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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/9/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 3-8, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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(s) 1, 9-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 20070119252 A1, hereinafter Adams) in view of Miller et al. (US 6000280 A, hereinafter Miller).
As to claim 1, Adams teaches an acceleration sensor comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (201X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (251X)][AltContent: textbox (261X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (211X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (990X)][AltContent: textbox (980X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
498
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an acceleration detecting portion 980X (fig. 9 above) that detects an acceleration in a predetermined direction Z (¶55-56) and an offset detecting portion 990X (fig. 9 above) that detects an offset amount with respect to the acceleration detecting portion (¶55, ¶58); wherein
the acceleration detecting portion includes
a first area of a substrate (a substrate is inherent for supporting one or more of the elements of the acceleration detecting portion, and the substrate inherently has a first area),
a first fixed structure 203, 211X (fig. 9 above), 213, 215 including a first fixed electrode 215 that is supported by the substrate, and
a first movable structure 201X, 205 including a first movable electrode 205 that is supported an elastic structure 202 and is a first movable electrode displacing in the predetermined direction Z with respect to the first fixed electrode, and
the offset detecting portion includes
a second fixed structure 253, 261X (fig. 9 above), 263, 265 including a second fixed electrode 265 that is supported,
a second movable structure 251X (fig. 9 above), 255 including a second movable electrode 255 that is supported, and
a disabling structure (part of element 252 preventing motion of the movable electrode 255 in response to acceleration - ¶57) that disables a function of the second movable electrode displacing with respect to the second fixed electrode when an acceleration in a direction of a predetermined axis acts,
wherein the offset detecting portion is configured that,
when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in the predetermined direction (see ¶57-58; note that ¶58 teaches “The accelerometer design in FIG. 9…combats uniform strain, where sensors 980 and 990 see the same temperature induced package strain.”; this means the strain causing the detected offset is caused by a temperature change), and
an offset amount corresponding to displacement in the predetermined direction is detected (¶57-58).
Adams does not explicitly teach that the substrate is a semiconductor substrate,
the first area (of the substrate) having a first cavity formed therein,
the first fixed electrode 215 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the semiconductor substrate, and
the first movable electrode 205 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the semiconductor substrate (it is noted that Adams is silent as to whether the elements of fig. 9 are all anchored to the same substrate) via the elastic structure 202,
a second area of the semiconductor substrate, the second area having a second cavity formed therein,
the second fixed electrode 265 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the semiconductor substrate,
the second movable electrode 255 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the semiconductor substrate, and
when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in, in addition to the predetermined direction, a first direction and a second direction that are perpendicular to each other and also to the predetermined direction.
Miller teaches a device (fig. 12) with comb-type sensors (col. 15 lines 25-30), wherein the device comprises a semiconductor substrate 18 (silicon - col. 8 lines 1-2) supporting both fixed electrodes 222 (col. 15 lines 55-65) and movable electrodes 220 (see fig. 12 and col. 15 lines 30-52) in a state of floating with respect to a first cavity 34 of the substrate (col. 15 lines 50-55 and col. 15 lines 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Adams such that each out-of-plane detection section is configured with a semiconductor substrate that supports both the fixed and movable electrodes in a state of floating above a cavity of the substrate as taught by Miller so as to minimize the design complexity of the device in comparison with a scenario in which the fixed and movable electrodes are supported by separate substrates.
Fig. 10A of Adams teaches an alternative embodiment in which opposing electrodes 355, 365 of one out-of-plane sensor structure 307 are both fixed to a substrate through a support element 354 (¶75), opposing electrodes 305, 315 of another out-of-plane sensor structure 306 are both fixed to the substrate (¶62 and ¶67), and wherein two in-plane sensors 398-399 are connected to the substrate (¶79), and also wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon - ¶60).
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 Adams such that the out-of-plane sensor structures are supported by the same substrate and such that the in-plane sensors are connected to the silicon substrate as taught by fig. 10A of Adams so as to minimize the complexity of the device by using the same substrate for each of the in-plane and out-of-plane sensor elements.
Adams teaches that the substrate is a semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller),
the first area (of the substrate) having a first cavity formed therein (in view of Miller),
the first fixed electrode 215 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate, and
the first movable electrode 205 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate via the elastic structure 202 (Adams),
a second area of the semiconductor substrate, the second area having a second cavity formed therein (in view of Miller),
the second fixed electrode 265 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate (in view of fig. 10A of Adams, both out-of-plane sensing elements are supported by the same substrate),
the second movable electrode 255 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate, and
when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in, in addition to the predetermined direction, a first direction and a second direction that are perpendicular to each other and also to the predetermined direction (since the prior art substrate is made of silicon, like the substrate of the instant invention, the prior art second movable electrode is capable of being displaced with respect to the second fixed electrode in the predetermined direction, the first direction and the second direction based on an appropriate temperature change(s) applied to the silicon substrate).
If Applicant argues that Miller does not teach wherein the mesas (such as any of mesas 224, 226 and 224' and/or 226') for fixed electrodes are supported on the substrate,
As discussed above, Fig. 10A of Adams teaches an alternative embodiment in which opposing electrodes 355 (being a fixed electrode), 365 of one out-of-plane sensor structure 307 are both fixed to a substrate through a support element 354 (¶75), opposing electrodes 305, 315 (being a fixed electrode) of another out-of-plane sensor structure 306 are both fixed to the substrate (¶62 and ¶67), and wherein two in-plane sensors 398-399 are connected to the substrate (¶79), and also wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon - ¶60).
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 Adams such that the out-of-plane sensor structures’ fixed electrodes are on the same substrate as the movable electrodes as taught by fig. 10A of Adams so as to minimize the complexity of the device by using the same substrate for each of the fixed and movable electrodes of the out-of-plane sensor structures.
As to claim 9, Adams teaches wherein the acceleration detecting portion and the offset detecting portion each have a quadrilateral shape in plan view (fig. 9) and
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 9 arranged such that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
498
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion (www.dictionary.com defines “oblique” as “neither perpendicular nor parallel to a given line or surface”; in this case, the “given line” can be chosen arbitrarily; accordingly, the device of Adams can be observed in such a way that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion – see fig. 9 above; additionally or alternatively, since the two substrates are separate from each other, they are capable of being installed such that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion).
If Applicant argues that Adams as modified does not teach the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion, such a difference between the prior art and claimed invention would have been obvious, as explained next.
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, rearranging the offset detecting portion to be disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion would not 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 modify the apparatus of Adams such that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion, since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that an offset is still successfully removed from a measurement.
As to claim 10, Adams teaches wherein the acceleration detecting portion and the offset detecting portion each have a quadrilateral shape in plan view (fig. 9 of Adams) and
the offset detecting portion is disposed to face the acceleration detecting portion (fig. 9).
As to claim 17, Adams teaches wherein
the acceleration detection portion includes an X-axis sensor 298, a Y-axis sensor 299, and a first Z- axis sensor 980 (¶56 and fig. 9) as sensors configured to respectively detect accelerations acting in directions along three orthogonal axes in a three-dimensional space,
the X-axis sensor and the Y-axis sensor are disposed adjacent to each other at an interval in an X-axis direction (fig. 8),
the first Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the X-axis sensor.
Adams as modified does not teach a second Z-axis sensor, and
wherein the second Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the Y-axis sensor.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). In this instance, there has been no new and unexpected result disclosed. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate sensor 980 and reference sensor 990 that provides compensation for sensor 980.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Adams as modified to provide a pair of sensor 980 and a pair of sensor 990 of Adams since such a modification would be a mere duplication of parts for the benefit that acceleration in the Z direction can still be detected if one of the Z-acceleration sensors fails (additionally or alternatively, providing more than one Z-acceleration sensor and reference sensor therefor can be used to increase the precision of sensing in the Z direction).
While Adams as modified still does not teach wherein the second Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the Y-axis sensor,
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, moving the Y-axis sensor into the empty space within the second Z-axis sensor would not 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 modify the apparatus of Adams as modified such that the second Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the Y-axis sensor since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 3-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Miller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20050241364 A1, hereinafter Fujiyoshi).
As to claims 3 and 11, Adams as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a shape and a size of the second fixed electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first fixed electrode, and
a shape and a size of the second movable electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first movable electrode.
Fujiyoshi teaches the concept of providing a pair of displacement sensors, wherein one of the sensors is configured to sense displacement, and wherein the other sensor is prevented from sensing displacement such that it operates as a reference sensor for offsetting unwanted influences, and wherein the pair of sensors are identical except for the feature that prevents the other sensor from sensing displacement (¶101).
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 Adams as modified such that the offset detecting portion and acceleration detecting portion are identical, except for the inability of the offset detecting portion to detect displacement, as taught by Fujiyoshi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a reference sensor for another for the predictable result that unwanted influences are still successfully removed through the use of the reference sensor.
Adams as modified teaches wherein a shape and a size of the second fixed electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first fixed electrode, and
a shape and a size of the second movable electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first movable electrode (in view of Fujiyoshi).
As to claims 4 and 12, Adams teaches (see fig. 9) wherein the first fixed electrode 215 is one of a pair of first fixed electrodes 215, 215 that extend in parallel to each other at a first interval in the first direction Y,
the first movable electrode 205 is one of a pair of first movable electrodes 205, 205 that are disposed between the pair of first fixed electrodes and extend in parallel to each other at a second interval in the first direction,
the second fixed electrode 265 is one of a pair of second fixed electrodes 265, 265 that extend in parallel to each other at a third interval in the first direction, and
the second movable electrode 255 is one of a pair of second movable electrodes 255, 255 that are disposed between the pair of second fixed electrodes and extend in parallel to each other at a fourth interval in the first direction.
As to claims 5 and 13, Adams teaches (see fig. 9) wherein the first fixed electrode 215 is one of a plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 that are formed in the first comb-teeth shape in plan view,
the first movable electrode 205 is included in a plurality of first movable electrode pairs 205, 205 that are formed in a second comb-teeth shape (referring to the overall shape of the first movable electrode pairs) in the plan view,
the plurality of first movable electrode pairs are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of first fixed electrodes,
each first movable electrode pair includes two of the first movable electrodes that respectively face the first fixed electrodes at respective sides of the first movable electrode pair and extend in parallel to each other,
the second fixed electrode 265 is one of a plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 that are formed in a third comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the second movable electrode 255 is included in a plurality of second movable electrode pairs 255, 255 that are formed in a fourth comb-teeth shape (referring to the overall shape of the plural second movable electrodes pairs) in the plan view,
the plurality of second movable electrode pairs are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of second fixed electrodes, and
each second movable electrode pair includes two of the second movable electrodes that respectively face the second fixed electrodes at respective sides of the second movable electrode pair and extend in parallel to each other.
As to claims 6 and 14, Adams as modified teaches wherein the first fixed structure 203, 211X, 213, 215 (Adams) includes a first fixed base portion 203, 211X, 213 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the first semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 (Adams) that are formed in the first comb-teeth shape with respect to the first fixed base portion,
the first movable structure 201X, 205 (Adams) includes a first movable base portion 201X (Adams) and the plurality of first movable electrode pairs 205 (Adams) that are formed in the second comb-teeth shape with respect to the first movable base portion,
the first movable base portion is supported by the first fixed base portion via the elastic structure 202 (Adams),
the second fixed structure 253, 261X, 263, 265 (Adams) includes a second fixed base portion 253, 261X, 263 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 (Adams) that are formed in the third comb-teeth shape with respect to the second fixed base portion,
the second movable structure 251X, 255 (Adams) includes a second movable base portion 251X(Adams) and the plurality of second movable electrode pairs 255 (Adams) that are formed in the fourth comb-teeth shape with respect to the second movable base portion, and
the second movable base portion is linked directly to the second fixed base portion.
As to claim 7 and 15, Adams teaches (see fig. 9) wherein the first fixed electrode 215 is one of a plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 that are formed in a first comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the first movable electrode 205 is one of a plurality of first movable electrodes 205 that are formed in a second comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the plurality of first movable electrodes are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of first fixed electrodes,
the second fixed electrode 265 is one of a plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 that are formed in a third comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the second movable electrode 255 is one of a plurality of second movable electrodes 255 that are formed in a fourth comb-teeth shape in the plan view, and
the plurality of second movable electrodes are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of second fixed electrodes.
As to claims 8 and 16, Adams as modified teaches wherein the first fixed structure 203, 211X , 213, 215 (Adams) includes a first fixed base portion 203, 211X , 213 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the first semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 (Adams) that are formed in the first comb-teeth shape with respect to the first fixed base portion,
the first movable structure 201X, 205 (Adams) includes a first movable base 201X (Adams) portion and the plurality of first movable electrodes 205 (Adams) that are formed in the second comb-teeth shape with respect to the first movable base portion,
the first movable base portion is supported by the first fixed base portion via the elastic structure 202,
the second fixed structure 253, 261X, 263, 265 (Adams) includes a second fixed base portion 253, 261X, 263 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 (Adams) that are formed in the third comb-teeth shape with respect to the second fixed base portion,
the second movable structure 251X, 255 (Adams) includes a second movable base portion 251X (Adams) and the plurality of second movable electrodes 255 (Adams) that are formed in the fourth comb-teeth shape with respect to the second movable base portion, and
the second movable base portion is linked directly to the second fixed base portion (fig. 9).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Miller as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lasalandra et al. (US 20150284243 A1, hereinafter ‘243).
As to claim 18, Adams as modified teaches wherein
the offset detection portion includes
a first Z-axis offset detection portion (at least part of reference sensor 990 of Adams) configured to detect a third offset amount with respect to the first Z-axis sensor, and
a second Z-axis offset detection portion (at least part of the duplicate of reference sensor 990 of Adams – see the rejection of claim 17 for details) configured to detect a fourth offset amount with respect to the second Z-axis sensor.
Adams as modified does not teach
an X-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a first offset amount with respect to the X-axis sensor,
a Y-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a second offset amount with respect to the Y-axis sensor,
the X-axis offset detection portion and the Y-axis offset detection portion are disposed adjacent to each other at another interval in the X-axis direction,
the first Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the X-axis offset detection portion, and
the second Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the Y-axis offset detection portion.
‘243 teaches a temperature-compensated device (title; fig. 9) comprising
an X axis sensor 302 (¶31-33),
a Y axis sensor 322 (¶31-33),
an X-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a first offset amount with respect to the X-axis sensor (¶31-33), and
a Y-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a second offset amount with respect to the Y-axis sensor (¶31-33).
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 Adams as modified to have an X-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a first offset amount with respect to the X-axis sensor, and a Y-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a second offset amount with respect to the Y-axis sensor as taught by ‘243 for the benefit of compensation with maximum precision (¶34 of ‘243).
Adams as modified still does not teach
the X-axis offset detection portion and the Y-axis offset detection portion are disposed adjacent to each other at another interval in the X-axis direction,
the first Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the X-axis offset detection portion, and
the second Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the Y-axis offset detection portion.
However, 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, modifying Adams as modified to have the claimed arrangement would not 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 Adams as modified such that the X-axis offset detection portion and the Y-axis offset detection portion are disposed adjacent to each other at another interval in the X-axis direction,
the first Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the X-axis offset detection portion, and
the second Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the Y-axis offset detection portion since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected and compensated.
As to claim 19, Adams as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
the X-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the Y-axis sensor in a Y-axis direction, and
the Y-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the X-axis sensor in the Y-axis direction.
However, 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, modifying Adams as modified to have the claimed arrangement would not 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 Adams as modified such that the X-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the Y-axis sensor in a Y-axis direction, and the Y-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the X-axis sensor in the Y-axis direction since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected and compensated.
An alternative rejection of claims 1 and 3-19 is provided below in case Applicant argues that, with respect to claim 1, Adams as modified does not teach that the second movable electrode is movable in the first and second directions.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 20070119252 A1, hereinafter Adams) in view of Miller et al. (US 6000280 A, hereinafter Miller) and Lasalandra et al. (US 20150284243 A1, hereinafter ‘243).
As to claim 1, Adams teaches an acceleration sensor comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (201X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (251X)][AltContent: textbox (261X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (211X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (990X)][AltContent: textbox (980X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
498
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an acceleration detecting portion 980X (fig. 9 above) that detects an acceleration in a predetermined direction Z (¶55-56) and an offset detecting portion 990X (fig. 9 above) that detects an offset amount with respect to the acceleration detecting portion (¶55, ¶58); wherein
the acceleration detecting portion includes
a first area of a substrate (a substrate is inherent for supporting one or more of the elements of the acceleration detecting portion, and the substrate inherently has a first area),
a first fixed structure 203, 211X (fig. 9 above), 213, 215 including a first fixed electrode 215 that is supported by the substrate, and
a first movable structure 201X, 205 including a first movable electrode 205 that is supported an elastic structure 202 and is a first movable electrode displacing in the predetermined direction Z with respect to the first fixed electrode, and
the offset detecting portion includes
a second fixed structure 253, 261X (fig. 9 above), 263, 265 including a second fixed electrode 265 that is supported,
a second movable structure 251X (fig. 9 above), 255 including a second movable electrode 255 that is supported, and
a disabling structure (part of element 252 preventing motion of the movable electrode 255 in response to acceleration - ¶57) that disables a function of the second movable electrode displacing with respect to the second fixed electrode when an acceleration in a direction of a predetermined axis acts,
wherein the offset detecting portion is configured that,
when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in the predetermined direction (see ¶57-58; note that ¶58 teaches “The accelerometer design in FIG. 9…combats uniform strain, where sensors 980 and 990 see the same temperature induced package strain.”; this means the strain causing the detected offset is caused by a temperature change), and
an offset amount corresponding to displacement in the predetermined direction is detected (¶57-58).
Adams does not explicitly teach that the substrate is a semiconductor substrate,
the first area (of the substrate) having a first cavity formed therein,
the first fixed electrode 215 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the semiconductor substrate, and
the first movable electrode 205 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the semiconductor substrate (it is noted that Adams is silent as to whether the elements of fig. 9 are all anchored to the same substrate) via the elastic structure 202,
a second area of the semiconductor substrate, the second area having a second cavity formed therein,
the second fixed electrode 265 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the semiconductor substrate,
the second movable electrode 255 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the semiconductor substrate, and
when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in, in addition to the predetermined direction, a first direction and a second direction that are perpendicular to each other and also to the predetermined direction.
Miller teaches a device (fig. 12) with comb-type sensors (col. 15 lines 25-30), wherein the device comprises a semiconductor substrate 18 (silicon - col. 8 lines 1-2) supporting both fixed electrodes 222 (col. 15 lines 55-65) and movable electrodes 220 (see fig. 12 and col. 15 lines 30-52) in a state of floating with respect to a first cavity 34 of the substrate (col. 15 lines 50-55 and col. 15 lines 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Adams such that each out-of-plane detection section is configured with a semiconductor substrate that supports both the fixed and movable electrodes in a state of floating above a cavity of the substrate as taught by Miller so as to minimize the design complexity of the device in comparison with a scenario in which the fixed and movable electrodes are supported by separate substrates.
Fig. 10A of Adams teaches an alternative embodiment in which opposing electrodes 355, 365 of one out-of-plane sensor structure 307 are both fixed to a substrate through a support element 354 (¶75), opposing electrodes 305, 315 of another out-of-plane sensor structure 306 are both fixed to the substrate (¶62 and ¶67), and wherein two in-plane sensors 398-399 are connected to the substrate (¶79), and also wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon - ¶60).
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 Adams such that the out-of-plane sensor structures are supported by the same substrate and such that the in-plane sensors are connected to the silicon substrate as taught by fig. 10A of Adams so as to minimize the complexity of the device by using the same substrate for each of the in-plane and out-of-plane sensor elements.
Adams teaches that the substrate is a semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller),
the first area (of the substrate) having a first cavity formed therein (in view of Miller),
the first fixed electrode 215 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate, and
the first movable electrode 205 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate via the elastic structure 202 (Adams),
a second area of the semiconductor substrate, the second area having a second cavity formed therein (in view of Miller),
the second fixed electrode 265 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate (in view of fig. 10A of Adams, both out-of-plane sensing elements are supported by the same substrate),
the second movable electrode 255 (Adams) is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity (in view of Miller), by the semiconductor substrate, and
when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in, in addition to the predetermined direction, a first direction and a second direction that are perpendicular to each other and also to the predetermined direction (since the prior art substrate is made of silicon, like the substrate of the instant invention, the prior art second movable electrode is capable of being displaced with respect to the second fixed electrode in the predetermined direction, the first direction and the second direction based on an appropriate temperature change(s) applied to the silicon substrate).
If Applicant argues that Miller does not teach wherein the mesas (such as any of mesas 224, 226 and 224' and/or 226') for fixed electrodes are supported on the substrate,
As discussed above, Fig. 10A of Adams teaches an alternative embodiment in which opposing electrodes 355 (being a fixed electrode), 365 of one out-of-plane sensor structure 307 are both fixed to a substrate through a support element 354 (¶75), opposing electrodes 305, 315 (being a fixed electrode) of another out-of-plane sensor structure 306 are both fixed to the substrate (¶62 and ¶67), and wherein two in-plane sensors 398-399 are connected to the substrate (¶79), and also wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon - ¶60).
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 Adams such that the out-of-plane sensor structures’ fixed electrodes are on the same substrate as the movable electrodes as taught by fig. 10A of Adams so as to minimize the complexity of the device by using the same substrate for each of the fixed and movable electrodes of the out-of-plane sensor structures.
If Applicant argues that Adams as modified does not teach that when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in a first direction and a second direction (being the X and Y directions) that are perpendicular to each other and also to the predetermined direction,
‘243 teaches a temperature-compensated device (title; fig. 9) comprising
an X axis sensor 302 (¶31-33),
a Y axis sensor 322 (¶31-33),
an X-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a first offset amount with respect to the X-axis sensor (¶31-33), and
a Y-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a second offset amount with respect to the Y-axis sensor (¶31-33; note that the abstract, ¶24, 33 and fig. 9 teach that offsets due to thermal expansions in the X and Y directions are detected and compensated).
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 Adams as modified to have an X-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a first offset amount with respect to the X-axis sensor, and a Y-axis offset detection portion configured to detect a second offset amount with respect to the Y-axis sensor, wherein the offsets are caused by thermal expansion, as taught by ‘243 for the benefit of compensation with maximum precision (¶34 of ‘243).
Adams as modified teaches when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaceable with respect to the second fixed electrode in, in addition to the predetermined direction (as already taught by Adams), a first direction and a second direction (as taught by ‘243) that are perpendicular to each other and also to the predetermined direction.
As to claim 9, Adams teaches wherein the acceleration detecting portion and the offset detecting portion each have a quadrilateral shape in plan view (fig. 9) and
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 9 arranged such that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
498
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion (www.dictionary.com defines “oblique” as “neither perpendicular nor parallel to a given line or surface”; in this case, the “given line” can be chosen arbitrarily; accordingly, the device of Adams can be observed in such a way that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion – see fig. 9 above; additionally or alternatively, since the two substrates are separate from each other, they are capable of being installed such that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion).
If Applicant argues that Adams as modified does not teach the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion, such a difference between the prior art and claimed invention would have been obvious, as explained next.
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, rearranging the offset detecting portion to be disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion would not 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 modify the apparatus of Adams such that the offset detecting portion is disposed obliquely outward with respect to the acceleration detecting portion, since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that an offset is still successfully removed from a measurement.
As to claim 10, Adams teaches wherein the acceleration detecting portion and the offset detecting portion each have a quadrilateral shape in plan view (fig. 9 of Adams) and
the offset detecting portion is disposed to face the acceleration detecting portion (fig. 9).
As to claim 17, Adams teaches wherein
the acceleration detection portion includes an X-axis sensor 298, a Y-axis sensor 299, and a first Z- axis sensor 980 (¶56 and fig. 9) as sensors configured to respectively detect accelerations acting in directions along three orthogonal axes in a three-dimensional space,
the X-axis sensor and the Y-axis sensor are disposed adjacent to each other at an interval in an X-axis direction (fig. 8),
the first Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the X-axis sensor.
Adams as modified does not teach a second Z-axis sensor, and
wherein the second Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the Y-axis sensor.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). In this instance, there has been no new and unexpected result disclosed. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate sensor 980 and reference sensor 990 that provides compensation for sensor 980.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Adams as modified to provide a pair of sensor 980 and a pair of sensor 990 of Adams since such a modification would be a mere duplication of parts for the benefit that acceleration in the Z direction can still be detected if one of the Z-acceleration sensors fails (additionally or alternatively, providing more than one Z-acceleration sensor and reference sensor therefor can be used to increase the precision of sensing in the Z direction).
While Adams as modified still does not teach wherein the second Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the Y-axis sensor,
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, moving the Y-axis sensor into the empty space within the second Z-axis sensor would not 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 modify the apparatus of Adams as modified such that the second Z-axis sensor is disposed to surround the Y-axis sensor since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected.
As to claim 18, Adams as modified teaches wherein
the offset detection portion includes
an X-axis offset detection portion 303 (‘243) configured to detect a first offset amount with respect to the X-axis sensor (¶33 of ‘243),
a Y-axis offset detection portion 323 (‘243) configured to detect a second offset amount with respect to the Y-axis sensor (¶33 of ‘243),
a first Z-axis offset detection portion (at least part of reference sensor 990 of Adams) configured to detect a third offset amount with respect to the first Z-axis sensor, and
a second Z-axis offset detection portion (at least part of the duplicate of reference sensor 990 of Adams – see the rejection of claim 17 for details) configured to detect a fourth offset amount with respect to the second Z-axis sensor.
Adams as modified does not teach
the X-axis offset detection portion and the Y-axis offset detection portion are disposed adjacent to each other at another interval in the X-axis direction,
the first Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the X-axis offset detection portion, and
the second Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the Y-axis offset detection portion.
However, 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, modifying Adams as modified to have the claimed arrangement would not 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 Adams as modified such that the X-axis offset detection portion and the Y-axis offset detection portion are disposed adjacent to each other at another interval in the X-axis direction,
the first Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the X-axis offset detection portion, and
the second Z-axis offset detection portion is disposed to surround the Y-axis offset detection portion since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected and compensated.
As to claim 19, Adams as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
the X-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the Y-axis sensor in a Y-axis direction, and
the Y-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the X-axis sensor in the Y-axis direction.
However, 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, modifying Adams as modified to have the claimed arrangement would not 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 Adams as modified such that the X-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the Y-axis sensor in a Y-axis direction, and the Y-axis offset detection portion is disposed to face the X-axis sensor in the Y-axis direction since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected and compensated.
Claim(s) 3-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Miller and ‘243 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20050241364 A1, hereinafter Fujiyoshi).
As to claims 3 and 11, Adams as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a shape and a size of the second fixed electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first fixed electrode, and
a shape and a size of the second movable electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first movable electrode.
Fujiyoshi teaches the concept of providing a pair of displacement sensors, wherein one of the sensors is configured to sense displacement, and wherein the other sensor is prevented from sensing displacement such that it operates as a reference sensor for offsetting unwanted influences, and wherein the pair of sensors are identical except for the feature that prevents the other sensor from sensing displacement (¶101).
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 Adams as modified such that the offset detecting portion and acceleration detecting portion are identical, except for the inability of the offset detecting portion to detect displacement, as taught by Fujiyoshi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a reference sensor for another for the predictable result that unwanted influences are still successfully removed through the use of the reference sensor.
Adams as modified teaches wherein a shape and a size of the second fixed electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first fixed electrode, and
a shape and a size of the second movable electrode are the same as a shape and a size of the first movable electrode (in view of Fujiyoshi).
As to claims 4 and 12, Adams teaches (see fig. 9) wherein the first fixed electrode 215 is one of a pair of first fixed electrodes 215, 215 that extend in parallel to each other at a first interval in the first direction Y,
the first movable electrode 205 is one of a pair of first movable electrodes 205, 205 that are disposed between the pair of first fixed electrodes and extend in parallel to each other at a second interval in the first direction,
the second fixed electrode 265 is one of a pair of second fixed electrodes 265, 265 that extend in parallel to each other at a third interval in the first direction, and
the second movable electrode 255 is one of a pair of second movable electrodes 255, 255 that are disposed between the pair of second fixed electrodes and extend in parallel to each other at a fourth interval in the first direction.
As to claims 5 and 13, Adams teaches (see fig. 9) wherein the first fixed electrode 215 is one of a plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 that are formed in the first comb-teeth shape in plan view,
the first movable electrode 205 is included in a plurality of first movable electrode pairs 205, 205 that are formed in a second comb-teeth shape (referring to the overall shape of the first movable electrode pairs) in the plan view,
the plurality of first movable electrode pairs are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of first fixed electrodes,
each first movable electrode pair includes two of the first movable electrodes that respectively face the first fixed electrodes at respective sides of the first movable electrode pair and extend in parallel to each other,
the second fixed electrode 265 is one of a plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 that are formed in a third comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the second movable electrode 255 is included in a plurality of second movable electrode pairs 255, 255 that are formed in a fourth comb-teeth shape (referring to the overall shape of the plural second movable electrodes pairs) in the plan view,
the plurality of second movable electrode pairs are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of second fixed electrodes, and
each second movable electrode pair includes two of the second movable electrodes that respectively face the second fixed electrodes at respective sides of the second movable electrode pair and extend in parallel to each other.
As to claims 6 and 14, Adams as modified teaches wherein the first fixed structure 203, 211X, 213, 215 (Adams) includes a first fixed base portion 203, 211X, 213 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the first semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 (Adams) that are formed in the first comb-teeth shape with respect to the first fixed base portion,
the first movable structure 201X, 205 (Adams) includes a first movable base portion 201X (Adams) and the plurality of first movable electrode pairs 205 (Adams) that are formed in the second comb-teeth shape with respect to the first movable base portion,
the first movable base portion is supported by the first fixed base portion via the elastic structure 202 (Adams),
the second fixed structure 253, 261X, 263, 265 (Adams) includes a second fixed base portion 253, 261X, 263 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 (Adams) that are formed in the third comb-teeth shape with respect to the second fixed base portion,
the second movable structure 251X, 255 (Adams) includes a second movable base portion 251X(Adams) and the plurality of second movable electrode pairs 255 (Adams) that are formed in the fourth comb-teeth shape with respect to the second movable base portion, and
the second movable base portion is linked directly to the second fixed base portion.
As to claim 7 and 15, Adams teaches (see fig. 9) wherein the first fixed electrode 215 is one of a plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 that are formed in a first comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the first movable electrode 205 is one of a plurality of first movable electrodes 205 that are formed in a second comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the plurality of first movable electrodes are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of first fixed electrodes,
the second fixed electrode 265 is one of a plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 that are formed in a third comb-teeth shape in the plan view,
the second movable electrode 255 is one of a plurality of second movable electrodes 255 that are formed in a fourth comb-teeth shape in the plan view, and
the plurality of second movable electrodes are disposed such as to contactlessly mesh with the plurality of second fixed electrodes.
As to claims 8 and 16, Adams as modified teaches wherein the first fixed structure 203, 211X , 213, 215 (Adams) includes a first fixed base portion 203, 211X , 213 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the first semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of first fixed electrodes 215 (Adams) that are formed in the first comb-teeth shape with respect to the first fixed base portion,
the first movable structure 201X, 205 (Adams) includes a first movable base 201X (Adams) portion and the plurality of first movable electrodes 205 (Adams) that are formed in the second comb-teeth shape with respect to the first movable base portion,
the first movable base portion is supported by the first fixed base portion via the elastic structure 202,
the second fixed structure 253, 261X, 263, 265 (Adams) includes a second fixed base portion 253, 261X, 263 (Adams) that is supported (in view of Miller or fig. 10A of Adams) by the semiconductor (in view of Miller) substrate and the plurality of second fixed electrodes 265 (Adams) that are formed in the third comb-teeth shape with respect to the second fixed base portion,
the second movable structure 251X, 255 (Adams) includes a second movable base portion 251X (Adams) and the plurality of second movable electrodes 255 (Adams) that are formed in the fourth comb-teeth shape with respect to the second movable base portion, and
the second movable base portion is linked directly to the second fixed base portion (fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that
“Adams does not have a configuration in which a movable electrode that is, due to stress based on a temperature change, freely displaceable in three dimensions relative to its fixed electrode.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a movable electrode that is, due to stress based on a temperature change, freely displaceable in three dimensions relative to its fixed electrode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the disclosed invention, the second movable electrode is rigidly fixed with respect to the substrate and is only displaced when relatively moved by thermal expansion of the substrate. A PHOSITA would not consider this to mean that the second movable electrode is freely displaceable, because it is rigidly anchored and fixed in place the whole time.
Nevertheless, 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). Adams as modified teaches the limitations cited by Applicant.
Applicant argues on pg. 16 that Miller and ‘243 do not teach the features allegedly missing from Adams. Applicant argues that claims 3-19 are allowable.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since claims 1 and 3-19 are properly rejected.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Conclusion
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
