DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on May 26, 2026 is being examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1, 9, 12, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter ( note that elected invention (figure 3) in paragraph 0027 states “the first set of dies 306 may comprise a gyroscope 308 and an acceleration sensor 309 and the second set of dies 307 may also comprise a gyroscope 308 and an acceleration sensor 309”. However claims mentions that “at least one” which has two independent options: one gyroscope and more or plural gyroscopes. Wherein non-elected species figure 6 has plural gyroscopes. Therefore, claims 1, 9, 12, and 18 are withdrawn by individually reading only on non-elected species and not reading on elected species when considering plurality.).
Therefore, currently no claims for rejection under USC 102 and/or 103.
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, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Rejection of claims 1 and 12, limitation “ wherein the first, the second, and the third and the fourth circuit boards are separate printed circuit boards attached to each other” is new matter.
Specification do not clearly mention that first, second, third and fourth circuit boards are separate printed circuit boards attached to each other. No support or clear indication in specification how separate printed circuit boards attached to each other in the specification.
Therefore, it contains new matter.
Rejection of claims 9, and 18, these claims are rejected by the same reason applied to rejection of claims 1, or 12.
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, 9, 12, and 18 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.
Rejection of claims 1 and 12, limitation “ wherein the first, the second, and the third and the fourth circuit boards are separate printed circuit boards attached to each other” indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
It is not clear that the first, the second, and the third and the fourth circuit boards are separate to each other and attached to each other at ends of the printed circuit board to create hollow space in between; or there are separate prior to installation. Additionally, specification do not clarify or mentions that anywhere separate printed circuit boards, and if separate how they are separate individually or combined; for example, preinstallation condition can be done such as any combination such (1 board to 3 boards, 2 to 2, or 1x 3 or all individual).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite or unclear.
Rejection of claims 9, and 18, these claims are rejected by the same reason applied to rejection of claims 1, or 12.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Note: The rejection under USC 102 and/or USC 103 below are given based on modified to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification or amendment is required under rejection of USC 112 above election/restriction mentioned above to consider the rejection under USC 102 and/or USC 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all rejections set forth in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mueller et al. (DE10134620A1, herin referred to as Mueller) or Saito et al. (JP2013257222A, herein referred to as Saito).
Rejection of claim 1, Mueller( figures 3 of Mueller) or Saito (figures 1-2 of Saito) disclose an electronic device comprising:
a first circuit board that defines a horizontal xy-plane and a vertical z-direction that is perpendicular to the xy-plane (see bottom circuit board 21 in figures 3 of Mueller; or see board 2 from top view (from in a direction 6-7) of figures 1-2 of Saito, and specification sates first substrate 2, second substrate 3, third substrate 4, fourth substrate 5, top plate 6 and interface substrate 7 can be formed of a ceramic plate or a resin plate and each having conductive pads. ),the first circuit board having an inside surface and an outside surface; a first set of dies (Acceleration and rotation rate sensors 10 and 12 on board 21 in Mueller; or a first component 50 in Saito wherein specification states, “ it is preferable that the first component and the second component are at least one of a gyro sensor and an acceleration sensor…. As the first component and the second component, not only the vibration gyro sensors 50 and 60 but also an acceleration sensor or the like can be used.” ) connected to the first circuit board ;
a second circuit board that defines an xz-plane and a y-direction that is perpendicular to the xz-plane (circuit board 20 in figure 3 of Mueller; or board 3 in Saito ), the second circuit board having an inside surface and an outside surface; a second set of dies connected to the second circuit board dies (Acceleration and rotation rate sensors 10 and 12 on board 20 in Mueller; or a second component 60 in Saito wherein specification states it is preferable that the first component and the second component are at least one of a gyro sensor and an acceleration sensor…. As the first component and the second component, not only the vibration gyro sensors 50 and 60 but also an acceleration sensor or the like can be used.”) ;
a third circuit board that defines an yz-plane and a x-direction that is perpendicular to the yz-plane, the third circuit board having an inside surface and an outside surface (circuit board 22 in Mueller; board 7 in Saito); and a fourth circuit board that is parallel to the third circuit board and is attached to the first and the second circuit boards (see paragraph 0027 wherein similar type part 2’ attached part 2 make closed cube which has fourth circuit board opposed to circuit board 22; or board 6 in Saito), wherein the first, the second and the third and fourth circuit boards are separate printed circuit boards attached to attached to each other (each separate circuit board to create hollow space are mechanically and electrically connected to one another via rigid connecting edges 23, see paragraph 0025 in Mueller; or see similarly in Sait; furthermore, note that a product is what it is not how it is made, if board are separate boards prior to installation, no patentable weight is given to what was prior to installation or assembly, because a product is what it is, see furthermore MPEPE);
and wherein the first set of dies comprises (see explanation above)
Furthermore, Examiner makes official notice that individual circuit boards are connected to each other by soldering, welding, bonding, or interlocking or any other well-known methods to make single cube or box shaped electronic device to create hollow space within to protect or arrange multiple electronic components within and it will further reinforce attachment between circuit boards (see cited references).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device to have plurality separated boards connected together to make single electronic device by soldering, welding, bonding, or interlocking or any other well-known methods as mentioned reason in the examiner official notice, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Rejection of claim 9, , Mueller or Saito disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, where the second, third and fourth circuit boards form a U-shape in the xy-plane (see figures of Mueller or Saito).
Rejection of claim 12, Mueller or Saito disclose an electronic device comprising: a first circuit board that defines a first plane and has an inside surface and an outside surface; a first set of dies connected to the inside surface of the first circuit board; a second circuit board that defines a second plane orthogonal to the first plane and having an inside surface and an outside surface; a second set of dies connected to an inside surface of the second circuit board; a third circuit board that defines a third plane that is orthogonal to the first and second planes and has an inside surface and an outside surface; and a fourth circuit board that is parallel to the third circuit board and is attached to the first and the second circuit boards, wherein the first, the second, and the third and the fourth circuit boards are separate printed circuit boards attached to each other, and wherein the first set of dies comprises at least one gyroscope and one acceleration sensor, and wherein the second set of dies comprises at least one gyroscope and one acceleration sensor (see explanation in rejection of claim 1)
Rejection of claim 18, Mueller or Saito disclose he electronic device according to claim 12, where the second, third and fourth circuit boards form a U-shape in the first plane (see figures of Mueller or Saito).
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent arts in the present case, all of which disclose various electronic devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PAGHADAL whose telephone number is (571)272-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM, Monday - Thursday.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571)272-2342. 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.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights