DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 3/28/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-052372 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2024 and 8/22/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroiwa (JP 2007-40741 A, hereinafter Kuroiwa) in view of Eriksen et al. (US Pat. No. 8,037,754 B2, hereinafter Eriksen).
Regarding claim 1, Kuroiwa teaches a sensor apparatus (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1, all elements) comprising: a plurality of sensor sets (see Fig. 1, sensor sets 1/2/3 and 1’/2’/3’ shown), each set including a plurality of different types of sensors (see Fig. 1, sensor set 1/2/3 includes a X-axis sensor 1, Y-axis sensor 2, and Z-axis sensor 3, and sensor set 1’/2’/3’ includes a X-axis sensor 1’, Y-axis sensor 2’, and Z-axis sensor 3’); and a common sensor arrangement part to which the plurality of sensor sets are arranged (see Fig. 1, common sensor arrangement part 10); the plurality of sensor sets include at least one type of sensors that measure a common type of physical quantities and are identical to each other in design (see Fig. 1, sensor set 1/2/3 X-axis sensor 1, Y-axis sensor 2, and Z-axis sensor 3, corresponds to common type sensor set 1’/2’/3’ X-axis sensor 1’, Y-axis sensor 2’, and Z-axis sensor 3’, wherein the Examiner considers that the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis sensors are identical in design), and the at least one type of sensors that are identical to each other in design are arranged symmetric with respect to a center of gravity of the sensor arrangement part (see Fig. 1 and [0026], X-axis sensor 1, Y-axis sensor 2, and Z-axis sensor 3 and corresponding X-axis sensor 1’, Y-axis sensor 2’, and Z-axis sensor 3’ are symmetric with respect to the center of gravity 11 of the sensor arrangement part 10).
Kuroiwa fails to specifically teach that the sensor arrangement part comprises an integral part formed of a single material.
Eriksen teaches a sensor apparatus (see Fig. 2, all elements) comprising: a plurality of sensor sets (see Fig. 2, plurality of sensors sets 24, each including a MEMS gyroscopic rotational rate sensor 28 and MEMS accelerometer 30); and a common sensor arrangement part to which the plurality of sensor sets are arranged (see Fig. 2, common sensor arrangement part 16 has cutouts 34 for arranging the plurality of sensor sets 24), wherein the sensor arrangement part comprises an integral part formed of a single material (see col. 4, lines 35-43 and Fig. 2, sensor arrangement part 16 an integral part formed e.g. of ceramic as described).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Kuroiwa above with the integral sensor arrangement part formed of a single material as described by Eriksen. This allows for the system to withstand high inertial loads as well as high shock loads as described by Eriksen (see col. 4, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 2, Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kuroiwa fails to teach that the sensor arrangement part has a polyhedral shape; the sensor arrangement part includes recessed parts for arranging all of the at least one type of sensors that are arranged symmetric with respect to the center of gravity; and the recessed parts are opened in directions perpendicular to any surface of the sensor arrangement part.
However, Eriksen further teaches that the sensor arrangement part has a polyhedral shape (see Fig. 2, sensor arrangement part 16 has a polyhedral shape as shown); the sensor arrangement part includes recessed parts for arranging all of the at least one type of sensors that are arranged symmetric with respect to the center of gravity (see Fig. 2, sensor arrangement part 16 includes recessed parts 34 for arranging the sensor sets 24 symmetrically about the center of the triangular cupola as shown); and the recessed parts are opened in directions perpendicular to any surface of the sensor arrangement part (see col. 4, lines 44-53, recessed portions 34 arranged such that the sensors sets are orthogonal as described, and thus considered as perpendicular to any surface of the sensor arrangement part).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above with the sensor arrangement part configuration as further described by Eriksen. This allows for the system to withstand high inertial loads as well as high shock loads as described by Eriksen (see col. 4, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 3, Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Furthermore, Kuroiwa teaches that each of the plurality of sensor sets includes corresponding first-axis sensors, corresponding second-axis sensors and corresponding third-axis sensors corresponding a first axis, a second axis and a third axis, respectively, perpendicular to each other as sensors that are arranged symmetric with respect to the center of gravity (see Fig. 1, arrangement of X-axis sensor 1, Y-axis sensor 2, and Z-axis sensor 3 and corresponding X-axis sensor 1’, Y-axis sensor 2’, and Z-axis sensor 3’ symmetric with respect to the center of gravity 11 of the sensor arrangement part 10).
Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above fails to specifically teach that the sensor arrangement part has a rectangular parallelepiped shape; and all of the first-axis sensors, all of the second-axis sensors, and all of the third-axis sensors are arranged in the recessed parts of the sensor arrangement part.
However, Eriksen teaches a further embodiment wherein the sensor arrangement part has a rectangular parallelepiped shape (see Fig. 7-8, sensor arrangement part 70 has a rectangular parallelepiped shape as shown); and all of the sensors are arranged in the recessed parts of the sensor arrangement part (see Fig. 8, sensor sets 80 arranged within recessed parts of the sensor arrangement part 70 as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above with the sensor arrangement part configuration as further described by Eriksen. The shown sensor configurations allow for the system to withstand high inertial loads as well as high shock loads as described by Eriksen (see col. 4, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 9, Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-3.
Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above fails to specifically teach that the first-axis sensors, second-axis sensors and third-axis sensors are gyroscopes.
However, Eriksen further teaches that the sensor sets include gyroscopes (see Abstract; see also col. 5, lines 20-35 and Fig. 2, sensor sets 24 includes MEMS gyroscopic rotational rate sensors 28).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Kuroiwa as modified by Eriksen above with the gyro sensors as further suggested by Eriksen. This would allow for each sensor set to accurately measure inertia of the device along orthogonal axis, thereby improving the reliability of fall detection of the device of Kuroiwa.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
Regarding claims 4-8, Kuroiwa in view of Eriksen above represents the best art of record. However, Kuroiwa in view of Eriksen above fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, Kuroiwa further teaches a controller (107), wherein the first-axis sensors, the second-axis sensors and the third-axis sensors included in the plurality of sensor sets include at least one pair of sensors that are paired to face each other (see Fig. 1, X-axis sensor 1, Y-axis sensor 2, and Z-axis sensor 3 face corresponding X-axis sensor 1’, Y-axis sensor 2’, and Z-axis sensor 3’ with respect to the center of gravity 11 of the sensor arrangement part 10).
However, Kuroiwa, Eriksen, and combinations thereof fails to critically teach that the controller receives measurement results from both the pair of sensors, and executes control of reversing polarity of measured values included in one of the measurement results and control of not reversing polarity of measured values included in another of the measurement results.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 4 and the examiner can find no teachings for a sensor apparatus as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights