DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–5, 11–16, and 18–19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakuma et al. (US Pub. # 20130014581), hereinafter referred to as Sakuma.
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, Sakuma teaches, “A holding structure (claims 18, 19: methods) (Fig. 1–6) used to provide, to a target (42 and 41/46 of 3), a substrate (23) on which an inertial sensor (711) is arranged, the holding structure comprising at least two connection structure portions (at 411 of 41 and at 421 of 42) that are respectively provided to at least two portions of the substrate (23), the at least two connection structure portions being used to connect the substrate to the target (at 411 of 41 and at 421 of 42), wherein the at least two connection structure portions each have a bonding structure obtained by an adhesive material being provided between the target and substrate being spaced from each other (see para. [0085–0088]; describing substrate being pressed to target and fixed via adhesive), or one of the at least two connection structure portions has a pressing structure obtained by the substrate being pressed against the target to be fixed to the target, and another of the at least two connection structure portions has the bonding structure (see para. [0085–0088]; describing substrate being pressed to target and fixed via both screw fixation and adhesive).”
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the pressing structure includes a structure obtained by the substrate being fixed to the target through a fastening member [0085–0088].”
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the fastening member is a screw [0085–0088].”
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the pressing structure includes a structure obtained by the substrate being sandwiched using the target to be fixed to the target (41 and 42 pressing 23 and being sandwiched via fastening/screw members/adhesive; see para. [0085–0088]).”
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the target includes a first fixation portion and a second fixation portion between which the substrate is sandwiched to be fixed to the target (41 and 42 pressing 23 and being sandwiched via fastening/screw members/adhesive; see para. [0085–0088]), and at least one of the first fixation portion or the second fixation portion fixes the substrate to the target through an elastic body [0042, 0088].”
Regarding claim 11, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the at least two connection structure portions each have the bonding structure [0085–0088].”
Regarding claim 12, Sakuma teaches, “wherein one of the at least two connection structure portions has the pressing structure, and another of the at least two connection structure portions has the bonding structure [0085–0088].”
Regarding claim 13, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the inertial sensor is configured to include at least one of an acceleration sensor or an angular velocity sensor (Fig. 6, ref. # 711; [0039]).”
Regarding claim 14, Sakuma teaches, “wherein respective positions of the at least two connection structure portions are set on a basis of a position of the inertial sensor on the substrate (position of 61 between 411 of 41 and 421 of 42; [0085–0088]).”
Regarding claim 15, Sakuma teaches, “wherein a position of the inertial sensor is set on a basis of respective positions of the at least two connection structure portions (position of 61 between 411 of 41 and 421 of 42; [0085–0088]).”
Regarding claim 16, Sakuma teaches, “wherein the inertial sensor is arranged at a center of gravity obtained by using the respective positions of the at least two connection structure portions (see position of 61 between 411 of 41 and 421 of 42; [0085–0088]).”
Claim(s) 1, 6–11, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao (JP 2012084777).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Nakao teaches, “A holding structure (claims 18, 19: method) (Fig. 5; see para. [0021, 0023, 0029, 0037]) used to provide, to a target (1 or 100), a substrate (2) on which an inertial sensor (6) is arranged, the holding structure comprising at least two connection structure portions (2 positioned to 1, at least at two portions, including using 4 and 22) that are respectively provided to at least two portions of the substrate (2), the at least two connection structure portions being used to connect the substrate to the target (2 connects to 1, 100 via 4 and 22), wherein the at least two connection structure portions each have a bonding structure obtained by an adhesive material being provided between the target and substrate being spaced from each other (see Fig. 5a, 5b; ref. # 4, 22; [0021, 0023, 0029, 0037]), or one of the at least two connection structure portions has a pressing structure obtained by the substrate being pressed against the target to be fixed to the target, and another of the at least two connection structure portions has the bonding structure.”
Regarding claim 6, Nakao teaches, “wherein the bonding structure includes a structure obtained by the adhesive material (4 and 22) being provided on a basis of a position of a hole of the target in a state in which an insertion portion (21) of the substrate (2) is inserted into the hole (2 into 1/11).”
Regarding claim 7, Nakao teaches, “wherein the hole is a through hole (11).”
Regarding claim 8, Nakao teaches, “wherein the adhesive material is provided to cover at least a portion of an opening of the hole (4, 22 covering portion of 11).”
Regarding claim 9, Nakao teaches, “wherein the hole is filled with the adhesive material (4, 22 filled in 11).”
Regarding claim 10, Nakao teaches, “wherein the bonding structure (4 and 22 included on 1) includes a structure obtained by the adhesive material being provided on a basis of a position of a hole (11 in 1) of the substrate in a state in which an insertion portion of the target is inserted into the hole (2 inserted into 11 of 1, connected via 4 and 22; in this configuration, ref. # 1 includes sensor 5, and interpreted as having the details of claim 1 above, alternative to ref. # 2 with 6).”
Regarding claim 11, Nakao teaches, “wherein the at least two connection structure portions each have the bonding structure (4, 22 positioned at at least two portions of ref. # 2 and 1).”
Regarding claim 13, Nakao teaches, “wherein the inertial sensor is configured to include at least one of an acceleration sensor or an angular velocity sensor [0023].”
Notably, Minami (JP 2010230329) anticipates claims 1, 10–11, 13–16, and 18; Ryu et al. (US Pub. # 20130308046) anticipates claims 1, 11, 13–16, and 18; and Higuchi (JP2008224428) anticipates claims 1, 11, 13–16, and 18. Here, thorough analysis of each will be omitted since these claims are already rejected as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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-AIA ) 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.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US Pub. # 20130014581) in view of Bin et al. (US Pub. # 20190002125), hereinafter referred to as Bin.
Regarding claim 17, while Sakuma teaches providing stabilization to the structure of a sensor on a substrate (see details of Sakuma rejection of claim 1 above, and para. [0114]), Sakuma does not necessarily teach, “wherein the holding structure is configured such that the substrate is provided to a rotation section to be rotated integrally with the rotation section, the rotation section being the target, the rotation section being rotatable about a specified rotational axis, and an image-capturing section is provided to the rotation section to be rotated integrally with the rotation section.” However, Bin teaches the deficiencies of Sakuma (see Fig. 8; para. [0066, 0119–0121]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakuma’s invention to include wherein the holding structure is configured such that the substrate is provided to a rotation section to be rotated integrally with the rotation section, the rotation section being the target, the rotation section being rotatable about a specified rotational axis, and an image-capturing section is provided to the rotation section to be rotated integrally with the rotation section.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sakuma and Bin’s inventions for at least the purpose of providing stabilization to any substrate/board configuration in motorized or movable electronic product, which is susceptible to external vibrations, while capturing video/images in a freely, movable manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach sensing unit devices having fixing structure attachments to substrates/boards, configured similarly to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852