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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (US 2017/0234725 A1, heretofore referred to as Ichikawa).
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa teaches an angular velocity detection element (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Element 4, Par 0092, and Par 0097) comprising: a drive vibration arm (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Element 440) configured to perform flexural vibration according to an applied drive signal (Ichikawa; Par 0096; Ichikawa teaches an AC driving signal is provided to drive the vibrating arms); and a detection vibration arm (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Element 420) configured to perform flexural vibration according to an applied angular velocity (Ichikawa; Par 0097; Ichikawa teaches at least the first and second detecting vibrating arms make a flexural vibration in the X-axis direction), wherein each of the drive vibration arm and the detection vibration arm has a bottomed groove portion along an extending direction (Ichikawa; Fig 2, Element 80 and Par 0060; Ichikawa teaches a groove formed in each the driving arm and detection arm).
Ichikawa discloses the groove having a thickness and depth (Ichikawa; Fig 2 and Par 0060).
But Ichikawa does not explicitly teach for “d2/t2>d1/t1, in which t1 is a thickness of the drive vibration arm, d1 is a depth of the groove portion of the drive vibration arm, t2 is a thickness of the detection vibration arm, and d2 is a depth of the groove portion of the detection vibration arm”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sizes differences between the grooves, since 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1.
Ichikawa discloses the groove having a thickness and depth (Ichikawa; Fig 2 and Par 0060).
But Ichikawa does not explicitly teach for “wherein d2/t2≥0.8661× d1/t1+0.1582”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sizes differences between the grooves, since 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1.
Ichikawa discloses the groove having a thickness and depth (Ichikawa; Fig 2 and Par 0060).
But Ichikawa does not explicitly teach for “wherein d1/t1≥0.2”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sizes differences between the grooves, since 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1.
Ichikawa discloses the groove having a thickness and depth (Ichikawa; Fig 2 and Par 0060).
But Ichikawa does not explicitly teach for “wherein d2/t2≤0.9”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sizes differences between the grooves, since 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1.
Ichikawa discloses the groove having a thickness and depth (Ichikawa; Fig 2 and Par 0060).
But Ichikawa does not explicitly teach for “wherein d1/t1≥0.2, d2/t2≤0.9, and d2/t2≥0.8661×d1/t1+0.1582”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sizes differences between the grooves, since 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1, further comprising: a base portion (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Element 1010); a pair of the detection vibration arms extending from the base portion to both sides in a first direction (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Elements 420 and 430); a pair of support arms extending from the base portion to both sides in a second direction intersecting the first direction (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Elements 1001 and 1002); a pair of the drive vibration arms extending from one of the support arms to the both sides in the first direction (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Elements 440 and 441); and a pair of the drive vibration arms extending from the other of the support arms to the both sides in the first direction (Ichikawa; Fig 12, Elements 450, 451, and Par 0097).
Regarding claim 7, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 6, wherein each of the detection vibration arms and the drive vibration arms includes an arm provided with the groove portion (Ichikawa; Par 0093; Ichikawa teaches the arms all may contain grooves) and a weight portion positioned at a tip end side of the arm and wider than the arm (Ichikawa; Fig 2, Elements hammerheads at the ends of each arm and Par 0058; Ichikawa teaches the drive and detection arms contain weighted hammerheads at the ends).
Regarding claim 8, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 6.
Ichikawa discloses the arms having grooves having a thickness and depth (Ichikawa; Fig 2 and Par 0060).
But Ichikawa does not explicitly teach for “wherein the detection vibration arms satisfy d2/t2>d1/t1 for all the drive vibration arms”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sizes differences between the grooves, since 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Ichikawa teaches the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1, wherein the drive vibration arms and the detection vibration arms each have a first surface (Ichikawa; Fig 2, Element 60) and a second surface (Ichikawa; Fig 2, Element 70) which are in a front and back relationship with each other (Ichikawa; Par 0060; Ichikawa teaches a first and second surface that are opposites), and the groove portion is formed in each of the first surface and the second surface (Ichikawa; Par 0060; Ichikawa teaches each surface has a groove).
Regarding claim 10, Ichikawa teaches an angular velocity sensor (Ichikawa; Fig 14, Element 600) comprising: the angular velocity detection element according to claim 1 (Ichikawa; Fig 14, Element 1); and a control circuit electrically coupled to the angular velocity detection element (Ichikawa; Fig 14, Element 5 and Par 0100; Ichikawa teaches a control circuit), and configured to supply the drive signal to the angular velocity detection element and to detect an angular velocity based on the flexural vibration (Ichikawa; Par 0100 and Par 00102; Ichikawa teaches the control circuit supplies the drive signal).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Ogura et al teaches an angular velocity detection element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858