Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 8/12/2026. Claims 8-9 are pending. Because new grounds of rejection based on Applicant’s IDS filed on 9/4/2026 are being made, a new non-final rejection is being issued herein.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (WO-2018012165-A1, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 9/4/2026; machine translation is being provided with this Office Action) in view of Omura et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5253526, hereinafter “Omura”) and Sun (CN-111965387-A).
Regarding Claim 8, Maeda teaches an inertial measurement device (Fig. 1, sensor package unit 101) comprising: a circuit board (Fig. 1, top of page 4, wiring of printed circuit board connects microcontroller 104 to first composite inertial sensor 102 and second composite inertial sensor 103); a first inertial sensor (Fig. 1, first composite inertial sensor 102); a second inertial sensor paired with the first inertial sensor (Fig. 1, second composite inertial sensor 103); and a first cover and a second cover separate and distinct from the first cover (Fig. 3, package lid 202, which corresponds to first composite inertial sensor 102; and Fig. 5, package lid 302, which corresponds to second composite inertial sensor 103) each of the first cover and the and the second cover mounted on the circuit board (Figs. 1-5), the first cover covering and enclosing the first inertial sensor and the second cover covering and enclosing the second inertial sensor (Fig. 3, package 201 and package lid 202, which corresponds to first composite inertial sensor 102; and Fig. 5, package 301 and package lid 302, which corresponds to second composite inertial sensor 103), wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are mounted on the circuit board in a state where directions of detection axes of the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are rotated by 180° (Fig. 1, showing detection axes).
Maeda does not specifically teach spaces between the first inertial sensor and the first cover and between the second inertial sensor and the second cover are filled with resin. However, Maeda does teach that the cavity in Fig. 2 is filled with a thermosetting resin (page 4, third paragraph, cavity is filled with thermosetting resin). Further, Omura teaches filling spaces between a metal cover/casing (column 4, lines 30-33, metal such as aluminium; metal cover/casing of Omura equated to first cover) and a circuit board containing an acceleration sensor device with resin (column 14, lines 42-45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention fill the cavities of Maeda with resin, and to use metal for the first cover of Maeda, as is taught in Omura, in order to provide moisture-resistant and corrosion resistant construction (Omura, column 14, lines 32-35), to seal the sensor device (Omura, column 14, lines 44-45), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Maeda in view of Omura does not specifically teach wherein a linear expansion coefficient of the circuit board is "a", a linear expansion coefficient of the resin is "b", and a linear expansion coefficient of the first cover is "c", and the three linear expansion coefficients satisfy a relationship of a≈b≫c, and a hardness of the resin is 90D or more in terms of a type D durometer in a durometer hardness test of JIS7215-1986. However, Maeda in view of Omura does teach resin (see Maeda, page 4, third paragraph, cavity is filled with thermosetting resin; and also Omura, column 14, lines 42-45, interior of the casing is filled with resin) in conjunction with a case made of aluminum (see Omura, column 4, lines 30-33, metal such as aluminium), which is equated to the first cover (see paragraph above regarding the combination of Maeda and Omura). Further, Sun teaches in Fig. 3 an acceleration sensor assembly including a printed circuit board 102 encapsulated in a sealing glue 105; the sealing glue 105 is an epoxy resin having a thermal expansion coefficient of 25 * 10-6/°C (bottom of page 6), which is approximately equal to that of the circuit board 102, and a hardness of 90D (bottom of page 6). It is noted that aluminum, which is taught in Omura, has a lower thermal expansion coefficient than the PCB or the resin taught in Sun. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the resin of Sun in the assembly of Maeda and Omura, in order to reduce thermal stress influence caused by expansion when encapsulating, and to have high hardness so that there is a good bonding effect (see page 5, sixth paragraph), and also because 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 ranges of linear expansion coefficients, and hardness values) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Omura, Sun, and Schoen et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0217179, hereinafter “Schoen”).
Regarding Claim 9, Maeda in view of Omura and Sun teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Maeda further teaches wherein the first cover and the second cover are the same lid member (Fig. 3, package lid 202, which corresponds to first composite inertial sensor 102; and Fig. 5, package lid 302, which corresponds to second composite inertial sensor 103). Maeda does not specifically teach that the first cover and second cover are made of metal. However, Omura does teach a case made of aluminum (column 4, lines 30-33, metal such as aluminium). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use metal, such as is taught in Omura, for the package lids of Maeda, because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Maeda does not specifically teach the first cover and the second cover are provided with an injection hole for filling with the resin and a discharge hole for discharging a gas generated when the resin is cured. However, Schoen teaches in paragraph [0071] that two molding holes are required for filling and venting purposes in the case of gravity rising molding (i.e., injecting of resin). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the holes of Schoen in the casing of Maeda, because such holes are required for gravity rising injection of resin (see Schoen, paragraph [0071]).
Conclusion
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