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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-7) and Species Group 2 in the reply filed on 2/12/26 is acknowledged. Applicant submits that claims 1-7 read on the elected group(s). Therefore, claims 1-7 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “first structure ratio” and “second structure ratio” are indefinite because the claim does not explain how the recited structure ratios are calculated or what parameters are used to determine the ratios. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “unit parameter” is unclear. The claim does not explain what the “unit parameter” is or how it is determined, Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 4, “elastic body” is being referenced in the phrase “larger modulus of elasticity than the elastic body” but it is unclear which “elastic body” is being referenced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0091153 to Watanabe et al.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe ‘153 discloses a vibration insulating structure 20b which is fixed to a vibration source (via magnets 25) and on which a measurement apparatus 10 is placed, the vibration insulating structure 20b comprising: a first vibration insulating structure 21a fixed to the vibration source (via magnets 25 and substrate 22) and a second vibration insulating structure 23 provided on top of the first vibration insulating structure 21a, wherein the first vibration insulating 21a structure includes a first mass body 21a and a first vibration insulating member 30a/26a supporting the first mass body 21a, the second vibration insulating structure 23 includes a second mass body 23 and a second vibration insulating member 30e/26e supporting the second mass body 23, the measurement apparatus 10 is placed on the second mass body 23 (para 0063 and fig. 7).
However, Watanabe ‘153 does not explicitly teach a second structure ratio of the second vibration insulating structure is larger than a first structure ratio of the first vibration insulating structure.
The examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vibration insulating structures, such that the vibration insulating structure nearest the measurement apparatus provides greater vibration damping and isolation relative to the lower vibration insulating structure, including by increasing the structure ratio of the upper vibration insulating structure relative to the lower vibration insulating, in order to further damp resonance and improve vibration isolation performance at the measurement apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe ‘153 does not explicitly disclose, wherein a resonant frequency of the vibration insulating structure is lower than a half of a sampling frequency of the measurement apparatus and higher than an upper limit of an output frequency band of the measurement apparatus.
However, Watanabe ‘153 teaches tuning resonant frequency and vibration characteristics to reduce resonance noise and improve measurement accuracy (para 0040-0043, 0053 & 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the resonant frequency of the vibration insulating structure relative to the sampling frequency and output frequency band of the measurement apparatus in order to reduce resonance noise and improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe ‘153 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the measurement apparatus is any one of an inertial measurement unit, an inertial navigation system, an acceleration sensor, a displacement meter, a gyroscope sensor, an optical sensor, and an image measurement apparatus.
However, Watanabe ‘153 teaches an inertial measurement apparatus including acceleration sensors and angular velocity/gyroscope sensors for improving measurement accuracy under vibration conditions (para 0019-0020, 0040-0043 & 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the vibration insulating structure to other vibration sensitive measurement apparatuses in order to improve measurement accuracy by reducing vibration effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure to be used in subsequent office action rejections. The list of supports is as follows: US-20220221487-A1 OR US-20220326013-A1 OR US-9939042-B1 OR US-7465156-B2 OR US-5042162-A OR US-10605820-B2 OR US-8001839-B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights