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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasiri et al. (US 2009/0007661 A1) (hereinafter Nasiri) in view of Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0253253 A1) (Reynolds).
Regarding claim 1, Nasiri teaches a sensor module [motion processing unit] (Para [0005]) comprising:
a circuit substrate [printed circuit board] (Para [0033], see Fig. 9);
a first X-axis angular velocity sensor device mounted on the circuit substrate so that the detection axis of the first X-axis angular velocity sensor device is arranged along an X-axis direction [X-axis gyroscope] (Para [0033], see Fig. 9);
a first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device mounted on the circuit substrate so that the detection axis of the first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device is arranged along a Y-axis direction [Y-axis gyroscope] (Para [0033], see Fig. 9);
a first Z-axis angular velocity sensor device mounted on the circuit substrate so that the detection axis of the first Z-axis angular velocity sensor device is arranged along a Z-axis direction [Z-axis gyroscope] (Para [0033], see Fig. 9);
a microcontroller that calculates and outputs X-axis angular velocity data detected by the first X-axis angular velocity sensor device, calculates and outputs Y-axis angular velocity data detected by the first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device, and calculates and outputs Z-axis angular velocity data detected by the first Z-axis angular velocity sensor device [analog outputs from gyroscopes converted to digital signals which are then processed by microcontroller] (Para [0033-0034], see Figs. 13A-13E).
Nasiri fails to teach second X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis angular velocity sensor devices mounted and arranged on the circuit substrate alongside corresponding the first X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis angular velocity sensor devices, the microcontroller calculating and outputting X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis angular velocity data by deriving an average value for each axes using the angular velocity data around each X, Y, and Z axis detected by the first and second X, Y, and Z axis angular velocity sensor devices. Reynolds teaches the usage of multiple single-axis gyroscopes and calculating an average of the plurality of independent values of the measured environmental characteristic to derive a single value indicative of the environmental characteristic (see Claims 12 and 14).
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 Nasiri with Reynolds such to further comprise a second X-axis angular velocity sensor device mounted on the circuit substrate and having a detection axis arranged along the X-axis direction, a second Y-axis angular velocity sensor device mounted on the circuit substrate and having a detection axis arranged along the Y-axis direction, and a second Z-axis angular velocity sensor device mounted on the circuit substrate and having a detection axis arranged along the Z-axis direction, wherein the controller is further configured to calculate and output X-axis angular velocity data by deriving an average value using the angular velocity data around the X-axis detected by the first and second X-axis angular velocity sensor devices, calculate and output Y-axis angular velocity data by deriving an average value using the angular velocity data around the Y -axis detected by the first and second Y-axis angular velocity sensor devices, and calculate and output Z-axis angular velocity data by deriving an average value using the angular velocity data around the Z-axis detected by the first and second Z-axis angular velocity sensor devices, in order to improve sensor accuracy
Regarding claim 2, Nasiri in view of Reynolds as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the first and second X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis angular sensor devices include corresponding analog circuits that output a corresponding analog signal based angular velocity detection signal, and corresponding A/D conversion circuits that convert the corresponding analog signal into corresponding digital data, the microcontroller receiving the digital data from the first and second X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis angular velocity sensor devices via a digital interface bus [each X, Y, Z gyroscope having a corresponding ADC which connects to microprocessor via digital bus] (Nasiri see Figs. 13A-13E).
Regarding claim 8, Nasiri in view of Reynolds, as applied to claim 1 above teaches a measurement system comprising the sensor module according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a host device that is electrically connected to the sensor module [application processor] (Nasiri Para [0044], see Fig. 13C).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasiri in view of Reynolds, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2014/0347823 A1) (hereinafter Kinoshita).
Regarding claim 3, Nasiri in view of Reynolds as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the first X-axis angular velocity sensor device and the second X-axis angular velocity sensor device are mounted on a first side of the circuit board, and the first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device and the second Y-axis angular velocity sensor device are mounted on a second side of the circuit board. Kinoshita teaches a sensor module comprising single-axis X, Y, and Z angular velocity sensors, wherein the X-axis angular velocity sensor device and the Y-axis angular velocity sensor device are mounted on different sides of a circuit board (Para [0052], see Fig. 2). 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 Nasiri in view of Reynolds with Kinoshita such that the first X-axis angular velocity sensor device and the second X-axis angular velocity sensor device are mounted on a first side of the circuit board, and the first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device and the second Y-axis angular velocity sensor device are mounted on a second side of the circuit board, in order to align the detection axes of each of the angular velocity sensor devices with its corresponding axis.
Regarding claim 7, Nasiri in view of Reynolds as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a case housing the circuit board, the X-axis angular velocity sensor device, the second X-axis angular velocity sensor device, the first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device, the second Y-axis angular velocity sensor device, the first Z-axis angular velocity sensor device, and the second Z-axis angular velocity sensor device. Kinoshita teaches a sensor module comprising single-axis X, Y, and Z angular velocity sensors which can be housed in a case housing (Para [0055], see Figs. 2-4). 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 Nasiri in view of Reynolds with Kinoshita such to further comprise a case housing the circuit board, the X-axis angular velocity sensor device, the second X-axis angular velocity sensor device, the first Y-axis angular velocity sensor device, the second Y-axis angular velocity sensor device, the first Z-axis angular velocity sensor device, and the second Z-axis angular velocity sensor device, in order to protect the sensor components.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasiri in view of Reynolds, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammerschmidt (US 2008/0202237 A1) (hereinafter Hammerschmidt).
Regarding claim 8, Nasiri in view of Reynolds, as applied to claim 1 above teaches the sensor module according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Nasiri in view of Reynolds fails to teach a vehicle comprising the sensor module; and a control device that controls a posture of a vehicle on the basis of posture information of the vehicle obtained through a process based on an output signal from the sensor module.
Hammerschmidt teaches vehicle comprising a sensor module and a control device that controls a posture of a vehicle on the basis of posture information of the vehicle obtained through a process based on an output signal from the sensor module (Para [0002-0004, 0161]). 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 Nasiri in view of Reynolds with Hammerschmidt such that a vehicle having a control device that controls a posture of the vehicle comprises the sensor module according to claim 1 in order to utilize the sensor data for assisting in driving of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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 claim 4, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the circuit board has first and second opposite surfaces, the first Z-axis angular velocity sensor device is mounted on the first surface, the second Z-axis angular velocity sensor device is mounted on the second surface in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claim 1, from which it depends upon.
Regarding claims 5-6, they are dependent on claim 4.
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
Prosecution Insights