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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments with regard to the art rejection are not persuasive. It is noted that the detailed action in the prior rejection dated 30 January 2026 incorrectly referred to the Kanemoto reference as US Patent Application Publication 2017/0254654 rather than 2017/0254645 (emphasis added). Form PTO-892 (notice of references cited) included the correct document number and as all references were made to Kanemoto in the rejection, the arguments with regard to the incorrect document of Nordbruch (US 2017/0254654) of an unrelated art are moot. Additionally, the claims as amended comprise new subject matter which was not previously examined and therefore requires new consideration as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim comprises newly added limitations of a dynamic capacitance component provided for an opposite variation of “the variable capacitance formed with the first electrode structure relative to the variable capacitance formed with the second electrode structure” which was not previously disclosed in the specification as originally filed. While the variable capacitances between the elements would be inherent in the structure between the first electrode and second electrode, defining their relationship to one another as “an opposite variation” is not and was not originally included as filed.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites similar newly added limitations as those of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-8 are 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 1, the newly added limitations in the claim include that a dynamic capacitance component is provide for an opposite variation “of the variable capacitance formed with the first electrode structure relative to the variable capacitance formed with the second electrode structure.” However, it is still unclear as to what is meant by the “opposite variation” of the capacitance. For example, if “opposite” refers to a capacitance of an equal and opposite direction of the static capacitance or essentially two variable capacitances which are opposite from one another. Beginning on page 4 of the specification, and continuing to page 5, the application references “opposite variation” however it does not explain as to what is “opposite” about it.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites similar newly added limitations as those of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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)(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 Kanemoto US 2017/0254645.
Regarding claim 1, as best interpreted, Kanemoto teaches a microelectromechanical rotation rate sensor comprising a sensor element 106 a drive device 160 configured to drive an oscillation of the sensor element along a drive direction (X-direction, fig. 1) and an acquisition device (detecting circuit 30) configured to acquire a measurement signal generated using the sensor element, wherein the acquisition device includes a first electrode structure 140 and second electrode structure 142 configured to acquire a mechanical deflection or a force effect of the sensor element parallel to an acquisition direction (Y-direction, fig. 1) provided parallel to an acquisition direction provide substantially perpendicular to the drive direction. When the sensor element is subjected to a predetermined voltage (voltage is applied to electrode 126, paragraph 0091) and both the first electrode structure and second electrode structure are disposed along the acquisition direction relative to the sensor element in such a way that a variable capacitance is formed between the sensor element and the first electrode in such a way that a variable capacitance is formed between the sensor element 106 and the first electrode 140 structure and between the sensor element and the second electrode structure 142 wherein the acquisition device is configured for differential acquisition of the variable capacitances (paragraph 0083), which would inherently include a static capacitance from the applied voltage corresponding to a common-mode capacitance change when the plates move in the same direction, and a dynamic capacitance when the first electrode and second electrode elements deflect in opposite directions, causing a change in capacitance in the system, wherein the micromechanical rotation rate sensor is configured such that the static capacitance component is ascertained using a variation of the predetermined voltage (paragraph 0091).
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) 2, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemoto and Painter et al. US 2019/0277656.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kanemoto teaches the claimed invention including an operational operating mode wherein the sensor element is statically subjected to the predetermined voltage during operation (paragraph 0091), but does not explicitly teach the test operating mode as claimed. Painter discloses a MEMS gyroscope which can detect an angular rate applied to the system based on a change of capacitance detected. Painter further discloses a self-test operating mode in which the sensor is acted upon according to a variation of a predetermined voltage via test electrodes 108a-108d (paragraph 0025, 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Painter with those of Kanemoto in order to provide testing means to the sensor to determine proper operation during use and for calibration of the sensor. In combination, the sensor would be configured to be operated for any amount of time including a maximum of 2 seconds or for a maximum of 1 second in the test operating mode since the structural limitations would be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 8, in combination with Kanemoto, Painter discloses operating the test mode of the sensor without operation of the drive device or in operational use temporarily for calibration purposes as claimed (paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemoto and Prandi et al. US 2008/0190199.
Regarding claim 7, Kanemoto teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the variation of the predetermined voltage as being a square wave voltage as claimed. Prandi teaches a MEMS gyroscope which uses a self-test mode including a square wave signal provided to drive a sensing mass (paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Prandi with those of Kanemoto in order to provide a consistent drive signal to the mass which would be separate from the generated signals during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed limitations found in dependent claim 4 with regard to the further acquisition device configured to acquire a mechanical deflection of the sensor element parallel to the drive device including a third and fourth electrode structure wherein the sensor element is disposed in the claimed manner.
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 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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights