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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 12/19/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the priority is persuasive, therefore, the office action has been updated accordingly. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered:
On page 11 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the limitation “a coating layer covering an exterior surface, the exterior surface covering the sensor element, the sensor body, and the entire outer surface of the output cable.” has not been taught by the prior art, more specifically Sean only teaches "A first conductive lead 104 and a second conductive lead 106 extend from the sensor 102. A protective coating 108 encapsulates the sensor 102 and the portions of the first conductive lead 104 and the second conductive lead 106 proximate to the sensor 102.".
Response:
Based on MPEP 2111, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case:
Firstly: the limitation is “a coating layer covering an outer surface of the sensor element, an outer surface of the sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the output cable”
Secondly: at a minimum Sean discloses:
A sensor assembly (100 in fig.1) with a protective coating 108 (at least Abstract)
The sensor assembly 100 includes a sensor 102, a first conductive lead 104 extending from the sensor 102, a second conductive lead 106 extending from the sensor 102, and a protective coating encapsulating the sensor 102 and portions of the first conductive lead 104 and the second conductive lead 106 proximate to the sensor (at least Abstract)
The coating 108 is applied by immersing the sensor assembly 100 into a cooled fluoroelastomeric polymer and then withdrawing the sensor assembly (at least Abstract)
Therefore:
At least these citations above teaches “a coating layer (fluoroelastomeric polymer) covering an outer surface of the sensor element (sensor as an element of sensor assembly), an outer surface of the sensor body (sensor assembly includes sensor body immersed in fluoroelastomeric polymer: therefore an outer surface of sensor body is covered by the coating), and an entire outer surface of the output cable (sensor assembly includes sensor body immersed in fluoroelastomeric polymer: therefore an outer surface of sensor body including all output cables are covered by the coating)”.
Thirdly: insulated cables are typically protected by a coating, often referred to as a jacket or sheath. This outer layer protects the inner insulation and conductor from environmental damage (moisture, chemicals, UV) and mechanical stress (abrasion).
Therefore Sean teaches the limitation as broadly as can reasonable be interpreted.
Finally:
Even if Sean does not explicitly cite coating for output cables, the skilled artisan would know too that coating layer would protect high temperature and highly corrosive environments (Sean ¶0001) Sean also teaches it would be desirable to provide a coated sensor that was able to function within highly corrosive environments despite the elevated levels of corrosive compounds necessitated by new environmental regulations.(¶0003), This helps protect the connection between the sensor and the conductive leads (e.g., ¶0021), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the coating layer is used as claimed, as already suggested by Sean. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the coating layer of Sean in sensor of Blokland and covering an outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor element, an outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the modified Blokland’s output cable. Please note that patentability is said to be based upon particular variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitation is critical, that means chosen limitation is unexpected. And there is no unexpected result if the coating layer covers the cables.
Therefore prior art (Blokland and also “SKF-2003”) modified by Sean teaches the limitation based on obviousness as broadly as can reasonable be interpreted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1 and “Clark”, US 20110158287 A1, and “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013).
Claim 1
Blokland in figs.1-8 discloses:
A sensor unit (4) comprising:
a sensor element (sensing cells 401) ;
a sensor body (40/44) supporting the sensor element (401);
an output cable (50) mounted inside (better shown in fig.4 that 50 is mounted inside 44) the sensor body (40/44) and extending outward relative to the sensor body (40/44).
Blokland does not specifically disclose: wherein the sensor body comprises polyamide (PA) 6.6, a coating layer covering an outer surface of the sensor element, an outer surface of the sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the output cable, the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA).
In the similar field of endeavor, Seaton in fig.1 (and at least Abstract) teaches a coating layer (108) covering an outer surface of the sensor element (102), an outer surface of the sensor body (102/ a sensor 102 reads on both sensor body and sensor element), and an entire outer surface of the output cable (see e.g., Abstract that teaches all sensor assembly immersed in the polymer broadly read this limitation for also leads106/104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Seaton’s coating for Blokland’s sensor unit so that the coating layer covering an outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor element, an outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor output cable . One of ordinary skill in the art would know sensor assemblies need protective coatings for use in high temperature and highly corrosive environment (e.g., ¶0001 of Seaton) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the sensor assembly from environment negative impacts.
Blokland and Seaton do not teach: the sensor body comprises polyamide (PA) 6.6, the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA).
In the similar field of endeavor, Clark teaches a sensor unit 40 comprising: a sensor element 18; a sensor body 20 supporting the sensor element 18, wherein the sensor body 20 comprises polyamide (PA) 6.6 (e.g., ¶0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Clark‘s sensor body comprises polyamide for the modified Blokland‘s sensor body. One of ordinary skill in the art knows modified PA 6,6 meet electrical requirements1 and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use it as protective component in electrical applications.2
In the similar field of endeavor, ELECTROLUBE teaches the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating3 and DCA coating is specifically designed for the protection of electronic circuitry (page 1 lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ELECTROLUBE’s DCA coating for the modified Blokland’s coating layer covering sensor element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect electric circuity (ELECTROLUBE’s page 1 lines 3-4) because of their satisfactory performance (page 5 lines 1-2 and 6). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (ELECTROLUBE’s DCA coating) for another (Blokland combined with Seaton’s coating) to obtain predictable results (protecting electric circuitry) because of their satisfactory performance (page 5 lines 1-2 and 6), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUE teaches the sensor unit of claim 1, the modified Blokland does not specifically teach wherein the coating layer has a thickness of between 30 μm and 110 μm.
The modified Blokland teaches most aspects of the instant invention. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the thickness would affect the method of forming it and depends on the desired thickness it can be modified to produce different thicknesses of coating layer (¶022¶024 of Seaton), and the thickness should protect weak areas such as the connection (¶021 of Seaton). Specific range of 30 μm and 110 μm, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by Seaton that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired protection from environmental impacts, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the thickness of between 30 μm and 110 μm is used, as already suggested by modified Blokland. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed range stated and since these 30 μm and 110 μm ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Blokland modified with Seaton. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1, and “Clark”, US 20110158287 A1, and “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013) and “Hu”, US 20170211948 A1.
Claim 2
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUBE teaches the sensor unit of claim 1, Blokland further teaches wherein the sensor element (401) is mounted into the sensor body (40/44) and configured to an annular inner surface (better shown in Fig.3) of the sensor body (40/44), but does not specifically disclose flush with annular inner surface of the sensor body.
In the similar field of endeavor, Hu in figs.3-4 teaches a sensor element 40 is mounted into the sensor body 10 and flush with an annular inner surface of the sensor body 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hu’s configuration for the modified Blokland’s sensor element and sensor body wherein the modified Blokland’s sensor element is mounted into the modified Blokland’s sensor body and flush with an annular inner surface of the sensor body. One of ordinary skill in the art would know being as constant as possible is desirable for sensing element and have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively guarantee testing precision of the axial sensing element (Hu ¶0040).
Claims 3-4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1, and “Clark”, US 20110158287 A1, and “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013), and “BCA”, (BCA Bearings, https://bcabearings.com/products/wheel-hub-assemblies/, April 12,2019).
Claim 3
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUBE teaches the sensor unit of claim 1, Blokland further teaches wherein the output cable 50 comprises a plurality of wires 501-504 connected to the sensor element (401/ e.g., ¶0032) and extending through the entire length of the output cable 50.
The modified Blokland does not specifically teach the plurality of wires being bundled together within an insulated sheath.
In the similar field of endeavor, BCA teaches a wires being bundled together within an insulated sheath.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use BCA’s insulated sheath for the modified Blokland‘s plurality of wires being bundled together. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protecting electrical elements.
Claim 4
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUBE and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 3, BCA further teaches wherein the entire outer surface of the output cable 50 comprises the insulated sheath for the same reason and motivation as cited for claim 3.
Claim 7
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUBE and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 3, the modified Blokland does not specifically teach wherein the output cable 50 further comprises a plug connector located at an end opposite the sensor body, the plug connector encasing ends of the plurality of wires on the end opposite the sensor body, the ends of the plurality of wires being free ends.
BCA as disclosed at the reproduced drawing above discloses plug connector4 encasing ends of the wires.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use BCA’s plug connector for the modified output cable located at an end opposite the modified Blokland’s sensor body, the plug connector encasing ends of the plurality of wires on the end opposite the modified Blokland’s sensor body, the ends of the plurality of wires being free ends . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to securely and reliably connecting the device for the appropriate connections.
Claim 8
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUBE and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 7,
Blokland in fig.8 teaches a printed circuit board 403 (¶0037: 403 includes the signal processing means and which is adapted to acquire the data, i.e. electrical currents delivered by each sensing cell 401 and teaches for each wire 501 to 504, a connection pin 446 adapted to perform the electrical connection between one of wires 501 to 504 and printed circuit board 403 :¶0040), therefore, the modified Blokland teaches a plug connector and therefore wherein the plug connector connects to a printed circuit board based on obviousness for the same reason for claim 7.
Claim 9
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUBE and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 8, Seaton does teach that the coating is used as a protective coating, and properly ensuring that the entire sensor is coated via immersion helps to protect weak areas such as the connections (¶0021), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Blokland modified with Seaton’s coating layer additionally covers the plug connector and the printed circuit board as taught by Seaton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure all areas are protected.
Claims 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and “SKF-2003” : SKF Sensor-Bearing Units –concentrate intelligence in your motion control, © Copyright SKF 2003 in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1 and “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013).
Claim 10
SKF-2003 in e.g., in page 2 and also figs.1-2 of page 16 discloses:
A sensor bearing unit 5having:
PNG
media_image2.png
130
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a bearing (A) comprising:
an inner ring 10,
an outer ring 20,
a plurality of rolling elements 30 positioned between the inner ring 10 and the outer ring 20; and
PNG
media_image3.png
368
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an encoder unit comprising a target (page 5 col.1 : magnetic impulse ring b including T, e.g., page 4 col.2) and an annular target holder (the annular space around b); and a sensor unit (F and c, d, M) secured to either the inner ring or the outer ring (here secure to 20: page 4, col.2 : magnetic impulse ring divided into a sequence of north and south poles is attached to the inner ring of the SKF Sensor-Bearing Unit. The outer ring carries a sensor body with embedded Hall cells.) comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
418
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a sensor element (M);
a sensor body (c, F) supporting the sensor element (M);
an output cable d mounted inside the sensor body F,c and extending outward relative to the sensor body c,F;
SKF-2003 teaches (e.g., page 4 col.1 : sensor units shielded from external influences), therefore, SKF-2003 teaches a coating layer (e.g., page 4 col.1 : sensor units shielded from external influences) covering an exterior surface, the exterior surface covering the sensor element M, the sensor body (c,F),. Although SKF-2003 does not explicitly teach a coating layer covering the output cable, the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA).
In the similar field of endeavor, Seaton in fig.1 (and at least Abstract) teaches a coating layer (108) covering an outer surface of the sensor element (102), an outer surface of the sensor body (102/ a sensor 102 reads on both sensor body and sensor element), and an entire outer surface of the output cable (see e.g., Abstract that teaches all sensor assembly immersed in the polymer broadly read this limitation for also leads106/104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Seaton’s coating for SKF-2003’S sensor unit so that the coating layer covering an outer surface of the modified SKF-2003’s sensor element, an outer surface of the modified SKF-2003’s sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the modified SKF-2003’s sensor output cable . One of ordinary skill in the art would know sensor assemblies need protective coatings for use in high temperature and highly corrosive environment (e.g., ¶0001 of Seaton) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the sensor assembly from environment negative impacts.
The modified SKF-2003 does not specifically teach the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA).
In the similar field of endeavor, ELECTROLUBE teaches the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating6 and DCA coating is specifically designed for the protection of electronic circuitry (page 1 lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ELECTROLUBE’s DCA coating for the modified SKF-2003’s coating layer covering sensor element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect electric circuity (ELECTROLUBE’s page 1 lines 3-4) because of their satisfactory performance (page 5 lines 1-2 and 6). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (ELECTROLUBE’s DCA coating) for another (SKF-2003 Seaton’s coating or shield) to obtain predictable results (protecting electric circuitry) because of their satisfactory performance (page 5 lines 1-2 and 6), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 10-11 and 17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1, “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013), and “SKF-2003” : SKF Sensor-Bearing Units –concentrate intelligence in your motion control, © Copyright SKF 2003.
Claim 10
Blokland in figs.1-8 discloses:
A sensor bearing unit having:
a bearing 2 comprising:
an inner ring 22,
an outer ring 20,
a plurality of rolling elements positioned between the inner ring and the outer ring (e.g., ¶0029: non-shown rolling elements, such as balls, rollers or needles);
and
an encoder unit comprising a target 42 and an annular target holder (not labeled but the portion holding target 42 inside 22)7; and
a sensor unit 4 secured to either the inner ring 22 or the outer ring 20 comprising:
a sensor element 401;
a sensor body 40/44 supporting the sensor element 401;
an output cable 50 mounted inside the sensor body 40/44 and extending outward relative to the sensor body 40/44.
Blokland does not specifically disclose a coating layer covering an outer surface of the sensor element, an outer surface of the sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the output cable, coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA), wherein the sensor element and the target are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements.
In the similar field of endeavor, Seaton in fig.1 (and at least Abstract) teaches a coating layer (108) covering an outer surface of the sensor element (102), an outer surface of the sensor body (102/ a sensor 102 reads on both sensor body and sensor element), and an entire outer surface of the output cable ((see e.g., Abstract that teaches all sensor assembly immersed in the polymer broadly read this limitation for also leads106/104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Seaton’s coating for Blokland’s sensor unit so that the coating layer covering an outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor element, an outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor body, and an entire outer surface of the modified Blokland’s sensor output cable . One of ordinary skill in the art would know sensor assemblies need protective coatings for use in high temperature and highly corrosive environment (e.g., ¶0001 of Seaton) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the sensor assembly from environment negative impacts.
Blokland and Seaton do not teach the comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA), wherein the sensor element and the target are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements.
In the similar field of endeavor, ELECTROLUBE teaches the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating8 and DCA coating is specifically designed for the protection of electronic circuitry (page 1 lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ELECTROLUBE’s DCA coating for the modified Blokland’s coating layer covering sensor element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect electric circuity (ELECTROLUBE’s page 1 lines 3-4) because of their satisfactory performance (page 5 lines 1-2 and 6). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (ELECTROLUBE’s DCA coating) for another (Blokland combined with Seaton’s coating) to obtain predictable results (protecting electric circuitry) because of their satisfactory performance (page 5 lines 1-2 and 6), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In the similar field of endeavor, SKF-2003 teaches wherein the sensor element M and the target b are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements 30 (e.g., page 16: fig.1 encoder ring or target b and sensor c are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SKF-2003‘s sensor bearing unit for the modified Blokland’s sensor bearing unit wherein the sensor element and the target are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements. One of ordinary skill in the art knows without a properly aligned target the sensor won’t generate signals and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the position information. Furthermore, The specific claimed the sensor element and the target are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum or alternative” alignment disclosed by Blokland that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired signal, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the sensor element and the target are radially aligned with the plurality of rolling elements is used, as already suggested by Blokland.
Claim 11
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUE, SKF-2003 teaches the sensor bearing unit of claim 10, Blokland further teaches wherein a small radial gap (FIG.1: not labeled but there is a radial gap between sensors and target 42)9 lies between the sensor element 401 and the target 42 of the encoder unit (target 42 plus the not labeled portion holding 42).
Claim 17
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUE, SKF-2003 teaches the sensor unit of claim 10, the modified Blokland does not specifically teach wherein the coating layer has a thickness of between 30 μm and 110 μm.
The modified Blokland teaches most aspects of the instant invention. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the thickness would affect the method of forming it and depends on the desired thickness it can be modified to produce different thicknesses of coating layer (¶022¶024 of Seaton), and the thickness should protect weak areas such as the connection (¶021 of Seaton). Specific range of 30 μm and 110 μm, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by Seaton that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired protection from environmental impacts, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the thickness of between 30 μm and 110 μm is used, as already suggested by modified Blokland. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed range stated and since these 30 μm and 110 μm ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Blokland modified with Seaton. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1, “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013), and “SKF-2003” : SKF Sensor-Bearing Units –concentrate intelligence in your motion control, © Copyright SKF 2003, and US20210221172A1, “Jeon”.
Claim 12
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUE, SKF-2003 teaches the sensor bearing unit of claim 10, the modified Blokland does teach wherein the target 42/22/6 comprises a plastic part (40 is plastic though does not specifically cite the materials of 6) including alternating (multi-pole/e.g., ¶0031) poles, but the modified Blokland does not specifically teach comprises plastic molded North and South poles.
In the similar field of endeavor, Jeon in figs.1-2 teaches the target 72/71/80 comprises a plastic molded part (¶0074) including alternating North and South poles (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jeon’s plastic molded part and alternating North and south poles for the modified Blokland’s target and multi pole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce magnetic field variations while rotating around axis (¶0031 of Blokland). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (D), courts have ruled that applying a known technique to a known product to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1, “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013), and “SKF-2003” : SKF Sensor-Bearing Units –concentrate intelligence in your motion control, © Copyright SKF 2003, and “Hu”, US 20170211948 A1.
Claim 13
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUE, SKF-2003 teaches the sensor bearing unit of claim 10, Blokland further teaches wherein the sensor element (401) is mounted into the sensor body (40/44) and configured to an annular inner surface (better shown in Fig.3) of the sensor body (40/44), but does not specifically disclose flush with annular inner surface of the sensor body.
In the similar field of endeavor, Hu in figs.3-4 teaches a sensor element 40 is mounted into the sensor body 10 and flush with an annular inner surface of the sensor body 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hu’s configuration for the modified Blokland’s sensor element and sensor body wherein the modified Blokland’s sensor element is mounted into the modified Blokland’s sensor body and flush with an annular inner surface of the sensor body. One of ordinary skill in the art would know being as constant as possible is desirable for sensing element and have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively guarantee testing precision of the axial sensing element (Hu ¶0040).
Claims 14-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blokland”, US 20150192430 A1, in view of “Seaton”, US 20130333675 A1, “ELECTROLUBE”, (Conformal Coatings, DCA, Modified Silicon Conformal Coatings, ELECTROLUBE, copyright 2013), and “SKF-2003” : SKF Sensor-Bearing Units –concentrate intelligence in your motion control, © Copyright SKF 2003, and “BCA”, (BCA Bearings, https://bcabearings.com/products/wheel-hub-assemblies/, April 12,2019).
Claim 14
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 teaches the sensor unit of claim 10, Blokland further teaches wherein the output cable 50 comprises a plurality of wires 501-504 connected to the sensor element (401/ e.g., ¶0032) and extending through the entire length of the output cable 50.
The modified Blokland does not specifically teach the plurality of wires being bundled together within an insulated sheath.
In the similar field of endeavor, BCA teaches wires within an insulated sheath.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use BCA’s insulated sheath for the modified Blokland‘s device and the modified Blokland’s plurality of wires maintained together by an insulated sheath. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protecting electrical elements.
Claim 15
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 14, BCA further teaches wherein the entire outer surface of the output cable is the insulated sheath (see reproduced drawings) for the same reason as coted for claim 14.
Claim 18
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 14, the modified Blokland does not specifically teach wherein the output cable 50 further comprises a plug connector located at an end opposite the sensor body, the plug connector encasing ends of the plurality of wires on the end opposite the sensor body, the ends of the plurality of wires being free ends.
BCA as disclosed at the reproduced drawing above discloses plug connector encasing ends of the wires.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use BCA’s plug connector for the modified output cable located at an end opposite the modified Blokland’s sensor body, the plug connector encasing ends of the plurality of wires on the end opposite the modified Blokland’s sensor body, the ends of the plurality of wires being free ends . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to securely and reliably connecting the device to the appropriate connections.
Claim 19
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 18,
Blokland in fig.8 teaches a printed circuit board 403 (¶0037: 403 includes the signal processing means and which is adapted to acquire the data, i.e. electrical currents delivered by each sensing cell 401 and teaches for each wire 501 to 504, a connection pin 446 adapted to perform the electrical connection between one of wires 501 to 504 and printed circuit board 403 :¶0040), therefore, the modified Blokland teaches a plug connector and therefore wherein the plug connector connects to a printed circuit board based on obviousness for the same reason for claim 18.
Claim 20
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 and BCA teaches the sensor unit of claim 19, Seaton does teach that the coating is used as a protective coating, and properly ensuring that the entire sensor is coated via immersion helps to protect weak areas such as the connections (¶0021), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Blokland modified with Seaton’s coating layer additionally covers the plug connector and the printed circuit board as taught by Seaton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure all areas are protected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See for example Jimenez, Maude, et al. "New routes to flame retard polyamide 6, 6 for electrical applications." Journal of fire sciences 30.6 (2012): 535-551.
2 See Jimenez.
3 Comparing datasheets of ELECTROLUBE in different years confirms labeling DCA as SCC3/modified silicon and modified alkyd conformal coating are used interchangeably.
4 See also “Tuor”, US20160187366A1 in conclusion part of this action
5 For citations : See the element numbers in the reproduced drawing here by the office
6 Comparing datasheets of ELECTROLUBE proves labeling DCA as SCC3/modified silicon and modified alkyd conformal coating are used interchangeably.
7 See also “Chaussat” US20180128320A1 in conclusion of this action
8 Comparing datasheets of ELECTROLUBE proves labeling DCA as SCC3/modified silicon and modified alkyd conformal coating are used interchangeably.
9 See also “Chaussat” US20180128320A1 in conclusion of this action