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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims and drawings filed 12/24/2025 have been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objection(s) to the drawings pertaining to inadvertently switched element labels, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, Applicant argued that primary reference Frank fails to disclose newly added limitations of “performing a switch control between starting and stopping transmission of a drive signal to the piezoelectric element, wherein the generating the electric field is performed by transmitting the drive signal to the piezoelectric element, and wherein the extinguishing the electric field is performed by stopping transmitting the drive signal to the piezoelectric element so that the power-generating wave information is acquired”. However, this argument is merely an assertion and lacks the necessary supporting evidence. MPEP § 2145(I) states:
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In the present case, Frank explicitly teaches performing a switch control (switching periodic excitation signal between on and off) between starting (periodic excitation signal is switched on) and stopping transmission (periodic excitation signal is switched off; switches into detection mode) (Examiner notes that this excitation between start and stop is a pulse) of a drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) (Abstract “method for functional testing of a mechanical vibration sensor, a vibration signal is generated on the vibration component of the vibration sensor with the aid of a periodic excitation signal, the frequency of which excitation signal is varied, and a post-vibration process of the vibration component of the vibration sensor is analyzed once the excitation signal has been switched off”; [0009] “switched”; [0010] “control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse. As soon as the excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”; [0013], [0025], [0026] “switched”), wherein the generating the electric field (electric field generated in piezoelectric crystal) is performed by transmitting the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) ([0026] “piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric” and “piezo crystal”), and wherein the extinguishing the electric field (electric field generated in piezoelectric crystal) is performed by stopping transmitting the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) so that the power-generating wave information (post-vibration signal acquired by vibration sensor) is acquired (in detection mode). Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument. See also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence").
Furthermore, the Examiner’s assessment of the prior art is based upon MPEP § 2121(I) and MPEP § 716.07:
2121(I)
When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to provide facts rebutting the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP § 716.07.
716.07 (omissions of paragraphs for brevity)
Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)…
Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts inoperability in features of the reference which are not relied upon, the reference is still effective as to other features which are operative. In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949.
Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts that the reference relied upon is inoperative, the claims represented by applicant must distinguish from the alleged inoperative reference disclosure. In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946). See also In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)…
In the present case, the Examiner confirms the operability of Frank’s taught control over the function of the piezoelectric vibration sensor including excitation switching and detection mode switching. As Applicant has not sufficiently provided facts rebutting the presumption of operability, the Examiner’s analysis remains as put forth above.
Further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejections, Applicant further argued that primary reference Frank merely describes a switch as a passive consequence of the signal being off instead of performing a switch control that actively manages starting and stopping to facilitate acquiring power-generating wave information of the piezoelectric vibrator from vibration of the vibrating membrane. Again, this argument is merely an assertion and lacks the necessary supporting evidence, see MPEP § 2145(I). In the present case, Frank does teach control over the functions of the piezoelectric vibrator (piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor), particularly control over the function of the emitted vibration pulse (i.e., control over the starting and stopping) ([0010] “control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse” and “switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”). Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument.
Moreover, 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., control as “active” and/or the corresponding negative limitation of “not passive”) 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 MPEP § 2145(VI) and In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the present case, the Examiner has looked to the specification for guidance on the difference between active and passive switching, and did not find the terms “active” nor “passive” nor explicit variations thereof, nor is it immediately apparent what Applicant considers as the difference between Franks’ control over the switched on and off excitation pulse signal and switch into detection mode and Applicant’s alledged claimed more “active” control of the same. In addition to not reading unrecited limitations into the claims, the Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that MPEP § 2111 requires that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and an Examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. As the Examiner verified the meaning of the switch control in the specification to see if any special definition(s) precluded the plain meaning and no such special definition(s) was/were found, the Examiner identifies that the plain meaning of performing a switch control between starting and stopping transmission of a drive signal to the piezoelectric element and then acquiring power-generating wave information of the piezoelectric vibrator from vibration of the vibrating membrane includes (broad reasonable plain meaning follows) performing a switch control of the transmitting/receiving piezoelectric vibration sensor by switching a periodic excitation signal on & off via control over the function of said piezoelectric vibration sensor between when the periodic excitation signal for the piezoelectric crystal is switched on and when periodic excitation signal for the piezoelectric crystal is switched off in order to perform a pulse to vibrate the diaphragm in the range of the natural frequency and then switching into detection mode to acquire the post-vibration signal of the piezoelectric vibration sensor from vibration of the vibrating diaphragm (see citations and mappings previously provided for Frank). Therefore, the Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments to require unrecited limitations unsupported by the specification to be taught by the prior art where the broadest reasonable supported interpretation is met by the prior art.
Yet further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejections, Applicant argued that while secondary reference Frey may disclose extinguishing an electric field in a displaced state, Frey focuses on when the electric field is extinguished, but does not address how the transmission is stopped. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, Frank teaches the control over the excitation switching for pulsing and the subsequent switching to the detection mode (see previous analysis & citations) but is silent as to which phase the displacement of the diaphragm is in, whereas Frey explicitly teaches (see fig. 2) wherein the resonance process begins in the maximally displaced state of the diaphragm, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try for Franks vibrator to extinguish the electric field in a state where the vibrating membrane is displaced—as exemplary supported by Frey’s maximal displacement—thereby providing the state of already being displaced prior to extinguishing, and in the case of maximally displaced further being in a state which had yet to be damped, thereby providing increased signal to noise, as well as being in an easily identifiable phase position for identifying an entire period (see rejection for full details). Therefore, the Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s piecemeal arguments.
For all of the aforementioned reasons and for the reasons as put forth in the rejections, the prior art rejections are retained.
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) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly* cited Frank et al (US 20100329080 A1; hereafter “Frank”) in view of previously cited Horsley et al (US 11005025 B1; hereafter “Horsley”) and in further view of Applicant previously cited Frey et al (DE 102010040238 A1; hereafter “Frey”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Frank taches a method of evaluating a natural frequency of a piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) ([0026] “In a piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric”) including a vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) (background [0004] “diaphragm is used on which a piezo element is mounted”; [0014] “properties of the diaphragm to the effect that the resonant frequency” and “vibrating diaphragm of a piezo vibration component”) and a piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) ([0026] “voltage is generated by the piezo crystal due to the inertia of the vibration component”), comprising:
acquiring power-generating wave information (post-vibration signal acquired by vibration sensor) of the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) from vibration of the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm), which is caused by generating an electric field (electric field generated in piezoelectric crystal) in a piezoelectric layering (silent to film shape) of the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) to displace the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) and then extinguishing the electric field (electric field generated in piezoelectric crystal) in a state where the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) has been displaced ([0013] “preferably using the same excitation amplitude, for generating a vibration signal”) (silent to presently displaced positioning phase; after vibration pulse, and when excitation signal has been switched back off);
measuring a period of a power-generating wave based on the power-generating wave information ([0024] “vibrates at the frequency of the excitation signal (reciprocal value of the period duration of the excitation”) and determining the natural frequency of the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) ([0010] “In the decay process, the harmonic oscillator is vibrating freely, i.e., without being excited into a forced vibrations by an excitation signal, with the result that during the decay process the harmonic oscillator approaches the mechanically specified resonant frequency of the free harmonic oscillator in its oscillation frequency. This decay process is referred to as post-vibration and is directly detectable by the vibration sensor, so that control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse. As soon as the excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”; [0025] “The period duration (10) of the free vibration of the post-vibration process may be used to determine the frequency of the post-vibration process by means of an analysis, e.g., by Fourier transformation, which frequency corresponds to the natural frequency of the free harmonic oscillator”); and
performing a switch control (switching periodic excitation signal between on and off) between starting (periodic excitation signal is switched on) and stopping transmission (periodic excitation signal is switched off; switches into detection mode) (Examiner notes that this excitation between start and stop is a pulse) of a drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) (Abstract “method for functional testing of a mechanical vibration sensor, a vibration signal is generated on the vibration component of the vibration sensor with the aid of a periodic excitation signal, the frequency of which excitation signal is varied, and a post-vibration process of the vibration component of the vibration sensor is analyzed once the excitation signal has been switched off”; [0009] “switched”; [0010] “control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse. As soon as the excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”; [0013], [0025], [0026] “switched”),
wherein the generating the electric field (electric field generated in piezoelectric crystal) is performed by transmitting the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) ([0026] “piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric” and “piezo crystal”), and
wherein the extinguishing the electric field (electric field generated in piezoelectric crystal) is performed by stopping transmitting the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) so that the power-generating wave information (post-vibration signal acquired by vibration sensor) is acquired (in detection mode).
Frank is silent to items: 1) wherein the piezoelectric element is shaped as a film; 2) wherein the extinguishing of the electric field is in a state where the vibrating membrane is displaced; and 3) wherein the determining of the natural frequency is explicitly from the reciprocal of the period.
Regarding item 1):
Legal precedent has condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice including changes in shape, see MPEP § 2141(I) & 2144.04(IV)(B), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, it has been held that a mere change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCP A 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), and Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to shape/size a piezoelectric element as a film.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Horsley teaches wherein piezoelectric element comprises a piezoelectric film (fig. 2, piezoelectric layer 205) (Title “Piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers With Low Stress Sensitivity And Methods Of Fabrication”; col.4, ll. 20-41 “piezoelectric layer 205 that overlies the vibrating portion 201 of the membrane layer 203”; col. 4, ll. 4-19 “FIGS. 2A-2C illustrate an embodiment of the proposed pMUT 20 formed by multiple thin-film layers deposited onto a substrate 200. FIG. 3 is a three-dimensional illustration of an embodiment of the proposed pMUT formed by multiple thin-film layers deposited onto a substrate 200”; col. 4, ll. 42-57 “Perforations, e.g., slots 208, are formed through the vibrating portion 201 to the cavity at selected locations”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape/size of Frank’s piezoelectric component to be a conventional and routine piezoelectric film—as factually supported by Horsely’s piezoelectric film—for the expected benefits of making the piezoelectric device smaller/thinner, reduced cost of material, increasing uniformity, reducing effects in non-measured directions (e.g., preventing cross interference from overly great thickness), improving signal-to-noise ratio for high frequency operations, and/or allowing for smaller absolute operating voltages
Regarding item 2) (substantially in agreement with Applicant provided German Opinion dated 14DEC2023 of record for the counterpart German application 102023112401.3, see pages 5-6 thereof for reference):
It is clear to the ordinary person in the art that the Frank’s vibrator oscillates freely after the excitation signal is switched off, and it is trivial at what point during an oscillation period the excitation signal is switched off (in Frank, this is preferably a zero crossing). A resonance process, from which the period can be determined, would however also occur at any other time during the switch-off. The determination of the point in time is therefore at the discretion of the person of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner additionally notes that “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” See also, MPEP § 2143(I)(E) & MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B). It is the Examiner' s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to try extinguishing the electric field in a state where the vibrating membrane is displaced.
Furthermore, and as factually supporting the aforementioned assertion, Frey teaches (see fig. 2) wherein the resonance process begins in the maximally displaced state of the diaphragm.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try for Franks vibrator to extinguish the electric field in a state where the vibrating membrane is displaced—as exemplary supported by Frey’s maximal displacement—thereby providing the state of already being displaced prior to extinguishing, and in the case of maximally displaced further being in a state which had yet to be damped, thereby providing increased signal to noise, as well as being in an easily identifiable phase position for identifying an entire period.
Regarding item 3):
The Examiner previously took Official Notice that it is a conventional method to determine frequency from the reciprocal of the period. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
The Examiner further re-emphasizes that Frank already teaches that there is a known reciprocal relationship between frequency and period ([0024] “vibrates at the frequency of the excitation signal (reciprocal value of the period duration of the excitation”; [0025] “The period duration (10) of the free vibration of the post-vibration process may be used to determine the frequency of the post-vibration process”).
The Examiner yet further notes for Applicant that additional supporting evidence of the ascertainment of the level of ordinary skill in the art can be found in the aforementioned Applicant provided German Opinion of record for the counterpart application, translation page 6 thereof, the Examiner being in substantial agreement therewith.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Examiner asserted conventional method of determining frequency from the reciprocal of the period for the expected purpose of utilizing a straightforward calculation that simplifies computations and is easy to replicate.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Frank as modified (especially as modified by Frey, see analysis of independent claim especially item 2) suggests wherein the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) vibrates by applying a voltage (at once so envisaged that piezoelectric excitation is via voltage; additional obviousness analysis provided) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) for a certain period of time to be displaced (as modified by Frey to be in displaced, preferably maximally displaced phase) and then stopping the application of the voltage to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) (Frank: [0024] “vibrates at the frequency of the excitation signal (reciprocal value of the period duration of the excitation”; [0026] “In a piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric” and “voltage is generated by the piezo crystal due to the inertia of the vibration component”; [0010] “In the decay process, the harmonic oscillator is vibrating freely, i.e., without being excited into a forced vibrations by an excitation signal, with the result that during the decay process the harmonic oscillator approaches the mechanically specified resonant frequency of the free harmonic oscillator in its oscillation frequency. This decay process is referred to as post-vibration and is directly detectable by the vibration sensor, so that control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse. As soon as the excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”. Frey, see fig. 2 pertaining to the resonance process beginning in the maximally displaced state of the diaphragm).
With respect to the applying a voltage to the piezoelectric element, the Examiner previously took Official Notice of the conventionality of the applying voltage to the piezoelectric element. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C). It is the Examiner’s position that either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Frank reasonably teaches applying voltage to Frank’s piezo crystal (which is used for both transmitting & receiving), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the conventional (see Official Notice note above) and expected means of applying voltage to Frank’s piezo crystal when transmitting—in similar fashion as Frank’s piezo crystal generating voltage when receiving—for the expected purpose of simplifying circuitry and thus being more user friendly, more commercially available, and/or further including avoiding using esoteric methods (such as current driving) which are known to risk damaging the piezo crystal and produce uncontrolled voltage swings resulting in loss of vibration control.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 4, where claim 3 depends on claim 1 and where claim 4 depends on claim 3,
Frank as modified (especially as modified by Frey, see analysis of independent claim especially item 2) suggests wherein the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) vibrates by transmitting the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) for a certain period of time (period of excitation) to be displaced and then stopping the transmission of the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) (as modified by Frey, stopping at maximum displacement) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal), wherein the transmission of the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) is stopped when an absolute value of a drive voltage of the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) becomes minimum (at once so envisaged that providing excitation signal for a period of time that achieves maximum displacement; additional obviousness analysis provided) (Frank: [0024] “vibrates at the frequency of the excitation signal (reciprocal value of the period duration of the excitation”; [0026] “In a piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric” and “voltage is generated by the piezo crystal due to the inertia of the vibration component”; [0010] “In the decay process, the harmonic oscillator is vibrating freely, i.e., without being excited into a forced vibrations by an excitation signal, with the result that during the decay process the harmonic oscillator approaches the mechanically specified resonant frequency of the free harmonic oscillator in its oscillation frequency. This decay process is referred to as post-vibration and is directly detectable by the vibration sensor, so that control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse. As soon as the excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”. Frey, see fig. 2 pertaining to the resonance process beginning in the maximally displaced state of the diaphragm).
With respect to the certain period of time for displacement stopping & stopping when the absolute value of a drive voltage becomes minimum, the Examiner notes that it had been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). In the present case, Frank suggests vibrating at the frequency of the excitation signal (reciprocal value of the period duration of the excitation) and approaching the specified resonant frequency and Frey suggests the maximal displaced state of the diaphragm, and the Examiner notes that either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the driving is stopped when the drive voltage is minimized, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so optimize to stop the drive voltage at minimal thereby better ensuring that the resonant frequency is approached while providing a useful time point/phase convenient for periodic determinations.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
Frank as modified (see analysis of independent claim) suggests
wherein the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) causes the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) to vibrate at the natural frequency, which is obtained as the reciprocal of the period (as previously modified to explicitly use conventional method of reciprocal) ([0024] “vibrates at the frequency of the excitation signal (reciprocal value of the period duration of the excitation”; [0026] “In a piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric” and “voltage is generated by the piezo crystal due to the inertia of the vibration component”; [0010] “In the decay process, the harmonic oscillator is vibrating freely, i.e., without being excited into a forced vibrations by an excitation signal, with the result that during the decay process the harmonic oscillator approaches the mechanically specified resonant frequency of the free harmonic oscillator in its oscillation frequency. This decay process is referred to as post-vibration and is directly detectable by the vibration sensor, so that control over the function of the vibration sensor, particularly over the function of the emitted vibration pulse, is able to be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse. As soon as the excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode so that the post-vibration signal is able to be tapped directly at the sensor as measuring signal”; [0018] “natural frequency”; [0025] “The period duration (10) of the free vibration of the post-vibration process may be used to determine the frequency of the post-vibration process by means of an analysis, e.g., by Fourier transformation, which frequency corresponds to the natural frequency of the free harmonic oscillator”; [0008] “advantageous to excite a harmonic oscillator, in this case, the vibrating component of the vibration sensor, at a frequency in the region of the resonant frequency of the harmonic oscillator”; [0013] “selected to be closer to the region of the resonant frequency”; [0014] “resulting resonant frequency”; [0016] “implemented in the range of the natural frequency, i.e., the resonant frequency of the vibration component, based on a previously determined resonant frequency of the vibration sensor”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Frank teaches wherein the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) is of a membrane type.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1,
Frank as modified suggests a method of driving a transducer (transducing portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic vibrator) that transmits an ultrasonic wave by vibration of a piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) ([0026] “In a piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric”) and vibrates the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) by receiving an ultrasonic wave (background [0004] “diaphragm is used on which a piezo element is mounted”; [0014] “properties of the diaphragm to the effect that the resonant frequency” and “vibrating diaphragm of a piezo vibration component”), comprising:
driving the transducer (transducing portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic vibrator) by receiving the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) based on the natural frequency of the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) obtained by the method of Claim 1 (see analysis of independent claim; [0026], [0004], [0014], [0024], [0010], [0025]) ([0012] “invention to provide a self-test routing and a measuring system for obstacle detection having a self-test routine, which provides detailed information about the state of the vibration component or the vibration sensor within the framework of a self-test routine”; [0016] “the variation of the periodic excitation signal is implemented in the range of the natural frequency, i.e., the resonant frequency of the vibration component, based on a previously determined resonant frequency of the vibration sensor”; [0015]; [0017]; [0018] “option of using the post-vibration process to determine the instantaneous, possibly changed natural frequency of the vibration component. From the analysis of the natural frequency, that is to say, the resonant frequency of the free, damped vibration, it is possible to derive information about a possible increase in mass resulting from contamination etc., or information about an improved excitation possibility because the excitation of a harmonic oscillator at its resonant frequency makes it possible to achieve the largest possible vibration amplitude, and thus the strongest signal in relation to the excitation”).
The Examiner further emphasizes that either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that that self-testing and/or determining possible mass differences reasonable suggests (repeatedly) reusing the measured resonance frequency in further tests, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so reuse the measure resonance frequency in further tests for the expected benefit of providing a measured resonance level that is experimentally previously determined (as opposed to referencing a theoretical or stored value) as the starting point for resonance testing/comparing and thus providing a more accurate and/or faster starting point/comparison for either reconfirming the resonance frequency and/or determining changes such as for determining mass changes.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Frank in view of previously cited Horsley, Applicant previously cited Frey, and in further view of previously cited DeVoe (NPL Piezoelectric thin film micromechanical beam resonators; hereafter “DeVoe”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Frank teaches (claim 1 limitation) the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) ([0026] “In a piezo ultrasonic sensor, the piezoelectric”) including the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) (background [0004] “diaphragm is used on which a piezo element is mounted”; [0014] “properties of the diaphragm to the effect that the resonant frequency” and “vibrating diaphragm of a piezo vibration component”) and the piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) ([0026] “voltage is generated by the piezo crystal due to the inertia of the vibration component”).
Frank is silent to the vibrating membrane being of a double-end supported beam type.
However:
The Examiner notes that legal precedent has condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice including changes in shape, see MPEP § 2141(I) & 2144.04(IV)(B), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that the double-end supported (also known as double/y-clamped or clamped-clamped) beam shape is known in the art.
Furthermore, and as exemplary factually supporting the aforementioned assertion, DeVoe teaches a double-end supported beam type (Title “Piezoelectric thin film micromechanical beam resonators”; Abstract “doubly-clamped piezoelectric beam resonators”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine DeVoe’s clamp-clamp design shape with Frank’s generic piezoelectric membrane vibrator, thereby providing the expected benefits (as exemplary compared to cantilever designs having one clamped end and one free end) of greater rigidity and stability, leading to a higher frequency response, increased energy output efficiency (exemplary useful for signal-to-noise ratio and/or energy harvesting), wider operational bandwidth (exemplary useful for wider sensing/actuating range), reduced displacement (exemplary useful for limited spacing), ability to withstand higher mechanical loads, and/or protecting the piezoelectric element from damage during strong vibrations, as well as less sensitivity to stress such as from temperature (as exemplary compared to fully clamped circular designs). The Examiner further emphasizes that the particular geometric shape designs have known dis/advantages as compared to one another that are well-known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Frank in view of previously cited Horsley, Applicant previously cited Frey, and in further view of previously cited Passoni (US 20220150625 A1; hereafter “Passoni”).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on method claim 1,
Frank as modified (see analysis of independent claim) reasonably teaches/suggests a signal transmitting/receiving device (transmitting/receiving means of piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor at once envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) ([0010] “such vibration sensors are predominantly realized using piezo ultrasonic sensors, so that a vibration component simultaneously may be used as transmitter and as receiver for a corresponding vibration pulse”) that transmits a drive signal (periodic excitation signal) to a transducer (transducing portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic vibrator) which transmits an ultrasonic wave by vibration of a piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) and vibrates the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) by receiving an ultrasonic wave ([0024] “vibrates at the frequency of the excitation signal”), and receives power-generating wave information from the transducer (transducing portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic vibrator) ([0010] “post-vibration and is directly detectable by the vibration sensor”), comprising:
a storage (storing means for self-testing & measuring portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor at once envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) configured to receive and store information on the natural frequency of the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) obtained by the method of claim 1 (see analysis of independent claim) ([0012] “self-test routing and a measuring system” and “provides detailed information about the state of the vibration component or the vibration sensor”; [0015] “sensor self-test function, which makes it possible to excite the vibration sensor into periodic vibrations at various frequencies, and to perform an analysis of the post-vibration process as a function of the excitation frequency”; [0018] “determine the instantaneous, possibly changed natural frequency of the vibration component. From the analysis of the natural frequency, that is to say, the resonant frequency of the free, damped vibration, it is possible to derive information about a possible increase in mass resulting from contamination etc., or information about an improved excitation possibility”; [0019] “utilizes the effects used in the previously described method for functional testing of the measuring system”; [0030] “Evaluations of other information from the post-vibration process, such as the envelope of amplitude characteristic (9) or the length of the post-vibration process (8), also may provide information about changes of the vibration component of the sensor” and “reports or warnings may be output to the user of the system in the case of a malfunction”; Examiner emphasizes implicit storing of information in some sort of storage means useful for self-testing, control, and report/warning/output to user), and
a controller (controlling means of self-testing & measuring portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor at once envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) configured to transmit the drive signal (periodic excitation signal) ([0010] “control over the function of the vibration sensor” and “excitation signal is switched off, the sensor is therefore able to be switched into the detection mode”; Examiner emphasizes control over switching between transmitting and receiving) by which the vibration of the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) becomes maximum (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) to the transducer (transducing portion of piezoelectric ultrasonic vibrator), based on the information on the natural frequency stored in the storage (storing means for self-testing & measuring portion) ([0016] “excitation signal is implemented in the range of the natural frequency, i.e., the resonant frequency of the vibration component, based on a previously determined resonant frequency of the vibration sensor”; [0018] “excitation of a harmonic oscillator at its resonant frequency makes it possible to achieve the largest possible vibration amplitude, and thus the strongest signal in relation to the excitation”).
With respect to Frank not explicitly stating/showing a storage and controller:
The Examiner previously took Official Notice that a storage for receiving and storing information (e.g., memory) is conventional in the art, and likewise the Examiner previously took Official Notice that a controller for transmitting control signals is conventional in the art. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed these assertions, these are considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Passoni teaches a storage (measuring unit MU) configured to receive and store information on the natural frequency of a piezoelectric vibrator, and a controller (fig. 9, control unit CU) configured to transmit a drive signal to vibrate the piezoelectric vibrator based on the information on frequency in the storage (Title “METHOD OF OPERATING ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC TRANSDUCERS, AND CORRESPONDING CIRCUIT AND DEVICE”; Abstract “Piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers”; [0007] “resonance frequencies of each individual membrane due to manufacturing tolerances”; [0022] “method is provided that includes: obtaining at least one of a resonance frequency”; [0013] “PMUT 10 may be coupled to a measurement unit MU configured to measure its actual resonance frequency”; [0116] “a control unit CU coupled to the voltage generator 50, the load 70 and the measurement unit MU may be configured (in a manner known per se to those of skill in the art) to receive the measured resonance frequency f.sub.6 from the measurement unit MU, control the voltage generator 50 and vary the load parameters R.sub.L, L.sub.L as desired”).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Frank reasonably (implicitly) teaches/suggests storage & controller, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional storage and a conventional controller—as factually supported by Passoni’s storage and controlling hardware—thereby providing the expected advantage of hardware that is commercially available, useful for automation (as opposed to manually recording and controlling), and/or decreases human labor and/or mistakes.
With further respect to the maximum vibration, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Frank reasonably teaches maximum vibration (see citations above, exemplary noting [0018] “excitation of a harmonic oscillator at its resonant frequency makes it possible to achieve the largest possible vibration amplitude, and thus the strongest signal in relation to the excitation”), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize to the maximum vibration thereby providing the expected advantage of increased vibration excitation and efficiency. The Examiner further notes that it had been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1,
Frank as modified (see analysis of independent claim) reasonably teaches/suggests a drive system (driving means of piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor; additional obviousness analysis provided) that controls a control voltage applied to a piezoelectric element (not shown; piezoelectric crystal) for control arranged on the vibrating membrane (not shown; vibrating diaphragm) such that the natural frequency of the piezoelectric vibrator (not shown; piezoelectric ultrasonic sensor) obtained by the method of Claim 1 becomes a specific frequency (Abstract “frequency of which excitation signal is varied”; [0008] “harmonic oscillator, which is excited”; [0009] “excitation signal of a harmonic oscillator is switched off”; [0010] “excited into a forced vibrations by an excitation signal” and “excitation signal is switched off”; [0013] “excitation frequency is then varied, i.e., if it is selected to be closer to the region of the resonant frequency”; [0016] “excitation signal is implemented in the range of the natural frequency, i.e., the resonant frequency of the vibration component, based on a previously determined resonant frequency of the vibration sensor”; [0008] “harmonic oscillator has a resonant frequency at which, when being used as excitation frequency, the maximum amplitude is reached in relation to the excitation amplitude”; [0018] “excitation of a harmonic oscillator at its resonant frequency makes it possible to achieve the largest possible vibration amplitude, and thus the strongest signal in relation to the excitation”.
With respect to Frank not explicitly stating/showing a drive system:
The Examiner previously took Official Notice that a drive system is conventional in the art. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Passoni teaches a drive system (drive system comprising voltage generator 50) (Title “METHOD OF OPERATING ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC TRANSDUCERS, AND CORRESPONDING CIRCUIT AND DEVICE”; Abstract “Piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers”; [0007] “resonance frequencies of each individual membrane due to manufacturing tolerances”; [0022] “method is provided that includes: obtaining at least one of a resonance frequency”; [0013] “PMUT 10 may be coupled to a measurement unit MU configured to measure its actual resonance frequency”; [0050] “membrane stack used for transmission and then switched to be a receiver”; [0116] “a control unit CU coupled to the voltage generator 50, the load 70 and the measurement unit MU may be configured (in a manner known per se to those of skill in the art) to receive the measured resonance frequency f.sub.6 from the measurement unit MU, control the voltage generator 50 and vary the load parameters R.sub.L, L.sub.L as desired”; [0063] “(electrical) excitation signal applied to a transmitter transducer device via a (voltage) generator 50 coupled at its nodes (e.g., at electrodes 14a and 14b of the device 10 in FIG. 1)”).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Frank reasonably (implicitly) teaches/suggests a drive system, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional drive system—as factually supported by Passoni’s driving system hardware—thereby providing the expected advantage of hardware that is commercially available, useful for automating control by providing driving of the vibrator at the determined frequency, and/or decreasing human labor and/or mistakes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
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 DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is (303) 297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 13JAN2026