CTNF 18/678,526 CTNF 64471 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Objection to Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 is barely readable because many numbers are hidden due to darkened material, portions of many lead lines extending from numbers are also hidden due to darkened material . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Objection to Drawings 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: driving electrodes 17 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in r eply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 35 USC 102(b) Rejections 07-34-01 Claims 1-31 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. As to claim 1, “is designed” (line 6 from last) is indefinite, as it suggests a level/degree of human activity. Contrast with - - is configured - - . Does “is designed” mean - - is configured - - ? As to claim 1, “whereiun” (line 5) should read - - wherein - - . As to claim 1, lines 5 calls for first and second horizontal axes. Shouldn’t one of the two be a - - vertical - - or maybe - - perpendicular - - axis? Note that two horizonal axes do not “define said horizontal plane” (line 6); such axes need be intersecting. As to claim 1, “a respective driving mass” (line 2 from last, p. 26) is a bit troubling, as Applicant’s drawings suggest that “a respective driving mass” is one of the previously claimed 4 driving masses of line 10. Introduction of “a respective driving mass” is suggestive that one of those 4 driving masses is mistakenly being claimed twice. As to claim 9, “a first and a second pair of yaw-detection masses” is confusing because base claim 1 introduces the same “a first and a second pair of yaw-detection masses” (line 13 from last, claim 1). Apparently, the same structure is twice claimed. As to claim 9, “the first paid” (lines 2-3) should read - - the first pair - - . As to claim 16, “ each detection axis” (italics added, line 5) is indefinite, as nothing in lines 1-4 defines what each of those plurality might relate to. Is this claim somehow intended to be limited to a gyroscope that measures a plurality of angular velocities about a plurality of different axes (associating each velocity with “ each detection axis” (italics added, line 5)? If so, lines 7-10 appear to provide structure to measuring angular velocity about only one axis, accounting for an inconsistency within lines 5-11. In the alternative, is it possible that “a first pair” (line 7) of detection masses defines one “detection axis” (line 5) of “each” detection axis; and that “a second pair” (line 9) of detection masses defines a second “detection axis” (line 5) of “each” detection axis, and that “each detection axis” relates the axes of movement of the detection masses? What is Applicant’s intent regarding claim 16? As to claim 20, is this claim mistakenly repeating material from As to claims 11,25,29, “is designed” (line 6 from last) is indefinite, as it suggests a level/degree of human activity. Contrast with - - is configured - - . Does “is designed” mean - - is configured - - ? As to claims 1 and 16, “microelectromechanical” is dimensionally undefined, so what can it mean? Consider that different publications/patents provide different dimensional ranges for different structural elements in MEMS for their particular publications/patents, but no such description (i.e., range and identified structural component) is apparent in the instant application. What structural limitation(s) would one of ordinary skill attach to the claimed structure, when neither range nor single claimed structure in that claimed apparatus is within such (undisclosed) range? For example, note that Pat Pub 2009/0108193 relates (Para 43) microelectromechanical/MEMS structures to a range of 0.1 um —I mm, Pat Pub 2006/0261032 relates (Para 38) microelectromechanical/MEMS structures in the range of 0.01 microns to a few millimeters", Pat 6,679,055 relates (lines 39-43, col. 1) microelectromechanical/MEMS to 0.1 micron to 1000 microns" and Pat Pub 2014/0264900 relates (Para 3) microelectromechanical/MEMS to components of 1 - 100 micrometers (0.001 to 0.1 mm), all collectively providing for different distinct ranges. How is one of ordinary skill to recognize what range Applicant's claimed limitation “microelectromechanical” might relate when none has been identified? Different publications provide different ranges, so there is no one single accepted range. Please understand, the main difficulty here is in the lack of any dimensional meaning (range?) of the claimed term "microelectromechanical" in Applicant's specification. What is Applicant's intended meaning for the term “microelectromechanical” in the claims? Is there any support for such? Does Applicant have a dimension for 1 component that satisfies? 35 USC 102(a) Rejections Claim(s) 16,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as anticipated by Senkal et al 20180216935. As to claim 16, Senkal et al 20180216935 teach a microelectromechanical gyroscope, comprising: a die of semiconductor material comprising a substrate 1002; and a detection structure (Figure 10) suspended over said substrate; wherein said detection structure has a main extension in a horizontal plane (visible in Figure 11), is symmetrical with respect to a central axis of symmetry (perfectly so in Figure 10) and comprises, for each detection axis of said microelectromechanical gyroscope: a first pair of detection masses 1004,1006, arranged on a first (top) side of the central axis of symmetry; and a second pair of detection masses 1008,1010 arranged in the horizontal plane on a second (bottom) side of the central axis of symmetry opposite to the aforesaid first side; wherein the detection masses of each first and second pair of detection masses are capacitively coupled to respective stator electrodes (per capacitive elements 1064,1066,1068,1062) according to a differential detection scheme; and wherein the stator electrodes 1064,1066,1068,1062 are arranged symmetrically with respect to one another on opposite sides of the central axis of symmetry. PNG media_image1.png 410 928 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 21, the detection structure: PNG media_image2.png 410 520 media_image2.png Greyscale No Art Rejection applied against claim 1 Regarding claim 1, Senkal et al 20180216935 (listed 1449) teach (Figure 11) triaxle gyro, comprising: a die of semiconductor material comprising a substrate 1002; a detection structure suspended over said substrate; wherein said detection structure has a main extension in a horizontal plane (shown as Figure 11), and is symmetrical with respect to a first horizontal axis and a second horizontal axis, wherein the first and second horizontal axes define said horizontal plane (?}; wherein said detection structure comprises: a first roll detection mass GX and a second roll detection mass GX, arranged symmetrically and on opposite sides with respect to the first horizontal axis; a first pair of driving masses 1020/1024 and a second pair of driving masses 1022/1026, wherein the first pair of driving masses 1020/1024 are arranged laterally and externally to the first roll detection mass and the second pair of driving masses 1022,1026 are arranged laterally and externally to the second roll detection mass, in the horizontal plane, symmetrically with respect to said second horizontal axis; a first pair of pitch detection masses 1028,1032 and a second pair of pitch detection masses 1030,1034, wherein first pair of pitch detection masses 1028,1032are arranged laterally and externally to the first roll detection mass and the second pair of pitch detection masses 1022,1026 are arranged laterally and externally to the second roll detection mass, in the horizontal plane, symmetrically with respect to said second horizontal axis; wherein each pitch detection mass is coupled to a respective driving mass by respective driving elastic-coupling elements (i.e. one of the 4 driving masses called for in this sentence); a first pair of yaw detection elements GY+,GY- 1004,1006 and a second pair of yaw detection elements GY-,GY+ 1008,1010, coupled to the first pair of pitch detection masses and second pair of pitch detection masses, respectively (as everything is connected together in Figure 10); wherein said driving masses are configured to be driven to execute a translation movement, in opposite directions for each pair of driving masses (arrows in 1004 and 1006 point is opposite directions; arrows in 1008 and 1010 also point in opposite directions), along the second horizontal axis (GY, the movement of the driving masses symmetrical with each other with respect to the first horizontal axis being also in opposite directions; wherein movement of the driving masses is designed to cause an opposite-phase rotation of the first and second roll detection masses in the horizontal plane (such is visible Figure 11 of blocks 1040 and 1042, the upper box rotating counter clockwise relative to Figure 10, the lower box 1042 rotating clockwise relative to Figure 10) and moreover a corresponding translation movement in opposite directions along the second horizontal axis of said pitch detection masses, drawn by said driving masses; and wherein, in said driving movement, said yaw detection elements are rigidly coupled with the respective pitch detection masses. PNG media_image3.png 278 568 media_image3.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/678,526 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights