CTNF 18/414,096 CTNF 87563 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-02 Applicant’s election of species 3 in the reply filed on 3/9/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant only elected claims 5-6. However, claims 1 and 4 are generic and will not be withdrawn. Furthermore, claim 2 reads on elected species 3 because ¶335-336 teach that third coupling part 612 comprises a plurality of through holes s6. 08-06 AIA Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/26 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kigure et al. (US 20170010295 A1, hereinafter Kigure) in view of Sulzberger et al. (US 5983721 A, hereinafter Sulzberger) . As to claim 1, Kigure teaches an inertial sensor (¶75-76) comprising: [AltContent: textbox (M)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: ] PNG media_image1.png 272 590 media_image1.png Greyscale a substrate 4 provided with a mount M (fig.2 above); a sensor element 10 (¶56 teaches “the sensor element 10 has a first fixed electrode side fixed section 21a, a second fixed electrode side fixed section 21b, a first movable electrode side fixed section 31a, and a second movable electrode side fixed section 31b which are fixed to the substrate 4, a movable mass section 32 which encloses the fixed sections in planar view, and two first elastic sections 33a and two second elastic sections 33b”) bonded (anodically bonded - ¶86, ¶107) to the mount; and a wiring 5 electrically coupled (¶89) to the sensor element, wherein the sensor element includes [AltContent: textbox (TCP)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (32X)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (FCP)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: ] [AltContent: ] [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)] PNG media_image2.png 383 592 media_image2.png Greyscale a first coupling part FCP (fig. 1 above) that is bonded to the mount through a bonding part (via the aforementioned anodic bonding), a second coupling part 32X (fig. 1 above), 3221a including electrode fingers 3221a , and a third coupling part TCP (fig. 1 above) that is provided between the first coupling part and the second coupling part and that is wider than the second coupling part (along the Y direction). Kigure does not teach wherein the third coupling part is formed with a through hole. Sulzberger teaches a micromechanical device (fig. 3) comprising fixed electrode supports 230 with fixed electrodes 210, wherein at least the fixed electrode supports comprise etching holes 101 (i.e. through holes) to facilitate etching (col. 2 lines 40-50). 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 Kigure to have etching holes (i.e. through holes) as taught by Sulzberger to facilitate etching (col. 2 lines 40-50 of Sulzberger). Kigure as modified teaches wherein the third coupling part is formed with a through hole 101 (Sulzberger). As to claim 2, Kigure teaches wherein the third coupling part is formed with a plurality of through holes 101 (Sulzberger). As to claim 4, Kigure teaches wherein the third coupling part overlaps the mount in a plan view (figs. 1-2 and ¶41), and the third coupling part does not overlap the bonding part in the plan view (see figs. 1-2 above, and also see fig. 6 and ¶41). [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: textbox (CP4)] [AltContent: textbox (CP3)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (CP1)] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (32X)] [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)] PNG media_image2.png 383 592 media_image2.png Greyscale As to claim 5, Kigure teaches an inertial sensor (¶75-76) comprising: a substrate 4 including a first mount 42a and a second mount 42b; a sensor element 10 bonded to the first mount and the second mount (¶86, ¶107; figs. 2-3); and a wiring 5 electrically coupled to the sensor element (¶89), wherein the sensor element includes a first coupling part CP1 (fig. 1 above) that is bonded to the first mount through a first bonding part (via anodic bonding - ¶86 and ¶107), a second coupling part 32X (fig. 1 above), 3221a including electrode fingers 3221a, a third coupling part CP3 (fig. 1 above; the third coupling part supports all the fingers 2131a) that is provided between (spatially between) the first coupling part and the second coupling part and that is wider (along the Y direction) than the second coupling part (see fig. 1 above), and a fourth coupling part CP4 (fig. 1 above) that is provided between the first coupling part and the second coupling part (the fourth coupling part CP4 is between the first and second coupling parts along a physical connection path between the first and second coupling parts). Kigure does not explicitly teach wherein the fourth coupling part is wider than the second coupling part, the third coupling part is formed with a first through hole, and the fourth coupling part is formed with a second through hole. Sulzberger teaches a micromechanical device (fig. 3) comprising a proof mass 120 supported by proof mass supports 15, and fixed electrode supports 230 with fixed electrodes 210, wherein the device comprises etching holes 101 (i.e. through holes) to facilitate etching (col. 2 lines 40-50). 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 Kigure to have etching holes (i.e. through holes) as taught by Sulzberger to facilitate etching (col. 2 lines 40-50 of Sulzberger). As to the limitation of wherein the fourth coupling part is wider than the second coupling part, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record showing that a device having the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device. 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 Kigure as modified such that the fourth coupling part is wider than the second coupling part along either of the X and Y directions, since such a modification would be a mere change in dimension(s)/proportion(s), for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected. Kigure as modified teaches the third coupling part is formed with a first through hole (in view of Sulzberger), and the fourth coupling part is formed with a second through hole (in view of Sulzberger) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kigure in view of Sulzberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 20190064203 A1) . As to claim 6, Kigure as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except an inertial measurement unit comprising: the inertial sensor according to claim 1. Tanaka teaches an inertial sensor 1 (fig. 43 and ¶323 teach that sensor 1 detects acceleration) and an inertial measurement unit 100 (¶322) comprising: the inertial sensor (¶322). 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 Kigure as modified to be part of an inertial measurement unit as taught by Tanake for the benefit of better accuracy and/or precision due to the use of a correction circuit that corrects detected acceleration (¶323 - Tanaka) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8443671 B2 teaches various elements relevant to the disclosed invention US 20170010300 A1 teaches various elements relevant to the disclosed invention 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 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/414,096 Page 9 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights