannot supply, the structural relationship between dedicated drive modules and plate elements that is central to the claimed invention and that is absent from both Anac and Seeger.”
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the structural relationship between dedicated drive modules and plate elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pg. 12, Applicant argues “Applicant submits that Seeger fails to disclose the claimed "first drive module" and "second drive module" as structurally and functionally distinct elements dedicated to driving adjacent plate elements.”
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structurally and functionally distinct elements dedicated to driving adjacent plate elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that Seeger’s element 102a is not capable of driving element 102b because “There is no driver-driven hierarchy between 102a and 102b.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Fig. 12 and ¶58 of Seeger teach “The coupling spring 302a is stiff in the X-direction such that roll proof-mass 102a and 102b move together in the X-direction” and that sub-frame 102a is driven by actuators 109a-b. Accordingly, sub-frame 102a is capable of being driven by actuators 109a-b, such that element 102a drives element 102b through coupling spring 302a. If Applicant’s argument is that Seeger’s structure is only capable of what Seeger explicitly states, then Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Per the Examiner’s explanation above, 102a is capable of being used to drive 102b.
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that Seeger’s element 102a is not capable of driving element 102b because “Second, in Seeger's tri-axis embodiment (FIG. 12A), elements 102a and 102b belong to different guided mass systems…Element 102b is driven by its own actuators (109c-f) as part of system 600 ------ it does not depend on element 102a for driving force.
The coupling spring 302a between 102a and 102b merely synchronizes their X-direction motion, as expressly stated by Seeger at paragraph [0058]:
"The coupling spring 302a is stiff in the X-direction such that roll proof-masses 102a and 102b move together in the X-direction."
The phrase "move together" confirms synchronization between co-equal masses, not force transmission from a dedicated driver (102a) to a driven mass (102b).”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. ¶58 clearly teaches that elements 102a-b must move together because they are held together by spring element 302a, and 102a is driven via actuators. Accordingly, per the Examiner’s previous explanation, 102a is capable of driving 102b.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 “there is no teaching that 102a, through its associated actuators 109a-b, serves as a dedicated "drive module" whose purpose is to drive 102b.“
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. For the reasons discussed above, 102a is capable of driving 102b.
With respect to Seeger, Applicant argues on pg. 14 “This frame-dependent guided mass architecture is fundamentally incompatible with the claimed invention's dedicated drive module that is fixed on the substrate by positioning members and operates independently of any frame structure.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dedicated drive module that is fixed on the substrate by positioning members and operates independently of any frame structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that “Fourth, the Examiner's reasoning appears to be that because 102a has actuators (109a-b) and is connected to 102b via coupling spring 302a, 102a is "capable of" driving 102b. But under the anticipation standard of § 102, the reference must disclose the claimed arrangement ----- not merely a structure that might theoretically be "capable of" being used in a completely different manner than disclosed. The § 102 standard requires identity of invention, not theoretical capability.”
Applicant also argues on pg. 15 “See MPEP § 2131 ("A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference."). Seeger nowhere discloses or inherently requires that 102a drives 102b; to the contrary, Seeger's disclosure is that both masses are driven collectively by a shared circuit.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. MPEP 2114 states
“II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).“
In this case, element 102a of Seeger is capable of driving 102b, as described above, meaning Seeger teaches claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 “Claim 1 recites a specific structural arrangement establishing a serial force-transfer path: drive modules outer plate elements inner (second) plate element. In Seeger, no such serial force-transfer path exists.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a serial force-transfer path: drive modules outer plate elements inner (second) plate element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant argues that Seeger does not teach wherein the drive modules drive the second plate element via the first and third plate elements. No such arrangement is claimed.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 “the deficiency identified above is not merely the absence of a single substrate ------ it is the absence of the claimed dedicated driver- to-proof-mass structural and functional relationship and the serial force-transfer path. Anac does not cure this deficiency.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dedicated driver- to-proof-mass structural and functional relationship and the serial force-transfer path) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 16 that Anac and Seeger do not teach coupling springs that “transmit force from dedicated drivers.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., transmit force from dedicated drivers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 16 “Seeger expressly describes its architecture as a "symmetric guided mass system" (Seeger, Title and throughout specification). The system is designed so that 102a and 102b are symmetric roll proof-masses forming a symmetric pair, with the coupling spring 302a connecting them at their adjacent edges. Within this symmetric architecture, the connections on both sides of each mass are deliberately symmetric to ensure coordinated, balanced motion. The Examiner has pointed to no specific structural feature in Seeger's disclosure that constitutes a deliberate asymmetry in the flexible member connections on opposite sides of any proof mass.” On the paragraph bridging pgs. 16-17, Applicant further argues “In contrast, the present application at paragraphs [0027] and [0030] specifically teaches that the first flexible member and the third flexible member are connected with two sides of the first plate element "in an asymmetric manner," where "asymmetric" means the numbers, positions, or types of flexible members on the two sides are different. This deliberate asymmetry is what enables the plate elements to undergo the first rotational motion when driven - a functional consequence that is a key aspect of the claimed invention. Seeger's symmetric guided mass system, by design and by express disclosure, does not employ such deliberate asymmetry.” Applicant further argues on pg. 17 “Even under BRI, "disposed in an asymmetric manner" requires a meaningful structural difference in the flexible member arrangement on opposite sides of the plate element. The Examiner has not identified such a meaningful structural difference in Seeger's symmetric system.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 2 recites “the first flexible member and the third flexible member are connected with two sides of the first plate element correspondingly in the first axial direction and disposed in an asymmetric manner with respect to the first plate element; the second flexible member and the fourth flexible member are connected with two sides of the third plate element correspondingly in the first axial direction and disposed in an asymmetric manner with respect to the third plate element.
As to claim 2, Seeger teaches wherein the first flexible member 652a and the third flexible member 302a are connected with two sides of the first plate element 102b correspondingly in the first axial direction Y and disposed in an asymmetric manner with respect to the first plate element (at least because the first and third flexible members are attached at asymmetrically disposed attachment points); the second flexible member 652b and the fourth flexible member 302b are connected with two sides of the third plate element 102c correspondingly in the first axial direction and disposed in an asymmetric manner with respect to the third plate element (at least because the second and fourth flexible members are attached at asymmetrically disposed attachment points).
PNG
media_image3.png
750
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown in fig. 12A of Seeger above, coupling elements 302a and 652a are attached asymmetrically (i.e. at asymmetric positions that are meaningful) on element 102b, and coupling elements 302b and 652b are attached asymmetrically (i.e. at asymmetric positions that are meaningful) on element 102c. Applicant’s argument is essentially that coupling elements 302a and 652a are attached symmetrically on element 102b, and that coupling elements 302b and 652b are attached symmetrically on element 102c, meaning Applicant’s interpretation of Seeger is incorrect.
Applicant argues on pg. 17 “The motions described in Seeger (e.g., at FIGS. 12B-12D) arise from a fundamentally different architecture: all masses are driven together by a single circuit, and each guided mass system rotates about its own sense axis. These motions are produced by a different mechanism and for a different purpose (multi-axis sensing via independent guided mass systems), and are not equivalent to the claimed first and second rotational motions that arise from serial driving of three plate elements by two dedicated drive modules.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., first and second rotational motions that arise from serial driving of three plate elements by two dedicated drive modules) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pgs. 17-18 that “For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are patentable over the cited prior art references. The rejections are based on element mappings that contradict the express disclosures of both Anac and Seeger, and the proposed combinations would require fundamental changes to the principle of operation of the prior art. In particular, the claimed invention achieves three-axis angular velocity sensing through a frame-less architecture enabled by the structural separation of dedicated drive modules from proof-mass plate elements - an architectural paradigm that is fundamentally different from, and cannot be derived from, the frame-dependent, collectively-driven guided mass systems disclosed in Anac and Seeger.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. For all the reasons discussed by the Examiner above, the pending elected claims are properly rejected. Applicant has failed to articulate how the modifications would result in fundamental changes to the principle of operation of the prior art, since the modifications still result in a device that detects angular velocity.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., three-axis angular velocity sensing through a frame-less architecture enabled by the structural separation of dedicated drive modules from proof-mass plate elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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