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 .
Summary
Claims 12-21 are pending. Claims 12-21 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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(s) 12-21 is/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 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.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites an upper limit on “the ratio of an effective overall stiffness of the spring elements during operation of the coupling device in an oscillation mode to the product from a number of spring elements and an effective stiffness of the ring structure in the corresponding oscillation mode.” This limitation is explained in para. 17 of the specification as published. This paragraph states that the effective overall stiffness of the ring structure can be measured in a specific case. However there does not seem to be any way to determine the effective overall stiffness of the spring elements. This would be how the collection of springs reacts to deflections/oscillations, but there does not seem to be any way to determine this because any measurement of deflection response would inherently include the ring structure. Paragraph 17 states that a particular stiffness for a ring structure and a particular number of springs gives an upper limit for the effective total stiffness of the springs, however it does state how to determine if a particular arrangement falls within this limitation because it is not clear how the effective total stiffness of the springs separate from the ring structure can be determined. Therefore the Applicant’s disclosure does not enable one skilled in the art to determine if a particular ring/spring structure meets this criteria. Therefore the Applicant’s disclosure does not enable one skilled in the art to make the invention.
Regarding claims 13-21: These claims are rejected as lacking enablement due to their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 12-21 is/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 12: For the reasons discussed above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a), claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations this ratio (one variable of which cannot be independently determined) places on the apparatus of claim 12.
Regarding claims 17-19: These claims all use the term “preferably” and recite broader limitations followed by narrower ones. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 16-18 will be examined based on the broadest limitation. Claim 19 is examined as if “preferably connected to the substrate by additional spring elements” were not present.
Regarding claim 18: It is unclear to state that the spring elements “extend along a radial direction of the ring structure over” some fraction of the radius. Springs extend and contract. Therefore it is unclear if this means how much the spring extends from its resting length, or it is stating what the resting length is. This language is further indefinite because it can be taken to mean that the location of the spring is “over some fraction of the radius” meaning that it has to be inside the ring.
Regarding claim 20: “The microelectromechanical components that are connected to the coupling device” is indefinite. These parts are not defined in claim 12. Claim 12 only states that the device is “for coupling microelectromechanical parts.” Therefore without any further specification of the parts, this is just a generic recitation of further parts connected to the apparatus. The scope of such parts is impossible to determine.
Regarding claims 13-21: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 12-17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by LIU et al. (CN 106289214). Please note that a machine translation of LIU has been included with this office action. All references to text in LIU are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 12: As best understood, LIU discloses: A microelectromechanical coupling device (FIG.1) for coupling microelectromechanical components (page 1 lines 11-16), comprising: a flexible ring structure (1) which forms a circle at rest (FIG. 1), which can be deformed substantially parallel to the plane of the circle (exaggerated deformation shown in FIG. 4; page 2 lines 1-13) and which is suitable for coupling the microelectromechanical components (page 1 lines 11-16); and a plurality of spring elements (3) which are suitable for connecting the ring structure to a substrate (at anchor point 2 in FIG. 2; page 1 line 59-page 2 line 3); wherein the coupling device has such a large number of spring elements (8 in FIG. 1) with such a width in a circumferential direction of the ring structure and such a spring hardness that the deformability of the ring structure is homogeneous in a circumferential direction of the ring structure (based on the symmetry of the arrangement in FIG. 1); and the ratio of an effective overall stiffness of the spring elements during operation of the coupling device in an oscillation mode to the product from a number of spring elements and an effective stiffness of the ring structure in the corresponding oscillation mode is less than or equal to 1 (It is unclear what structural constraints this limitation places on the structure of claim 1. See 112 rejections above.).
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, LIU discloses: either all the spring elements are connected to an inner side of the ring structure (FIG. 1) or all the spring elements are connected to an outer side of the ring structure.
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, LIU discloses: the spring elements are designed as serpentine springs (FIG. 1; “S-shaped” on page 1 lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 15: As best understood, LIU discloses: the spring elements are evenly distributed along the circumferential direction of the ring structure (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, LIU discloses: the number of spring elements is greater than or equal to 4 (8 in FIG. 1), preferably greater than or equal to 8, more preferably greater than or equal to 16.
Regarding claim 17: As best understood, LIU discloses: the width of the spring elements in circumferential direction is less than or equal to ¼ (FIG. 1 shows 8 evenly spaced springs so each spring takes up less than 45 degrees in the circumferential direction.), preferably less than or equal to ⅛, more preferably less than or equal to 1/16 of the circumference of the ring structure.
Regarding claim 20: As best understood, LIU discloses: A microelectromechanical measuring device, comprising: the microelectromechanical coupling device according to claim 12 (The rejection of claim 12 has been discussed above.); and the microelectromechanical components that are connected to the coupling device (substrate on page 1 line 59-page 2 line 2; anchor on page 2 lines 47-57).
Regarding claim 21: As best understood, LIU discloses: An annular microelectromechanical angular rate sensor, comprising: the microelectromechanical coupling device according to claim 12 (The rejection of claim 12 has been discussed above.); wherein the ring structure is suitable for producing an excitation oscillation (page 2 lines 1-13.), said excitation oscillation being superimposed with a detection oscillation generated by the Coriolis force during a rotation of the ring structure (page 2 lines 1-13); and the spring elements constitute the microelectromechanical components (page 2 lines 1-13).
Claim(s) 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by SENKAL et al. (US 20160084654).
Regarding claim 12: As best understood, SENKAL discloses: A microelectromechanical coupling device (FIG.6; para. 11) for coupling microelectromechanical components (para. 11), comprising: a flexible ring structure (20 in FIG. 6) which forms a circle at rest (FIG. 6), which can be deformed substantially parallel to the plane of the circle (Movement in the plane of the ring is shown in FIG. 4 for a square embodiment.) and which is suitable for coupling the microelectromechanical components (substrate in para. 7,11); and a plurality of spring elements (16 in FIG. 6) which are suitable for connecting the ring structure to a substrate (anchors shown in FIG. 1; substrate discussed in para. 7,11); wherein the coupling device has such a large number of spring elements (4 in FIG. 6) with such a width in a circumferential direction of the ring structure and such a spring hardness that the deformability of the ring structure is homogeneous in a circumferential direction of the ring structure (based on the symmetry of the arrangement in FIG. 6); and the ratio of an effective overall stiffness of the spring elements during operation of the coupling device in an oscillation mode to the product from a number of spring elements and an effective stiffness of the ring structure in the corresponding oscillation mode is less than or equal to 1 (It is unclear what structural constraints this limitation places on the structure of claim 1. See 112 rejections above.).
Regarding claim 18: As best understood, SENKAL discloses: the spring elements (16 in FIG. 6) extend along a radial direction of the ring structure (FIG. 6) over less than ½ or ¼, preferably over less than ⅕, more preferably over less than ⅛ of the radius of the ring structure at rest (FIG. 6 shows that the springs 16 are approximately ¼ of the radius of the ring.).
Regarding claim 19: As best understood, SENKAL discloses: a second ring structure (FIG. 10 shows inner and out rings 26 and 28; para. 99-100), wherein the plurality of spring elements is connected to the ring structure and to the second ring structure (deflecting connectors 30, 34), and the ring structure is connected to the substrate via the second ring structure, which, in turn, is preferably connected to the substrate by additional spring elements (Not shown in FIG. 10, but FIG. 19 shows the concentric rings with outer anchors 46b connecting to the outermost ring 56 as discussed in para. 108.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zolfagharkhani et al, LIU et al. (CN 106643685), ZOTOV et al. (US 20170067742), and GAIDARZHY et al. (WO 2011133682) all teach a MEMS gyroscope comprising a ring supported by springs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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 M Sweeney 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
