DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are 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., "an essentially conical profile" or “a force-fit clamping connection”) 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).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Dommsch (DE 102018204297 A1; cited in prior PTO-892) and TE Connectivity ("DT Detector", 2018; cited in prior PTO-892) both pertain to housings of sensor units with ports that utilize pins to supply power to their components, and TE Connectivity recites that “wiring the connector with the wrong polarity (+/-) can cause damage to the electrical components” [described under page 2 under “Warning” – as recited in Non-Final Rejection of December 29, 2025], and TE Connectivity further teaches polarity indicators on the end cap [read as “first part” of the instant application’s “two-part housing”, see Non-Final Rejection of December 29, 2025], as shown in Image 0 below – thus, TE Connectivity teaches better orienting connector pins of a housing for a sensor unit in a desired manner to avoid damaging electrical components.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 0 – TE Connectivity, Page 2 Figure, Annotated
Further, in response to Applicant’s argument that TE Connectivity does not teach a clamping connection between the first and second housing part [the clear housing of TE Connectivity read as “second part” of the instant application’s “two-part housing”], Examiner respectfully disagrees. TE Connectivity teaches the use of a “Deutsch” or “DT”-style connector as the basis for the housing components, and page 1 recites: “TE Connectivity‘s Detector connector is an extension of the reliable and time-tested DEUTSCH DT connector series” which “features a transparent housing and a wedgelock” (wedgelock is part of the end cap [see page 2] or “first part” of the instant application). As taught by TE Connectivity, Deutsch DT connectors are well-known in industrial applications, especially in the art of housings for sensors and electrical components, and it is well-known that the end caps of Deutsch DT connectors are “press-fit” or “clamped” into place when pressed into the housings. For the purpose of compact prosecution and clarity of the record, Examiner has provided additional Non-Patent Literature further explaining the well-known clamping mechanics that occur between the end caps and housing of Deutsch DT connectors {see Ref U (YouTube video entitled “How to Assemble & Disassemble Deutsch DT Connectors” by user @Wirecare; hereinafter “Ref U”), namely [02:30]-[02:30]}.
3. As Applicant has stated no further arguments against the prior art rejections of the Non-Final Rejection of December 29, 2025, those same rejections are recited below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity.
In regard to claim 1, Dommsch teaches a sensor unit [electric drive unit 10] comprising an electronics unit [electronic device unit 89], a first housing part [first housing part 31] and a second housing part [second housing part 32] connected thereto, wherein the first and second housing parts form an interior [interior between housing parts shown in Fig. 1] between them and, directed away therefrom, each of them has a housing part outer side [Fig. 2 shows an isometric cross-section that shows an outside surface of both housing parts], wherein the electronics unit is connected to the first housing part {para. [0024] describes how the first 87 and second 88 printed circuit boards (comprising the electronic device unit 89) are connected to the first housing part 31} and projects into the interior [Fig. 1 shows electronic device unit 88 in the interior space], wherein a contact area [connecting plug 42] passing through the first housing part is provided [Fig.1 illustrates the connecting plug 42 passing through the first housing part 31], wherein the electronics unit has at least one circuit board with at least two circuit board portions [first printed circuit board 87 and second printed circuit board 88] connected to one another in an electrically conductive manner {para. [0021] describes the first circuit board 87 and second circuit board 88 being electrically connected to one another via contact bridges 122], wherein a first circuit board portion is arranged between the contact area and a second circuit board portion in an electrically conductive manner {para. [0008] describes an embodiment in which the electrical communication goes from the connecting plug 42 to the first printed circuit board 87 and then to the second printed circuit board 88 via the contact bridges 122}, and a support structure [axial stops 125 and 127] which is fastened to the first housing part and contacts the electronics unit [shown in Fig. 2].
Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein the support structure has guide webs which are guided in a guide of the second housing part, wherein the guide is formed as a groove, and wherein the width of the guide web increases in the direction of a main plane of the first housing part and the guide narrows in terms of its width facing away from the main plane so that a clamping connection is formed between the second housing part and the support structure.
However, TE Connectivity teaches a sensor with a two-part housing [second part - clear housing, first part - end cap shown in Image 1 below] and a support structure [flange extending from end cap on which the circuit board is supported]. Further, TE Connectivity teaches that the support structure has guide webs [guide webs extending perpendicularly from the support structure] which are guided in a guide of the second housing part [shown in Image 1], wherein the guide is formed as a groove [grooves shown in Image 1], and wherein the width of the guide web increases in the direction of a main plane of the first housing part and the guide narrows in terms of its width facing away from the main plane so that a clamping connection is formed between the second housing part and the support structure [guide webs decrease in height extending away from the end cap and lock into place when pressed, as shown on page 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used TE Connectivity’s use of guide webs and guide grooves in a support structure and second housing part with Dommsch’s sensor unit in order to better orient connector pins in a desired manner to avoid damaging electrical components – a well-known engineering practice – as taught by TE Connectivity [described under page 2 under “Warning”].
PNG
media_image2.png
230
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 1 – TE Connectivity, Page 2 Figure
In regard to claim 2, Dommsch further teaches a sensor unit wherein the first circuit board portion transmits electrical voltage and/or current applied to the contact area in the operating state to the second circuit board portion {para. [0008] describes an embodiment where a power supply provided through the contact pins 46 of the connecting plug 42 are connected with the first printed circuit board 87 which then transmits that power to the second printed circuit board 88 via the contact bridge 122}.
In regard to claim 7, Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity teaches the sensor unit of claim 1.
Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein a molded seal is arranged between the first and second housing parts.
However, TE Connectivity teaches a molded seal [shown in Image 1] between the first and second housing portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used TE Connectivity’s molded seal with Dommsch’s sensor unit in order to better environmentally seal the housing – a known engineering practice – as described by TE Connectivity [page 1 para. 2].
In regard to claim 8, Dommsch further teaches a sensor unit wherein the contact area is designed to be bordered by a molded extension [plug collar 45] of the first housing part.
In regard to claim 9, Dommsch further teaches a sensor unit wherein the first housing part has at least one connection possibility [flange 22] for mechanically connecting the sensor unit to a machine unit {para. [0018] describes that flange 22 serves as the mechanical coupling of the electronics housing (comprised of first 31 and second 32 housing parts) to the pole housing 12 which encloses the rotor shaft 64}.
In regard to claim 10, Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein the second housing part has a visual indicator.
However, TE Connectivity teaches a sensor unit wherein the second housing part has a visual indicator {two LED’s [page 2] that show through the transparent material of the second housing [shown on page 1]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dommsch’s sensor unit with TE Connectivity’s visual indicator in order to better troubleshoot when the device has power, as taught by TE Connectivity [page 1 para. 2].
In regard to claim 13, Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity teaches the sensor unit of claim 10.
Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein the visual indicator is formed by an illuminant arranged on the circuit board and a light guide ending in the second housing part and/or an illuminant formed by a transparent portion in the second housing part.
However, TE Connectivity teaches a sensor unit wherein the visual indicator is formed by an illuminant [two LEDs, page 2] arranged on the circuit board [LED circuit -page 2, shown in Image 1] and a light guide ending in the second housing part and/or an illuminant formed by a transparent portion in the second housing part {LEDs show through the transparent material of the second housing [shown on page 1]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dommsch’s sensor unit with TE Connectivity’s visual indicator comprising illuminants arranged on a circuit board that shine through a transparent portion in a second housing part in order to better troubleshoot when the device has power, as taught by TE Connectivity [page 1 para. 2].
5. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity as described in claims 1-2 and 8-9 and in further view of Loveday (US 3694675 A; cited in prior PTO-892).
In regard to claim 3, Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity teaches the sensor unit of claim 1.
Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein the first housing part is designed to be substantially plate-shaped in such a manner that it covers a smaller part of the part of the electronics unit projecting into the interior than the second housing part. Although TE Connectivity does teach a plate-shaped first housing part [flat end cap in Image 1], and such a cap is standard across DT-style connectors, such a rationale as to why the end cap would be plate-shaped is not explicitly stated in TE Connectivity – and therefore Dommsch in view of TE connectivity not teach a plate-shaped first housing part. Further, although the first housing part covers no portion of the sensor, the second housing inherently covers a larger part of the electronics unit projecting in to the interior than the first housing part – however, TE Connectivity is similarly not explicit for a motivation to do so, and therefore Dommsch in view of TE connectivity not teach a plate-shaped first housing part that covers a smaller part of the part of the electronics unit projecting into the interior than the second housing part.
However, Loveday teaches a sensor unit wherein the first housing part [front mass 13, which has plate 53] is designed to be flat or plate-shaped [plate 53] in such a manner that it covers a smaller part of the part of the electronics unit [piezoelectric crystal means C] projecting into the interior [shown in Fig. 1] than the second housing part [housing 51] [Fig. 1 shows that plate 53 covers less of the electronics unit (none) than the housing 51 (all)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dommsch’s sensor unit with Loveday’s plate-shaped portion of the first housing part that covers a smaller part of a part of the electronics unit projecting into an interior than a second housing part for the purpose of having the first housing part better provide support to the structure as taught by Loveday [Loveday column 3 lines 16-36].
In regard to claim 5, Dommsch further teaches a sensor unit wherein a circuit board portion of the electronics unit is oriented parallel [Image 2 below, (top horizontal line) comprising a plane of the circuit board portion is parallel to a flat plane of the first housing part (bottom horizontal line)] to a main plane of the plate-shaped first housing part and is fastened therewith to the first housing part {para. [0024] describes the first 87 and second 88 printed circuit boards being attached to the first housing part 31}, and/or the two circuit board portions are arranged orthogonal to one another.
Although TE Connectivity does teach a plate-shaped first housing part [flat end cap in Image 1], and such a cap is standard across DT-style connectors, such a rationale as to why the end cap would be plate-shaped is not explicitly stated in TE Connectivity – and therefore Dommsch in view of TE connectivity not teach a plate-shaped first housing part.
However, Loveday teaches a sensor unit with a plate-shaped first housing part [plate 53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dommsch’s sensor unit with Loveday’s plate-shaped housing part for the purpose of better providing support to the structure as taught by Loveday [Loveday column 3 lines 16-36].
PNG
media_image3.png
529
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Image 2 – Dommsch Fig. 1, Annotated
6. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity and in further view of Kurtz (US 20100200779 A1; provided in prior PTO-892).
In regard to claim 4, Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity teaches the sensor unit of claim 1.
Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein the first housing part covers less than 30% of the part of the electronics unit projecting into the interior. Although TE Connectivity teaches where the first housing part covers no portion of the sensor [less than 30%, shown in Image 1], TE Connectivity is not explicit as to a motivation for combination for this claim limitation, and therefore Dommsch in view of TE connectivity does not teach wherein the first housing part covers less than 30% of the part of the electronics unit projecting into the interior.
However, Kurtz teaches sensor unit wherein the first housing part [connector end assembly 24] covers less than 30%, of the part of the electronics unit [electronics module 41] projecting into the interior [aperture 65, Fig. 3 shows connector end assembly covering 0% of the electronics module].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity’s sensor unit with Kurtz’s first housing part that covers less than 30% of a part of an electronics unit projecting into an interior for the purpose of having the electronics better protected by another housing portion made of a robust material, such as tungsten, as taught by Kurtz {Kurtz para. [0011]}.
In regard to claim 11 Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity teaches the sensor unit of claim 1.
Dommsch does not teach a sensor unit wherein the first housing part covers less than 10% of the part of the electronics unit projecting into the interior. Although TE Connectivity teaches where the first housing part covers no portion of the sensor [less than 10%, shown in Image 1], TE Connectivity is not explicit as to a motivation for combination for this claim limitation, and therefore Dommsch in view of TE connectivity does not teach wherein the first housing part covers less than 10% of the part of the electronics unit projecting into the interior.
However, Kurtz teaches a sensor unit wherein the first housing part [connector end assembly 24] covers less than 10% of the part of the electronics unit [electronics module 41] projecting into the interior [Fig. 3 shows connector end assembly 24 covering 0% of the electronics module 41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dommsch in view of TE Connectivity’s sensor unit with Kurtz’s first housing part that covers less than 10% of a part of an electronics unit projecting into an interior for the purpose of having the electronics better protected by another housing portion made of a robust material, such as tungsten, as taught by Kurtz {Kurtz para. [0011]}.
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 DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached T-R 07:00-19:00, F 07:00-11:00.
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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights