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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “the offset detecting portion is configured that, when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaced in three-dimensional directions with respect to the second fixed electrode, such that an offset amount in the predetermined direction, which is among the displacements in the three-dimensional directions, is detected.”
It is unclear what three-dimensional directions are. Anything that has three-dimensions is a 3-dimensional volume or a 3-dimensional object, not a direction. A direction, by its nature, is merely one-dimensional.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the offset detecting portion is configured that, when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaced in the predetermined direction with respect to the second fixed electrode, such that an offset amount in the predetermined direction is detected.
Claims 2-19 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim 2 has been amended to recite “wherein the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate are the same semiconductor substrate.”
If the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate are the same semiconductor substrate, then it is unclear how they can be considered a first semiconductor substrate and second semiconductor substrate. Two of anything cannot be the same thing, because reciting a first thing and a second thing distinguishes them from each other as different things.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the claim includes an interpretation in which the two substrates are a first and second substrate, which is in agreement with how the substrates are recited in claim 1. Claim 2 will further be interpreted to recite wherein the first cavity and the second cavity are formed in the first and second semiconductor substrates.
Claims 11-16 are further indefinite for depending from claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 has been amended to recite “wherein the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate are the same semiconductor substrate.”
However, claim 1 does not recite that the first and second semiconductor substrates are the same substrate. Accordingly, in claim 1, the two substrates are not the same substrate. Claiming that the substrates are the same substrate in claim 2, negates the limitation that the substrates are separate in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 2 does not include all the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 11-16 do not include all the limitations of claim 1 for depending from claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-17 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), Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20050241364 A1, hereinafter Fujiyoshi), Landgraf et al. (US 20190004084 A1, hereinafter Landgraf).
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 substrate (inherent for supporting one or more of the elements of the acceleration detecting portion) ,
a first fixed structure 203, 211X (fig. 9 above), 213, 215 including a first fixed electrode 215 that is supported, by the first substrate, and
a first movable structure 201X, 205 including a first movable electrode 205 that is supported via 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 Z acts, wherein
the offset detecting portion is configured that, when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaced in three-dimensional directions (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) with respect to the second fixed electrode, such that an offset amount in the predetermined direction, which is among the displacements in the three-dimensional directions, is detected (see ¶58; also see 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).
Adams does not explicitly teach wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate with a first cavity formed in its interior,
wherein the first fixed electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate,
the first movable electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate,
the offset detecting portion includes
a second semiconductor substrate with a second cavity formed in its interior,
the second fixed electrode 265 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate,
the second movable electrode 255 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate.
Miller teaches a device (fig. 12) with comb-type sensors (col. 15 lines 25-30), wherein the device comprises a semiconductor substrate 18 (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 the acceleration detecting portion 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.
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.
Landgraf teaches that two sensors 2, 4 can either be on a common substrate or on separate substrates (¶93).
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 acceleration detecting portion and offset detecting portion are provided on separate substrates as taught by Landgraf for the benefit of being able to position them relative to each other, as needed, in a relatively difficult installation space (additionally or alternatively, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing support to two sensors for another for the predictable result that a measurement offset is still successfully removed).
Adams as modified teaches wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate with a first cavity formed in its interior (in view of Miller),
wherein the first fixed electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller),
the first movable electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller),
the offset detecting portion includes
a second semiconductor substrate with a second cavity formed in its interior (in view of Landgraf, the offset detecting portion is on a second substrate; in view of Fujiyoshi, the offset detecting portion has the same configuration as the acceleration detecting portion, except that the offset detecting portion is not sensitive to acceleration; accordingly, the prior art second substrate is a second semiconductor substrate with a second cavity formed in its interior),
the second fixed electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of at least Fujiyoshi),
the second movable electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of at least Fujiyoshi).
As to claim 2, Adams as modified teaches wherein the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate are the same semiconductor substrate (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim; in view of col. 8 lines 1-2 of Miller, the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate in the form of a silicon substrate, and in view of Fujiyoshi, the second substrate is also a silicon substrate; these prior art substrates are a first and second substrate) and
the first cavity and the second cavity are formed in different areas of the semiconductor substrate (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claims 3 and 11, 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 a 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 a 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 by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller) 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 by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf) 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 by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller) 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 by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf) 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).
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Miller, Fujiyoshi, and Landgraf 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 1-19 is provided below in case Applicant argues that Miller does not teach that the mesas 224, 226 are supported by the substrate 18.
Claim(s) 1-17 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), Foster (US 20100024552 A1), Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20050241364 A1, hereinafter Fujiyoshi), Landgraf et al. (US 20190004084 A1, hereinafter Landgraf).
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); and
wherein the acceleration detecting portion includes
a first substrate (inherent for supporting one or more of the elements of the acceleration detecting portion) ,
a first fixed structure 203, 211X (fig. 9 above), 213, 215 including a first fixed electrode 215 that is supported, by the first substrate, and
a first movable structure 201X, 205 including a first movable electrode 205 that is supported via 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 Z acts, wherein
the offset detecting portion is configured that, when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaced in three-dimensional directions (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) with respect to the second fixed electrode, such that an offset amount in the predetermined direction, which is among the displacements in the three-dimensional directions, is detected (see ¶58; also see 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).
Adams does not explicitly teach wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate with a first cavity formed in its interior,
wherein the first fixed electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate,
the first movable electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate,
the offset detecting portion includes
a second semiconductor substrate with a second cavity formed in its interior,
the second fixed electrode 265 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate,
the second movable electrode 255 is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate.
Miller teaches a device (fig. 12) with comb-type sensors (col. 15 lines 25-30), wherein the device comprises a semiconductor substrate 18 (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 the acceleration detecting portion 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.
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,
[AltContent: textbox (M2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (M1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
354
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Foster teaches wherein mesas M1, M2 (fig. 1 above) for fixed electrodes 124, 126 are fixed to a substrate 108 (¶17, ¶19).
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 mesas for fixed electrodes are fixed to the substrate, as taught by Foster, so as to simplify the design of the device by eliminating the need for another structure for supporting the mesas for fixed electrodes.
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.
Landgraf teaches that two sensors 2, 4 can either be on a common substrate or on separate substrates (¶93).
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 acceleration detecting portion and offset detecting portion are provided on separate substrates as taught by Landgraf for the benefit of being able to position them relative to each other, as needed, in a relatively difficult installation space (additionally or alternatively, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing support to two sensors for another for the predictable result that a measurement offset is still successfully removed).
Adams as modified teaches wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate with a first cavity formed in its interior (in view of Miller),
wherein the first fixed electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller),
the first movable electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the first cavity, by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller),
the offset detecting portion includes
a second semiconductor substrate with a second cavity formed in its interior (in view of Landgraf, the offset detecting portion is on a second substrate; in view of Fujiyoshi, the offset detecting portion has the same configuration as the acceleration detecting portion, except that the offset detecting portion is not sensitive to acceleration; accordingly, the prior art second substrate is a second semiconductor substrate with a second cavity formed in its interior),
the second fixed electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of at least Fujiyoshi),
the second movable electrode is supported, in a state of floating with respect to the second cavity, by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of at least Fujiyoshi).
As to claim 2, Adams as modified teaches wherein the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate are the same semiconductor substrate (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim; in view of col. 8 lines 1-2 of Miller, the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate in the form of a silicon substrate, and in view of Fujiyoshi, the second substrate is also a silicon substrate; these prior art substrates are a first and second substrate) and
the first cavity and the second cavity are formed in different areas of the semiconductor substrate (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claims 3 and 11, 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 a 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 a 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 by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller) 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 by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf) 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 by the first semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller) 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 by the second semiconductor substrate (in view of Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf) 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).
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Miller, Foster, Fujiyoshi, and Landgraf 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that “Adams does not teach or suggest in ¶¶[0055]-[0058] above, or elsewhere, that the offset detecting portion is configured that, when stress based on a temperature change acts, the second movable electrode is displaced in three- dimensional directions with respect to the second fixed electrode, such that an offset amount in the predetermined direction, which is among the displacements in the three-dimensional directions, is detected.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The cited portion of claim 1 is indefinite. In light of the Examiner’s reinterpretation of claim 1, Adams teaches the portion of claim 1 cited by Applicant.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that “Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf, upon which the Examiner relies for a teaching of the other features recited in claim 1 (see Action, pp. 9-11), also fail to teach the above-described features missing from Adams. Therefore, Adams, Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf, applied alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest all of the features recited in claim 1, and thus do not render claim 1 obvious. Claims 2-16 also are deemed clearly patentable at least for their dependencies on claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-16 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons above.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that “As describe above, Adams, Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf, applied alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest all of the features recited in amended claim 1, and thus do not render claim 1 obvious. Foster also fails to cure the above-described deficiencies of Adams, Miller, Fujiyoshi and Landgraf. Therefore, claims 1-16 are patentable over the cited prior art for at least the reasons described above, and the rejection of claims 1-16 should thus be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons above.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that “Claims 17-19 are patentable over the prior art of record for at least their dependencies on claim 1.”
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights