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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinert et al. (US 8,590,376 B2) (hereinafter Reinert) in view of Nagata et al. (US 2021/0255212 A1) (hereinafter Nagata).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Reinert teaches an inertial measurement apparatus comprising an inertial sensor (see Abstract, Figs. 1-2), the inertial sensor comprising: a substrate [substrate 1]; a lid provided to face the substrate [cap element 2]; a movable frame provided between the substrate and the lid [mass unit 9]; and a comb-teeth movable electrode provided in the movable frame [electrodes 13, 15] (see Figs. 1-2). Reinert fails to teach a protrusion provided on at least one of the substrate or the lid and overlapping a tip end or a base part of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view. Nagata teaches an inertial sensor [1] comprising a substrate [2], a lid [5], a movable frame [3] between the substrate and lid having an electrode [34, 35], and a protrusion [23] provided on the substrate and overlapping a tip end or a base part of the movable electrode in a plan view (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Reinert with Nagata such to further comprise a protrusion provided on at least one of the substrate or the lid and overlapping a tip end or base part of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view in order to restrict excessive movement of the movable electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to a fixed frame provided between the substrate and the lid; and a comb-teeth fixed electrode provided in the fixed frame [fixed electrodes 12, 14] (see Reinert Fig. 1). Reinert in view of Nagata fails to teach wherein the protrusion overlaps the comb-teeth fixed electrode in a plan view; however, Reinert additionally teaches wherein the comb-teeth fixed electrode and the comb-teeth movable electrode are overlayed in an interdigitated manner (see Reinert Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that if the protrusion is provided to overlap part of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view, then the protrusion would also overlap the comb-teeth fixed electrode in the interdigitated portions in a plan view.
Regarding claim 3, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the protrusion overlaps a joint part of the comb-teeth movable electrode and the movable frame in a plan view. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as a joint part of the movable electrode and the movable frame, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 4, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the protrusion overlaps the base part of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as a base part, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 5, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the protrusion overlaps the tip end of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as a tip end, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 7, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the comb-teeth movable electrode [13, 15] includes a movable electrode arm extending in a first direction, and a movable electrode finger extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction from the movable electrode arm (see Reinert Fig. 1). Reinert in view of Nagata fails to teach wherein the protrusion is provided along the first direction. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as along the first direction, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 8, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 7 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the protrusion overlaps a joint part of the comb-teeth movable electrode and the movable frame in a plan view. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as a joint part of the movable electrode and the movable frame, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 9, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 7 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the protrusion overlaps the base part of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as a base part, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 10, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 7 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the protrusion overlaps the tip end of the comb-teeth movable electrode in a plan view. Nagata teaches wherein the protrusion overlaps the movable electrode in a plan view and functions as a stopper that restricts excessive swing in the movable frame/electrode (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Reinert in view of Nagata such that the protrusion overlaps a chosen portion of the movable electrode in a plan view, such as a tip end, in order to regulate excessive movement of the movable electrode at the chosen portion.
Regarding claim 12, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a spring holding the movable frame [suspension springs 10a, 10b]; and a fixing area fixing the movable frame to the substrate via the spring [anchor structures 11a, 11b], wherein the movable frame includes a first extension which has one end coupled to one end of the spring, a second extension which has one end coupled to another end of the spring, and a coupler that couples another end of the first extension and another end of the second extension, and the comb-teeth movable electrode is provided in the coupler [main body comprising electrodes 12, 15 as the coupler connected to extension arms extending from springs 10a, 10b] (see Reinert Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Reinert in view of Nagata as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a spring holding the movable frame [suspension springs 10a, 10b]; and a fixing area fixing the movable frame to the substrate via the spring [anchor structures 11a, 11b], the movable frame includes a border surrounding the comb-teeth movable electrode [border of mass unit 9], the spring is coupled to a first side of the border, and the comb-teeth movable electrode is provided on a second side intersecting the first side (see Reinert Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the protrusion overlaps from the base part to the tip end of the comb-teeth movable electrode, and from a base part to a tip end of the comb-teeth fixed electrode in a plan view, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claims from which they depend upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855