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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 states “a moveable proof mass”. Per the 112 rejection below, the claim term should be written as “the moveable proof mass” for consistency purposes.
Claim 9 states “wherein the electrostatic force moves the torsional element away from the first bottom electrode and closer to the second bottom electrode”. Per the 112 rejection below, the claim limitation should be written as “wherein the electrostatic force moves the moveable proof mass away from the first bottom electrode and closer to the second bottom electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 17 states “wherein the calibration device is configured to calibrate a pressure sensor”. However, the original disclosure has failed to explain how the calibration device is used to calibrate the pressure sensor. The original disclosure lacks in explaining what sort of measurement from the calibration device is used for calibration of the pressure sensor and how said measurement is used to calibrate the pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how the pressure sensor is calibrated using the calibration device.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 states “wherein a second end of the torsional element is moveable and defines a capacitance with the substrate”. It is unclear how the second end of a torsion element is capable of defining a capacitance with the substrate. Paragraph [0043] and Figure 2B of the original disclosure of the instant application explain that capacitance is defined by an electrode attached to the substrate and by the mass 204. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein a second end of the torsional element is moveable and a moveable proof mass defines a capacitance with the substrate”.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 states “a bias voltage applied between the substrate and the bias electrode creates an electrostatic force between the bias electrode and the torsional element”. It is unclear how an electrostatic force is present between a bias electrode and a torsional element. Paragraph [0049] of the original disclosure of the instant application states “This Vbias voltage creates electrostatic forces between the proof mass 204 and the first bias electrode 216”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “a bias voltage applied between the substrate and the bias electrode creates an electrostatic force between the bias electrode and the moveable proof mass”.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 states “wherein the electrostatic force causes movement between the torsional element and the substrate; and wherein the movement varies the capacitance.” It is unclear how the movement of the torsional element varies the capacitance. Paragraph [0043] of the original disclosure of the instant application states “As the proof mass 204 moves (e.g. rotates, twists, etc.) about the anchor 210 in response to various forces, capacitance values of the first capacitor (Z1) and the second capacitor (Z2) also vary.” For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the electrostatic force causes movement between the moveable proof mass and the substrate; and wherein the movement varies the capacitance.”
Claims 2-19 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 14 states “increasing a number of bias electrodes in either or both the first and second sets of bias electrodes increases the capacitance variation in response to the bias voltage”. However, claim 14 pertains to an apparatus/structural claim. Due to the how claim 14 is written, it is unclear whether the plurality of bias electrodes, due to increasing a number of bias electrodes in either or both the first and second sets of bias electrodes, is positively recited and/or claimed. Claim 14 appears to be a hypothetical or theoretical limitation rather than positively reciting structural limitations of the apparatus of claim 14. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as "wherein the calibration device is configured such that the number of bias electrodes in either or both the first and second sets of bias electrodes corresponds to the capacitance variation in response to the bias voltage".
Claim 20 states “wherein a second end of the torsional element is moveable and defines a capacitance with the substrate”. It is unclear how the second end of a torsion element is capable of defining a capacitance with the substrate. Paragraph [0043] and Figure 2B of the original disclosure of the instant application explain that capacitance is defined by an electrode attached to the substrate and by the mass 204. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein a second end of the torsional element is moveable and a moveable proof mass defines a capacitance with the substrate”.
Claim 20 states “a bias voltage applied between the substrate and the bias electrode creates an electrostatic force between the bias electrode and the torsional element”. It is unclear how an electrostatic force is present between a bias electrode and a torsional element. Paragraph [0049] of the original disclosure of the instant application states “This Vbias voltage creates electrostatic forces between the proof mass 204 and the first bias electrode 216”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “a bias voltage applied between the substrate and the bias electrode creates an electrostatic force between the bias electrode and the moveable proof mass”.
Claim 20 states “wherein the electrostatic force causes movement between the torsional element and the substrate; and wherein the movement varies the capacitance” and “measuring the capacitance variation between the torsional element and the substrate”. It is unclear how the movement of the torsional element varies the capacitance. Paragraph [0043] of the original disclosure of the instant application states “As the proof mass 204 moves (e.g. rotates, twists, etc.) about the anchor 210 in response to various forces, capacitance values of the first capacitor (Z1) and the second capacitor (Z2) also vary.” For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the electrostatic force causes movement between the moveable proof mass and the substrate; and wherein the movement varies the capacitance” and “measuring the capacitance variation between the moveable proof mass and the substrate”.
Claim 20 states “calculating the cross-axis sensitivity based on the capacitance variation in response to the applied bias voltage”. It is unclear what “cross-axis sensitivity” the applicant is referring to. Claim 20 does not define which structural component has a cross-axis sensitivity. Paragraph [0048] of the original disclosure of the instant application states “the first set of bias electrodes 216 are also coupled to the controller, and the second set of bias electrodes 218 are also coupled to the controller so that the controller can calculate cross-axis sensitivity for the first spring 206 and the second spring 208 using the calibration device 200”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “calculating the cross-axis sensitivity of the torsional element based on the capacitance variation in response to the applied bias voltage”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tocchio et al. (US 20200174035; hereinafter “Tocchio”).
Regarding claim 1, Tocchio teaches a calibration device (90; Figures 7-8), comprising:
a substrate (3; [0073]; Figure 8);
a torsional element (98; [0073, 0075]; Figures 7-8);
wherein a first end of the torsional element is coupled to the substrate (first end of the torsional element 98 that is connected to the substrate 3 through the anchor 94; [0073]; Figures 7-8);
wherein a second end of the torsional element is moveable (the second end of the torsional element 98 is connected to the moveable proof mass 95a; therefore, the second end of the torsional element 98 is movable along with the proof mass 95a; See Figures 7-8) and a moveable proof mass (95a; Figures 7-8; [0074-0075]) defines a capacitance with the substrate (the capacitance is defined between the mass 95a and the fixed plates 102 and/or 104; [0076]; Figures 7-8);
a bias electrode (114 and/or 116; Figures 7-8; [0078-0079]) coupled to the substrate (Figures 7-8 demonstrate the bias electrode 114 and/or 116 coupled to the substrate 3);
wherein the torsional element (98) and the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) are positioned such that a bias voltage (Vm; [0080]) applied between the substrate (3) and the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) creates an electrostatic force ([0080]; Figure 8) between the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) and the moveable proof mass (95a; [0080]);
wherein the electrostatic force ([0080]) causes movement (the control capacitor 130 created by the mass 95a and the electrode 114 and/or 116 will result in movement of the mass 95a; [0080]) between the moveable proof mass (95a) and the substrate (3); and
wherein the movement varies the capacitance (the movement of mass 95a will vary the capacitance created between the mass 95 and the fixed plates 102 and/or 104; [0076, 0079]; Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Tocchio teaches wherein the torsional element (98; Figure 7) is a spring ([0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Tocchio teaches wherein the second end of the torsional element (the second end of the torsional element 98 is connected to the moveable proof mass 95a; See Figures 7-8) is coupled to the moveable proof mass ([0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Tocchio teaches wherein the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) is a first bias electrode (114) positioned apart from and to a first side of the torsional element (Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate that the electrode 114 is positioned on the left side of the torsional element 98); further comprising a second bias electrode (116) coupled to the substrate (116 is coupled to the substrate 3; Figure 8) and positioned apart from and to a second side of the torsional element (Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate that the electrode 116 is positioned on the right side of the torsional element 98); wherein the first side and the second side are on opposite sides of the torsional element (the right side and the left side are opposite from each other relative to the torsional element 98).
Regarding claim 5, Tocchio teaches wherein the bias voltage (Vm; [0080]) applied between the substrate (3) and the first bias electrode (114) creates a first electrostatic force (Fel, 1; Figure 8; [0080]) that moves the torsional element (98) in a first direction (counter clockwise direction of Figure 8) and sets the capacitance to a first capacitance (See Figure 8); and wherein the bias voltage (Vm) applied between the substrate (3) and the second bias electrode (116) creates a second electrostatic force (Fel,2; Figure 8) that moves the torsional element (98) in a second direction (clockwise direction of Figure 8) and sets the capacitance to a second capacitance (See Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Tocchio teaches wherein the substrate (3) and the torsional element (98) are formed in parallel x-y-planes (Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate that the substrate 3 and the torsional element 98 are formed in xy planes); and wherein the bias voltage (Vm) causes the moveable proof mass (95a) movement in a z-axis (See Figure 8) that is perpendicular to the x-y-planes (the z axis is perpendicular to the xy plane; See Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Tocchio teaches wherein the electrostatic force simulates a lateral acceleration of the torsional element (residual vibration cause by the electrostatic force will result in the mass 95a to move either up/down or side to side; this will result in the lateral acceleration of the torsional element 98).
Regarding claim 9, Tocchio teaches a first bottom electrode (102; Figure 7) and a second bottom electrode (104; Figure 7), both coupled to the substrate ([0076]); wherein the electrostatic force moves the moveable proof mass (95a) away (Figure 8 demonstrate the one of the electrostatic forces will move the mass 95a away from electrode 102 and closer to the electrode 104) from the first bottom electrode (102) and closer to the second bottom electrode (104).
Regarding claim 10, Tocchio teaches wherein the capacitance variation (the movement of mass 95a will vary the capacitance created between the mass 95 and the fixed plates 102 and/or 104; [0076, 0079]; Figures 7-8) defines a cross-axis sensitivity of the torsional element (the amount of capacitance variation is directly proportional to the cross section sensitivity and area/shape of the torsional element 98; a thinner cross section will increase the capacitance variation while a thicker cross section will decrease the capacitance variation).
Regarding claim 12, Tocchio teaches wherein the bias electrode (114 and/or 116; Figures 7-8; [0078-0079]) is included in a first set of bias electrodes (114 and 116) all coupled to the substrate (3; [0078]) and positioned along both the first side and the second side of the torsional element (Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the electrodes 114 and 116 positioned along both the left side and the right side of the torsional element 98); further comprising a second set of bias electrodes (112; [0077, 0080]; Figure 7) all coupled to the substrate (See Figure 7) and positioned along both the first side and the second side of the torsional element (Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the pair of electrodes 112 positioned along both the left side and the right side of the torsional element 98).
Regarding claim 14, Tocchio teaches wherein the calibration device is configured such that the number of bias electrodes (110 and 112) in either or both the first and second sets of bias electrodes (110 and 112) corresponds to the capacitance variation in response to the bias voltage (the sets of electrodes 110 and 112, that are arranged in both sides of the torsion element 98, will permit the proof mass 95a to move clockwise and counter clockwise per the bias voltage Vm applied to the set of electrodes 110 and 112; therefore, the capacitance variation corresponds to the bias voltage Vm applied to the set of electrodes 110 and 112; See Figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 19, Tocchio teaches wherein the calibration device (Figures 7-8) is a metrology structure ([0085]) embedded in a wafer (300; [0085-0086]) separate from a set of devices to be calibrated (calibration device 90 is separate from any other devices).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tocchio in view of Ayazi et al. (US 20180216936; hereinafter “Ayazi”).
Regarding claim 7, Tochhio teaches the torsional element but does not expressly teach the element having a trapezoidal cross section along the z-axis.
However, Ayazi teaches that is known in the art to have elements (beam; Figure 1) having trapezoidal cross sections (Figure 1; [0051, 0059]) along the z-axis (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Ayazi’s trapezoidal cross section implemented on Tochhio’s torsional element since said trapezoidal shape is to achieve desired particular resonance movement of the mass connected to said element (See Ayazi [0059]).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tochhio in view of Chiesa (US 20020143484).
Regarding claim 15, Tocchio teaches the calibration device but does not expressly teach the device configured to calibrate a fabricated semiconductor structure.
However, Chiesa teaches that is known in the art to have fabricated semiconductor structures (52; Figure 6; [0030-0032]) calibrated by a calibration device (88; [0077-0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Chiesa’s fabricated semiconductor structure calibrated using Tocchio calibration device in order to correct the output obtained from the fabricated semiconductor structure (See Chiesa [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Tocchio teaches the calibration device but does not expressly teach the device configured to calibrate a MEMS (microelectromechanical system) device.
However, Chiesa teaches that is known in the art to have MEMS (microelectromechanical system) devices (52; Abstract; Figure 6; [0030-0032, 0051-0052]) calibrated by a calibration device (88; [0077-0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Chiesa’s MEMS (microelectromechanical system) devices calibrated using Tocchio calibration device in order to correct the output obtained from the fabricated semiconductor structure (See Chiesa [0064]).
Regarding claim 18, Tocchio teaches the calibration device but does not expressly teach the device configured to calibrate an accelerometer.
However, Chiesa teaches that is known in the art to have accelerometers (52; Figure 6; [0007-0008, 0030-0032, 0077-0078]) calibrated by a calibration device (88; [0077-0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Chiesa’s accelerometer calibrated using Tocchio calibration device in order to correct the output obtained from the fabricated semiconductor structure (See Chiesa [0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13 and 20 would 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.
Regarding claim 11, Tochhio teaches a controller (element used to apply the controlled capacitance of the apparatus; [0079-0080]).
In claim 11, the specific limitations of "wherein the controller is configured to calculate the cross-axis sensitivity based on the capacitance variation in response to the bias voltage" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 13, the specific limitations of "the controller is configured to apply the bias voltage to the first set of bias electrodes and apply a ground voltage to the second set of bias electrodes at a same time" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Regarding claim 20, Tochhio teaches a method of using a calibration device (90; Figures 7-8): wherein the calibration device (90) includes,
a substrate (3; [0073]; Figure 8);
a torsional element (98; [0073, 0075]; Figures 7-8);
wherein a first end of the torsional element is coupled to the substrate (first end of the torsional element 98 that is connected to the substrate 3 through the anchor 94; [0073]; Figures 7-8);
wherein a second end of the torsional element is moveable (the second end of the torsional element 98 is connected to the moveable proof mass 95a; therefore, the second end of the torsional element 98 is movable along with the proof mass 95a; See Figures 7-8) and a moveable proof mass (95a; Figures 7-8; [0074-0075]) defines a capacitance with the substrate (the capacitance is defined between the mass 95a and the fixed plates 102 and/or 104; [0076]; Figures 7-8);
a bias electrode (114 and/or 116; Figures 7-8; [0078-0079]) coupled to the substrate (Figures 7-8 demonstrate the bias electrode 114 and/or 116 coupled to the substrate 3);
wherein the torsional element (98) and the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) are positioned such that a bias voltage (Vm; [0080]) applied between the substrate (3) and the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) creates an electrostatic force ([0080]; Figure 8) between the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) and the moveable proof mass (95a; [0080]);
wherein the electrostatic force ([0080]) causes movement (the control capacitor 130 created by the mass 95a and the electrode 114 and/or 116 will result in movement of the mass 95a; [0080]) between the moveable proof mass (95a) and the substrate (3); and
wherein the movement varies the capacitance (the movement of mass 95a will vary the capacitance created between the mass 95 and the fixed plates 102 and/or 104; [0076, 0079]; Figures 7-8); and
wherein the method includes, applying the bias voltage (Vm) across the bias electrode (114 and/or 116) and the torsional element (98; [0080]); measuring the capacitance variation between the moveable proof mass and the substrate ([0076]).
In claim 20, the specific limitations of "wherein the method of calculating cross-axis sensitivity includes calculating the cross-axis sensitivity based on the capacitance variation in response to the applied bias voltage" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights