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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 8, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0191832 (Kinoshita et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Kinoshita et al. discloses a sensor unit comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-30, an inertial measurement device 100 (e.g. sensor unit like an IMU; paragraph [0073]; Figures 5,7) comprising three axes orthogonal to one another being defined as an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis (e.g. the x-axis, y-axis z-axis as illustrated and indicated in Figure 4 is being changed by the examiner since one can assign and denote which are the directions for each axis such that the illustrated x-axis is changed to be the z-axis, the illustrated y-axis is maintained as the y-axis, the illustrated z-axis is changed to be the x-axis); a board 15 (e.g. a substrate; paragraph [0080]) that is plate-shaped (e.g. observed in Figure 4) such that the board having top and bottom surfaces (e.g. considering the left-hand side surface with sensor 17x of the substrate as the top surface while the right-hand side surface of the substrate as the bottom surface in Figure 4) outwardly opposite to each other, each of the top and bottom surfaces extending parallel to an X-Y plane where the X-Y plane extending along the X axis and Y axis (e.g. as observed in Figure 4); the board 15 having a Y-Z side surface (e.g. considering the top surface of substrate as the Y-Z side surface in Figure 4) an edge thereof such that the Y-Z side surface extending along a Y-Z plane where the Y-Z plane extending along the Y axis and the Z axis (e.g. as observed in Figure 4); a first inertial sensor 17z,18 (e.g. an angular velocity sensor or acceleration sensor; paragraphs [0088], [0089]) configured to detect a physical quantity (e.g. angular velocity or acceleration; paragraph [0089],[0091]) of a first axis (e.g. z-axis; paragraph [0090]) such that the first inertial sensor having a top edge (e.g. top side edge of either sensor 17z or 18 is considered this top edge in Figure 4) and a bottom edge (e.g. bottom side edge of either sensor 17z or 18 is considered this bottom edge in Figure 4) outwardly opposite to each other along the Z axis (e.g. as observed in Figure 4); the first inertial sensor 17z,18 being mounted on the Y-Z side surface of the board (e.g. as observed in Figure 4), and the top and bottom edges of the first inertial sensor being spaced apart from the top and bottom surfaces of the board along the Z axis in a cross-sectional view when viewed along the Y axis, respectively (e.g. as observed in Figure 4); a rigid case 20 (e.g. an inner case; paragraph [0080]) configured to cover the first inertial sensor (e.g. paragraph [0080]; Figures 3,5); a filling material 50 (e.g. filling member; paragraph [0097]) covering an entirety of an exposed outer surface, including the top and bottom edges, of the first inertial sensor (e.g. recessed 31 is filled with filling 50; paragraph [0109]; observed in Figures 5,7). (See, paragraphs [0072] to [0230]).
With regards to claim 3, Kinoshita et al. further discloses further discloses second inertial sensor 17y (e.g. an angular velocity sensor; paragraph [0090]) configured to detect a physical quantity (e.g. angular velocity; paragraph [0090]) of a second axis (e.g. y-axis; paragraph [0090]); a third inertial sensor 17x (e.g. an angular velocity; paragraph [0089]) configured to detect a physical quantity (e.g. angular velocity; paragraph [0089]) of a third axis (e.g. x-axis; paragraph [0089]); the board 15 has an X-Z side surface (e.g. considering the top side surface with sensor 17y of the substrate as the X-Z side surface in Figure 4) at another edge thereof such that the X-Z side surface extends along an X-Z plane where the X-Z plane extends along the X axis and the Z axis (e.g. as observed in Figure 4); the second inertial sensor 17y is mounted on the X-Z side surface of the board (e.g. as observed in Figure 4); the third inertial sensor 17x is mounted on the top surface of the board (e.g. as observed in Figure 4).
With regards to claim 11, Kinoshita et al. further discloses the first inertial sensor 17z is a vibrating gyro sensor that uses quartz crystal as a vibrator and detects an angular velocity based on a Coriolis force applied to a vibrating object. (See, paragraphs [0089],[0090]).
With regards to claim 13, Kinoshita et al. further discloses the second inertial sensor 17y and the third inertial sensor 17x are vibrating gyro sensors that individually use quartz crystal as a vibrator and detect an angular velocity based on a Coriolis force applied to a vibrating object. (See, paragraphs [0090],[0089]).
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0191832 (Kinoshita et al.).
With regards to claims 10 and 12, Kinoshita et al. does not disclose the case has a recess formed corresponding to a shape of the first inertial sensor, or at least one of the second inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor.
First, paragraphs [0214] to [0217] along with Figure 23 of Kinoshita et al., disclose the concept that the case 20 can be in different dimensions and shapes, like having shelf part 31f, to form different dimension and shape for the recessed part 31 where the inertial sensors are positioned when the filling material 50 is filled. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the case has a recess formed corresponding to a shape of the first inertial sensor, or at least one of the second inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor is considered to have been a matter of design choice possibilities to have set such structural characteristics based on the teachings in paragraphs [0214] to [0217] of Kinoshita et al. would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ability to enable the amount of filling material provided to be controlled due to the area/region within the recess created by the dimension and shape of the case in the shape of the inertial sensors, and without altering and changing the operation and/or performance of the case, namely to protect the inertial sensors from external interferences, regardless of the shape of the case (e.g. [0037].[0034] of Kinoshita et al.).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3,10-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection and/or because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights