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 .
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0014578 (Sakuma et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Sakuma et al. discloses a sensor device system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-9, an inertial measurement device 1 (e.g. sensor device; paragraph [0044]; Figure 2) comprising a first case 4,10 (e.g. lid member of housing; paragraph [0077]) having a first inner space 42 (e.g. recessed section; paragraph [0095]); a second case 8,10 (e.g. lid member of housing; paragraph [0077]) having a second inner space 82 (e.g. recessed section; paragraph [0103]); a board 2 (e.g. mounting board is fixed to the casing; paragraphs [0045],[0046]; Figures 2,3A,3B; NOTE: although mounting board 2 is formed of multiple rigid boards; however, broadly interpreted, the multiple boards forms a single board unit when positioned in the housing 10,4,8) disposed in a space formed by the first case and the second case (e.g. mounting board is fixed within the casing; paragraph [0066]; Figure 2) such that the board including a first surface (e.g. surface of rigid board 23 of board 2; Figure 2) and a second surface (e.g. surface rigid board 24 of board 2; Figure 2) outwardly opposite to each other (e.g. observed in Figures 2,3A,3B); a first inertial sensor 713 (e.g. angular velocity sensor; paragraph [0043]) disposed at the first surface of the board such that the first inertial sensor being aligned with the first inner space in a plan view (e.g. observed in Figure 2); a first filling material 9 (e.g. an infill; paragraph [0097]; Figure 2) being filled into the first inner space between the first surface of the board and the first case and between the first inertial sensor and the first case; a second filling 9 (e.g. an infill not illustrated in Figure 2 but indicated in paragraph [0104]) being filled into part of the second inner space between the second surface of the board and the second case; the first and second filling materials directly face each other via the board (e.g. observed in Figure 2); a thickness of the first filling material and a thickness of the second filling material is substantially the same in portions overlapping the first inertial sensor in the plan view (e.g. based on the illustration of Figure 2, it appears the thickness, along the z-axis, of the recessed sections 42,82 is the same; hence, the thickness of the filling materials 9 in these recessed sections will be substantially the same). (See, paragraphs [0041] to [0135]).
With regards to claim 2, Sakuma et al. further discloses a second inertial sensor 78 (e.g. direction sensor or magnetic sensor; paragraph [0059]) disposed at the second surface of the board 2,24 (e.g. observed in Figure 2); the second filling material 9 (e.g. an infill not illustrated in Figure 2 but indicated in paragraph [0104]) is filled into the second inner space 82 between the second surface of the board and the second case and between the second inertial sensor and the second case (e.g. observed in Figure 2).
With regards to claim 3, Sakuma et al. further discloses the first case 4 includes a first adjustment portion 261 (e.g. a connection section; paragraph [0049]) configured to adjust the thickness (e.g. bending the connection section adjust the height of the substrate changes thickness of the filling material; paragraph [0049]) of the first filling material such that a portion overlapping the first inertial sensor in the plan view is thinner than other portions (e.g. observed in Figure 2); the second case 8 includes a second adjustment portion 264 (e.g. a connection section; paragraph [0049]) configured to adjust the thickness (e.g. bending the connection section adjust the height of the substrate changes thickness of the filling material; paragraph [0049]) of the second filling material such that a portion overlapping the first inertial sensor in the plan view is thinner than other portions (e.g. observed in Figure 2).
With regards to claim 4, Sakuma et al. further discloses the first adjustment portion 261 and the second adjustment portion 264 adjust the thickness of the first filling material 9 and the thickness of the second filling material 9 to be substantially the same in the portions overlapping the first inertial sensor in the plan view (e.g. observed in Figure 2; paragraphs [0097],[0104]).
With regards to claim 5, the claim is commensurate in scope with claims 2,3,4 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
With regards to claim 6, Sakuma et al. further discloses the first adjustment portion 261 is a protrusion (e.g. bent-portion of the connection section protrudes outward; Figure 2) provided in the first case; the second adjustment portion 264 is a protrusion (e.g. bent-portion of the connection section protrudes outward; Figure 2) provided in the second case.
With regards to claim 7, Sakuma et al. further discloses a second inertia sensor 78 (e.g. direction sensor or magnetic sensor; paragraph [0059]) disposed at the second surface of the board is provided (e.g. observed in Figure 2); the first case 4 has a first recess 42 (e.g. recessed section; paragraph [0095]) formed corresponding to a shape (e.g. rectangular-shaped) of the first inertial sensor 713; the second case 8 has a second recess 82 (e.g. recessed section; paragraph [0103]) formed corresponding to a shape (e.g. rectangular-shaped) of the second sensor 78; the first filling material 9 is filled into the inner space between the first surface of the board and the first recess and between the first inertial sensor and the first recess (e.g. paragraph [0097]; Figure 2); the second filling material 9 fills between the second surface of the board and the second recess and between the second inertial sensor and the second recess (e.g. paragraph [0104]; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 8, Sakura et al. further discloses the first case 4 is accommodated in an accommodating portion 3 (e.g. a mounting member; paragraphs [0050]) of the second case 8 such that the accommodating portion includes a stopper portion 105 (e.g. fixation portion; paragraph [0078]; Figure 2) configured to prevent the first case from falling.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0014578 (Sakuma et al.).
With regards to claim 9, Sakura et al. further discloses a first cutout portion 42 (e.g. recessed section; paragraph [0095]) is formed on one side of the first case 4; a second cutout portion 101a (e.g. recessed section; paragraph [0126]) is formed in the accommodating portion of the second case 8 (e.g. observed in Figure 8)
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention Sakura et al. does not explicitly disclose when the first case is set in the accommodating portion of the second case, a storage portion that stores an overflowed material of the second filling material is formed by the first cutout portion and the second cutout portion.
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 concept of when the first case is set in the accommodating portion of the second case, a storage portion that stores an overflowed material of the second filling material is formed by the first cutout portion and the second cutout portion to have the ability to further reduce and prevent the unwanted vibration in other regions of the board holding the inertial sensors within the housing to further provide detection accuracy for the sensor device system. (See, paragraphs [0097],[0098] of Sakuma et al.).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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