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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending U.S. Application No. 18/467,306 (Matsuura). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the claimed limitations and elements (e.g. a case, a board, an inertial sensor, a filling material) in the Instant application are claimed in the ‘306 Matsuura copending Application where claim 1 of the Instant application is broadly claimed than claim 1 of ‘306 Matsuura copending Application. Hence, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the copending Application of ‘306 Matsuura.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending U.S. Application No. 18/819,205 (Matsuura et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the claimed limitations and elements (e.g. a case, a board, an inertial sensor, a filling material) in the Instant application are claimed in the ‘205 Matsuura et al. copending Application where claim 1 of the Instant application is broadly claimed than claim 1 of ‘205 Matsuura copending Application. Hence, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the copending Application of ‘205 Matsuura et al..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending U.S. Application No. 18/296,428 (Saito et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the claimed limitations and elements (e.g. a case, a board, an inertial sensor, a filling material) in the Instant application are claimed in the Saito et al. copending Application where claim 1 of the Instant application is broadly claimed than claim 1 of Saito copending Application. Hence, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the copending Application of Saito et al..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 a board 15 (e.g. a substrate; paragraph [0080]); a first inertial sensor 17z,18 (e.g. an angular velocity sensor or acceleration sensor; paragraphs [0088], [0089]) configured to detect a physical quantity of a first axis (e.g. z-axis; paragraph [0090]) such that the first inertial sensor being mounted on a first side surface (e.g. top surface as observed in Figure 4) of the board; 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 50 (e.g. filling member; paragraph [0097]) covering an entirety of an exposed outer surface 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 a 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]) and 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 second inertial sensor 17y is mounted on a second side surface (e.g. top right-side edge surface as observed in Figure 4) different from the first side surface of the board (e.g. observed in Figure 4); the third inertial sensor 17x is mounted on a first surface (e.g. top left-side edge surface as observed in Figure 4) of the board in parallel (e.g. 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
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 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