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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the substrate, the drive device and the detection device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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: 12 (Page 13, line 1). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 11, lines 8-9, refer to the “frame structure 20”, however, the spring structure has already been referred to as “20”.
Page 12, line 5 contains “**”.
Page 13, line 1 contains the phrase “meandering pattern 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Considering claim 7, the phrase “attachement of the spring” in line 5 of page 3 should be rewritten as --attachment--.
Considering claim 7, the phrase “wherein wherein” in line 7 of page 3 should be rewritten as --wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Considering claims 1 and 7, the phrase “beam elements, which extend substantially straight in sections, wherein each respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90° angle”, explicitly requires that two successive beam elements are connected to one another at at least five points. However, it is clear from Figures 2 and 4-5, and the specification that two successive beams are joined together to form a junction, wherein the spring itself has at least 5 serial junctions, forming 90º angles, along the path of the spring. The specification does not support a single pair of beams that is joined at least 5 times forming 90º angles, rather each pair forms a 90º and there are at least 5 pairs.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are additionally rejected based on their dependency upon claims 1 and 7, respectively.
Considering claim 7, the phrase “wherein the spring structure is designed to prove the rotational rate sensor” finds no support in the specification. There is simply stated zero discussion of a proving feature. The Examiner unable to determine the intended meaning of the phrase, and can only guess that the term might have been intended to say “improve”? Since the functional language is unclear, the Examiner is simply relying on the structural limitations required of the string structure in this limitation.
Claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency upon claim 7.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 8 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 claims 2 and 8, the phrase “largely homogeneous etching environment” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “largely homogenous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification makes mention of providing the stop and guide structure so that the distance between the stop and guide structure, the respective spring structure and outer sensor frame is substantially the same or similar so that the etching production is largely uniform. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to identify a variance in the gap width, etch rate, beam width, or other variables that move a claimed structure from largely homogenous to outside of the claimed limitation. Further this appears to be a non-functional descriptive term used to describe an intended result rather than claiming a physical structure or action to arrive at the end result.
Claim 4 is also rejected based on its dependency upon claim 2.
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 1-2, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 107607100 A) in view of Su (US 2015/0260517 A1).
Considering claim 1, Feng discloses a rotational rate sensor, comprising:
- a substrate having a main extension plane (Figures 1-5; [0023], silicon base);
- a sensor element which is configured as a rotor structure 101 that can be driven to perform a rotational oscillation about a drive axis perpendicular to the main extension plane with a drive deflection by a drive device ([0023-26]);
- wherein a rotational rate about at least one sensitive direction perpendicular to the drive axis can be detected by a detection device due to a tilting of the sensor element about a tilting axis perpendicular to the drive axis and perpendicular to the at least one sensitive direction ([0024-26]);
- wherein the rotor structure includes an outer sensor frame 103 serving as a seismic mass (Figures 1-2; [0023]); and
- a spring structure 102, the spring structure being connected to the substrate in a central region by at least one substrate suspension 101 (Figure 1; [0023]); and
- wherein the spring structure 102, between its attachment to the substrate suspension and its attachment to the sensor frame, includes beam elements, which extend substantially straight in sections (Figures 1, 4-5; [0023]).
The invention by Feng fails to explicitly disclose that each respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°.
However, Su teaches an outer frame 100g connected to an inner anchored section 120g through a folded beam suspension 110g having adjacent beams forming an angle of at least 90º, where at least five pairs of two beams are connected in succession (Figures 14a; [0099-104]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known 90º separated adjacent beam, repeated at least 5 times, technique of Su, for the generic straight beam technique, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The serpentine folded-beam and the straight beam technique of both inventions is shown to provide the function of suspending the outer frame from an internally located anchor, and therefore, they are functionally equivalent. 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 respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements that are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°, based on the interpretation made in the earlier 35 USC 112 rejection.
Considering claim 2, Feng discloses at least one stop 202 and guide structure 201 within an outer sensor frame 103, wherein the stop and guide structure are provided for realizing largely homogenous etching environments within the sensor frame (Figures 4-5; [0027-31]).
Considering claim 4, Feng discloses that the stop and guide structure includes stop elements 202 (Figure 4; [0027-31]).
Considering claim 7, Feng discloses a method for producing a rotational rate sensor, the method comprising:
- providing a substrate and a sensor element, wherein the substrate has a main extension plane, wherein the sensor element is a rotor structure that can be driven to perform a rotational oscillation about a drive axis perpendicular to the main extension plane with a drive deflection by a drive device (Figures 1-5; [0023-26], silicon base);
- wherein a rotational rate about at least one sensitive direction perpendicular to the drive axis can be detected by a detection device due to a tilting of the sensor element about a tilting axis perpendicular to the drive axis and perpendicular to the at least one sensitive direction ([0024-26]);
- wherein the rotor structure includes an outer sensor frame 103 serving as a seismic mass (Figures 1-2; [0023]); and
- a spring structure 102, the spring structure being connected to the substrate in a central region by at least one substrate suspension 101 (Figure 1; [0023]); and
- wherein substrate suspension 101 and an attachement of the spring structure 102 to the sensor frame 103, the spring structure includes beam elements which extend substantially straight in sections (Figures 1, 4-5; [0023]).
The invention by Feng fails to explicitly disclose that each respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°.
However, Su teaches an outer frame 100g connected to an inner anchored section 120g through a folded beam suspension 110g having adjacent beams forming an angle of at least 90º, where at least five pairs of two beams are connected in succession (Figures 14a; [0099-104]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known 90º separated adjacent beam, repeated at least 5 times, technique of Su, for the generic beam technique, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The serpentine folded-beam and the straight beam technique of both inventions is shown to provide the function of suspending the outer frame from an internally located anchor, and therefore, they are functionally equivalent. 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 respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements that are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°, based on the interpretation made in the earlier 35 USC 112 rejection.
Considering claim 8, Feng discloses that the rotational rate sensor includes at least one stop 202 and guide structure 201 within the sensor frame, wherein the stop and guide structure is configured in such a way that largely homogeneous etching environments are realized within the sensor frame during production of the spring structure of the rotational rate sensor ([0027-31]).
Claims 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 6067858 A) in view of Su (US 2015/0260517 A1).
Considering claim 1, Clark discloses a rotational rate sensor 300, comprising:
- a substrate 304 having a main extension plane (Figure 17a; Column 15, lines 51-53);
- a sensor element which is configured as a rotor structure 316 that can be driven to perform a rotational oscillation about a drive axis perpendicular to the main extension plane with a drive deflection by a drive device (Figure 17a; Column 15, line 50 – Column 16, line 7);
- wherein a rotational rate about at least one sensitive direction perpendicular to the drive axis can be detected by a detection device (374a-374d) due to a tilting of the sensor element about a tilting axis perpendicular to the drive axis and perpendicular to the at least one sensitive direction (Column 15, line 11 – Column 16, line 59; Column 17, lines 14-31);
- wherein the rotor structure 316 includes an outer sensor frame 302 serving as a seismic mass (Column 15, line 51-53); and
- a spring structure 306, the spring structure 306 being connected to the substrate in a central region by at least one substrate suspension 324 (Column 16, lines 3-29); and
- wherein the spring structure 306, between its attachment to the substrate suspension and its attachment to the sensor frame, includes beam elements, which extend substantially straight in sections (Column 16, lines 8-29; “serpentine suspension with folded beams”).
The invention by Clark fails to explicitly disclose that each respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°.
However, Su teaches an outer frame 100g connected to an inner anchored section 120g through a folded beam suspension 110g having adjacent beams forming an angle of at least 90º, where at least five pairs of two beams are connected in succession (Figures 14a; [0099-104]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known 90º separated adjacent beam, repeated at least 5 times, technique of Su, for the generic serpentine folded beam technique, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The serpentine folded-beam technique of both inventions is shown to provide the function of suspending the outer frame from an internally located anchor, and therefore, they are functionally equivalent. 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 respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements that are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°, based on the interpretation made in the earlier 35 USC 112 rejection.
Considering claim 3, Clark discloses that the beam elements of the spring structure, which extend straight in sections, are arranged in such a way that:
- the spring structure forms a meandering pattern (Column 16, lines 8-29; “serpentine suspension with folded beams”), and/or
- the spring structure includes one or more frame elements, and/or
- the spring structure includes torsion springs.
Considering claim 6, Clark discloses that the substrate suspension of the spring structure is includes at least one anchor 324 (Figure 14a; Column 16, lines 1-7).
Considering claim 7, Clark discloses a method for producing a rotational rate sensor, the method comprising:
- providing a substrate 304 (Figure 17a; Column 15, lines 51-53) and a sensor element, wherein the substrate has a main extension plane, wherein the sensor element is a rotor structure 316 that can be driven to perform a rotational oscillation about a drive axis perpendicular to the main extension plane with a drive deflection by a drive device (Figure 17a; Column 15, line 50 – Column 16, line 7);
- wherein a rotational rate about at least one sensitive direction perpendicular to the drive axis can be detected by a detection device (374a-374d) due to a tilting of the sensor element about a tilting axis perpendicular to the drive axis and perpendicular to the at least one sensitive direction (Column 15, line 11 – Column 16, line 59; Column 17, lines 14-31);
- wherein the rotor structure 316 includes an outer sensor frame 302 serving as a seismic mass (Column 15, line 51-53); and
- a spring structure 306, the spring structure 306 being connected to the substrate in a central region by at least one substrate suspension 324 (Column 16, lines 3-29).
- wherein
The invention by Clark fails to explicitly disclose that each respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°.
However, Su teaches an outer frame 100g connected to an inner anchored section 120g through a folded beam suspension 110g having adjacent beams forming an angle of at least 90º, where at least five pairs of two beams are connected in succession (Figures 14a; [0099-104]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known 90º separated adjacent beam, repeated at least 5 times, technique of Su, for the generic serpentine folded beam technique, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The serpentine folded-beam technique of both inventions is shown to provide the function of suspending the outer frame from an internally located anchor, and therefore, they are functionally equivalent. 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 respective two successive beam elements of the beam elements that are connected to one another at at least five points in such a way that the respective two beam elements form at least a 90°, based on the interpretation made in the earlier 35 USC 112 rejection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 6067858 A) in view of Su (US 2015/0260517 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacobson et al. (US 4343203 A).
Considering claim 5, the invention by Clark, as modified by Su, fails to explicitly disclose that the spring structure has a recess in a central region.
However, Jacobson teaches an gyroscope rotor assembly having strain relief holes 34 and a central hole in the central region of a flexible web, thus providing discrete strain pathways in the spring structure of the flexible web rotor (Figure 5; Column 3, line 52 – Column 5, line 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a spring structure having a recess in a central region, as taught by Jacobson, in the invention by Clark, as modified by Su. The motivation for doing so is to provide optimum strain pathways through the spring structure, as suggested by Jacobson (Column 5, lines 4-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Classen (Various) discloses a seismic mass frame connected by multiple turn S-springs to an internal fastening area.
CN 101903778 B discloses a seismic mass frame connected by multiple turn S-springs to an internal fastening area.
Naumann discloses the use of a travel stop within a proof mass.
O’Brien discloses the use of travel stops within a frame about a proof mass.
DE 102020208667 A1, DE 102020203921 A1 and WO 2020/002384 A1 disclose various multi-turn spring structures for MEMS devices.
WO 01/98786 A1 discloses a mems sensor having a movable central mass surrounded by bent springs and range-of-movement stops within a fixed frame.
Howe et al. discloses the use of internal bumpers to prevent contact/stiction between a internal structures of a MEMS device.
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 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights