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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “wherein a gain of a signal path that reads an amplitude of a drive oscillation of the seismic mass is adjusted to compensate a different sensitivity due to a different offset voltage between the start-up mode and the operating mode.” Since there is no structure positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus for performing the adjustment, and because the signal path is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, it is unclear whether such structures are actually required by the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, it will be considered that the claim includes an interpretation in which the signal path and a structure for performing the adjustment are not 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) 1-2, 5, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Aaltonen (US 20150226557 A1).
As to claim 1, Aaltonen teaches a micromechanical sensor system (¶27), comprising:
a rotation rate sensor (fig. 1, ¶27) which includes a seismic mass 1 that can be excited to oscillate (¶23), and a driver (source of the drive voltage DRV - ¶33-34 and fig. 4) for the seismic mass;
wherein, for driving the seismic mass, the seismic mass is subjected to an offset voltage (“rotor bias voltage” - ¶33 and ¶53) and a drive voltage DRV (¶33-34) which is generated or made available by the driver, wherein the seismic mass is excited to oscillate using the drive voltage in the form of an AC voltage (¶33-34);
wherein the rotation rate sensor is selectively operable in a start-up mode (¶47-49 describes selectively starting the start-up mode) and in an operating mode (¶53 describes selectively starting the normal operating mode), wherein:
the offset voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode is different from the offset voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode (fig. 4 and ¶52 teach that the offset voltage is higher during the start-up mode), and
[AltContent: textbox (MV2)][AltContent: textbox (MV1)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
368
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a maximum voltage MV1 (fig. 4 above) available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode is different from the maximum voltage MV2 (fig. 4 above) available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode.
As to claim 2, Aaltonen teaches wherein the offset voltage is 20 to 30V in the start-up mode and 10 to 20V in the operating mode (¶53).
As to claim 5, Aaltonen teaches wherein the offset voltage is changed abruptly from the start-up mode to the operating mode (see “V Rotor Bias” in fig. 4, and also see ¶53), wherein the drive voltage DRV in the form of an AC voltage (due to AC component Vac - ¶34) corresponds to a square wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode (¶39) and corresponds to a sine wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode (¶51 teaches that the drive voltage is switched to be sinusoidal for the normal operation state).
As to claim 7, Aaltonen teaches a method for operating a micromechanical sensor system (¶27) with a rotation rate sensor (fig. 1, ¶27), which includes a seismic mass 1 that can be excited to oscillate (¶23) and a drive device (at least drive electrode 3 and the source of the drive voltage DRV - ¶33-34 and fig. 4) for the seismic mass, wherein the drive device is configured such that, for driving, the seismic mass is subjected to an offset voltage (“rotor bias voltage” - ¶33 and ¶53) and a drive voltage DRV (¶33-34), wherein the seismic mass is excited to oscillate using the drive voltage in the form of an AC voltage (¶33-34), the method comprising:
selectively operating the rotation rate sensor in a start-up mode (¶47-49 describes selectively starting the start-up mode) and in an operating mode (¶53 describes selectively starting the normal operating mode), wherein:
the offset voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode is different from the offset voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode (fig. 4 and ¶52 teach that the offset voltage is higher during the start-up mode), and
a maximum voltage MV1 (fig. 4 above) available from a driver (source of drive voltage DRV) of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode is different from the maximum voltage MV2 (fig. 4 above) available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode.
As to claim 9, Aaltonen teaches wherein a gain of a signal path that reads an amplitude of a drive oscillation of the seismic mass is adjusted to compensate a different sensitivity due to a different offset voltage between the start-up mode and the operating mode (see ¶63, which teaches “If the rotor DC bias voltage is made higher during start-up, the overall closed loop gain of the drive loop is higher during start-up because of the increased detection and drive sensitivity, and the amplitude measurement from the output of the HPF is also amplified. This can be compensated by lowering the gain before amplitude measurement is done, for example in CSA, or in the HPF. Also the sampling amplifier (SAMPLING AMP) gain can be lowered or damped to compensate for only the amplitude measurement.”; alternatively, the signal path and structure for adjusting the gain thereof are not positively recited as parts of the claimed apparatus, meaning claim 9 does not recite a limitation that structurally distinguishes the claimed apparatus over the prior art apparatus).
As to claim 10, Aaltonen teaches wherein a target value of the amplitude of the drive oscillation of the seismic mass is adjusted (¶41 teaches “target amplitude in the amplitude control circuitry (24) after HPF may be adjusted according to a voltage or another parameter that is proportional to the rotor DC bias voltage”) to compensate the different sensitivity due to the different offset voltage between the start-up mode and the operating mode (the change in the target amplitude taught by Aaltonen is considered to provide the claimed compensation, as broadly recited; alternatively, the claimed compensation is merely an intended use/reason for the target value adjustment, meaning that language “to compensate the different sensitivity due to the different offset voltage between the start-up mode and the operating mode” fails to structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus over the prior art apparatus).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Seth et al. (US 20140176251 A1, hereinafter Seth).
As to claim 3, Aaltonen teaches wherein the offset voltage is generated or is applied.
Aaltonen does not explicitly teach wherein the offset voltage is generated or is applied using a charge pump.
Seth teaches the concept of generating or applying an offset voltage using a charge pump 404 (¶27).
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 Aaltonen to generate or apply the offset voltage using a charge pump, as taught by Seth since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of generating or applying an offset voltage for another for the predictable result that the offset voltage is still successfully increased for the start-up mode.
As to claim 8, Aaltonen as modified teaches wherein the charge pump is configured such that at least two operating voltages are possible (for applying the two rotor bias voltages in fig. 4 of Aaltonen), and wherein the offset voltage is reduced from the start-up mode to the operating mode (see fig. 4 of Aaltnonen) when an oscillation amplitude of the seismic mass reaches a target value (as broadly recited, this is the oscillation amplitude of the seismic mass when the offset voltage is reduced from the start-up mode to the operating mode - the Examiner notes that the claim does not recite a component for measuring the oscillation amplitude of the mass and then causing the offset voltage to change based on the detected oscillation amplitude; alternatively, ¶42, ¶60 and ¶62 of Aaltonen teach that the start-up state is ended when the oscillating amplitude of the mass is at a target amplitude or, alternatively, close to the target amplitude; in the embodiment of ¶62 of Aaltonen, the target value is the actual mass oscillation amplitude at which the start-up state is ended).
If Applicant argues that Aaltonen does not anticipate claim 5, an alternative rejection is provided below.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Hobbs (EP 1189023 A2).
As to claim 5, Aaltonen teaches wherein the offset voltage is changed abruptly from the start-up mode to the operating mode (see “V Rotor Bias” in fig. 4, and also see ¶53), wherein the drive voltage in the form of an AC voltage (due to AC component Vac - ¶34) corresponds to a square wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode (¶39) and corresponds to a sine wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode (¶51 teaches that the drive voltage is switched to be sinusoidal for the normal operation state).
If Applicant argues that Aaltonen does not teach wherein the drive voltage corresponds to a square wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode,
Hobbs further teaches wherein the drive voltage corresponds to a square wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode (¶33).
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 Aaltonen such that the drive voltage corresponds to a square wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode as taught by Hobbs for the benefit that the square wave provides more rapid onset of oscillation and stabilization (¶31 – Hobbs; alternatively, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing the drive voltage during start-up for another for the predictable result that the start-up is still successfully performed).
If Applicant argues that Aaltonen does not explicitly teach wherein the drive voltage corresponds to a sine wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode,
Hobbs teaches an inertial rate sensor (abstract) wherein the drive voltage corresponds to a sine wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode (¶33).
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 Aaltonen such that the drive voltage corresponds to a sine wave voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode as taught by Hobbs for the benefit that the sine wave voltage is free of unwanted harmonics and/or only couples to the fundamental drive frequency (¶31 - Hobbs).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Kim (US20110314911A1) and Kim (US 20120285244 A1, hereinafter Kim2).
As to claim 6, Aaltonen teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the rotation rate sensor is operable in a sleep mode and the sleep mode is carried out chronologically before the start-up mode and the operating mode, wherein a period of time between the sleep mode and the operating mode corresponds to a time interval of the start-up mode and wherein the time interval includes a period of time of less than 100 milliseconds.
Kim teaches a gyro sensor (title), wherein the time interval for the start-up mode is less than 100 milliseconds (3 milliseconds - ¶78).
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 Aaltonen such that the start-up mode only takes 3 milliseconds as taught by Kim so that measurements can be taken very quickly after the beginning of the start-up mode (additionally or alternatively, the short time taken for start-up can increase safety/convenience if the sensor is used for navigation purposes).
As to the sleep mode,
Kim2 teaches an angular velocity sensor 10 (¶38; ¶86) wherein the angular velocity sensor is operated in a sleep mode followed by a start-up operation (¶43 teaches that a “second detector” 25 is for angular velocity detection, and ¶44, ¶54, ¶63-64 and ¶69 teach that the second detector is operated in a sleep mode followed by a wake-up operation triggered by a detected acceleration).
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 Aaltonen as modified such that the rotation rate sensor is operated in a sleep mode followed by the start-up operation, as taught by Kim2 so as to save energy (¶104 – Kim2).
Aaltonen as modified teaches wherein the rotation rate sensor is operable in a sleep mode and the sleep mode is carried out chronologically before the start-up mode and the operating mode (in light of Kim2), wherein a period of time (3 milliseconds - Kim) between the sleep mode and the operating mode corresponds to a time interval (3 milliseconds - Kim) of the start-up mode and wherein the time interval includes a period of time (3 milliseconds - Kim) of less than 100 milliseconds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 5-7 that Aaltonen does not teach “a maximum voltage available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode is different from the maximum voltage available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Aaltonen teaches a maximum voltage MV1 (fig. 4 above) available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the start-up mode is different from the maximum voltage MV2 (fig. 4 above) available from the driver of the drive voltage during operation of the rotation rate sensor in the operating mode.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “In rejecting claim 5, the Office Action cites portions of Hobbs. Hobbs discloses an inertial rate sensor based on a quartz tuning fork, which is piezoelectric, where the drive tines are driven to oscillate at the natural frequency in the plane of the tuning fork by piezoelectric excitation. See Hobba at [0008] and [0009]. This is different from the capacitively-driven MEMS resonator of Aaltonen and the claimed invention. Combining design principles from piezoelectric quartz sensing devices with capacitively-actuated MEMS gyroscopes requires a level of engineering redesign that goes beyond a simple substitution, and a POSITA would not be motivated to do so.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Regardless of Hobbs’ device being piezoelectric and Aaltonen’s being capacitive, both are resonators being driven by periodic drive signals. Additionally, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2141(2)(C). Accordingly, combining Hobbs with Aaltonen would not require a level of engineering redesign that goes beyond a simple substitution, and a PHOSITA would have been motivated to make the combination.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 that “Furthermore, Aaltonen describes that a "non-linear element like a comparator would cause harmonic frequencies to occur in the drive loop (22), which could possibly require additional filtering arrangements for reducing any unwanted harmonics caused by such non- linear element. Such harmonics could cause unwanted movement for the MEMS resonator, such as at e.g. parasitic modal frequencies, or increase electrical cross-coupling at unwanted harmonic frequencies of funda mental oscillation frequency modes. Thus, avoiding need to use a comparator improves stability of the nominal frequency of the drive loop (22) and the MEMS resonator, and/or reduces need for filtering due to harmonics likely created by the normalization." Aaltonen at [0028].
Therefore, Aaltonen specifically states that the drive loop does not include a comparator element for normalizing drive amplitude. A comparator is the component that generates a square wave from a sinusoidal signal. In Hobbs, the drive circuit uses a voltage comparator (element 33) connected to the output of the current-to-voltage amplifier, which produces a square wave at the drive frequency. See Hobbs at [0017]. Combining Hobbs's square wave approach, which requires a comparator, with Aaltonen would require introducing the comparator, which Aaltonen expressly avoids and discourages. Thus, the combination is teaching away from Aaltonen and the claimed invention. A POSITA would not combine these references because doing so would destroy a key benefit of Aaltonen's design.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It has been held that while modification of a reference may impede a benefit in the reference, a “given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine” (see MPEP 2143.01(V)). In this case, unwanted harmonics may allegedly be introduced by Hobbs’ comparator, but the use of a square wave voltage in the start-up state provides the benefit of “more rapid onset of…oscillation and stabilization at the amplitude control level” (¶31 - Hobbs), meaning a PHOSITA would still have a motivation to combine the references.
Additionally, Hobbs teaches
“[0030] The peak-to-peak voltage of the square wave drive signal rises more rapidly and results in a faster turn-on than the sine wave. It is applied to the drive tines during the initial phase of turn-on to minimize turn-on time. Once the amplitude of the tuning fork oscillations reaches a level such that the output of integrator 38 exceeds the lower control limit of window comparator 39, the built-in test logic generates a command signal to the multiplexer to switch its output from the square wave to the sine wave. The relatively harmonic-free sine wave is then used to drive the tuning fork for the remainder of its operation until the next turn-on sequence.
[0031] This provides the advantages of both types of drive signals without the disadvantages of either. The square wave provides more rapid onset of fork oscillation and stabilization at the amplitude control level. However, it also has a high harmonic content which can, in some instances, couple to higher order modes of the tuning fork structure and cause undesired bias shifts in the sensor output. The sine wave is relatively free of such harmonics, and it couples only to the fundamental drive frequency. However a sine wave rises more slowly and produces a slower turn-on than the square wave. Consequently it is not as good for start-up operation.”
Accordingly, the use of the square wave voltage provides the benefit of more rapid onset of oscillation and stabilization at the amplitude control level, AND is not used during the normal operation state, so that the problem of unwanted harmonics is avoided when the sensor is used for making measurements during the normal operation state. This means the unwanted harmonics are minimized during the operation of the sensor (since they are limited to the start-up state) and become a non-issue during the normal operation state since the sine wave voltage is used during normal operation.
Finally, as pointed out by Applicant, Altonen teaches (¶28) that the unwanted harmonics can be suppressed by filtering, meaning the apparatus would still be functional for its intended purpose even with the unwanted harmonics, and the combination of Aaltonen and Hobbs would be beneficial and obvious.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9 that Aaltonen as modified does not teach claim 6 because “The sleep mode in Kim2 is a selective power-down of the angular velocity detection subsystem, triggered by an external event, such as acceleration detection. This is distinct from the claimed sleep mode that precedes the start-up mode of the primary oscillation drive of the seismic mass. In the claimed invention, the sleep mode precedes the start-up of the entire seismic mass oscillation. In Kim2, the acceleration sensing is always active, and only the angular velocity channel sleeps. Therefore, Kim2 does not disclose "wherein the rotation rate sensor is operable in a sleep mode and the sleep mode is carried out chronologically before the start-up mode and the operating mode."”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. ¶54, ¶64-34 and ¶69 of Kim2 teach that the angular velocity sensor is initially in sleep mode, and that the wake up operation is triggered by a detected acceleration. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the sleep mode is what is triggered by acceleration detection is incorrect. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the modified Aaltonen, the start up state would immediately follow the sleep state because, in Aaltonen, the start up state precedes the normal operation state. .
The Applicant admits that Kim2 teaches that the angular velocity sensor sleeps, which is what is required by claim 6, and which contradicts Applicant’s argument that Kim2 does not teach a rotation rate sensor operable in sleep mode.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Applicant argues on pg. 7-8 that “For at least the reasons above, Aaltonen fails to disclose each and every element of amended claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is patentable. Claims 2 is likewise patentable, at least by virtue of depending from a patentable claim. Independent claim 7 has been amended to recite similar language as amended claim 1 and is also patentable for the same reasons set forth above. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.” and
“Claim 3 depends from claim 1. As explained above, claim 1 is patentable over Aaltonen. Seth does not, and the Office has not shown that it would, cure the deficiencies of Aaltonen. Claim 3 is therefore patentable over Aaltonen and Seth for at least the same reasons as set forth above. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.” and
“Claim 5 depends from claim 1. As explained above, claim 1 is patentable over Aaltonen. Hobbs does not, and the Office has not shown that it would, cure the deficiencies of Aaltonen. Claim 5 is therefore patentable over Aaltonen and Hobbs for at least the same reasons as set forth above. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.” and
“Claim 6 depends from claim 1. As explained above, claim 1 is patentable over Aaltonen. Kim and Kim2 do not, and the Office has not shown that they would, cure the deficiencies of Aaltonen. Claim 6 is therefore patentable over Aaltonen, Kim, and Kim2 for at least the same reasons as set forth above. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.”
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons given by the Examiner above and because all the pending claims are properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that claims 8-10 are patentable for depending from an alleged patentable claim.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all the pending claims are properly rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights