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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to correspondence filed February 28, 2026.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Previous objections to claims 5 and 11 have been withdrawn in view of Applicants Remarks filed February 28, 2026. Claims 5 and 11 are interpreted as requiring only one of the alternatives.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 109708774 A) (hereinafter Ding) in view of Bruggemann et al. (US 2017/0363482) (hereinafter Bruggemann).
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches a temperature sensing device, the temperature sensing device comprising:
a sensor antenna (sensor antenna) (2) electrically coupled to a surface acoustic wave, SAW, sensor element (acoustic surface wave sensor chip) (1), wherein the sensor antenna (sensor antenna) (2) comprises a conductive loop disposed on a surface of a substrate (circuit board) (3) (see Figures 1-3), the conductive loop (annular structure) surrounding an attachment region (through hole) of the substrate (circuit board) (3), the attachment region (through hole) having substantially no conductor material thereon (see Abstract, page 2, line 18-22, page 3, lines 1-11, page 2, line 37 through page 4, line 16).
However, Ding does not explicitly teach the temperature sensing device being for sensing aircraft wheel brake temperature.
Bruggemann teaches a temperature sensing device (temperature sensor) (210) for sensing aircraft wheel brake temperature (see paragraphs 0043 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensing device as taught by Ding for sensing aircraft wheel brake temperature as taught by Bruggemann. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a light weight temperature sensor suitable for harsh environments to wirelessly transmit accurate temperature measurements from an aircraft wheel brake.
Regarding claim 2, Ding further teaches the substrate being provided within a housing (housing formed by sensor supporting seat (4) and circuit board (3)) such that the sensor antenna (sensor antenna) (2) is an internal component of the temperature sensing device (see Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Ding further teaches the attachment region comprises a mounting structure (sensor supporting seat (4) with round through hole) for mounting the temperature sensing device to an external component (see Figures 1-3, Abstract and page 5, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 5, Ding further teaches the mounting structure comprises: a through hole (sensor supporting seat (4) with round through hole) (see Figures 1-3, Abstract and page 5, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 6, Ding in view of Bruggemann teaches all the temperature sensing device according to claim 1, and further teaches a brake disc for an aircraft wheel brake (see Bruggemann; paragraphs 0043 and 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Ding in view of Bruggemann teaches an aircraft comprising the brake disc according to claim 6 (see Bruggemann; paragraphs 0043 and 0050).
Regarding claim 8, Ding teaches a method of manufacturing a temperature sensing device, the method comprising: producing a sensor antenna (annular structure/sensor antenna) (2) comprising a conductive loop (annular structure/sensor antenna) (2) on a surface of a substrate (circuit board) (3) (see Figures 1-3), the conductive loop (annular structure/sensor antenna) (2) surrounding an attachment region (through hole) of the substrate having substantially no conductor material thereon (see Figures 1-3); and providing the temperature sensing device comprising the sensor antenna (annular structure/sensor antenna) (2) electrically coupled to a surface acoustic wave, SAW, sensor element (acoustic surface wave sensor chip) (1) (see Abstract, page 2, line 18-22, page 3, lines 1-11, page 2, line 37 through page 4, line 16).
However, Ding does not explicitly teach the temperature sensing device being for sensing aircraft wheel brake temperature.
Bruggemann teaches a temperature sensing device (temperature sensor) (210) for sensing aircraft wheel brake temperature (see paragraphs 0043 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of manufacturing the temperature sensing device as taught by Ding for sensing aircraft wheel brake temperature as taught by Bruggemann. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a light weight temperature sensor suitable for harsh environments to wirelessly transmit accurate temperature measurements from an aircraft wheel brake.
Regarding claim 9, Ding further teaches comprising providing a housing (housing formed by sensor supporting seat (4) and circuit board (3)) for the substrate (circuit board) (3) to provide the temperature sensing device (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Ding further teaches comprising physically modifying the substrate (circuit board) (3) in the attachment region to provide a mounting structure (sensor supporting seat (4) with round through hole) (see Figures 1-3, Abstract and page 5, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 11, Ding further teaches wherein physically modifying the substrate comprises creating: a through hole in the attachment region (“the sensor antenna and circuit board are provided with round through hole of the annular structure; the sensor supporting seat is provided with a round through hole matched with the cylindrical lug boss structure;” see page 2, lines 20-22) (Note: that the claim is being rejected as requiring only one option in the alternative, i.e. hole).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Bruggemann as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Loi et al. (US 2012/0018524) (hereinafter Loi).
Regarding claim 3, the prior combination taches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ding as modified by Bruggemann does not explicitly teach the substrate comprises a layer of ceramic material.
Loi teaches the substrate (antenna substrate) (104) comprises a layer of ceramic material (see paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate as taught by the prior combination with a ceramic layer as taught by Loi. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the antenna with excellent electrical insulation with minimal signal degradation.
Regarding claim 12, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
However, Ding as modified by Bruggemann does not explicitly teach the substrate is a layer of ceramic material.
Loi teaches the substrate (antenna substrate) (104) is a layer of ceramic material (see paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate as taught by the prior combination with a ceramic layer as taught by Loi. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the antenna with excellent electrical insulation with minimal signal degradation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 6 of the Remarks that: “Original claim 1 requires the attachment region 608 as being part of the surface 604 of the substrate 606 and not a through hole. Ding, by virtue of having a through hole in the circuit board, cannot have an attachment region that is part of the substrate. That is, Ding does not teach or disclose the claimed attachment region 608. Applicant respectfully submits that Bruggemann does not address the shortcomings of Ding.”
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the attachment region as being part of the surface of the substrate and not a through hole) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the instant Specification discloses in paragraph 0071, “[t]he attachment structure may be a physical modification of the sensing device substrate 606 in the attachment region 608. The physical modification is a modification compared to the sensing device substrate 606 simply being a layer of material. In some examples, the attachment structure is one of: a through hole, and a slit. The attachment structure may be any other structure formed by physical modifying the sensing device substrate 606 in the attachment region 608. For example, the extent of the attachment region 608 is defined by the attachment structure. For example, parts of the substrate 606 which do not correspond to the attachment structure are outside the attachment region 608.” See also claims 4 and 5 of the instant application.
Therefore, the “through hole” as taught by Ding meets the limitations of “ the attachment region having substantially no conductor material thereon” as claimed in claim 1 and 8.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 7 of the Remarks that “any attempt in modifying Ding and replacing the "through hole" with a "slit" would change its principle of operation or render it in operable as the through hole is required to be matched with the cylindrical lug boss. The same arguments apply to dependent claim 11. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 5 is also patentable over the prior art combination independently on its own merits and by virtue of its dependency from claim 1, and claim 11 is also patentable over the prior art combination independently on its own merits and by virtue of its dependency from claim 8.”
This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the scope of the claim language in claims 5 and 11, is in the alternative and does not require a slit. Therefore, the “through hole” as taught by Ding teaches the claimed language as claimed in claims 5 and 11.
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 JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights