Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 4/17/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0303220) in view of Omura et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5253526, hereinafter “Omura”), and Chino et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0285663, hereinafter “Chino”).
Regarding Claim 1, Baur teaches an inertial measurement device (Figs. 1 or 2) comprising: a first inertial sensor having at least a first detection axis (rotation rate sensor 1 or acceleration sensor 11); a second inertial sensor having at least a second detection axis and paired with the first inertial sensor (rotation rate sensor 2 or acceleration sensor 12); a circuit board on which the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are mounted (printed circuit board 5) in a state where a direction of the first detection axis of the first inertial sensor is rotated by 180° with respect to a direction of the second detection axis of the second inertial sensor (paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0024]-[0025]). Baur further teaches wherein the circuit board has a first surface, and a second surface opposite from the first surface (Fig. 2, printed circuit board 5), the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are mounted on the first surface (acceleration sensors 11 and 12, paragraph [0024], sensors having opposite orientations can be side-by-side on one side of the printed circuit board 5), and wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are the same inertial sensor (Fig. 2).
Baur does not specifically disclose a case accommodating the circuit board; and resin with which spaces between the first inertial sensor and the case and between the second inertial sensor and the case are filled. However, Omura teaches in Fig. 1 a case (casing 11 and cover 12; see column 6, lines 27-42) accommodating a circuit board (printed circuit board 5), and resin with which spaces between the first inertial sensor and the case and between the second inertial sensor and the case are filled (column 14, lines 42-45, interior of the casing is filled with resin). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the case filled with resin such as is described in Omura in the inertial sensor device system of Baur, in order to provide moisture-resistant and corrosion resistant construction (Omura, column 14, lines 32-35) and to seal the sensor device (Omura, column 14, lines 44-45).
Baur does not specifically teach wherein a detection value of the first inertial sensor and a detection value of the second inertial sensor are averaged to offset a temperature hysteresis characteristic, such that a sensor output obtained by reversing a sign of a sensor output value of the second inertial sensor is averaged with a sensor output of the first inertial sensor to cancel the temperature hysteresis characteristic. However, Chino teaches wherein a detection value of the first inertial sensor and a detection value of the second inertial sensor are averaged to offset a temperature hysteresis characteristic, such that a sensor output obtained by reversing a sign of a sensor output value of the second inertial sensor is averaged with a sensor in paragraphs [0110] and [0111] (positive and negative directions are adjusted, and averaging is performed for temperature compensation, see Fig. 14, B1, B3, and B5; and Fig. 15, B6; see also paragraph [0104] and Figs. 10-11). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the temperature compensation of Chino in the system of Baur, in order to realize more appropriate temperature compensation (see Chino, paragraph [0110]).
Regarding Claim 3, Baur in view of Omura and Chino teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Baur does not teach the case is made of metal and includes a first case that covers a first surface side and a second case that covers a second surface side, and spaces between the first inertial sensor and the first case and between the second inertial sensor and the first case are filled with the resin. However, Omura teaches the case is made of metal (column 4, lines 30-33, metal such as aluminium) and includes a first case that covers a first surface side and a second case that covers a second surface side (top portion of casing 11/cover 12; and bottom portion of casing 11/cover 12); and spaces between the first inertial sensor and the first case and between the second inertial sensor and the first case are filled with the resin (column 14, lines 42-45, interior of the casing is filled with resin). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the case filled with resin such as is described in Omura in the inertial sensor device system of Baur, in order to provide moisture-resistant and corrosion resistant construction (Omura, column 14, lines 32-35) and to seal the sensor device (Omura, column 14, lines 44-45).
Regarding Claim 7, Baur in view of Omura and Chino teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Baur does not specifically teach wherein the first case is an inner case, and the second case is an outer case accommodating the first case in a state where the circuit board is set. However, Chino teaches in Fig. 22 and paragraphs [0164]-[0167] a sensor module 10 including an inner case 120 and an outer case 140 that accommodates a circuit substrate 100 (equated to a circuit board) and a filling member. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an inner and outer case such as is taught in Chino in the inertial sensor system of Baur, in order to exclude noise from the outside (see Chino, paragraph [0167]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Omura, Chino, and Matsuzawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0049483).
Regarding Claim 5, Baur in view of Omura and Chino teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Baur does not specifically teach a third inertial sensor having at least a third detection axis; and a fourth inertial sensor having at least a fourth detection axis and paired with the third inertial sensor, wherein the third inertial sensor and the fourth inertial sensor are mounted on the second surface of the circuit board in a state where a direction of the third detection axis of the third inertial sensor and a direction of the fourth detection axis of the fourth inertial sensor are rotated by 180°. However, Baur does illustrate in Fig. 2 that acceleration sensors may be located side by side or on the top and bottom of the printed circuit board 5. Further, Matsuzawa teaches in paragraph [0254] that a number of acceleration sensor elements may be four or more, depending on the application. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place two oppositely oriented side-by-side acceleration sensors, as shown in Fig. 2 of Baur, on each side of the printed circuit board 5 of Baur, which is also shown in Fig. 2 of Baur, because, as evidenced by Matsuzawa, the number of acceleration sensor elements may vary based on the application (see Matsuzawa, paragraph [0254]); because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950)); and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Baur does not teach the case is made of metal and includes a first case that covers a first surface side and a second case that covers a second surface side, and spaces between the first inertial sensor and the first case and between the second inertial sensor and the first case, and between the third inertial sensor and the second case and between the fourth inertial sensor and the second case are filled with the resin. However, Omura teaches the case is made of metal (column 4, lines 30-33, metal such as aluminium) and includes a first case that covers a first surface side and a second case that covers a second surface side (top portion of casing 11/cover 12; and bottom portion of casing 11/cover 12); and spaces between the first inertial sensor and the first case and between the second inertial sensor and the first case, and between the third inertial sensor and the second case and between the fourth inertial sensor and the second case are filled with the resin (column 14, lines 42-45, interior of the casing is filled with resin). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the case filled with resin such as is described in Omura in the inertial sensor device system of Baur, in order to provide moisture-resistant and corrosion resistant construction (Omura, column 14, lines 32-35) and to seal the sensor device (Omura, column 14, lines 44-45).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Omura, Reynolds, Matsuzawa, and Elford (WO-9606328-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Baur in view of Omura, Chino, and Matsuzawa teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Baur further teaches wherein the third inertial sensor and the fourth inertial sensor are the same inertial sensor (Fig. 2). Baur does not specifically teach wherein d3 ≥ h/1.66 in which h is a height of the third inertial sensor, and d3 is a distance between the third inertial sensor and the fourth inertial sensor. However, Elford teaches, on page 11, lines 18-23, that increasing the spacing between accelerometers reduces the effect of hysteresis on measurement drift. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the spacing between the inertial sensors such that d3 ≥ h/1.66 in which h is a height of the third inertial sensor, and d3 is a distance between the third inertial sensor and the fourth inertial sensor, based on the teachings of Elford, in the inertial sensor system of Baur, in order to reduce the effect of hysteresis on measurement drift, and also because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (i.e., the claimed distance to height ratio) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Omura, Reynolds, and Elford (WO-9606328-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Baur in view of Omura and Reynolds teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Baur does not specifically teach d1 ≥ h/1.66 in which h is a height of the first inertial sensor, and d1 is a distance between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor where a temperature hysteresis characteristic of each of the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor is offset. However, Elford teaches, on page 11, lines 18-23, that increasing the spacing between accelerometers reduces the effect of hysteresis on measurement drift. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the spacing between the inertial sensors such that d1 ≥ h/1.66 in which h is a height of the first inertial sensor, and d1 is a distance between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor, based on the teachings of Elford, in the inertial sensor system of Baur, in order to reduce the effect of hysteresis on measurement drift, and also because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (i.e., the claimed distance to height ratio) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are allowed, as was previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action dated 1/26/2026.
Regarding independent Claim 8, the Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/30/2025 that the features of amended Claim 8 regarding the configuration of the first cover and the second cover are not taught by the cited references. Further, the features were not found in the prior art. It is noted that “spaces between the first inertial sensor and the first cover and between the second inertial sensor and the second cover are filled with resin”, as is recited in Claim 8, is interpreted to mean that the space between the first inertial sensor and the first cover is filled with resin, and the space between the second inertial sensor and the second cover is also filled with resin (as illustrated by resin 30a and inner case 20, and resin 30b and outer case 1, shown in Fig. 15 of Applicant’s Specification as filed). Dependent Claim 9 is allowed due to its dependence on Claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of Claim 1 have been considered are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that Chino does not teach the newly added Claim features, because in Chino the relative rotation is 90 degrees, rather than the claimed 180 degrees. The Examiner disagrees. Paragraphs [0110] and [0111] of Chino refer to Figs. 14-15. In Fig. 14, B1 shows the orientation of acceleration sensor device 40A, which is mounted on the top surface, and B2-B5 show possible orientations of acceleration sensor device 40B that is mounted on the bottom surface. In B3, the x2 axis of acceleration sensor device 40B is 180 degrees offset from the x1 axis of acceleration sensor device 40A that is shown in B1. Further, in B5, the y2 axis of acceleration sensor device 40B is 180 degrees offset from acceleration sensor device y1 of 40A that is shown in B1. As noted in paragraph [0110], “Positive and negative directions may be adjusted through each combination of B1 and B3,…and B1 and B5, and then an addition averaging process may be performed such that a temperature compensation process is performed”. Similarly, in Fig. 15, in B6, which shows two acceleration sensor devices 40A and 40B mounted on the same surface, the x1 (40A) and x2 (40B) axes are 180 degrees from each other, and the y1 (40A) and y2 (40B) axes are 180 degrees from each other, and the direction adjustment and averaging are also performed (see paragraph [0111]). Chino further teaches applying the same direction adjustment and averaging to angular velocity sensors with Z-axes that are 180 degrees offset from each other in paragraph [0104] and Figs. 10-11.
It is also noted that Reynolds (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0250257, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 1/22/2026) also teaches reversing of signs and averaging to compensate for environmental effects in inertial sensors that are offset 180 degrees from each other (see paragraphs [0002], [0024], and [0026]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights