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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of response filed 07/14/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 and 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kinoshita et al 20190277880 in view of Franke et al US6233816.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al 20190277880 (hereinafter “Kinoshita”) in view of Franke et al US6233816 (hereinafter “Franke”).
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses an inertial sensor module (IMU-100) comprising:
a first inertial sensor that detects a physical quantity of a first axis;
a second inertial sensor that detects the physical quantity of the first axis (Sensors-17 and 18 are first and second inertial sensors that detect a physical quantity of a first axis, Paragraphs 0120-0125); and
a flat substrate (circuit board-9) in which a first region and a second region have co-planar mounting surfaces (See Fig 13).
However, Kinoshita fails to disclose the flat substrate including the first region in which the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are mounted, the second region surrounding the first region, and a plurality of slits provided between the first region and the second region to surround the first region.
Franke discloses the flat substrate (circuit board-20) including the first region in which the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are mounted (Circuitry ara-50), the second region surrounding the first region (See Figs 4A-5 and 8), and a plurality of slits (slots-40) provided between the first region and the second region to surround the first region. (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 2, Kinoshita discloses the substrate (circuit board-9) includes an external coupling portion (connector-10). (Paragraphs 0120-0125).
However, Kinshita fails to disclose the substrate includes an external coupling portion provided in the second region. Franke discloses the substrate includes an external coupling portion (support circuitry area-55) provided in the second region (See Figs 4A-5 and 8). (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 3, Kinoshita discloses the substrate (circuit board-9) includes a processing device (control IC-11) and processing a first detection signal of the first inertial sensor and a second detection signal of the second inertial sensor (Paragraphs 0120-0125).
However, Kinoshita fails to disclose the processing device provided in the second region. Franke discloses the processing device (support circuitry area-55) provided in the second region. (See Figs 4A-5 and 8). (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 4, Kinoshita discloses the module according to claim 1.
However, Kinoshita fails to disclose the plurality of slits are provided to surround four sides of the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor. Franke discloses the plurality of slits (slots-40) are provided to surround four sides of the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor (See Figs 4A-5 and 8). (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 5, Kinoshita discloses the module according to claim 1.
However, Kinoshita fails to disclose the substrate includes a plurality of support portions provided between the plurality of slits, and the plurality of support portions are provided to surround three or four sides of the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor. Franke discloses the substrate (circuit board-20) includes a plurality of support portions (conducting paths-60) provided between the plurality of slits, and the plurality of support portions are provided to surround three or four sides of the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor. (See Figs 4A-5 and 8).. (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 6, Kinoshita discloses the module according to claim 1.
However, Kinoshita fails to disclose the plurality of slits include a first slit, a second slit, a third slit, and a fourth slit, and the plurality of support portions include a first support portion provided between the first slit and the second slit, a second support portion provided between the second slit and the third slit, a third support portion provided between the third slit and the fourth slit, and a fourth support portion provided between the fourth slit and the first slit. Franke discloses the plurality of slits (slots-40) include a first slit, a second slit, a third slit, and a fourth slit, and the plurality of support portions (conducting paths-60) include a first support portion provided between the first slit and the second slit, a second support portion provided between the second slit and the third slit, a third support portion provided between the third slit and the fourth slit, and a fourth support portion provided between the fourth slit and the first slit. (See Figs 4A-5 and 8).. (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 7, Kinoshita discloses the module according to claim 1.
However, Kinoshita fails to disclose the plurality of slits include a first slit, a second slit, and a third slit, and the plurality of support portions include a first support portion provided between the first slit and the second slit, a second support portion provided between the second slit and the third slit, and a third support portion provided between the third slit and the first slit. Franke discloses the plurality of slits (slots-40) include a first slit, a second slit, and a third slit, and the plurality of support portions (conducting paths-60) include a first support portion provided between the first slit and the second slit, a second support portion provided between the second slit and the third slit, and a third support portion provided between the third slit and the first slit. (See Figs 4A-5 and 8).. (Col 4 line 31-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Franke into Kinoshita for the purpose of increasing measurement accuracy. The modification would allow for minimizing measurement errors due to undesired motion effecting the sensors.
Regarding claim 17, Kinoshita in view of Franke discloses the module according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Kinoshita discloses the first inertial sensor (Muti-axis inertial sensor-17) and the second inertial sensor (high-accuracy angular velocity sensor-18) are different in type and the number of detection axes. (Paragraph 0120-0127)
Regarding claim 18, Kinoshita in view of Franke discloses the module according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Kinoshita discloses the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are the same in type and the number of detection axes (detection elements-302 are the same in type and number of detection axes). (Paragraph 0161-0173)
Regarding claim 19, Kinoshita in view of Franke discloses the module according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Kinoshita discloses an inertial measurement unit (positioning system-1000) comprising the inertial sensor module according to claim 1. (See Fig 1, Paragraph )
Regarding claim 20, Kinoshita in view of Franke discloses the module according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Kinoshita discloses an electronic apparatus (vehicle-1100) comprising the inertial sensor module according to claim 1. (Paragraphs 00235, 0238, 0243 See Figs 28-33)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, a third region surrounding the first region between the first region and the second region, a first plurality of slits provided between the first region and the third region to surround the first region, and a second plurality of slits provided between the third region and the second region to surround the third region as recited in claim 8, or the substrate includes a first plurality of support portions provided between the first plurality of slits, and the first plurality of support portions overlap any of the second plurality of slits when viewed from a center of the first region as recited in claim 12, or the substrate includes a second plurality of support portions provided between the second plurality of slits, and the first plurality of support portions do not overlap any of the second plurality of support portions when viewed from the center of the first region as recited in claim 13.
The instant application provides the advantage of reducing the effects of stress and heat transferring by the alignment of the multiple frames.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amano et al US20230048524 discloses a sensor apparatus according to an embodiment of the present technology includes a substrate, one or more first IMU sensors, and one or more second IMU sensors. The substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface. The one or more first IMU sensors are arranged on the first surface. The one or more second IMU sensors are arranged on the second surface. By arranging the IMU sensors on both the first surface and the second surface, it is possible to reduce the size the apparatus and to suppress a deformation of the substrate due to heat. This makes it possible to realize a highly accurate measurement based on a detection result (sensing result) of a plurality of IMU sensors. (Fig 1-42, Paragraphs 0095-0609)
Yost US8498827 discloses a method includes combining readings from a plurality of inertial sensors to produce an estimate of the value of an inertial quantity in a manner that is fault-tolerant, more accurate than traditional sensor arrangements, and able to handle non-linear and non-Gaussian systems. Embodiments of a method also include utilizing a Monte Carlo estimation-based inference system to adaptively combine the inertial sensor outputs into a fault-tolerant highly-accurate inertial quantity estimate, an axis-reversed-paired physical arrangement of inertial sensors to minimize effects of environmental and process noise, and cross-associating sensors to ensure good sensor associations and reduce the effects of sample impoverishment. (Fig 1-7, Col 4 line 19-Col 18 line 12)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights