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 .
Status of Claims
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on 4/2/2025, which added claims 16-17. Accordingly, an Office Action on the merits of claims 1-17 is as follows:
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Considering claim 1, the phrases “a rotation direction” is indefinite. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in view of the specification, would be that the “rotation direction” would be the direction in which the lever rotates, as shown in Figure 2, which is labelled as Z or out-of-plane. However, a review of the specification finds that the rotation direction can also be considered Lmass,y or Y. For purposes of examination, the interpretation shall be that the device plane extends along a rotation direction Y and a drive excitation direction X, normal to the rotation direction Y.
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 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coronato et al. (US 2010/281977 A1) in view of Dellea et al. (NPL – In-Plane and Out-of-Plane MEMS Gryoscopes Based on Piezoresistive NEMS Detection).
Considering claim 1, Coronato discloses an inertial sensor comprising:
- a substrate 36 which defines a device plane extending along a rotation direction Y and a drive excitation direction X normal to the rotation direction (Figure 7a-7b; [0062-66]);
- a first drive frame 3a (Figure 7a) a second drive frame 3b (Figure 7a);
- an excitation device 9 for excitating the first and the second drive frames in the drive excitation direction (Figure 7a; [0055]);
- a first proof mass 10a hingedly connected to the first drive frame 3a along a first connection axis directed along the rotation direction (Figures 7a-7b; [0062-66]),
- a second proof mass 10b hingedly connected to the second drive frame 3b along a second connection axis directed along the rotation direction (Figures 7a-7b; [0062-66]);
- a lever 22 pivotably mounted around a fulcrum axis directed along the rotation direction (Figures 7a-7b; [0065-66]),
- wherein:
- the first proof mass 10a is rotationally connected to the lever 22 along a first coupling axis directed along the rotation direction,
- the second proof mass 10b is rotationally connected to the lever 22 along a second coupling axis directed along the rotation direction,
- the first connection axis is further away from the fulcrum axis than the first coupling axis, and
- the second connection axis is further away from the fulcrum axis than the second coupling axis (Figures 7b show all details of the claimed spacing).
The invention by Coronato fails to disclose at least one strain gauge mechanically stressed by the lever when said lever is rotating around the fulcrum axis.
However, it is known from Dellea to utilize at least one strain gauge stressed by a lever when the lever rotates around a fulcrum axis in a gyroscope having out-of-plane rotation (Pages 1818-1819; B. Lever System Configuration for Sensing; Figure 3 - “gauge”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strain gauge configured to be stressed by the rotation of the lever, as taught by Dellea, in the invention by Coronato. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Dellea, is to provide “an inherent advantage of giving a large output signal” (Page 1817, I. Introduction).
Considering claim 2, Coronato discloses that a distance between the first connection axis 11 and the first coupling axis 24 is longer than a distance between the first coupling axis 24 and the fulcrum axis 23, and a distance between the second connection axis 11 and the second coupling axis 25 is longer than a distance between the second coupling axis 25 and the fulcrum axis 23 (Figure 7b).
Considering claim 4, Coronato discloses that the lever 22 is symmetrical about the fulcrum axis and the first proof mass and the second proof mass are symmetrical to each other about the fulcrum axis (Figures 7a-7b).
Considering claim 5, Coronato fails to disclose that the lever is shorter than 200 μm in the drive excitation direction.
However, Dellea teaches a lever of 245 μm in the drive excitation direction (Page 1820, L1+L2). While the value falls outside of the range required by the claim, the value itself has not been shown to be critical. This, a change in size, due to miniturizaiton is considered obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize lever that on the order of 200 μm, as taught by Dellea, in the invention by Coronato.
Considering claim 6, Coronato fails to disclose the strain gauge.
However, Dellea having already provided motivation for using a strain gauge, additionally teaches that the lever is a recessed frame, thus forming an opening, the opening housing a fixed sensing system to which the at least one strain gauge is connected (Figures 2(b) and 3(a)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strain gauge configured to be stressed by the rotation of the lever, as taught by Dellea, in the invention by Coronato. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Dellea, is to provide “an inherent advantage of giving a large output signal” (Page 1817, I. Introduction).
Considering claim 7, Coronato discloses that the the lever has a rectangular layout in the device plane (Figure 7a).
Considering claim 8, Coronato fails to disclose the strain gauge.
However, Dellea having already provided motivation for using a strain gauge, additionally teaches that the fixed sensing system comprises at least one connection zone configured to electronically connect the at least one strain gauge (Figures 2(b) and 3(a)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strain gauge configured to be stressed by the rotation of the lever, as taught by Dellea, in the invention by Coronato. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Dellea, is to provide “an inherent advantage of giving a large output signal” (Page 1817, I. Introduction).
Considering claim 9, Coronato fails to disclose the strain gauge.
However, Dellea having already provided motivation for using a strain gauge, additionally teaches that the at least one strain gauge is directed along the rotation direction and is connected to both the fixed sensing system and the lever (Figures 2(b) and 3(a)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strain gauge configured to be stressed by the rotation of the lever, as taught by Dellea, in the invention by Coronato. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Dellea, is to provide “an inherent advantage of giving a large output signal” (Page 1817, I. Introduction).
Considering claim 10-11, the invention by Coronato, as modified by Dellea, fails to disclose the torsion blades or quadrature compensation electrodes.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that the features the lever is held by torsion blades directed along the fulcrum axis, said torsion blades being fixed to anchor points and quadrature compensation electrodes, are well known features in the art.
Their use would have been obvious for regulating movement of the lever and error correction, as is well known in the art.
Considering claim 12, the invention by Coronato fails to disclose the strain gauge.
However, Dellea having already provided motivation for using a strain gauge, additionally teaches that the at least one strain gauge is a piezoelectric gauge (Title).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strain gauge configured to be stressed by the rotation of the lever, as taught by Dellea, in the invention by Coronato. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Dellea, is to provide “an inherent advantage of giving a large output signal” (Page 1817, I. Introduction).
Considering claim 13, Coronato discloses that the sensor is a gyroscope (Abstract).
Considering claim 14, Coronato discloses a detection system comprising a plurality of sensors according to claim 1 (Claim 12).
Considering claim 15, Coronato discloses that at least two of the plurality of sensors have perpendicular rotation directions (Claim 12).
Claims 3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coronato et al. (US 2010/281977 A1) in view of Dellea et al. (NPL – In-Plane and Out-of-Plane MEMS Gryoscopes Based on Piezoresistive NEMS Detection), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruohio et al. (US 2018/0238689 A1).
Considering claim 3, the invention by Coronato, as modified by Dellea, fails to disclose that each of the first proof mass and the second proof mass features a first dimension Lmass,x in the drive excitation direction and a second dimensions Lmass,y in the rotation direction, with Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥1.5.
However, Ruohio teaches in a capacitive sensing gyroscope, the use of first 216A and second proof masses 216B which have Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥1.5 (Figures 2-3 and 5; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a dimensional ratio of the proof masses being Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥1.5, as taught by Ruohio, in the invention by Coronato, as modfieid by Dellea. The motivation for doing so is that is allows more proof masses in the drive excitation direction, thus allowing two mass-spring systems that move anti-phase to one another, as suggested by Ruohio.
Considering claim 16, the invention by wherein each of the first proof mass and the second proof mass features a first dimension Lmass,x in the drive excitation direction and a second dimensions Lmass,y in the rotation direction, with Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥2.
However, Ruohio teaches in a capacitive sensing gyroscope, the use of first 216A and second proof masses 216B which have Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥2(Figures 2-3 and 5; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a dimensional ratio of the proof masses being Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥2, as taught by Ruohio, in the invention by Coronato, as modfieid by Dellea. The motivation for doing so is that is allows more proof masses in the drive excitation direction, thus allowing two mass-spring systems that move anti-phase to one another, as suggested by Ruohio.
Considering claim 17, the invention by wherein each of the first proof mass and the second proof mass features a first dimension Lmass,x in the drive excitation direction and a second dimensions Lmass,y in the rotation direction, with Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥3.
However, Ruohio teaches in a capacitive sensing gyroscope, the use of first 216A and second proof masses 216B which have Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥3 (Figures 2-3 and 5; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a dimensional ratio of the proof masses being Lmass,y/Lmass,x≥3, as taught by Ruohio, in the invention by Coronato, as modified by Dellea. The motivation for doing so is that is allows more proof masses in the drive excitation direction, thus allowing two mass-spring systems that move anti-phase to one another, as suggested by Ruohio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights