Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/320,793

DRIVE AND SENSE STRESS RELIEF APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 19, 2023
Examiner
BOLDUC, DAVID J
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Analog Devices, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
599 granted / 713 resolved
+16.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
729
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 713 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/2025. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20180172446 to Prikhodko. Regarding Claim 1, Prikhodko discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Figs. 1-5, MEMS device 100; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037]) comprising: a mass coupled to an underlying substrate of the MEMS device, the mass being configured to move along a first axis (Figs. 1-5, substrate with proof masses 102a-102d with x-axis drive axis along which they are driven; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]); a drive structure and/or a sense structure (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive/sense shuttles 104 by tethers 106; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]), wherein: the drive structure is coupled to the mass and configured to move along the first axis, wherein movement of the drive structure along the first axis causes movement of the mass along the first axis (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive shuttles 104 with x-axis drive axis; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]); and the sense structure is coupled to the mass and configured to detect motion of the mass (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to sense shuttles 104 with the y-axis representing the sense axis; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]); and a first anchor coupled to the underlying substrate, wherein the MEMS device comprises at least two pivot points about the first anchor (Figs. 1-5, anchors 118 for couplers 112, 114, and 116 all allowing motion in both the x and y-directions; ¶¶ [0026]-[0028], [0034], [0038]-[0047]). Regarding Claim 2, Prikhodko discloses the drive structure and the sense structure (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive/sense shuttles 104 by tethers 106; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]). Regarding Claim 3, Prikhodko discloses the sense structure and wherein movement of the mass along a second axis substantially perpendicular to the first axis causes movement of the sense structure along the second axis (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive/sense shuttles 104 by tethers 106 where the x-axis represents the drive axis along which the proof masses 102a-102d are driven, with the y-axis representing the sense axis along which the proof masses 102a-102d move in response to a Coriolis force; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]). Regarding Claim 5, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device comprises a plurality of connections to the first anchor, the plurality of connections being disposed symmetrically about the first anchor (Fig. 6, two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ [0066]-[0070]). Regarding Claim 6, Prikhodko discloses the plurality of connections comprise two connections disposed on opposing diagonals of the first anchor (Fig. 6, two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ [0066]-[0070]). Regarding Claim 7, Prikhodko discloses the plurality of connections comprise four connections disposed on respective pairs of opposing sides of the first anchor (Fig. 6, coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ [0066]-[0070]). Regarding Claim 11, Prikhodko discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Figs. 1-5, MEMS device 100; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037]) comprising: a mass coupled to an underlying substrate of the MEMS device, the mass being configured to move along a first axis (Figs. 1-5, substrate with proof masses 102a-102d with x-axis drive axis along which they are driven; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]); a drive structure and/or a sense structure (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive/sense shuttles 104 by tethers 106; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]), wherein: the drive structure is coupled to the mass and configured to move along the first axis, wherein movement of the drive structure along the first axis causes movement of the mass along the first axis (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive shuttles 104 with x-axis drive axis; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]); and the sense structure is coupled to the mass and configured to detect motion of the mass (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to sense shuttles 104 with the y-axis representing the sense axis; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]); and a first anchor coupled to the underlying substrate, wherein the MEMS device comprises a plurality of connections to the first anchor, the plurality of connections being disposed symmetrically about the first anchor (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 112, 114, and 116 all allowing motion in both the x and y-directions, two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ [0066]-[0070]). Regarding Claim 12, Prikhodko discloses the plurality of connections comprise two connections disposed on opposing diagonals of the first anchor (Fig. 6, two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ [0066]-[0070]).13. The MEMS device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of connections comprise four connections disposed on respective pairs of opposing sides of the first anchor. Regarding Claim 17, Prikhodko discloses the drive structure and the sense structure and wherein movement of the mass along a second axis substantially perpendicular to the first axis causes movement of the sense structure along the second axis (Figs. 1-5, proof masses 102a-102d coupled to drive/sense shuttles 104 by tethers 106 where the x-axis represents the drive axis along which the proof masses 102a-102d are driven, with the y-axis representing the sense axis along which the proof masses 102a-102d move in response to a Coriolis force; ¶¶ [0026]-[0037], [0044]). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Prikhodko in view of US 20110094301 to Rocchi. Regarding Claim 4, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the MEMS device comprises at least three pivot points about the first anchor. Rocchi discloses the MEMS device comprises at least three pivot points about the first anchor (Figs. 1-2, masses 2 attached to anchor 1 with springs 3, so that the springs can first of all rotate around the anchor 1 in the drawing plane but also swing around a rotating axis lying on the drawing plane; ¶¶ [0025]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Prikhodko by providing the MEMS device comprises at least three pivot points about the first anchor as in Rocchi in order to provide for greater ease in determining movements of the microgyroscope in the three x, y and z rotating axes. Claim(s) 8, 10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Prikhodko in view of US 20130214367 to van der Heide. Regarding Claim 8, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device of claim 1, and further discloses a second anchor coupled to the MEMS device (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116 all allowing motion in both the x and y-directions; ¶¶ [0026]-[0028], [0034], [0038]-[0047]), wherein MEMS device comprises at least two pivot points about the second anchor (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116 all allowing motion in both the x and y-directions, two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ [0066]-[0070]). However, Prikhodko does not explicitly disclose the second anchor coupled to an outer frame of the MEMS device, the mass being disposed substantially within the outer frame. van der Heide discloses the second anchor coupled to an outer frame of the MEMS device, the mass being disposed substantially within the outer frame (Figs. 1-2, one or more proof masses 110 and 111 inside one or more frame structures 120 connected to one or more anchor structures 140 by one or more spring structures 130 and 131; ¶¶ [0033]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Prikhodko by providing the second anchor coupled to an outer frame of the MEMS device, the mass being disposed substantially within the outer frame as in van der Heide in order to provide for greater decoupling among the axes to minimize the measurement errors. Regarding Claim 10, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device further comprises a first lever coupled to the drive structure or the sense structure, wherein the first lever is configured to pivot about a respective one of the pivot points of the first anchor (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116 connected to pivoting linkage 108; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033], [0040]). Regarding Claim 14, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device of claim 11, and further discloses a second anchor coupled to the MEMS device (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116 all allowing motion in both the x and y-directions; ¶¶ [0026]-[0028], [0034], [0038]-[0047]), wherein MEMS device comprises a second plurality of connections to the second anchor, the second plurality of connections being disposed symmetrically about the second anchor (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116, and/or two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ ¶¶ [0026]-[0028], [0034], [0038]-[0047], [0066]-[0070]). However, Prikhodko does not explicitly disclose the second anchor coupled to an outer frame of the MEMS device, the mass being disposed substantially within the outer frame. van der Heide discloses the second anchor coupled to an outer frame of the MEMS device, the mass being disposed substantially within the outer frame (Figs. 1-2, one or more proof masses 110 and 111 inside one or more frame structures 120 connected to one or more anchor structures 140 by one or more spring structures 130 and 131; ¶¶ [0033]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Prikhodko by providing the second anchor coupled to an outer frame of the MEMS device, the mass being disposed substantially within the outer frame as in van der Heide in order to provide for greater decoupling among the axes to minimize the measurement errors. Regarding Claim 15, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device comprises at least two pivot points about the second anchor (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116, and/or two degree of freedom coupler 600 with anchors 604 connected to folded springs 606 and/or coupler 620 with anchors 624, folded springs 610, and double-folded springs 628; ¶¶ ¶¶ [0026]-[0028], [0034], [0038]-[0047], [0066]-[0070]). Regarding Claim 16, Prikhodko discloses the MEMS device further comprises a first lever coupled to the drive structure or the sense structure, wherein the first lever is configured to pivot about a pivot point of the first anchor (Figs. 1-6, anchors 118 for couplers 114 and 116 connected to pivoting linkage 108; ¶¶ [0026]-[0033], [0040]). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Prikhodko in view of van der Heide., and further in view of Rocchi. Regarding Claim 9, Prikhodko in view of van der Heide discloses the MEMS device of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose the MEMS device comprises at least three pivot points about the second anchor. Rocchi discloses the MEMS device comprises at least three pivot points about the second anchor (Figs. 1-2, masses 2 attached to anchor 1 with springs 3, so that the springs can first of all rotate around the anchor 1 in the drawing plane but also swing around a rotating axis lying on the drawing plane; ¶¶ [0025]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Prikhodko in view of van der Heide by providing the MEMS device comprises at least three pivot points about the second anchor as in Rocchi in order to provide for greater ease in determining movements of the microgyroscope in the three x, y and z rotating axes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm. 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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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 J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 19, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596006
SYNCHRONIZED MASS GYROSCOPE WITH FULL SYMMETRY AND TURNABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591189
DEVELOPER SUPPLY CONTAINER AND DEVELOPER SUPPLYING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571633
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A FREQUENCY AND/OR FREQUENCY CHANGE OF A DRIVE OSCILLATION OF AN INERTIAL SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12546754
ANALYZER COLUMN CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12540613
TEST DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+7.3%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 713 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month