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.
Specification
The title of the invention needs to be more descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 4, the word -- an -- should be inserted before the word “acceleration”. In line 19, the phrase “the modulation frequency” should be changed to -- a modulation frequency --.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0194564 (Nagai).
With regards to claim 1, Nagai discloses an inertial sensor comprising, as illustrated in Figure 1-4, an acceleration sensor 1b (e.g. an inertial sensor; paragraph [0104]; Figure 4) comprising a sensor element M3 (e.g. detection module; paragraph [0104]) having a first variable capacitor C0 (e.g. capacitor; paragraph [0106]) and a second variable capacitor C1 (e.g. capacitor; paragraph [0106]) whose respective capacitance values vary in mutually opposite directions according to acceleration (e.g. paragraph [0107]); a drive circuit 2 (e.g. signal generator; paragraph [0018]) configured to be capable of modulating a first drive signal D1 (e.g. drive voltage; paragraph [0108]) which is to be fed to the sensor element to sense the acceleration, and with a second drive signal T1 (e.g. test voltage; paragraph [0108]) having a predetermined modulation frequency; feeding the sensor element with a signal containing components corresponding to the first and second drive signals respectively (e.g. paragraphs [0108],[0109]); a sense signal generation circuit 4B,7P,7Q,46 (e.g. detector, CV conversion circuits and differential amplifier form the sense signal generation circuit; paragraphs [0104],[0110],[0112]) connected to the sensor element and configured to be capable of generating a sense signal (e.g. output from differential amplifier; paragraph [0112]) according to a difference between the capacitance values of the first and second variable capacitors (e.g. paragraphs [0112],[0113]); an acceleration signal generation circuit 31 (e.g. detection processor; paragraph [0113]) configured to be capable of generating an acceleration signal A2 (e.g. detection signal; paragraphs [0083],[0095],[0116]) corresponding to the acceleration by subjecting the sense signal to low-pass filtering 12 (e.g. low-pass filter; paragraph [0030]); a modulated component extraction circuit 12 (e.g. band-pass filter; paragraph [0030]) configured to be capable of generating a modulated component extraction signal T2 (e.g. diagnostic signal; paragraphs [0083],[0095],[0116]) by extracting a signal component of a modulation frequency from the sense signal. (See, paragraphs [0015] to [0136]).
With regards to claim 3, Nagai further discloses the capacitance values of the first and second variable capacitors C0,C1 vary at the modulation frequency as a result of the component corresponding to the second drive signal being fed to the sensor element. (See, paragraphs [0054] to [0066]).
With regards to claim 4, Nagai further discloses a diagnosis circuit 32 (e.g. diagnostic processor; paragraph [0018]) configured to be capable of generating a diagnosis signal (e.g. the output from diagnostic processor) related to a state of the sensor element M3 based on the modulated component extraction signal T2. (See, paragraphs [0050] to [0068],[0116]).
With regards to claim 5, Nagai further discloses the diagnosis circuit 32 is configured to be capable of generating the diagnosis signal based on an amplitude of the modulated component extraction signal. (See, paragraphs [0028],[0052],[0055]-[0061]).
With regards to claim 6, Nagai further discloses the diagnosis circuit 32 is configured to be capable of generating the diagnosis signal according to whether the amplitude of the modulated component extraction signal falls outside a predetermined range (e.g. comparing amplitude of T2 to a threshold; paragraphs [0055],[0057]).
With regards to claim 7, Nagai further discloses the diagnosis circuit 32 is configured to be capable of generating, as the diagnosis signal, a signal indicating that the sensor element has a fault if the amplitude of the modulated component extraction signal falls outside the predetermined range (e.g. comparing amplitude of T2 to a threshold; paragraphs [0055],[0057]).
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.
Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0194564 (Nagai).
With regards to claim 2, Nagai does not explicitly specify such parameters (e.g. the modulation frequency is lower than a frequency of the first drive signal but higher than a cut-off frequency of the low-pass filtering) as in the claim. However, to have set such frequency test characteristics as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities so that the modulation frequency of the signal is stronger to effectively transmit information over long distances by impressing it onto high-frequency carrier wave by reducing the noise and interference that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claim 8, Nagai further discloses the diagnosis circuit 32 is configured to be capable of generating the diagnosis signal according to an amplitude of the modulated component extraction signal (e.g. paragraphs [0028],[0052],[0055]-[0061]).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is further generating the diagnosis signal according to a phase of the modulated component extraction signal, and a phase of the second drive signal.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the concept of further generating the diagnosis signal according to a phase of the modulated component extraction signal, and a phase of the second drive signal is considered to have been a matter of optimization and choice possibilities to the operator since the parameters necessary to derive and calculate a phase of the modulated component extraction signal, and a phase of the second drive signal is disclosed in paragraphs [0027],[0083] and [0116] of Nagai without departing from the scope of the invention, namely to generate the diagnosis signal.
With regards to claim 9, Nagai further discloses the diagnosis circuit 32 is configured to be capable of generating, as the diagnosis signal, a signal indicating that the sensor element has a fault if the amplitude of the modulated component extraction signal falls outside the predetermined range (e.g. comparing amplitude of T2 to a threshold; paragraphs [0055],[0057]).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is in addition, a relationship between the phase of the modulated component extraction signal and the phase of the second drive signal fulfills a predetermined condition.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the concept of in addition, a relationship between the phase of the modulated component extraction signal and the phase of the second drive signal fulfills a predetermined condition is considered to have been a matter of optimization and choice possibilities to the operator since the parameters necessary to derive and calculate a phase of the modulated component extraction signal, and a phase of the second drive signal is disclosed in paragraphs [0027],[0083] and [0116] of Nagai without departing from the scope of the invention, namely to generate the diagnosis signal.
With regards to claim 10, Nagai, as obviously modified set forth above, further discloses a control circuit 10 (e.g. microcontroller provide a control signal; paragraphs [0021],[0102]) configured to be capable of changing the modulation frequency if the relationship between the phase of the modulated component extraction signal and the phase of the second drive signal does not fulfill the predetermined condition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Acar, Matsukawa, Hattori, Chen, Umenmura and Yonezawa, are related a sensor element having first and second variable capacitors, a drive circuit having first and second drive signals, an acceleration signal generation circuit, and a diagnosis generation circuit to generate the condition of the sensor element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855