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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 23 -24 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The Examiner notes that group II, claim(s) 15-22, drawn to a measurement unit, were cancelled via entry of the reply filed 1/8/2026.
Group I, claim(s) 1 and 3-14, drawn to a measurement unit.
Group III, claim 23, drawn to a measurement unit.
Group IV, claim 24, drawn to a measurement unit.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of various limitations of claims 1, 10 and/or 14, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of:
Sugihara et al. (US 20100089155 A1)
Imura et al. (JP 07260495 A, hereinafter Imura) in view of Maeda (US 20060133061 A1)
Imura et al. (JP 07260495 A, hereinafter Imura) in view of Maeda (US 20060133061 A1) and Levy (WO 2013054328 A1)
Specifically, Sugihara et al. anticipates claim 1, and claim 1 is obvious in view of Imura et al. in view of Maeda. Furthermore, independent claims 10 and 14 are obvious in view of Imura et al. in view of Maeda and Levy. See the rejections of claims 1, 10 and 14 below. Accordingly, groups I and III lack unity of invention.
Groups I and IV lack unity of invention for substantially the same reasons as groups I and III discussed above.
The Examiner additionally notes that groups III and IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of:
“A measurement unit, comprising:
a block provided with projecting studs; and
a plate of an inertial sensor, the plate having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force substantially normal to said surfaces, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element, the body and the studs being of a single material different from a material of the plate and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of the block and the plate in said different materials, occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid a slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and
to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor.”
This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Imura et al. in view of Maeda and Levy. Specifically, the technical feature is included in claim 14, which is obvious over Imura et al. in view of Maeda and Levy, as discussed above. Accordingly, groups III-IV lack unity of invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 23-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress…occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and
to keep the sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the sensor.”
MPEP 2163(I)(A) states “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” In this case, even though claim 1 is an original claim, there is no sufficient description of how the shapes and dimensions of the studs accomplish the claimed functions emphasized above. There is no sufficiently detailed explanation of how the shapes and dimensions of the studs, for an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, allow the studs to deform under the effect of a thermomechanical stress so as to avoid any slip of the surfaces relative to each other under the effect of the thermomechanical stress, and there is no sufficiently detailed description of how the shapes and dimensions ensure that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with the operation of the sensor. Therefore, Applicant did not have possession of the invention in claim 1.
Claims 3-9 depend from claim 1. Therefore, Applicant did not have possession of claims 2-9.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed for claim 1 above.
Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10. Therefore, Applicant did not have possession of claims 11-13.
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.
(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) 1, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugihara et al. (US 20100089155 A1, hereinafter Sugihara).
As to claim 1, Sugihara teaches a measurement unit comprising at least two elements, namely a block 12 and a plate 23 of an inertial sensor 23-24, the block being provided with studs 18, 20 that project form a surface of the block and that each have a terminal surface (side surface of bushing 20) against which a bearing surface (side surface of notch 23a) of the plate 23 is applied under a force substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 22 (¶27 teaches that the clamping element 22 deforms the bushing 20 as it is tightened, and the outward deformation provides the force), the block including the studs being of a material (aluminum ¶20) different from a material constituting the plate 23 (¶26 teaches that the plate/second element 23 is a circuit board, meaning it inherently comprises an insulator for preventing short circuits, the insulator being a different material than the aluminum of the block 12), and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of said different materials (¶20 teaches that the block 12 is aluminum, and the plate 23 inherently comprises an insulator to avoid short circuits) occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit (the studs inherently have a thermal expansion coefficient and, during a change in temperature in the inherent operating temperature range of the measurement unit, undergo deformation from thermomechanical stress from a differential thermal expansion in the operating temperature range of the measurement unit) so as to avoid any slip (to clarify, it is considered that any amount of slip that is avoided reads on “to avoid any slip”) of said surfaces relative to one another (a small amount of slipping can be avoided, for a small amount of thermal stress from differential thermal expansion, due to the clamping force of the clamping element 22 and the resiliency/deformation of the bushings 20) under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and
to keep the inertial sensor in position (with help from the clamping elements 22 and bushings 20) while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited (due to the bushings absorbing vibrations – see the abstract) and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor (the measurement unit is operational, meaning that limited vibrations transmitted through the bushings are compatible with operation of the sensor).
As to claim 3, Sugihara teaches a plurality of inertial sensors 16, 24 mounted on the block.
As to claim 4, Sugihara teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor 16 and at least one angular sensor 24.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura et al. (JP 07260495 A, hereinafter Imura) in view of Maeda (US 20060133061 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
285
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Imura teaches a measurement unit comprising at least two elements, namely a block 1 (camera body - ¶16) and a plate 3b of an inertial sensor S1 (fig. 6 above), the block 1 being provided with studs (formed by the combination of bosses 7a-7d and anti-vibration portions 12e, 12f) that project from a surface of the black and that each have a terminal surface (upper surface of anti-vibration portions 12e, 12f) against which a bearing surface (lower surface of plate 3b) of the plate is applied under a force substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 6a-6d, and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit (the studs inherently have a thermal expansion coefficient and therefore expand under the effect of a thermomechanical stress occurring in an inherent operating temperature range of the measurement unit) so as to avoid any slip (to clarify, it is considered that any amount of slip that is avoided reads on “to avoid any slip”) of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress (during a sufficiently small thermal expansion due to a small temperature change, the clamping force from the screws and the deformation/resiliency of the vibration absorbing members 12e, 12f avoids the claimed slipping of the surfaces); and
to keep the inertial sensor in position (with the help of screws 6a-6d) while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited (¶12) and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor (¶12 teaches that the studs reduce the influence of vibration on the sensor, meaning the transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with the operation of the sensor since the sensor still successfully functions).
Imura does not teach the block including the studs being of a material different from a material constituting the plate (i.e. Imura is silent as to the material of the camera body 1 having the studs), and
is silent as to the stress being due to a differential expansion of said different materials (i.e. Imura is silent as to the material of the camera body 1 having the studs).
Maeda teaches a camera body formed of metal (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura such that the camera body is made of metal as taught by Maeda for the predictable result that metal has good rigidity and would strongly protect the internal components of the camera.
Imura as modified teaches the block including the studs being of a material (metal of Maeda) different from a material constituting the second element (Imura teaches in at least fig. 6 and ¶41 that sensors 4a-b are mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3b inherently also comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits),
wherein the stress is due to a differential expansion of said different materials (the camera body is made of metal, as taught by Maeda, and Imura’s plate inherently comprises an insulator so as to avoid short circuits).
As to claim 3, Imura teaches a plurality of inertial sensors 4a-4b mounted on the block.
As to claim 7, Imura teaches wherein the studs are parts of the block (the studs can be considered parts of the block as broadly recited).
As to claim 8, Imura teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the studs have a cross-section that is oblong and curved in shape.
However, such a modification would have been an obvious change in shape. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Imura’s studs are dimensioned and shaped to provide the functions and benefits recited in claim 1 (e.g. preventing slipping and limiting vibrations). Additionally, pg. 7 lines 8-13 of the instant specification discloses that the studs may be of a variety of shapes and cross sections. Since the cross sections of the instant studs are not particularly limited and do not provide a claimed benefit not already provided by the prior art, the claimed difference in shape between the prior art and claimed invention would have been a matter of choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura such that the studs have a cross-section that is oblong and curved in shape since such a modification would be a been an obvious change in shape for the predictable result that the studs still successfully provide vibration isolation.
As to claim 9, Imura teaches wherein the studs have a cross-section that is circular in shape.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura in view of Maeda as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Takasaki (JP 2005265448 A).
As to claim 4, Imura teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one angular sensor 4a.
Imura does not teach wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor.
Takasaki teaches a film camera (fig. 1; in the translation, see pg. 6 lines 7-10) comprising a lens having a linear sensor (being at least one accelerometer as taught in pg. 6 lines 7-10 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura to have a lens comprising at least one linear sensor as taught by Takasaki so as to beneficially provide improved lens focus (abstract of Takasaki).
Imura as modified teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor (accelerometer of Takasaki).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura in view of Maeda and Takasaki as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Nozoe et al. (US 6912901 B1, hereinafter Nozoe).
As to claim 5, Imura teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the angular sensor comprises a vibrating resonator.
Nozoe teaches the concept of an angular sensor comprising a vibrating resonator (vibrating tuning fork 40 – fig. 20a and col. 10 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura as modified such that each angular sensor comprises a vibrating resonator as taught by Nozoe since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one kind of angular sensor for another for the predictable result that angular velocities are still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura et al. under a second interpretation (JP 07260495 A, hereinafter Imura2) in view of Maeda (US 20060133061 A1) and Levy (WO 2013054328 A1).
Imura2 differs from Imura in terms of which figures/embodiments are relied on.
As to claim 1, Imura2 teaches a measurement unit comprising at least two elements,
namely a block 1 (figs. 1a-b) and a plate 3 (¶22 teaches that there is a circuit, a resistor, an amplifier, and the like on the plate; it will be interpreted that these elements are parts of the plate) of an inertial sensor 3-4 (¶22), the block being provided with studs 7a-b (¶22) that project from a surface of the block and that each have a terminal surface (upper surface in fig. 1b) against which a bearing surface (lower surface in fig. 1b) of the plate is applied under a force (from screws 6a-b) substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 6a-b.
Imura2 does not explicitly teach the block including the studs being of a material different from a material constituting the plate (Imura2 is silent as to the material of the block),
wherein the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of said different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and
to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor.
Maeda teaches a camera body formed of metal (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 such that the camera body (i.e. block) including the studs is made of metal as taught by Maeda for the predictable result that metal has good rigidity and would strongly protect the internal components of the camera.
Levy teaches a measurement unit 100, comprising:
a block 33 provided with studs 80A (figs. 1 above; also see fig. 2); and
an inertial sensor (comprising at least proof mass 55) comprising a plate 52 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1 and pg. 20 lines 15-20, which teaches that when housings 31, 33 are joined, the plate is held clampingly between mounting structures 80A-B of the housings, which provides the claimed normal force), wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 80B (fig. 1 above), the body 33 and the studs 80A being of a single material (steel – page 19 lines 20-23) different from a material (see pg. 19 lines 6-8 and pg. 20 lines 7-10, which teach that a flexure 50 comprising plate 52 is made of silicon) of the plate and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform (fig. 3b) under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of said different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress (pg. 21 lines 7-28); and
to keep the inertial sensor in position (fig. 3b and pg. 21 lines 7-28) while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor (the studs inherently limit vibration by attenuating them to some degree; therefore, the measurement unit is capable of only being exposed to vibrations that are limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor after the attenuation provided by the studs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 as modified such that the studs are of dimensions and of a shape adapted: to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress, and to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor, as taught by Levy so as to minimize thermal bias or minimize the risk of thermal bias being introduced to the inertial sensing element (see the last paragraph on pg. 24 of Levy).
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs being of a single material (metal of Maeda) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits).
As to claim 3, Imura2 teaches a plurality of inertial sensors 4a-4b mounted on the block.
As to claim 10, Imura2 teaches a measurement unit, comprising:
a block 1 (figs. 1a-b) provided with projecting studs 7a-b (¶22); and
an inertial sensor 3-4 (¶22) comprising a plate 3 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force (from screws 6a-b) substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1b and ¶22), wherein the force is exerted by screws 6a-b received with clearance in holes of the plate to be engaged in the studs to exert on the plate said force substantially normal to said surfaces (see figs. 1a-b).
Imura2 does not explicitly teach wherein the body and the studs being of a single material different from a material of the plate and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of said different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and
to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor.
Maeda teaches a camera body formed of metal (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 such that the camera body including the studs is made of metal as taught by Maeda for the predictable result that metal has good rigidity and would strongly protect the internal components of the camera.
Levy teaches a measurement unit 100, comprising:
a block 33 provided with studs 80A (figs. 1 above; also see fig. 2); and
an inertial sensor (comprising at least proof mass 55) comprising a plate 52 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1 and pg. 20 lines 15-20, which teaches that when housings 31, 33 are joined, the plate is held clampingly between mounting structures 80A-B of the housings, which provides the claimed normal force), wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 80B (fig. 1 above), the body 33 and the studs 80A being of a single material (steel – page 19 lines 20-23) different from a material (see pg. 19 lines 6-8 and pg. 20 lines 7-10, which teach that a flexure 50 comprising plate 52 is made of silicon) of the plate and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform (fig. 3b) under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of said different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress (pg. 21 lines 7-28); and
to keep the inertial sensor in position (fig. 3b and pg. 21 lines 7-28) while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor (the studs inherently limit vibration by attenuating them to some degree; therefore, the measurement unit is capable of only being exposed to vibrations that are limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor after the attenuation provided by the studs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 as modified such that the studs are of dimensions and of a shape adapted: to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid a slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress, and to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor, as taught by Levy so as to minimize thermal bias or minimize the risk of thermal bias being introduced to the inertial sensing element (see the last paragraph on pg. 24 of Levy).
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs being of a single material (metal of Maeda) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits).
As to claim 11, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs are in metal (from Maeda).
As to claims 12-13, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the plate is in metal (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 is at least partially in metal).
As to claim 14, Imura2 teaches a measurement unit, comprising:
a block 1 (figs. 1a-b) provided with projecting studs 7a-b (¶22); and
an inertial sensor 3-4 (¶22) comprising a plate 3 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force (from screws 6a-b) substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1b and ¶22), wherein the force is exerted by screws 6a-b received with clearance in holes of the plate to be engaged in the studs to exert on the plate said force substantially normal to said surfaces (see figs. 1a-b).
Imura2 does not teach wherein the body and the studs being of a single material different from a material of the plate (i.e. Imura is silent as to the material of the camera body 1 having the studs) and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of said different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid a slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and
to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor.
Maeda teaches a camera body formed of metal (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 such that the camera body including the studs is made of metal as taught by Maeda for the predictable result that metal has good rigidity and would strongly protect the internal components of the camera.
Levy teaches a measurement unit 100, comprising:
a block 33 provided with studs 80A (figs. 1 above; also see fig. 2); and
an inertial sensor (comprising at least proof mass 55) comprising a plate 52 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1 and pg. 20 lines 15-20, which teaches that when housings 31, 33 are joined, the plate is held clampingly between mounting structures 80A-B of the housings, which provides the claimed normal force), wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 80B (fig. 1 above), the body 33 and the studs 80A being of a single material (steel – page 19 lines 20-23) different from a material (see pg. 19 lines 6-8 and pg. 20 lines 7-10, which teach that a flexure 50 comprising plate 52 is made of silicon) of the plate and the studs being of dimensions and shape adapted:
to allow the studs to deform (fig. 3b) under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress (pg. 21 lines 7-28); and
to keep the inertial sensor in position (fig. 3b and pg. 21 lines 7-28) while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor (the studs inherently limit vibration by attenuating them to some degree; therefore, the measurement unit is capable of only being exposed to vibrations that are limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor after the attenuation provided by the studs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura as modified such that the studs are of dimensions and of a shape adapted: to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, so as to avoid a slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress, and to keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor, as taught by Levy so as to minimize thermal bias or minimize the risk of thermal bias being introduced to the inertial sensing element (see the last paragraph on pg. 24 of Levy).
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs being of a single material (metal of Maeda) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura2 in view of Maeda and Levy as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Takasaki (JP 2005265448 A).
As to claim 4, Imura2 teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one angular sensor 4a.
Imura2 as modified does not teach wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor.
Takasaki teaches a film camera (fig. 1; in the translation, see pg. 6 lines 7-10) comprising a lens having a linear sensor (being at least one accelerometer as taught in pg. 6 lines 7-10 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 to have a lens comprising at least one linear sensor as taught by Takasaki so as to beneficially provide improved lens focus (abstract of Takasaki).
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor (accelerometer of Takasaki).
As to claim 6, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the linear sensor (accelerometer of Takasaki; figs.1, 3 and 4 of Takasaki, as well as the translation on line 32 of pg. 4 to line 2 of pg. 5, teach that the camera of fig. 1 comprises three of the accelerometer in fig. 3 in order to detect acceleration along three axes, wherein each of the accelerometers is made of single crystal silicon and piezoresistors) and the angular sensor (which inherently has one material different from at least one of the single crystal silicon and piezoresistors of Takasaki’s linear sensor) are made up of different materials and the block is a part made of a single material (metal of Maeda).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-7 that “Warpage should only occur in monolithic structure comprising several layers that are superposed such as in laminated structure wherein no relative movement between the layers is possible in a direction parallel to the layers.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because thermal gradients can cause warping, even for non-laminated structures. For example, regardless of whether a structure is laminated, if one part of the structure expands more than another due to uneven heating/cooling, or if one part expands while the other contracts, the material may warp. See the evidentiary reference NPLs (attached with the Final Office Action mailed 8/8/25) titled:
• “The Ultimate Guide to Warping in Additive Manufacturing”
• “can uniform objects warp – Google Search”
• “Prevent warping - Temperature and first layer adhesion - Magigoo”
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that
“In the present application, there are different parts held together by clamping element (the block being provided with projecting studs having a surface against which a bearing surface of the plate is applied under a force substantially normal to said surfaces, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element). Said force prevents a deformation of the parts in a direction perpendicular to the surfaces (such as cup deformation as in the document US2014252509). In the present application, the studs are deformable to prevent slip of the surfaces. As a consequence, it is the deformation of the studs that absorbs differential thermal expansion.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. There is no support in the original disclosure for forces from the clamping elements preventing deformation of the parts in a direction perpendicular to the surface. The original disclosure is silent as to warping or the prevention thereof. Additionally, since non-laminated structures can warp, as discussed above, if the block warps, or if both of the block and plate warp, then the studs and clamping elements would be unable to prevent such warpage.
Accordingly, there is no sufficiently detailed explanation of how the shapes and dimensions of the studs, for an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, allow the studs to deform under the effect of a thermomechanical stress so as to avoid any slip of the surfaces relative to each other under the effect of the thermomechanical stress. Therefore, Applicant did not have possession of the invention in claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 7
“The Examiner states that "fig. 3 and fig. 6 show blocks with studs, and claim 1 recites a block with studs. Applicant argues that the studs, which are part of the block, bend. This directly contradicts Applicant's argument that blocks cannot bend. Furthermore, the specification provides no evidence that a lack of bending studs, per se, causes slipping."
Please refer to the definition of studs in the present application. It is clear from the present specification, claims and drawings that the block is provided with studs protruding from the block.”
Applicant’s argument is unclear. If Applicant is arguing that the studs are part of the block, then the Examiner agrees. If Applicant is arguing that the studs are NOT part of the block, then Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Arguing that the block is provided with studs does not negate the fact that the block includes the studs.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8 that the specification discloses that “[s]tuds lack of bending cause slipping,” by citing pg. 1 line 21 – pg. 2 line 5, pg. 2 lines 6-14, pg. 2 lines 23-27 and pg. 3 lines 2-6.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s statement that “[s]tuds lack of bending cause slipping” is not supported by the original disclosure. None of the sections cited above by Applicant provide support for studs’ lack of bending causing slipping. Indeed, none of the original specification provides support for studs’ lack of bending causing slipping. Furthermore, the original specification fails to describe any mode of deformation that would prevent slipping.
It is unclear whether the deformation is twisting, lengthening, contracting, bending, radial expansion/contraction from the stud axis, and/or a combination of different modes of deformation, or some other form of deformation, because the original specification is silent as to what kind(s) of deformation Applicant contemplated at the time of filing.
Accordingly, there is no sufficiently detailed explanation of how the shapes and dimensions of the studs, for an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, allow the studs to deform under the effect of a thermomechanical stress so as to avoid any slip of the surfaces relative to each other under the effect of the thermomechanical stress. Therefore, Applicant did not have possession of the inventions in claims 1, 10 and 14.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9 that the warping described in “The Ultimate Guide to Warping in Additive Manufacturing” is not warping during operation of an object.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The point of the NPL was to show that objects can warp even when they are formed of non-laminated structures (see pg. 21-22 of the Office Action mailed 8/8/25). Importantly, Applicant fails to argue against the fact that uniform objects warp. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that non-laminated structures can warp, whether during production or during operation, due to uneven temperature distributions, and/or uneven heating and/or cooling.
Applicant argues, on pg. 9, “"Prevent warping - Temperature and first layer adhesion -Magigoo" that is self- explanatory: the problem concerns a first layer adhesion on a second layer (if there is a first layer, there is necessary a second one).”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The object that is warping in “Prevent warping - Temperature and first layer adhesion -Magigoo” is a 3D printed structure of uniform material, not a laminated structure made of different materials with different CTEs. Accordingly, Applicant fails to argue against the fact that uniform objects warp. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that non-laminated structures can warp, whether during production or during operation, due to uneven temperature distributions, and/or uneven heating and/or cooling.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 “warping does not occur in the invention because the block and the studs are in a single material. It is mentioned in claim 1 and in the specification.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The original specification is silent with respect to the block and studs allegedly not warping due to being of a single material. All of Applicant’s previous arguments regarding warping have been unpersuasive, and that Examiner has shown sufficient evidence that objects of uniform material can warp, as detailed above. Logically, the disclosed block 1, which is made of steel (see the paragraph bridging pgs. 4-5), will warp or deform unevenly due to uneven temperature distributions and/or uneven heating and/or cooling.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 “The invention prevents thermomechanical stress occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit and not during manufacturing process of the measurement unit.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The original specification does not provide support for the operating temperature range of the measurement unit being configured such that warpage or uneven deformation from uneven temperatures is prevented. Applicant’s argument regarding operation vs. manufacturing is not persuasive because the warpage/deformation would be a result of temperatures, per se, meaning warpage based on temperatures would occur whether an object is being operated or manufactured.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that
“The invention indicates to the man skilled in the art that he as to choose dimensions and shape of the studs so that they deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and they keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor.
This information is sufficient to allow the man skilled in the art to realize the invention.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Indicating to the skilled man that he
“[h]as to choose dimensions and shape of the studs so that they deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and they keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor”
fails to disclose how the studs
“deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress, due to a differential expansion of different materials occurring in an operating temperature range of the measurement unit so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces relative to one another under the effect of the thermomechanical stress; and they keep the inertial sensor in position while ensuring that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with an operation of the inertial sensor.”
Accordingly, there is no sufficiently detailed explanation of how the shapes and dimensions of the studs, for an operating temperature range of the measurement unit, allow the studs to deform under the effect of a thermomechanical stress so as to avoid any slip of the surfaces relative to each other under the effect of the thermomechanical stress, and there is no sufficiently detailed description of how the shapes and dimensions ensure that any transmission of vibration is limited and compatible with the operation of the sensor. Therefore, Applicant did not have possession of the invention in claims 1, 10 and 14.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that “We maintain that, in the invention, the whole block (according to the current meaning of this word) cannot deform due to thermomechanical stress because the studs deform instead of the block.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites that the studs are part of the block (it is also noted that original claim 7 recites that “the studs are parts of the block”; this means that the original disclosure defines the studs as part of the block), and Applicant argues that the studs (being part of the block, as currently and originally recited) deform due to thermomechanical stress. Accordingly, by arguing that the studs deform due to thermomechanical stress, Applicant is simultaneously admitting that the block deforms due to thermomechanical stress. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion, that the whole block cannot deform due to thermomechanical stress, is false.
Applicant argues (pgs. 9-10) that
“The Examiner indicates that US5255901 teaches a block that bends so that our affirmation that a block cannot bend is unpersuasive.
What we said is that the block in a single material cannot bend under mechanical stress. US5255901 concerns the clamping of an engine block onto the table of a resurfacing machine (col. 3 lines 55-60). Col. 4 lines 27-32 of US5255901 indicates that the tightening of the locking unit can provoke a warping or shifting of the engine block. Therefore, this document only teaches that a mechanical stress can provoke warp or shift of an engine block and never suggests that a thermomechanical stress could provoke warp or shift of an engine block. In the invention, we speak of thermomechanical stress: this phenomenon is the result of a variation of temperature and not of an external mechanical effort applied on the block: a thermomechanical stress is different from a mechanical stress. Additionally, bending is not mentioned.
Therefore, for the man skilled in the art, it is clear that, in the invention, the block cannot deform due to thermomechanical stress because the studs deform instead of the block.”
Applicant’s argument is unclear. Applicant argues that “the block in a single material cannot bend under mechanical stress.” However, Applicant admits that “US5255901 indicates that the tightening of the locking unit can provoke a warping or shifting of the engine block,” meaning a block can indeed bend (warping means that at least part of the block is bending) from mechanical stress.
If Applicant intended to argue that the block in a single material cannot bend under *thermomechanical* stress, then Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, since that was not what Applicant argued in the reply filed 7/26/24, in which Applicant argued
“A person skilled in the art understands that, when reading the specification of the present application, blocks are rigid and should not bend. In the Longman Dictionary and in the American Heritage Dictionary, a block is a piece of hard material. The word "block" implies that it cannot bend.”
Applicant’s argument from 7/26/24 was that a block cannot bend and did not specify the composition of the block or source of stresses that would apply bending forces to the block. Therefore, by citing US5255901, the Examiner appropriately showed that blocks CAN bend, which is sufficient to render Applicant’s argument that blocks “cannot bend” unpersuasive. Applicant’s current argument, that the block *in a single material* cannot bend under *thermomechanical* stress, is different from Applicant’s argument from 7/26/24.
Nevertheless, note the NPL (cited on the Notice of Reference Cited mailed 1/14/26) titled “Research on thermal deformation of cylinder bore with orthogonal experiment method of aluminum alloy cylinder block in diesel engine,” which describes warping of an engine block made of cast iron or aluminum alloy due to thermomechanical stress (see title, abstract and figs. 14-17). The warping of the block can be considered bending at least because part of the block is bending. Otherwise, one of skill in the art would understand from the NPL that a block as a whole may bend due to thermal stresses based on the shape of the block and how heat is applied to it.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s statement, in the Final Office Action mailed 8/08/2025, that
“Nothing cited by the Applicant describes with sufficient particularity that (1) studs bending prevents slipping, or that (2) studs’ lack of bending causes slipping. While it is true that studs’ lack of bending could cause slipping, it is also true that studs’ lack of twisting can cause slipping, that studs’ lack of lengthening/shortening (in the case of a warping block and/or plate) can cause slipping, and that studs’ lack of radial expansion/contraction can cause slipping, etc.,”
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-7 that “The problem the invention solves concerns slipping of the bearing surfaces of the plate and the terminal surfaces of the studs that are applied to each other under a force substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface. This slipping occurs because the difference of materials between the plate and the block provokes a thermomechanical stress due to differential dilatation of the plate compared with the block which is not deformable in the prior art. The man skilled in the art knows that such a thermomechanical stress occurs only in direction along which the thermal dilatation is prevented: this direction is the one joining the terminal surfaces of the studs. The invention solves this problem by attaching the plate not directly on a rigid block but on deformable studs protruding from a surface of the block. An increasing or shortening of length of the studs does not provoke any thermomechanical stress in the plate since the plate will only be elevated or lowered compared with the block. It is the same in a direction perpendicular to the force and to the direction along which the thermal dilatation is prevented. Therefore, the Examiner's argument has no technical sense.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. There is no support in the original specification for the concept that prior art blocks are not deformable. Blocks can be deformed based on uneven temperature distributions and uneven heating, as discussed above.
Furthermore, if the plate (horizontally oriented, for example) or block warps, then shortening and/or elongation of one or more of the studs would help absorb some of the dimensional changes (in the vertical direction, for example) to prevent slipping. Conversely, a lack of shortening and/or elongation of one or more of the studs would create substantial stresses in one or more of the plate and block as it becomes more curved and is being restrained by non-deformation of the studs, resulting slipping between the abutting surfaces of the plate and studs.
Additionally, it is not the Examiner’s position that increasing or shortening of length of the studs “provokes thermomechanical stress in the plate.”
The Examiner reiterates that studs’ lack of twisting can also cause slipping, and that studs’ lack of radial expansion/contraction can also cause slipping. Accordingly, there is no support in the original specification that the mode of deformation of the studs is bending.
Accordingly, the original specification fails to identify a form of deformation contemplated by Applicant, and the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Applicant argues on pgs. 11-13 that claims 1, 10 and 14 require the plate and studs to lack any material in common. Applicant also argues that the rubber of Imura is the same as the insulation in the plate.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “the block including the studs being of a material different from a material constituting the plate.” This merely requires one material of the block and studs to be different from one material in the plate. For example, if a block and studs are made of materials A+B and the plate is made of materials A+C, then the material A or B of the block and studs is different from a material C constituting the plate. It does not matter if the block, studs and plate share material A.
In the case of the claim 1 rejection with Sugihara, the block including the studs are of a material (aluminum ¶20) different from a material constituting the plate 23 (¶26 teaches that the plate/second element 23 is a circuit board, meaning it inherently comprises an insulator for preventing short circuits, the insulator being a different material than the aluminum of the block 12). Aluminum is different from insulation.
In the case of the claim 1 rejection with Imura as modified, the block including the studs are of a material (metal of Maeda) different from a material constituting the second element (Imura teaches in at least fig. 6 and ¶41 that sensors 4a-b are mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3b inherently also comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits). The metal of Maeda is different from insulation.
Claims 10 and 14 recite “the body and the studs being of a single material different from a material of the plate.” Accordingly, if a block and studs are made of single material A and the plate is made of materials A+B, then the single material A of the block and studs is different from a material B constituting the plate. It does not matter if the block, studs and plate share material A.
In the case of the claim 10 and 14 rejections with Imura as modified, the body and the studs are of a single material (metal of Maeda) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits). The metal of Maeda is different from insulation.
Applicant’s argument that the rubber of Imura is the same as the insulation in the plate is not persuasive since there is no evidence that the insulation is rubber (or even the same kind of rubber), and insulation can be provided by materials other than rubber, such as silicon dioxide and plastic.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on pg. 13 that Imura does not anticipate claims 1, 10 and 14 is not relevant since Imura was not used in a 102 rejection.
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that Takasaki, Nozoe and Murata allegedly fail to overcome the alleged deficiencies of Sugihara, Levy, Imura and Maeda. Applicant argues on pg. 13 that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claims 1, 10 and 14.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since all the claim rejections are proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853