DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: a demodulation unit (see Application Specification para. [38]);
a filtration unit (see Application Specification para. [43]);
a comparison unit (see Application Specification para. [44]); and
a detection unit (see Application Specification para. [45]).
Claim 9: a calibration unit (see Application Specification para. [54]).
These limitations are also shown as circuits in Fig. 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner is interpreting the limitations to be circuits performing specific functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites: “a specific CMUT transducer with a view”. It is not clear what a view is of a transducer.
Claims 5-8 are rejected for their dependence on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quartiroli et al. (US 20220321318 A1), hereinafter “Quartiroli”, in view of Kollias et al. (US 20160305835 A1), hereinafter “Kollias”.
Regarding Claim 1, Quartiroli teaches a MEMS resonant sensor (Quartiroli [0035] In particular, in this embodiment, the first, the second and the third sensors 5A, 5B, 5C are sensors of a MEMS type.) adapted to generate a pulse output signal (Simp) from a signal of interest (Sint), said signal of interest (Sint) being a signal having a frequency oscillating around a carrier frequency, said MEMS sensor comprising at least one processing channel (C) for processing the signal of interest (Sint) (Quartiroli [0041] The detection unit 20 is the sensitive part of the first, the second and the third sensors 5A, 5B, 5C; the detection unit or circuit 20 is configured to detect a respective physical quantity associated to an operation of the electronic apparatus 1 and generate one or more electrical signals, here an analog signal S.sub.A, as a function of said physical quantity.[0042] In detail, in this embodiment, the detection unit 20 comprises a sensing element 35 and a mechanical oscillator 37.), each processing channel (C) comprising:
a demodulation unit for demodulating the signal of interest (Sint) in order to form a demodulated signal (SDem), said demodulation unit comprising a frequency mixer between said signal of interest (Sint) and a reference signal (Vdemod), said demodulated signal (SDem) having a low-frequency component and a high-frequency component (Quartiroli [0051] The analog conditioning circuit 40 comprises, for example, one or more operational amplifiers and is configured, for example, to filter, amplify or demodulate the analog signal S.sub.A, providing a conditioned analog signal S′.sub.A. The signal is conditioned, which includes demodulation which necessarily requires separating the information signal of interest from the carrier reference signal.);
a filtration unit for filtering the demodulated signal (SDem) in order to form a filtered signal (SFil), the filtration unit being adapted to allow through the low-frequency component of the demodulated signal (SDem) (Quartiroli [0055] The filter 46 comprises one or more filters of a low-pass or band-pass type, has one or more respective cut-off frequencies, and is configured to receive the sampled signal S.sub.S and supply a digital signal S.sub.D. The digital signal S.sub.D is thus obtained by filtering the sampled signal S.sub.S, for example to remove undesired spectral components thereof introduced by the analog-to-digital converter 43, the analog conditioning circuit 40, and/or the detection unit 20.);
a detection unit for detecting rising edges, each rising edge corresponding to a pulse of the output signal (Simp) (Quartiroli [0078] The downsampler 68 is configured, in response to the detection of an event, in particular a switching edge, of the output-trigger signal OUT_TRG, for example a rising edge or a falling edge, to supply at output the sample F.sub.i of the filtered signal F currently stored.).
Quartiroli is not relied upon to teach a comparison unit for comparing the filtered signal (SFil) with a fixed threshold signal (Vth) in order to form a comparison signal (Scomp), said comparison signal (Scomp) comprising rising edges and falling edges.
Kollias teaches a comparison unit for comparing the filtered signal (SFil) with a fixed threshold signal (Vth) in order to form a comparison signal (Scomp), said comparison signal (Scomp) comprising rising edges and falling edges (Kollias [0122] According to various embodiments, after filtering in loop filter 2104, the sampled and filtered analog input signal is provided to comparator 2106, which compares the input signal to a threshold value. For example, the threshold value may be 0 V. Based on the comparison, comparator 2106 provides digital output signal D.sub.OUT. The stream of bits in digital output signal Dour is proportional to analog input signal A.sub.IN. Further, digital output signal D.sub.OUT is provided through DAC 2108 back to adder 2110. In such embodiments, DAC 2108 is supplied by voltage reference V.sub.REF such as from supply circuit 1708 or voltage reference supply 1808 described hereinabove in reference to FIGS. 17 and 18.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Quartiroli in view of Kollias to explicitly teach a comparison unit for comparing the filtered signal (SFil) with a fixed threshold signal (Vth) in order to form a comparison signal (Scomp), said comparison signal (Scomp) comprising rising edges and falling edges, to ensure that the only the signal above a specified value is output signal.
Regarding Claim 2, Quartiroli in view of Kollias (as stated above) further teaches said sensor being adapted to generate the signal of interest (Sint) from a variation in a studied physical feature (Quartiroli [0005] MEMS sensors convert a physical quantity into a respective electrical signal, of an analog type, whose evolution in time is a function of the evolution in time of the detected physical quantity. Further, MEMS sensors are each configured to convert the respective analog signal into a corresponding (digital) discretized signal having a respective output sample rate, and supply the respective discretized signal to a control unit of the electronic apparatus. Also see [0013] In an embodiment, a system comprises: a plurality of sensors, each sensor including: detection circuitry, which, in operation, generates a detection signal indicative of a detected physical quantity;).
Regarding Claim 3, Quartiroli in view of Kollias (as stated above) further teaches the studied physical feature from which the signal of interest (Sint) is generated is selected from a group of physical features comprising at least: a gas; a mass; an acceleration. (Quartiroli [0003] For instance, the sensors may be accelerometers, gyroscopes, temperature sensors, pressure sensors, electrical-resistance sensors, mechanical-stress sensors, and strain gauges, etc. Also see [0034] For instance, the first, the second and the third sensors 5A, 5B, 5C may each be, for example, one of an acceleration sensor, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a mechanical-stress sensor, an electrical-resistance sensor, a gyroscope, etc.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quartiroli in view of Kollias (as stated above), further in view of Davie et al. (WO 2017198666 A1) hereinafter “Davie”.
Regarding Claim 9, Quartiroli in view of Kollias (as stated above) is not relied upon to teach wherein said MEMS sensor comprises a calibration unit for calibrating the reference signal (Vdemod) in the demodulation unit.
Davie teaches wherein said MEMS sensor comprises a calibration unit for calibrating the reference signal (Vdemod) in the demodulation unit (Davie p. 8, line 2, A phase calibration is used to remove phase errors in the measurement electronics before the mixer 18.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Quartiroli in view of Kollias (as stated above), further in view of Davie, to explicitly teach wherein said MEMS sensor comprises a calibration unit for calibrating the reference signal (Vdemod) in the demodulation unit to remove all sources of phase offset (error) in the measurement electronics that are not due to the sensor itself to avoid unwanted DC signals being generated due to the mixer action (Davie p. 8, line 6).
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for claims 4-8 due to the clarity issues raised above. The Examiner also notes that the prior art does disclose multichannel MEMS transducers, but the unclear meaning of the “view to generating a pulse output signal” leads to an uncertainty of the proper interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2173.06 II. where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang et al. (US 20140250970 A1) discloses a System And Method For Monitoring A Gyroscope.
Boser et al. (US 20190288696 A1) discloses Frequency Tuning And/Or Frequency Tracking Of A Mechanical System With Low Sensitivity To Electrical Feedthrough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights