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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 remains withdrawn.
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) 1-2, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liukku et al. (US 20180321275 A1, hereinafter Liukku) in view of Chien (US 20130333471 A1), Lin et al. (US 20090031809 A1, hereinafter Lin) and Seeger et al. (US 20140266170 A1, hereinafter Seeger).
As to claim 1, Liukku teaches an inertial sensor (fig. 1; the Examiner relies on the embodiment in ¶48 in which only one of inspection electrodes 101-104 is present) comprising:
a base body (lower side portion of a package that encapsulates the sensor element, described below, to form a sealed space filled with inert gas - ¶38);
a sensor element (the structure of fig. 1) provided at the base body; and
a body (having inner plane 211 in fig. 2) covering the sensor element, wherein
the sensor element includes
an anchor 182 fixed to the base body,
a movable body (comprising at least movable body elements 13-15) swingable about a first axis RRA (¶34), which is horizontal to the base body (the first axis is capable of being aligned with the horizon, in which case it is horizontal to the base body), as a swing axis,
a first rotation spring 191 and a second rotation spring 193 coupling the anchor and the movable body,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (161a)][AltContent: textbox (171a)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (131b)][AltContent: textbox (131a)]
PNG
media_image1.png
708
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a movable comb electrode group 131a-b (fig. 1 above) provided at the movable body including a first movable electrode group 131a and a second movable electrode group 131b provided at bilaterally symmetrical (i.e. at least substantially bilaterally symmetrical) positions with respect to a central axis LSA,
a fixed comb electrode group 161a, 171a (fig. 1 above) provided at the base body and facing the movable comb electrode group including a first fixed electrode group 171a and a second fixed electrode group 161a provided at bilaterally symmetrical (i.e. at least substantially bilaterally symmetrical) positions with respect to the central axis,
a first inspection electrode (the one of first inspection electrodes 101-104 that isn’t “removed” - ¶48; ¶70 teaches that the first inspection electrode is for self-testing), and
a second inspection electrode (the one of second inspection electrodes 201-204 cooperating with the first inspection electrode above - ¶46) provided at the base body or the lid body (¶46) and overlapping the first inspection electrode in the plan view (¶43).
Liukku does not teach wherein the body is a lid body, per se (there is no teaching that the body is a distinct element from the rest of the package 21, such that it can be considered a lid body),
wherein the first inspection electrode is provided between the first movable electrode group and the second movable electrode group in a plan view, and
in the plan view, the first inspection electrode is provided with a plurality of damping adjustment holes.
Chien teaches an accelerometer (title) with a lid body 204 having a circuit 205 that performs processing for outputting an acceleration value, and performs control for self-test purposes (¶28).
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 Liukku to use a lid body with circuitry for acceleration determination and self-testing functions therein as taught by Chien so as to increase convenience (since the sensor is provided with the ability to perform its own processing for acceleration determination and self-testing) and/or to provide a compact sensor (since the circuitry for acceleration determination and self-testing is built-in) with increased functionality.
Lin teaches an accelerometer 60 (¶18) comprising plate-like electrode portions (above fixed electrodes 78, 80 - ¶28 and fig. 4) having damping adjustment holes 102, 106 (¶25).
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 Liuuku as modified such that the plate-like electrode portion (being the first inspection electrode), in plan view, is provided with damping adjustment holes as taught by Lin to optimize damping (¶25 - Lin).
Regarding the location of the first inspection electrode in the plan view,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (12)][AltContent: textbox (12X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
756
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Seeger teaches a pivoting sensor structure (fig. 5; ¶40 teaches that the device of fig. 5 is analogous to the Z-accelerometer taught in fig. 1 and ¶18) comprising a self-test structure 16 (¶40-41) placed symmetrically with respect to third-bar-like portion 12X (fig. 5 above; additionally, in the plan view, the self-test structure 16 is provided centrally on the movable body with respect to the horizontal direction of fig. 5) of proof mass 12 (fig. 5 above; it is noted that a second self-test structure 502 that exerts force on the self-test structure 16 is substantially at the location of the self-test structure 16 in plan view - ¶40).
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 Liukku as modified such that the self-test structure (corresponding with Liukku’s first inspection electrode) is located symmetrically on the third bar region (wherein the self-test structure is also provided centrally at the movable body, with respect to a horizontal direction when viewed in the plan view), as taught by Seeger, since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that self-testing is still successfully performed (additionally or alternatively, the self-test structure can more easily apply deflection forces on the proof mass, since it is farther from the rotation axis, which makes the proof mass more responsive to a self-testing signal; additionally, this means less energy is needed to perform self-testing).
Liukku as modified teaches wherein the first inspection electrode is provided between the first movable electrode group and the second movable electrode group in a plan view (in view of Seeger).
If Applicant argues that Liukku does not teach
wherein the first movable electrode group 131a and a second movable electrode group 131b are provided at bilaterally symmetrical positions with respect to a central axis LSA, and
wherein the first fixed electrode group 171a and a second fixed electrode group 161a are provided at bilaterally symmetrical positions with respect to the central axis,
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record that placing the first and second movable electrode groups and the first and second fixed electrode groups at bilaterally symmetrical positions with respect to the central axis would have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange elements of the apparatus of Liukku as modified such that the first movable electrode group and a second movable electrode group are provided at bilaterally symmetrical positions with respect to a central axis, and such that the first fixed electrode group and a second fixed electrode group are provided at bilaterally symmetrical positions with respect to the central axis, since such modifications would be mere rearrangements of parts for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
As to claim 2, Liukku as modified teaches wherein
the movable body includes
a first bar 15 (Liukku) extending from the first rotation spring in a first direction,
a second bar 14 (Liukku) extending from the second rotation spring in the first direction and paired with the first bar, and
a third bar 13 (Liukku) extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction and coupling the first bar and the second bar, and
the first inspection electrode is provided at the third bar (in view of Seeger).
As to claim 4, Liukku as modified teaches wherein
when a target axis (parallel to, and equidistant to, the first and second bars) serving as a reference in which the first bar and the second bar are line-symmetric is defined as a second axis, the first inspection electrode is line-symmetric with respect to the second axis (in view of Seeger).
As to claim 5, Liukku as modified teaches wherein
the damping adjustment holes are line-symmetric with respect to the second axis (in view of fig. 3 of Lin and fig. 5 of Seeger).
As to claim 7, Liukku as modified teaches an inertial measurement unit comprising:
the inertial sensor according to claim 1; and
a controller (comprising at least the control element in ¶71 of Liukku) configured to perform control based on a detection signal output from the inertial sensor (¶71 - Liukku).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 that “Liukku fails to disclose that a first inspection electrode is provided between the first movable electrode group and the second movable electrode group in a plan view. As seen in FIG. 1 of Liukku, reproduced below for reference, the alleged first inspection electrode (101-104) is not provided between the first movable electrode group (131) and the second movable electrode group (131) in a plan view.” and “Liukku fails to disclose all features of amended claim 1 and teaches away from the subject matter of amended claim 1.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Liukku was modified at least in view of Seeger to have the cited features.
While Liukku teaches a different location for the inspection electrode, Applicant fails to articulate how this constitutes a teaching away from the claimed location. Accordingly, Liukku does not teach away from the claimed location.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that
“Chien does not disclose that a first inspection electrode is provided between the first movable electrode group and the second movable electrode group in a plan view. Therefore, Chien fails to disclose all features of amended claim 1.” and “Lin does not disclose that a first inspection electrode is provided between the first movable electrode group and the second movable electrode group in a plan view.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Chien and Lin do not teach the cited features individually, Liukku as modified teaches all of claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that “it can be seen that the self-test structure 16 of Seeger clearly is not provided between a first movable electrode group and the second movable electrode group in a plan view. As such, claim 1 should be found to define over the cited references.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Seeger alone does not teach the cited features, Liukku as modified teaches all of claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 that “Claims 2, 4-5, and 7 depend from independent claim 1 and are believed to be allowable over Liukku in view of Chien, Lin, and Seeger by depending from an allowable independent claim.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are all properly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102020119371 B3 teaches (fig. 1) first and second groups of electrodes that appear to be symmetrically placed
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
Prosecution Insights