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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s
election without traverse of Species 1 (fig. 1; claims 1-7, 14, and 17)
in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 8-13 and 15-16 is/are withdrawn
from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The Examiner notes that Applicant did not include claim(s) 18-20 with the elected species; however, the Examiner (re)asserts that these claims are generic and examinable with Species 1 (see Examiner note on bottom of page 5 through top of page 6 in the restriction dated 03/11/2026). Therefore
claim(s) 18-20 have not been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 & 03/11/2026 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible
under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
Element(s)
70 of fig(s). 1
,
110, 170, 180 of fig(s). 9
,
need appropriate legends in the form of descriptive text labels in addition to any reference characters already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), and MPEP § 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”). Appropriate Correction is required.
The Drawings are objected to for
illustrating prior art without an appropriately designating legend
.
Figure(s) 9 and 10
should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art--
because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See comparative figures (US 20220137085 A1 on right) provided below which support the designation that only that which is old is illustrated:
PNG
media_image1.png
233
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
155
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
895
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
686
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
use of phrases which can be implied (“According to one embodiment”. The Examiner suggests that the Abstract be directed to the generic embodiment or the elected embodiment. The Examiner was unable to identify any species/embodiment of the sensor which does not include an element section.);
extensive mechanical/design details (Examiner notes that if Applicant includes the below suggestive assistance to the reader while staying under the 150 word limit, the Examiner will consider the issue effectively moot); and
insufficient assistance to the reader (Examiner suggests including: advantage of intermediate movable member, see [0036] of PgPub; that the sensor may be a gyroscope/Coriolis/angular-velocity sensor, see [0030] ;
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).The Examiner notes that each of “sensor” and “electronic object” are commonly known objects in the art and therefore the title provides insufficient informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 2,
“ae” appears to be a typo, the Examiner suggesting “a[[e]]”.
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
(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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Araki* (JP 2008151728 A; hereafter “Araki”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding independent claim 1,
Araki teaches (see especially figs. 2-4) a sensor (figs. 3-4, angular velocity sensor) (Title “BIAXIAL ANGULAR VELOCITY SENSOR”; Abstract), comprising:
an element section, the element section including
a base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40),
a first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22) fixed to the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) (about middle of page 7 “A fixing portion 22 is disposed at the center” and “the fixing portion 22 is supported by the lower glass layer 40 from below and is supported by the frame body 21 via the lower glass layer 40”; second to last paragraph of page 7 “oscillating body 23 is supported by the frame body 21 via the fixing portion 22”),
a first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first) supported by the first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22),
a first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) connected to the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first),
a first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first) connected to the first intermediate movable member (fig. 3, oscillating body 23),
a first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25) supported by the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first), the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25) including a first movable electrode (fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a first set of electrode 31), and
a first fixed electrode (figs. 3 & 4, electrode 312, denoting a first set of electrode 31) fixed to the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and facing the first movable electrode (fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a first set of electrode 31) (bottom of page 8 through top of page 9 “the angular velocity detection electrode 31 has one electrode 311 supported by the rotating body 25 and the other electrode 312 supported by the frame body 21”; see also figs. 6 & 7D),
a first gap (gap shown; not labeled) being provided (see especially figs. 3 & 7d)
between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first),
between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first intermediate movable member (fig. 3, oscillating body 23),
between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first), and
between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
Araki teaches (see especially fig. 3) wherein
the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is provided around the first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22) in a first plane crossing a first direction from the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) to the first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22), and
the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25) is provided around the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) in the first plane.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5,
Araki teaches (see especially fig. 3) wherein
the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is annular, and
the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25) is annular.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 6,
Araki teaches wherein the element section further includes
a second intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting second) , and
a second connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting second),
the second intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting second) is connected to the first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22),
a part of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is connected to the second intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting second),
a part of the second connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting second) is connected to the first intermediate movable member (fig. 3, oscillating body 23),
another part of the second connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting second) is connected to the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25), and
the first gap (gap shown; not labeled) is further provided between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the second intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting second), and between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the second connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting second).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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.
(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.
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) 2-3 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 Applicant cited Araki.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Araki reasonably teaches wherein the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) and the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first) satisfy at least one of a first condition, a second condition, a third condition, or the fourth condition,
in the first condition (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided), a mass of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is greater than a mass of the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first) (see figs. 7b-7c and fig. 3) (paragraph before middle of page 10 “as shown in FIG. 7C, from the surface opposite to the surface where the glass substrate 40a of the silicon substrate 20a is bonded, the frame body 21, the fixing portion 22, the swinging body 23, the first hinge are used using the MEMS technology. 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, the direction detection electrode 30, and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are formed”; paragraph after middle of page 10 “As described above, the frame body 21, the fixed portion 22, the swing body 23, the first hinge 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, and direction detection The electrode 30 and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are all two-dimensionally formed on the silicon layer 20 and are arranged so as not to overlap each other. Therefore, these formations can be simultaneously and easily formed using MEMS technology including Deep RIE processing”),
in the second condition (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided), an area of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is larger than an area of the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first) (paragraph before middle of page 10 “as shown in FIG. 7C, from the surface opposite to the surface where the glass substrate 40a of the silicon substrate 20a is bonded, the frame body 21, the fixing portion 22, the swinging body 23, the first hinge are used using the MEMS technology. 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, the direction detection electrode 30, and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are formed”; paragraph after middle of page 10 “As described above, the frame body 21, the fixed portion 22, the swing body 23, the first hinge 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, and direction detection The electrode 30 and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are all two-dimensionally formed on the silicon layer 20 and are arranged so as not to overlap each other. Therefore, these formations can be simultaneously and easily formed using MEMS technology including Deep RIE processing”),
(silent) in the third condition, a thickness of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is thicker than a thickness of the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first), and
(silent) in the fourth condition, a density of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is higher than a density of the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first).
With further respect to the mass of the first intermediate movable member being greater than the mass of the first intermediate connect portion and the area of the first intermediate movable member being larger than an area of the first intermediate connect portion:
It does not matter that the feature shown is unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2125 and In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In the present case, Araki reasonably shows the area & corresponding mass (see also previously provided citations pertaining to material) of the (annular) first intermediate movable member as being larger than the (hinge) first intermediate connect portion.
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 would be required to make a hinge smaller in area/mass, and/or to make an annular oscillator mass larger.
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 the Araki’s annular oscillator has more mass & area than Araki’s hinge, 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 the Araki’s elements such that the oscillator mass and area has greater inertia than the hinge for the expected purpose of increased functionality, the Examiner emphasizing that the oscillator is the designated portion which is intended to have the majority of the inertia as opposed to the hinge whose functionality is merely intended to provide connection.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2,
Araki reasonably teaches wherein the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) and the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first) satisfy at least one of a fifth condition, a sixth condition, a seventh condition, or an eighth condition,
in the fifth condition (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided), the mass of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is greater than a mass of the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first) (paragraph before middle of page 10 “as shown in FIG. 7C, from the surface opposite to the surface where the glass substrate 40a of the silicon substrate 20a is bonded, the frame body 21, the fixing portion 22, the swinging body 23, the first hinge are used using the MEMS technology. 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, the direction detection electrode 30, and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are formed”; paragraph after middle of page 10 “As described above, the frame body 21, the fixed portion 22, the swing body 23, the first hinge 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, and direction detection The electrode 30 and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are all two-dimensionally formed on the silicon layer 20 and are arranged so as not to overlap each other. Therefore, these formations can be simultaneously and easily formed using MEMS technology including Deep RIE processing”),
in the sixth condition (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided), the area of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is larger than an area of the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first) (paragraph before middle of page 10 “as shown in FIG. 7C, from the surface opposite to the surface where the glass substrate 40a of the silicon substrate 20a is bonded, the frame body 21, the fixing portion 22, the swinging body 23, the first hinge are used using the MEMS technology. 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, the direction detection electrode 30, and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are formed”; paragraph after middle of page 10 “As described above, the frame body 21, the fixed portion 22, the swing body 23, the first hinge 24, the rotating body 25, the second hinge 26, the third hinge 27, the first drive electrode 28, the second drive electrode 29, and direction detection The electrode 30 and the angular velocity detection electrode 31 are all two-dimensionally formed on the silicon layer 20 and are arranged so as not to overlap each other. Therefore, these formations can be simultaneously and easily formed using MEMS technology including Deep RIE processing”),
(silent) in the seventh condition, the thickness of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is thicker than a thickness of the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first), and
(silent) in the eighth condition, the density of the first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) is higher than a density of the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first).
With further respect to the mass of the first intermediate movable member being greater than the mass of the first connect portion and the area of the first intermediate movable member being larger than the area of the first connect portion:
It does not matter that the feature shown is unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2125 and In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In the present case, Araki reasonably shows the area & corresponding mass (see also previously provided citations pertaining to material) of the (annular) first intermediate movable member as being larger than the (hinge) first connect portion.
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 would be required to make a hinge smaller in area/mass, and/or to make an annular oscillator mass larger.
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 the Araki’s annular oscillator has more mass & area than Araki’s hinge, 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 the Araki’s elements such that the oscillator mass and area has greater inertia than the hinge for the expected purpose of increased functionality, the Examiner emphasizing that the oscillator is the designated portion which is intended to have the majority of the inertia as opposed to the hinge whose functionality is merely intended to provide connection.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Araki.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2,
Araki is silent to all of wherein the first intermediate movable member and the first movable member satisfy at least one of a ninth condition, a tenth condition, an eleventh condition, or a twelfth condition,
in the ninth condition, the mass of the first intermediate movable member is greater than a mass of a first movable member,
in the tenth condition, the area of the first intermediate movable member is larger than an area of the first movable member,
in the eleventh condition, the thickness of the first intermediate movable member is thicker than a thickness of the first movable member, and
in the twelfth condition, the density of the first intermediate movable member is higher than a density of the first movable member.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice of each of the following being well-known and understood in the art: Coriolis Force, Hooke’s law, Inertia of annular disk, and Newton’s second law.
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 would be required to make an annular oscillator larger and/or to make the rotating body smaller. Likewise, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art would be required to make a spring/hinge thinner (smaller).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the inertia/mass/area of the annular oscillator mass to be larger and/or to make the rotating body smaller to optimize such factors as cost, overall size, and/or sensitivity/ranges. Likewise, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the thickness of a spring/hinge to be smaller to optimize such factors as cost and/or stiffness.
In view of the above, it is the Examiner’s prima facie position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aforementioned conditions as merely matters of design choice for the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner further emphasizing that decreasing sizes can at the very least have financial cost savings and/or result in smaller/lighter sensors.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Araki in view of Applicant cited Kaji et al (US 20200284582 A1; hereafter “Kaji”).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 1,
Araki does not teach wherein the first intermediate connect portion and the first connect portion have a meander structure.
However:
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 it is conventional (i.e., Examiner is taking Official Notice of conventionality) to design springs with meandering structure.
Furthermore, and factually supporting the aforementioned assertion, Kaji teaches wherein the springs (fig. 9, connection portion 20) have a meander structure (Title “SENSOR”; Abstract; [0059] “the connection portion 20N has a meandering structure”).
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 substitute a conventional meandering spring structure shape—as factually supported by Kaji’s meandering springs—for Araki’s (spring-like) hinges for the expected benefits of increased usable displacement range (e.g., decreasing nonlinearity effects, or decreasing stress/failure points), enabling more compact form, and/or providing more optimizable dimensions by which fine-tune spring response including tuning in particular directions.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Araki in view of newly cited Masunishi et al (US 20220137085 A1; hereafter “Masunishi”).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 1,
Araki is silent to a sensor housing.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that sensor housings are conventional.
PNG
media_image5.png
374
359
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting actual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Masunishi teaches a housing (see fig. 12, housing comprising lid portion 10R),
the element section (see at least first detection element 10U) being provided inside the housing (Title “SENSOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE”; Abstract; [0122] “As shown in FIG. 12, a lid part 10R may be provided in the sensor 120. The lid part 10R is connected with the base body 50S. The first supporter 50A, the first movable part 10, the second supporter 50B, and the second movable part 10S are between the base body 50S and the lid part 10R”).
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 place the element section of Araki’s sensor into a conventional sensor housing—as factually supported by Masunishi—for the expected benefit of providing protection for Araki’s sensor, thereby increasing ruggedness/durability, reducing costs and time associated with repairs/maintenance/replacement, as well providing reduced unwanted effects from external influences.
Regarding claim 19 and claim 20, where claim 19 depends on claim 1 and where claim 20 depends on claim 19,
Araki teaches an electronic device, comprising:
the sensor according to claim 1 (see analysis of independent claim 1).
Araki is silent to (claim 19) a circuit controller configured to control a circuit based on a signal obtained from the sensor and (claim 20) wherein the electronic device includes at least one of a robot and a moving object.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a controller configured to control based on a sensor signal is conventional in the art. The Examiner likewise takes Official Notice that including a sensor in a robot or moving object is conventional in the art.
PNG
media_image4.png
686
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
155
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Masunishi teaches an electronic device (figs. 20 & 21, electronic device 310) comprising: a sensor (fig. 20, sensor 110); and a circuit controller (fig. 20, circuit control section 170) configured to control a circuit (fig. 20, circuit 180) based on a signal obtained from the sensor (fig. 20, sensor 110), wherein the electronic device figs. 20 & 21, electronic device 310) includes at least one of a robot and a moving object (see figs. 21) (Title “SENSOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE”; Abstract; [0120] “rate integrating gyroscope (RIG). The sensor 120 is, for example, an inertial measurement unit (IMU)”). The sensor 120 is, for example, an inertial measurement unit (IMU)”; [0126] “As shown in FIG. 13, an electronic device 310 according to the third embodiment includes the sensor according to the first embodiment or the second embodiment, and a circuit processing part 170. In the example of FIG. 13, the sensor 110 is drawn as the sensor. The circuit processing part 170 can control a circuit 180 based on the signal S1 obtained from the sensor. The circuit 180 is, for example, a control circuit of a drive device 185. According to the embodiment, the circuit 180 for controlling the drive device 185 and the like can be controlled with high accuracy based on the detection result with high accuracy”; [0128] “As shown in FIG. 14A, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of a robot. As shown in FIG. 14B, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of a machining robot provided in a manufacturing plant, etc. As shown in FIG. 14C, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of an automatic guided vehicle inside a plant, etc. As shown in FIG. 14D, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of a drone (an unmanned aircraft). As shown in FIG. 14E, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of an airplane. As shown in FIG. 14F, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of a ship. As shown in FIG. 14G, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of a submarine. As shown in FIG. 14H, the electronic device 310 may be at least a portion of an automobile. The electronic device 310 according to the third embodiment may include, for example, at least one of a robot or a moving body”).
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 a conventional controller configured to control based on a sensor signal—as factually supported by Masunishi’s controller for the same—with Araki’s sensor for the expected purpose of control which has high accuracy based on the sensor detection results, and it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Araki’s sensor as part of a robot or a moving object as is conventional in the art and factually supported by Masunishi for the increased utility and versatility, the inclusion of Araki’s sensor therein having commercial applicability and said electronics benefiting as expected from the detection capability of Araki’s sensor for control thereof.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Schwarzelbach (US 20070194857 A1; hereafter “Schwarzelbach”) in view of Applicant cited Araki.
Regarding independent claim 1,
Schwarzelbach teaches a sensor (fig. 1, angular rate sensor) (Title “Angular Rate Sensor Featuring Mechanically Decoupled Oscillation Modes”; Abstract), comprising:
an element section, the element section including
a base (fig. 3, substrate),
electrodes (not shown in fig. 3) ([0062] “The radial oscillation(s) of the detection element(s) can be measured with conventional methods, for example capacitively via interdigitated structures”; additional reference brought in for obviousness analysis),
a first fixed portion (fig. 1, central anchor structure 3) fixed to the base (fig. 3, substrate) ([0046] “The oscillating element is connected with the base or substrate by a central anchor structure 3”),
a first intermediate connect portion (fig. 1, spring 2, denoting first) supported by the first fixed portion (fig. 1, central anchor structure 3),
a first intermediate movable member (fig. 1, oscillating element 1) connected to the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 1, spring 2, denoting first) ,
a first connect portion (fig. 1, spring 4, denoting first) connected to the first intermediate movable member (fig. 1, oscillating element 1),
a first movable member (fig. 1, element 5) supported by the first connect portion (fig. 1, spring 4, denoting first),
a first gap being provided
between the base (fig. 3, substrate) and the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 1, spring 2, denoting first) ,
between the base (fig. 3, substrate) and the first intermediate movable member (fig. 1, oscillating element 1),
between the base (fig. 3, substrate) and the first connect portion (fig. 1, spring 4, denoting first), and
between the base (fig. 3, substrate) and the first movable member (fig. 1, element 5).
Schwarzelbach is silent to: wherein the first movable member including a first movable electrode; and to a first fixed electrode fixed to the base and facing the first movable electrode.
Araki teaches (see especially figs. 2-4) a sensor (figs. 3-4, angular velocity sensor) (Title “BIAXIAL ANGULAR VELOCITY SENSOR”; Abstract), comprising: an element section, the element section including a base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40), a first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22) fixed to the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) (about middle of page 7 “A fixing portion 22 is disposed at the center” and “the fixing portion 22 is supported by the lower glass layer 40 from below and is supported by the frame body 21 via the lower glass layer 40”; second to last paragraph of page 7 “oscillating body 23 is supported by the frame body 21 via the fixing portion 22”), a first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first) supported by the first fixed portion (fig. 4, fixing portion 22), a first intermediate movable member (figs. 3 & 4, oscillating body 23) connected to the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first), a first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first) connected to the first intermediate movable member (fig. 3, oscillating body 23), a first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25) supported by the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first), the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25) including a first movable electrode (fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a first set of electrode 31), and a first fixed electrode (figs. 3 & 4, electrode 312, denoting a first set of electrode 31) fixed to the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and facing the first movable electrode (fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a first set of electrode 31) (bottom of page 8 through top of page 9 “the angular velocity detection electrode 31 has one electrode 311 supported by the rotating body 25 and the other electrode 312 supported by the frame body 21”; see also figs. 6 & 7D), a first gap (gap shown; not labeled) being provided (see especially figs. 3 & 7d) between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first intermediate connect portion (fig. 3, first hinge 26, denoting first), between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first intermediate movable member (fig. 3, oscillating body 23), between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first connect portion (fig. 3, second hinge 26, denoting first), and between the base (fig. 3, base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) and the first movable member (figs. 3 & 4, rotating body 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Araki’s complimentary base fixed electrodes & movable electrodes with Schwarzelbach’s base and each of Schwarzelbach’s movable detection members for the expected purpose of providing a conventional method of measuring the oscillations of Schwarzelbach’s movable detection members with complimentary capacitive interdigitated structures having known advantages including high sensitivity and rapid response times with high signal-to-noise ratio.
PNG
media_image6.png
328
441
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
557
477
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1,
Schwarzelbach as previously modified by Araki (see analysis of independent claim, which added complementary electrodes for each of Schwarzelbach’s detection elements) suggests wherein
the element section further includes a third fixed electrode (as previously modified by Araki, see Araki: figs. 3 & 4, electrode 312, denoting a third set of electrode 31 fixed to base comprising frame body 21, silicon layer 20, glass layer 40) fixed to the base (Schwarzelbach: fig. 3, substrate),
the first movable member (Schwarzelbach: fig. 1, element 5) includes a third movable electrode (as previously modified by Araki, see Araki: fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a third set of electrode 31),
the third fixed electrode (Araki: fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a third set of electrode 31) faces the third movable electrode (Araki: fig. 3, electrode 311, denoting a third set of electrode 31), and
a direction from the first fixed portion (Schwarzelbach: fig. 1, central anchor structure 3) to the third fixed electrode (Araki: figs. 3 & 4, electrode 312, denoting a third set of electrode 31) is along a direction from the first fixed portion Schwarzelbach: fig. 1, central anchor structure 3) to the first fixed electrode (Araki: figs. 3 & 4, electrode 312, denoting a first set of electrode 31).
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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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. A possible topic of discussion could include the combination of annular shapes and alignment (see claims 6 and 14).
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 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 16MAY2026
Prosecution Insights