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 because the drawings are provided in color without meeting the requirements for color drawings. Please see additional information below. Additionally, while the Figures in the Patent Application Publication appear legible, the black and white representation of the color drawings in the application file itself are such that details shown in Figures 6 and 8 cannot be readily ascertained. 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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: memory 302, non-volatile storage 304, processor 306 (see paragraphs 0038-0040 as a nonlimiting example). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Elements 200, 202, 204, 206 in Fig. 3, element 120 in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Further regarding the above objections, the examiner notes that the specification calls the controller element 300 (see paragraphs 0037 and 0041, for instance), but Figure 3 calls the entire system element 300 and the controller element 200. This potential discrepancy should be taken into account for any drawing or specification amendments to overcome the two objections made directly before this paragraph.
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 multiple light sources from claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. In the instant case, while Figures 7 and 8 show the location of a single light source 134, a plurality of light sources are not identified with element numbers in the drawing to make it clear where those light sources are located.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0026, the phrase “Haul Effect” should be amended to read “Hall Effect”. In paragraph 0027, the phrase “internal measurement unites” should be amended to read “internal measurement units”. In paragraph 0028, the phrase “Ferris material” should be amended to read “ferrous material”. In paragraph 0037, the acronyms EMI and IMU require definitions as they are undefined. In paragraph 0045, the phrase “while it’s absolute rotational position” should be amended to read “while its absolute rotational position”. In paragraph 0049, the phrase “is descried” should be amended to read “is desired”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 1, in line 6 of the claim, the phrase “the rotation position” should be amended to read “the rotational position” for consistency of language throughout the claims (see claim 4 and 14, for instance).
As for claim 3, in line 3 of the claim, the phrase “a fixed distances” should be amended to read “a fixed distance” for grammatical accuracy.
As for claim 9, in line 2 of the claim, the phrase “each configured to emit different wavelengths to differentiate reflections from each” should be amended to read “each light source configured to emit different wavelengths in order to differentiate reflections from each light source”.
As for claim 10, in line 6 of the claim, the phrase “a location in space” should be amended to read “the position in space” to match the language used in the preamble of the claim.
As for claim 14, in lines 8-9 of the claim, the phrase “a position in space based on the rotation position” should be amended to read “the position in space based on the rotational position” for consistency of language with the recitation of “the rotational position” in line 6 of the claim.
As for claim 16, in line 2 of the claim, the phrase “instruct current be provided” should be amended to read “instruct current to be provided” for grammatical accuracy. For similar reasons, in line 3 of the claim, the phrase “maintained a fixed distances” should be amended to read “maintain a fixed distance”.
As for claim 17, in line 2 of the claim, the phrase “the electromagnetic coil arranged at each end of the proof mass have a same diameter” should be amended to read “the electromagnetic coil arranged at each end of the proof mass has a same diameter” for grammatical accuracy. Additionally, while it appears that claim 17 is properly dependent on claim 3, the location of claim 17 makes it appear as though claim 17 should be dependent on claim 14. Clarification as to the proper dependency of the claim is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-13 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 10, the claim recites “instructing power to supply a pair of coils arranged at each end of a proof mass arranged along an input axis” in lines 2-3 of the claim. What is being supplied to the coils by the power? Is power being supplied to the coils, as indicated by claim 11, or is something else being supplied? Additionally, if power is being supplied to the coils, it is unclear how the method can perform “instructing” the supply of power to the coils. To overcome the rejection, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to “supplying power to a pair of coils . . .”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "adjusting the power supply to the coil" in in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which coil of the pair of coils has its power supply adjusted? Is it both coils? Just one of the coils? If just one coil, which of the two coils has its power adjusted? The examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “adjusting the power supply to each coil” to overcome the rejection.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend. The examiner notes that while the language used in claim 11 is the basis for the suggested amendment to claim 10, in the current form of the claims, claim 11 still inherits the issue with the claimed method is “instructing” power to supply the pair of coils.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 would be allowed in view of the prior art once the claim objections set forth above are properly overcome.
Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an instrument for detecting a position in space, the instrument comprising, among other essential features, an electromagnetic coil arranged at each end of the proof mass and configured to suspend the proof mass therebetween, wherein the proof mass is configured to rotate along the input axis; and at least one rotation sensor configured to detect the rotational position of the proof mass, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for detecting a position in space, the method comprising, among other essential steps, supplying power to a pair of coils arranged at each end of a proof mass, receiving rotation data from a rotation sensor arranged on the proof mass, and determining the position in space based on the rotation data, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an instrument for detecting a position in space, the instrument comprising, among other essential features, an electromagnetic coil arranged at each end of the proof mass and configured to suspend the proof mass therebetween, wherein the proof mass is configured to rotate along the input axis; at least one rotation sensor configured to detect the rotational position of the proof mass; and a processor configured to determine the position in space based on the rotational position of the proof mass, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, US Pat. 3,913,406 to Johnston discloses a digital pulse rebalance accelerometer that features a free floating proof mass that is rotated on hydrodynamic bearings which provide frictionless support for axial motion of the mass (see abstract). Johnston further discloses using capacitance type pickoffs located at each end of the rotation shaft to sense displacement of the proof mass in order to control the amount of electrical pulses which feed into torquers to restore the proof mass to center position, with the amount of pulses requires to restore the proof mass being proportional to the magnitude of the applied acceleration (see abstract). However, while Johnston does disclose a frictionless proof mass and uses capacitance sensors for detecting rotation of the proof mass, Johnston fails to disclose having the proof mass be arranged between a pair of electromagnetic coils that suspend the proof mass therebetween.
US Pat. 5,488,865 to Peters discloses a servo accelerometer including a proof mass that is suspended using a flat leaf flexure suspended between upper and lower excitation rings. The proof mass 28 (see Fig. 1) includes two opposite electromagnetic coils 36, 38 that are attached to the proof mass which, in response to a change of capacitance elements C1, C2 due to a change in distance that is representative of the displacement of the proof mass either upwardly or downwardly along the sensitive axis S, would return the proof mass to its null position (see Col. 3, line 61 – Col. 4, line 18). However, the opposite electromagnetic coils here are attached to the proof mass so that the proof mass is not suspended between the coils, and there is no rotation sensor for detecting the rotation of the proof mass.
US Pat. 5,587,526 to Lumley et al. discloses a proof mass support and sensing system where the support system has a pair of alignment coils that control the rest position of an elongate proof mass. The alignment coils provide a levitation force when they carry electric currents which vary along the length of the proof mass (see abstract). In the alternative, one or more anti-rotation coils may be arranged to apply a restoring force to the proof mass when electric currents pass therethrough (see abstract). As seen in Fig. 1, a proof mass 3 is supported between y- and z-axis alignment coils 42, 44 (seen in Fig. 1) and 42’, 44’ (not seen in Fig. 1) that provide a levitation force when they carry electric currents which vary along the length of the proof mass (see claim 1, for instance). Lumley also discloses x-axis sensing coils 7, 8 round on the edge of outer formers 33 and 34. However, while the proof mass is able to rotate about an axis (see claim 3), as the coils carry electric currents which vary along the length of the proof mass (see for instance Fig. 21 and Col. 12, lines 34-43), this means that Lumley fails to disclose that the proof mass is suspended between the coils. Additionally, while rotation of the proof mass along the x-axis is detected using the x-axis sensing coils, this would not meet the required limitation that the rotation sensor be arranged on the proof mass as found in claim 10.
Finally, US 2015/0211853 to Anac et. al teaches a gyroscope 100a (see Fig. 1) that features a rotating proof mass 150a attached to an anchor 140 by pivot spring 115 (see paragraph 0020). Anac also discloses capacitive sense electrodes 151a, 151b that are placed on the substrate 101 under the rotating proof mass 150a for detecting the rotation of the rotating proof mass (see paragraph 0024). However, while Anac teaches measuring the rotation of a rotating proof mass using rotation sensors, this device operates on a different principle than the frictionless proof mass disclosed by Johnston or the systems that use electromagnetic coils to adjust the position of the proof mass using a levitation force such as in Lumley. Additionally, the rotation sensor data is not used to determine a position in space.
As a result, while the prior art discussed above appears to teach various aspects of the claimed invention, this prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. In particular, this prior art fails to either disclose or render obvious having an electromagnetic coil arranged at each end of the proof mass to suspend the proof mass therebetween so the proof mass is configured to rotate along the input axis (claims 1 and 14), at least one rotation sensor that detects the rotational position of that particular proof mass (claims 1, 10, and 14), with the rotation sensor being arranged on the proof mass in claim 10, and using the rotational position of the proof mass to determine a position in space (claims 10 and 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2005/0204817 to Boletis et al. teaches an inertial sensor based on the magnetic levitation of an inertial mass that includes (see Figs. 1 and 2) an axial sensor 7 that is inductive, optical, or capacitive centered on an axis inside each coil (see paragraph 0088) that provides distance measurements to inertial mass 5 along that axis as a function of time (see paragraph 0088 and 0106), and CN 107478863 to Dwyer et al. discloses an accelerometer featuring a proof mass 20, an upper stator 10, and a lower stator 30 (see Fig. 1) with force balance coils 27a, 27B on the proof mass 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights