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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: Vibratory gyroscope with quadrature reduction.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: the word “resonance” should be inserted before “mode” wherever it is absent for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-16 and 18-20 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 2, the claim recites the limitation that the at least one notch is “formed on an outer periphery” of the vibratory plate. In the instance where the notch is a negative notch, it is not clear as to how it would be “on” the outer periphery as opposed to “in” it. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the notch is formed at an outer periphery of the vibratory plate.
Regarding claims 3-5, 12-14 and 18-20, the claims recite the limitation that the notches are located at “opposite sides” of the vibratory plate, however it is not clear as to what is meant by “opposite” since it could be interpreted as left and right sides, or top and bottom sides or different. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as the opposing sides across a shared axis when viewing the plate in a plan view from the top.
Regarding claims 6, the claim recites the limitation that each location of the at least one notch “is identified” so as to substantially impact a stiffness of one of the resonance modes. It is unclear as to what is entailed by the “identifying” and how it would affect the structure of the device. For the purpose of examination, it will be considered to mean chosen or a predetermined location.
Further, the term “substantially impact” is indefinite since it is not clear as to what would be considered “substantial” versus not substantial.
The claim additionally comprises the limitation of “the first resonance mode” and “the second resonance mode” which lack antecedent basis since no such resonance modes have been disclosed previously. Additionally, it is not clear if two resonance modes would inherently exist in the system or if they are being added to the structure.
Regarding claim 7, the claim refers to “one resonance mode” and “another resonance mode” however it is not clear what the resonance modes would be determined by or relate to. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the gyroscope itself can operate in two resonance modes.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10 and 16, each comprise the limitation of the location of the at least one notch “is determined at a position” which reads as step of determining and not a structural limitation. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “located at” or similar.
Regarding claim 9, there does not appear to be a structural limitation in the claim, but rather merely operating parameters. Therefore, the claim will be interpreted as the device being capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 11, there does not appear to be a structural limitation in the claim, but rather merely operating parameters. Therefore, the claim will be interpreted as the device being capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation that “at least one notch comprises two positive notches.” It is not clear if one of the notches itself comprises two additional positive notches located thereon, or if the claim should read “the at least one notch” comprises two positive notches, meaning that there are two notches in the device.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation that “at least one notch comprises two negative notches.” It is not clear if one of the notches itself comprises two additional negative notches located thereon, or if the claim should read “the at least one notch” comprises two negative notches, meaning that there are two notches in the device.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation that “at least one notch comprises two positive notches and two negative notches.” It is not clear if one of the notches itself comprises two additional positive notches and two negative notches located thereon, or if the claim should read “the at least one notch” comprises two positive notches and two negative notches, meaning that there are two notches in the device.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation that each location of the at least one notch “is identified” so as to substantially impact a stiffness of one of the resonance modes. It is unclear as to what is entailed by the “identifying” and how it would affect the structure of the device. For the purpose of examination, it will be considered to mean chosen or a predetermined location.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of “the first and second resonance modes” which lacks antecedent basis since no such resonance modes have been disclosed previously. Additionally, it is not clear if two resonance modes would inherently exist in the system or if they are being added to the structure.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation that “at least one notch comprises two positive notches.” It is not clear if one of the notches itself comprises two additional positive notches located thereon, or if the claim should read “the at least one notch” comprises two positive notches, meaning that there are two notches in the device.
The claim further refers to “one resonance mode” and “another resonance mode” however it is not clear if these are the same as the first and second resonance modes or additional ones.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation that “at least one notch comprises two negative notches.” It is not clear if one of the notches itself comprises two additional negative notches located thereon, or if the claim should read “the at least one notch” comprises two negative notches, meaning that there are two notches in the device.
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) 1-4, 6 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rahafrooz et al. US 2022/0107181.
Regarding claim 1, Rahafrooz discloses a gyroscope comprising: a vibratory plate 40 with at least one notch 42a, wherein each notch is a positive notch (fig. 1) that is formed by adding a mass to the vibratory plate (the notch extends past a general circular plate shape which is considered to “adding” mass thereto), or a negative notch (fig. 3) that is formed by removing mass from the vibratory plate (in fig. 3, the notch is a removed section of the circular shape of plate 40), and an anchor configured to support the vibratory plate (paragraphs 0050-0051 discloses the device supported relative to a substrate 16 which reads on the anchor as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, the at least one notch of Rahafrooz is formed on an outer periphery of the vibratory plate as claimed (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the at least one notch of Rahafrooz comprises two positive notches located on opposite sides of the vibratory plate as seen in fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, the at least one notch of Rahafrooz comprises two negative notches located in opposite sides of the vibratory plate as seen in fig. 3.
Regarding claim 6, the placement of the notches of Rahafrooz would inherently impact the stiffness of the resonance modes by changing the geometry and mass of the vibratory plate.
Regarding claim 15, the placement of the notches of Rahafrooz would inherently impact the stiffness of the resonance modes by changing the geometry and mass of the vibratory plate.
Regarding claim 16, the notches of Rahafrooz are located opposite each other which would therefore have the same displacement in both resonance modes.
Regarding claim 17, when in use, the gyroscope of Rahafrooz would inherently have an increase or decrease in stiffness coupling based on resonance modes due to a change in angle of the position of the notch when impacted by a motion of the system since the stiffness would be affected by the forces.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rahafrooz and Wen et al. US 2021/0396518 .
Regarding claim 5, Rahafrooz discloses the at least one notch as comprising two positive notches 42a, 42b, and at least two negative notches (the area between 42a and 42b and the area between 42c and 42d are considered to be negative notches as they reside in between the positive notches) which are located on opposite sides of the vibratory plate as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Rahafrooz teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the notches as being two positive notches and two negative notches located on opposite sides of the vibratory plane as claimed. Wen teaches a resonator which includes both positive 115 and negative 120 notches located opposite from each other accordingly. Since the projections and notches of Rahafrooz are provided for driving and detecting of the motion applied to the gyroscope, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Wen to include both positive and negative notches for positioning of the elements and to tune the vibratory plate by adding or removing portions to form a desired geometry or weight of the plate for driving it accurately.
Claim(s) 7-13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahafrooz.
Regarding claims 7-8, the claims each disclose limitations which are directed towards locations of the notches and the resonance modes of the device. Rahafrooz discloses the ability to operate in a first resonance mode and a second resonance mode (abstract, paragraph 0024). Since the locations of the notches are disclosed in the current application as being opposite one another, and the notches of Rahafrooz are also opposite one another, they are deemed to read on the claimed positions. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the notches at any desired location along the edge of the vibratory plane of Rahafrooz in order to balance or provide a desired resonance to the system for detection of motion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Rahafrooz teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the relationship between resonance frequencies of the first and second modes. It is noted that this relationship does not appear to further limit the device and therefore, the structure of Rahafrooz would be capable of operating in the claimed manner. However, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have chosen any resonance frequencies for the modes to drive the gyroscope in a predictable and consistent manner, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed towards the locations of the notches in relation to the resonance modes. The locations of the notches of Rahafrooz are arranged opposite one another as in the current application and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the notches at any desired location along the edge of the vibratory plane of Rahafrooz in order to balance or provide a desired resonance to the system for detection of motion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and since there is no indication that the resonance mode affects the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Rahafrooz discloses embodiments which include both two positive notches and two negative notches but does not explicitly disclose their location in relationship to the resonance modes. The locations of the notches of Rahafrooz are arranged opposite one another as in the current application and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the notches at any desired location along the edge of the vibratory plane of Rahafrooz in order to balance or provide a desired resonance to the system for detection of motion including at the claimed displacements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and since there is no indication that the resonance mode affects the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Rahafrooz discloses embodiments which include both two positive notches and two negative notches but does not explicitly disclose their location in relationship to the resonance modes. The locations of the notches of Rahafrooz are arranged opposite one another as in the current application and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the notches at any desired location along the edge of the vibratory plane of Rahafrooz in order to balance or provide a desired resonance to the system for detection of motion including at the claimed displacements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and since there is no indication that the resonance mode affects the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahafrooz as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Wen.
Regarding claim 14, Rahafrooz teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the notches as being two positive notches and two negative notches located on opposite sides of the vibratory plane as claimed. Wen teaches a resonator which includes both positive 115 and negative 120 notches located opposite from each other accordingly. Since the projections and notches of Rahafrooz are provided for driving and detecting of the motion applied to the gyroscope, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Wen to include both positive and negative notches for positioning of the elements and to tune the vibratory plate by adding or removing portions to form a desired geometry or weight of the plate for driving it accurately. The locations of the notches of Rahafrooz are arranged opposite one another as in the current application and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the notches at any desired location along the edge of the vibratory plane of Rahafrooz in order to balance or provide a desired resonance to the system for detection of motion including at the claimed displacements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and since there is no indication that the resonance mode affects the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Rahafrooz teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the notches as being two positive notches and two negative notches located on opposite sides of the vibratory plane as claimed. Wen teaches a resonator which includes both positive 115 and negative 120 notches located opposite from each other accordingly. Since the projections and notches of Rahafrooz are provided for driving and detecting of the motion applied to the gyroscope, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Wen to include both positive and negative notches for positioning of the elements and to tune the vibratory plate by adding or removing portions to form a desired geometry or weight of the plate for driving it accurately. The locations of the notches of Rahafrooz are arranged opposite one another as in the current application and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the notches at any desired location along the edge of the vibratory plane of Rahafrooz in order to balance or provide a desired resonance to the system for detection of motion including at the claimed displacements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and since there is no indication that the resonance mode affects the structural limitations of the claim.
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/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855