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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that
“Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction requirement at least when considering the claims as presented herein. These amendments align the method claims with the apparatus structure and thereby (i) clarify that the method claims require the same micromechanical sensor structure recited in the apparatus claim and (ii) clarify that the method recited in the method claims is one that is performed by implementation of the structure recited in the apparatus claims.
Although the Office asserts that the method of claim 6 may be performed with a materially different apparatus than that of claim 1, Applicant respectfully disagrees because independent method claim 6 requires all of the structural features of claim 1, as the method is directed to obtaining measurements using the micromechanical sensor of claim 1. In other words, the method cannot be practiced without the structural features of Group I. The Office also asserts that the device of claim 1 can be used without practicing the method of claim 6. However, the amendments clarify that this is not so.”
This is not found persuasive because the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus comprising structure for performing the step of
“ascertaining a sensor signal of a micromechanical sensor that includes:
(a) a MEMS substrate;
(b) a micromechanical structure that is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity and that includes at least one sensor electrode;
(c) a cap substrate disposed over the micromechanical structure and closes the cavity; and
(d) a capacitive electrode disposed on an inner side of the cap structure; and
using the capacitive electrode to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element.”
Www.dictionary.com defines “ascertain” as “to find out definitely; learn with certainty or assurance.” The apparatus of claim 1 lacks structure for performing a step for ascertaining (i.e. finding out definitely, or learning with certainty or assurance) a sensor signal.
Additionally the apparatus of claim 1 can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as a process for producing a sensor signal, without the ascertaining step of claim 6.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant’s election of species 1 in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the species restriction requirement, the species election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement between groups I-II in the reply filed on 1/5/26.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Classen et al. (DE 102020202277 A1, hereinafter Classen3).
As to claim 1, Classen3 teaches a micromechanical sensor (fig. 9, ¶52), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 10 (¶16);
a micromechanical structure (comprising at least proof mass 70 and fixed electrodes 72) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity (see fig. 9) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (a surface of the proof mass 70 facing one of electrodes 72);
a cap substrate 12, 30 disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity (see fig. 9); and
a capacitive electrode 18b disposed on an inner side of the cap structure, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 16 on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element (¶23), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated sensor signal - ¶53).
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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen3 in view of Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1).
As to claim 12, Classen3 teaches evaluation circuitry 20 (fig. 9 and ¶65).
Classen3 does not explicitly teach wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance (while ¶53 teaches the stress measurement M is used to compensate the signal from the sensor, Classen3 is silent as to the evaluation circuitry being what performs the compensation).
Reinmuth teaches evaluation circuitry (not illustrated - ¶44), wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance (¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 such that the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance as taught by Reinmuth for convenience since the compensation will not have to be done by a separate device or by a user.
As to claim 13, Classen3 teaches wherein the sensor signal (compensated sensor signal - ¶53 of Classen3) is ascertained at least in part from a sensor capacitance between the sensor electrode (on proof mass 70 of Classen3) and another part of the micromechanical structure (a second of the fixed electrodes 72 of Classen3 - ¶52).
If Applicant argues that the compensated sensor signal is not formed from a sensor capacitance between the sensor electrode and another part of the micromechanical structure,
Reinmuth teaches compensating a sensor signal (compensated sensor signal - ¶43-44) that is formed from a sensor capacitance C1A between a sensor electrode (of proof mass 130) and another part (one of fixed electrodes 210, 215) of the micromechanical structure (¶43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 such that the signal of the sensor is formed with a capacitance formed with the sensor electrode and another part of the micromechanical structure as taught by Reinmuth since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of detecting deflection of the proof mass for another, and of correcting the raw sensor signal, for another for the predictable result that sensor accuracy is still successfully improved by the compensation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen3 in view of Reinmuth as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa (US 20190233279 A1).
As to claim 17, Classen3 as modified teaches wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance to correct the sensor signal of a sensor channel (¶53 – Classen3).
Classen3 as modified does not teach wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance to correct the sensor signals of a plurality of sensor channels.
Yanagisawa teaches wherein compensation data (temperature in formation from sensor 145 - ¶12) is used for compensating the sensor signals for a plurality of sensor channels (of X, Y and Z axis accelerometers - ¶143 and fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen3 as modified to have accelerometers for each of the X-Z axes and to compensate each of their signals with the compensation data as taught by Yanagisawa so as to increase the usefulness of the apparatus, due to the ability to accurately sense in three axes.
Classen3 teaches wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to use the measuring capacitance (of Classen3) to correct the sensor signals of a plurality of sensor channels (in view of Yanagisawa).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20140007685 A1, hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 1, Reinmuth teaches a micromechanical sensor (figs. 1-3; ¶20-22), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 110;
[AltContent: textbox (MS )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
226
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a micromechanical structure 210 (fig. 3), MS (fig. 1 above) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity (the cavity is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the micromechanical sensor of Reinmuth is capable of being placed in a cavity) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130); and
a capacitive electrode 260, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance C2B with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 160 on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element 160 (¶40), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated value signal - ¶44).
Reinmuth does not explicitly teach a cap substrate disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity;
wherein the capacitive electrode 260 is disposed on an inner side of the cap structure.
Zhang teaches a rocker proof mass 104 supported by two substrates 101-102 forming a cavity 117 (fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth to support the proof mass with two substrates forming a cavity, as taught by Zhang so as to better protect the sensor structures.
Reinmuth as modified teaches a MEMS substrate 101 (Zhang),
a micromechanical structure 210, MS (Reinmuth) that (a) is disposed (substantially) on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity 117 (Zhang) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130 of Reinmuth); and
a capacitive electrode 260 (Reinmuth), the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance C2B (Reinmuth) with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 160 (Reinmuth) on the MEMS substrate (substantially on the MEMS substrate via at least cavity sidewalls shown in fig. 1B of Zhang) for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element (¶40 of Reinmuth), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated value signal - ¶44 of Reinmuth),
a cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth) disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity;
wherein the capacitive electrode 260 (Reinmuth) is disposed on an inner side of the cap structure 110 (Reinmuth).
As to claim 3, Reinmuth teaches wherein the micromechanical structural element 160 is configured such that it cannot move (fig. 4 and ¶42 teach that the element 160 cannot move in response to Z-axis acceleration).
As to claim 4, Reinmuth as modified teaches a further capacitive electrode 265 (Reinmuth ) configured to produce a further measuring capacitance C1B (¶40 - Reinmuth) with a further adjacent micromechanical structural element 165 (Reinmuth) for measuring a further distance between the further capacitive electrode and the further micromechanical structural element (¶40 - Reinmuth), the further capacitive electrode being disposed on the inner side of the cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth).
As to claim 12, Reinmuth teaches evaluation circuitry (not illustrated - ¶44), wherein the evaluation circuitry is configured to correct a sensor signal of the micromechanical sensor based on the produced measuring capacitance (¶44).
As to claim 13, Reinmuth teaches wherein the sensor signal (corrected sensor signal) is ascertained (via compensation - ¶44) at least in part from a sensor capacitance between the sensor electrode (of proof mass 130) and another part 210 of the micromechanical structure 210, MS.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merassi (US 20140252509 A1).
As to claim 2, Reinmuth as modified teaches wherein the cap substrate 110 (Reinmuth) is a semiconductor substrate (¶30 of Reinmuth).
Reinmuth as modified does not teach wherein the semiconductor substrate includes an integrated circuit.
Merassi teaches wherein compensation operations are performed by an ASIC 30 (¶77) that is integrated (¶78) in a semiconductor substrate 3 (¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified such that compensation operations are performed by an ASIC that is integrated in the semiconductor substrate, as taught by Merassi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a circuit for performing the compensation operations for another for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Zhang, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Classen et al. (DE 102019218326 A1, hereinafter Classen2).
As to claim 14, Reinmuth as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the correcting includes subtracting a correction contribution, which is formed from the measuring capacitance and at least one correlation factor, from the sensor signal.
Classen2 teaches the concept of capacitively measuring stress (¶22) and performing a correction by subtracting (¶11) a correction contribution (being a value associated with “the signal of the stress compensation electrodes” that is “multiplied by a gain factor” - ¶11), which is formed from the measuring capacitance (a value associated with the “signal of the stress compensation electrodes” - ¶11) and at least one correlation factor (“gain factor” - ¶11), from the sensor signal (¶11 also teaches “In this method, the signal of the stress compensation electrodes is measured via a time average or strong low-pass filtering” and “Due to the strong temporal averaging, the noise level in the evaluation path of the stress compensation electrodes can be reduced to a very low level despite their limited size”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified to perform the correction wherein the correcting includes strong temporal averaging and subtracting a correction contribution, which is formed from the measuring capacitance and at least one correlation factor, from the sensor signal, as taught by Classen2, to reduce noise (¶11 of Classen2).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Zhang and Classen2, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kabasawa et al. (US 20190265034 A1, hereinafter Kabasawa).
As to claim 15, Reinmuth as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the at least one correlation factor has a temperature dependence and the correction of the sensor signal is carried out as a function of temperature.
Classen2 further teaches “the compensation device is particularly advantageous in that the correction of the first measured value can be…carried out automatically…when temperature changes occur” (¶9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified to carry out correction automatically when temperature changes occur as further taught by Classen2, for convenience since the correction is performed automatically and not by the intervention of a user (¶9 – Classen2).
