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.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 5/22/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-22 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding have been fully considered:
On pages 7-10 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Seaton discloses immersed sensor in the polymer is not suggesting a coating layer covering an entire surface of the output cable because Seaton explicitly discloses “sensors and only portions of the conductive leads are coated.
Response:
The rejection is based on obviousness. Examiner agrees that Seaton immersed sensor in polymer does not explicitly suggest covering entire output cable, however, skilled artisan would know too that Electrolube’s products such as modified alkyd conformal coatings (DCA SCC3) (which are publicly available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) is a good evidence that these coatings cover entire electronic assemblies , conductive leads, wires, sensors assemblies and also skilled artisan knows these polymers were used as protection of the electronic circuitry and elements such as conductive leads. The specific claiming “a coating layer covering an entire outer surface of the output cable”, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” coating disclosed by Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA coatings 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, accuracy, 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 Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA is used, as already suggested by Seaton. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of this limitation (meaning being unexpected results) stated and since these coatings 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 DCA for entire of output cables. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed limitation i.e., any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen variables are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
On pages 8-9 Applicant is arguing that Electrolube is teaching modified silicone not DCA.
Response:
Examiner has provided two documents of Electrolube product pages, first only used to identify DCA/SCC3 as a modified alkyd conformal coating. The second dated 20 Aug 2018 proves SCC3 coating product was publicly document before prior art of record.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
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 , 6, and 21 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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015.).
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 portion of 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 a portion 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, a coating layer covering an outer surface of an entire outer surface of the output cable, 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.2Also, in the similar field of endeavor, ELECTROLUBE teaches the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating and DCA coating is specifically designed for the protection of electronic circuitry (see the product pages of ELECTROLUBE provided by the examiner).Seaton immersed sensor in polymer does not explicitly suggest covering entire output cable, however, skilled artisan would know too that Electrolube’s products such as modified alkyd conformal coatings (DCA SCC3) (which are publicly available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) is a good evidence that these coatings cover entire electronic assemblies , conductive leads, wires, sensors assemblies and also skilled artisan knows these polymers were used as protection of the electronic circuitry and elements such as conductive leads. The specific claiming “a coating layer covering an entire outer surface of the output cable”, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” coating disclosed by Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA coatings 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, accuracy, 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 Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA is used, as already suggested by Seaton. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of this limitation (meaning being unexpected results) stated and since these coatings 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 DCA for entire of output cables. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed limitation i.e., any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen variables are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, please note that 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 , 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 21
Blokland in view of Seaton, Clark, and ELECTROLUE teaches the sensor unit of claim 1, wherein ELECTROLUE teaches the coating layer is a conformal coating specifically designed for protection of electronic circuitry, the coating layer applied in a dipping process such that the entire exterior surface of the sensor body and the entire exterior surface of the sensor element are covered by the coating layer based on obviousness for the same reason and motivation cited in claim 1.
Please note: ELECTROLUE DCA/SCC3 is a known conformal coating composition suitable for forming the claimed coating layer, and Seaton immersing process is a dipping process.
Also: please note that based on MPEP2113: For a PBP (produce based on process) claim to be valid and distinct from prior art, the process limitation must impart a unique, structural characteristic to the final product. Simply stating the intended use or a standard process isn't enough if the prior art product has the same structure.)
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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015) 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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015), 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 connector3 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, 17 and 22 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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015).
Claim 10
SKF-2003 in e.g., in page 2 and also figs.1-2 of page 16 discloses:
A sensor bearing unit 4having:
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 portions of 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 portion of 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) and covering an entire of outer surface. in the similar field of endeavor, ELECTROLUBE teaches the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating and DCA coating is specifically designed for the protection of electronic circuitry (see the product pages of ELECTROLUBE provided by the examiner). Seaton immersed sensor in polymer does not explicitly suggest covering entire output cable, however, skilled artisan would know too that Electrolube’s products such as modified alkyd conformal coatings (DCA SCC3) (which are publicly available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) is a good evidence that these coatings cover entire electronic assemblies , conductive leads, wires, sensors assemblies and also skilled artisan knows these polymers were used as protection of the electronic circuitry and elements such as conductive leads. The specific claiming “a coating layer covering an entire outer surface of the output cable”, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” coating disclosed by Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA coatings 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, accuracy, 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 Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA is used, as already suggested by Seaton. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of this limitation (meaning being unexpected results) stated and since these coatings 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 DCA for entire of output cables. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed limitation i.e., any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen variables are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, please note that 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 , 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 22
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 and BCA the sensor bearing unit of claim 10, wherein ELECTROLUE teaches the coating layer is a conformal coating specifically designed for protection of electronic circuitry, the coating layer applied in a dipping process such that the entire exterior surface of the sensor body and the entire exterior surface of the sensor element are covered by the coating layer based on obviousness for the same reason and motivation cited in claim 10.
Please note: ELECTROLUE DCA/SCC3 is a known conformal coating composition suitable for forming the claimed coating layer, and Seaton immersing process is dipping process.
Also: please note that based on MPEP2113: For a PBP (produce based on process) claim to be valid and distinct from prior art, the process limitation must impart a unique, structural characteristic to the final product. Simply stating the intended use or a standard process isn't enough if the prior art product has the same structure.)
Claims 10-11, 17 and 22 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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015), 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)5; 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 the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating (DCA) and covering an entire of outer surface. in the similar field of endeavor, ELECTROLUBE teaches the coating layer comprising a modified alkyd conformal coating and DCA coating is specifically designed for the protection of electronic circuitry (see the product pages of ELECTROLUBE provided by the examiner). Seaton immersed sensor in polymer does not explicitly suggest covering entire output cable, however, skilled artisan would know too that Electrolube’s products such as modified alkyd conformal coatings (DCA SCC3) (which are publicly available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) is a good evidence that these coatings cover entire electronic assemblies , conductive leads, wires, sensors assemblies and also skilled artisan knows these polymers were used as protection of the electronic circuitry and elements such as conductive leads. The specific claiming “a coating layer covering an entire outer surface of the output cable”, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” coating disclosed by Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA coatings 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, accuracy, 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 Seaton modified by Electrolube;s DCA is used, as already suggested by Seaton. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of this limitation (meaning being unexpected results) stated and since these coatings 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 DCA for entire of output cables. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed limitation i.e., any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen variables are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, please note that 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 , 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 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)6 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 22
Blokland in view of Seaton, ELECTROLUBE, and SKF-2003 and BCA the sensor bearing unit of claim 10, wherein the coating layer is a conformal coating specifically designed for protection of electronic circuitry, the coating layer applied in a dipping process such that the entire exterior surface of the sensor body and the entire exterior surface of the sensor element are covered by the coating layer.
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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015), 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”, (SAFETY DATA SHEET SCC3 Conformal Coating Aerosol According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Annex II, as amended. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830 of 28 May 2015), 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
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 See also “Tuor”, US20160187366A1 in conclusion part of this action
4 For citations : See the element numbers in the reproduced drawing here by the office
5 See also “Chaussat” US20180128320A1 in conclusion of this action
6 See also “Chaussat” US20180128320A1 in conclusion of this action
Prosecution Insights