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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation that the mass blocks are each capable of “swinging around” the first and second anchor points respectively, however it is not clear as to what is meant by the term “swinging” and what would be considered swinging as opposed to rotating or generally moving relative to. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the masses essentially pivot around the anchor points.
The claim recites the limitation of “the plurality of first mass blocks” in line 13 and “the plurality of second mass blocks” in line 15. It is not clear if these are the same as the previously disclosed “first mass blocks” and “second mass blocks” or if they are different ones. It is further unclear if the claim therefore means that the first mass blocks are distributed in a first direction (X) and in a second direction (Y) or if some of the blocks are in the X direction and others are in the Y for example.
The claim further states that the swing directions of adjacent first (and second) mass blocks are “opposite,” however it is not clear if this means that they are driven to swing opposite one another in an antiphase manner, or if the swing during operation or under a force is opposite.
The claim recites the limitation that the connection between the mass blocks are “tightly coupled,” however it is not clear as to what would be considered “tightly” versus loosely or other, since it is a term of degree.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites that when the first and second mass blocks swing, at least part of the torsion beam is deformable. It is not clear if the act of swinging somehow makes the torsion beam deformable since the torsion beam would seemingly be deformable whether or not the mass is swinging.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andersson et al. US 2017/0268879.
Regarding claim 1, Andersson discloses, as seen in fig. 2, a dual axis gyroscope comprising:
first mass blocks (106) each capable of swinging around a first anchor point (124) in a first plane and swinging around a first central axis of the first anchor point (rotational arrows in fig. 3);
second mass blocks (108) each capable of swinging around a second anchor point (123) in the first plane and swinging around a second central axis (119) of the second anchor point (fig. 4);
wherein a plane defined by a length direction and a width direction of the dual-axis gyroscope is the first plane (see the plane formed by the device in fig. 2-4), the first central axis and the second central axis are both located in the first plane, and one of the first central axis and the second central axis is parallel to the length direction of the dual-axis gyroscope and the other is parallel to the width direction of the dual-axis gyroscope (fig. 3 and fig. 4 show the masses swinging around each of the axes);
the first mass blocks (106) and the second mass blocks (108) are distributed in a first direction (axis 101), the plurality of first mass blocks (106) are distributed in a second direction (axis 127), swing directions of adjacent first mass blocks are opposite (fig. 2 illustrates the swing directions as being opposite), the plurality of second mass blocks (108) are distributed in the second direction, swing directions of adjacent second mass blocks (108) are opposite, and one of the first direction and the second direction is the length direction of the dual-axis gyroscope and the other is the width direction of the dual-axis gyroscope (the two axes form the rectangular shape of the gyroscope; and
tightly coupled connections are formed between adjacent first mass blocks (106) through first coupling rods (120a), and tightly coupled connections are formed between adjacent second mass blocks (108) through second coupling rods (120b);
a driving unit (114,116) connected with the first mass blocks (106) and the second mass blocks (108) to drive the first mass blocks (106) and the second mass blocks (108) to swing in the first plane; and
a detecting unit (electrodes 110, 112) capable of detecting a swing angle (the capacitance changes based on the angle of the mass) of the first mass block (106) around the first central axis and a swing angle of the second mass block (108) around the second central axis (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, fig. 5b of Andersson illustrates a coupling rod 120 which comprises first and second connecting portions arranged on opposite ends of a third connecting portion in the claimed arrangement (paragraph 0058). Since the coupling rods would be between each of the masses, they would apply to the second mass blocks in the same manner as the first.
Regarding claim 9, the gyroscope of Andersson comprises capacitive detection structures in the claimed arrangement for detecting a differential capacitance (see for example paragraph 0008, 0049 which describe detecting the change in capacitance based on motion).
Regarding claim 10, Andersson teaches adding the MEMS gyroscope to an electronic product (paragraph 0002, 0005) which would include the dual-axis gyroscope of claim 1.
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) 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tocchio et al. US 2018/0112981.
Regarding claim 4, Andersson teaches the claimed invention including the driving unit 114 with driving parts, drive springs 131, and coupling beams 125, wherein the driving parts 114 are fixedly connected with the drive springs, the drive springs and the first masses 106 re connected through the coupling beams 125 and the driving springs and the second mass blocks are connected through the coupling beams 126 and the driving parts are capable of driving the drive springs to move in the second direction to drive the first mass blocks and the second mass blocks to swing in the first plane. Andersson does not explicitly disclose the drive springs as being “driving decoupling structures” as claimed. Tocchio teaches a MEMS gyroscope which includes a driving structure 15, 16 which is coupled to a mass 11a, 11b via a coupling beam and a decoupling spring 42, 43 (paragraph 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Tocchio with those of Andersson in order to provide decoupling means in place of the drive springs of Andersson between the drive and the mass to provide better mechanical decoupling between the mass and the drive during operation.
Regarding claim 6, Andersson discloses the drive elements but does not explicitly teach them as being capacitive and/or inductive driving structures. Tocchio teaches a MEMS gyroscope including driving means for driving masses 11A, 11B which can be a capacitive driving element (abstract, claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Tocchio with those of Andersson in order to provide a similar capacitive drive structure in order to accurately drive the masses during operation since capacitive drives were common in the art for maintaining consistent vibration in the system during use.
Regarding claim 7, in Andersson, at least a part of the coupling beam is a deformable structure sine the element 131 can be a spring type connection. Therefore, when in combination with Tocchio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have kept the connection to allow for a movement of the mass to occur.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Weinberg et al. US 8,187,902.
Regarding claim 8, Andersson discloses springs 128, 129 which connect the first mass blocks and the second mass blocks to the first and second anchors respectively, but does not explicitly disclose the springs as torsion beams. Weinberg teaches a gyroscope sensor comprising masses 110 which are connected to a anchors 140 via a torsion beams 142. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Weinberg with those of Andersson in order to provide similar torsion beams for the springs of Andersson to better limit the movement of the masses to a single direction or plane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of Andersson and Tocchio fails to teach the claimed limitations as found in claim 5 including the decoupling structures distributed in the claimed directions wherein the first mass blocks are located between adjacent driving decoupling structures, the second mass blocks are located between adjacent driving decoupling structures and the first and second mass blocks are connected through the coupling beams and driving decoupling structures. As seen in fig. 2 of Andersson, when adding the decoupling structures, the first and second mass blocks would not be connected through the coupling beams and the decoupling structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855