Kabasawa teaches wherein temperature compensation is performed with correlation factors N, M with a temperature dependence depending on the service temperature of the sensor 1 (¶181).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Reinmuth as modified such that the correlation factors have a temperature dependence depending on the service temperature of the sensor so as to compensate measurements more appropriately according to the service temperature in which the sensor will be used (alternatively, such a modification would have been obvious for the predictable result that compensation is still successfully performed).
Reinmuth as modified teaches wherein the at least one correlation factor has a temperature dependence (in view of Kabasaw) and the correction of the sensor signal is carried out as a function of temperature (in view of Classen2).
As to claim 16, Reinmuth as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the correction of the sensor signal also includes terms of at least second order of the measuring capacitance.
Classen2 further teaches wherein the correction of the sensor signal also includes terms of at least second order of the measuring capacitance (¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the modified Reinmuth such that the correction of the sensor signal also includes terms of at least second order of the measuring capacitance, as taught by Classen2, for the predictable result that corrections are still successfully performed.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen (DE 102019200843 B4) in view of Reinmuth (US 20100300204 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20140007685 A1, hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 1, Classen teaches a micromechanical sensor (fig. 5 and ¶30), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 1;
[AltContent: textbox (MS2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
366
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a micromechanical structure MS2 (fig. 5 above) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode 31; and
wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (the acceleration sensor of Classen is a capacitive acceleration sensor, with an improved signal-noise ratio - ¶24).
Classen does not teach wherein the micromechanical structure MS2 is disposed in a cavity,
a cap substrate disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity; and
a capacitive electrode disposed on an inner side of the cap structure, the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element.
Reinmuth teaches a micromechanical sensor (figs. 1-3; ¶20-22), comprising:
a MEMS substrate 110;
a micromechanical structure 210, MS (fig. 1 above) that (a) is disposed on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity (the cavity is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the micromechanical sensor of Reinmuth is capable of being placed in a cavity) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130); and
a capacitive electrode 260, the capacitive electrode being attached to the substrate and configured to produce a measuring capacitance C2B with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 160 (being a fixed electrode) on the MEMS substrate for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element 160 (¶40), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (compensated value signal - ¶44; Reinmuth further teaches second capacitive electrode 265 attached to the substrate and configured for measuring a capacitance based on a distance to another fixed electrode 165 - ¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen to have a capacitive electrode and a second capacitive electrode attached to the substrate and configured to be used for measuring a capacitance with respective fixed electrodes as taught by Reinmuth for the benefit of compensating for stress in the substrate (¶39 and ¶44 - Reinmuth).
Regarding the cap and cavity,
Zhang teaches a rocker proof mass 104 supported by two substrates 101-102 forming a cavity 117 (fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Classen as modifeid to support the proof mass with two substrates forming a cavity, as taught by Zhang so as to better protect the sensor structures.
Classen as modified teaches a micromechanical sensor, comprising:
a MEMS substrate 101 (Zhang);
a micromechanical structure MS2 (Classen) that (a) is disposed (substantially) on the MEMS substrate and in a cavity 117 (Zhang) and (b) includes at least one sensor electrode (i.e. a capacitance-forming surface of proof mass 130);
a cap substrate 1 (Classen) disposed over the micromechanical structure and closing the cavity; and
a capacitive electrode 260 (Reinmuth) disposed on an inner side of the cap structure 1 (Classen), the capacitive electrode configured to produce a measuring capacitance with an adjacent micromechanical structural element 11 (Classen) on the MEMS substrate (substantially on the MEMS substrate via at least cavity sidewalls shown in fig. 1B of Zhang) for measuring a distance between the capacitive electrode and the micromechanical structural element (as taught in ¶40 - Reinmuth), wherein the micromechanical sensor is configured to produce a sensor signal (which is compensated in view of Reinmuth).
As to claim 5, Reinmuth as modified teaches wherein micromechanical sensor is a z-acceleration sensor (¶44), wherein the adjacent micromechanical structural element 11 (Classen) is a fixed sensor electrode 11 (fig. 5 of Classen shows the fixed sensor electrode 11 anchored to the cap substrate via an anchor 2a) for measuring an acceleration (¶24 and ¶44 - Classen).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130186171 A1 teaches directly detecting strain with a capacitor, and teaches away from using temperature-dependent correlation factors since it is time-consuming (¶6-7)
US 20190003854 A1 teaches away from the use of correlation factors because significant experimentation is required
WO 9503533 A2 teaches that it is desirable to use a sensor for directly measuring strain, for the sake of simplicity, instead of using a plurality of compensation values stored in a memory
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853