DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 12th March, 2026. No Claim(s) were amended; Claim(s) 13-20 were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-12 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (KR) 10-2023-0022207 filed on 20th February, 2023; and (KR) 10-2024-0009292 filed on 22nd January, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2025, 01/27/2025, and 09/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Claims 1-12), drawn to Figure 4 of the drawings; Species II, drawn to Figure 5 of the drawings; and Species A, drawn to Figure 3 of the drawings, in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Figure 5 is a cross-sectional area of elected Figure 4, which illustrates Species I. Specifically, Figure 5 is a longitudinal cross- sectional view illustrating the sensor apparatus taken along line 5-5 in FIG. 4. In other words, Figure 5 is merely a different view of the elected species including Figure 4. This is found persuasive therefore the restriction between Species I and Species II is withdrawn; and thus, Species II is rejoined into Species I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites, “a filler filled inside the cover member, wherein the filler is filled at least to a height spaced apart from one end portion of the main board”. It is unclear the how filler filled inside the cover member but is filled at least to a height spaced apart from one end portion of the main board. The claim fails to define which end portion of the main board is relevant, or in which direction the height is spaced apart from one end portion of the main board. For example, is it the height above or below? Having a filler filled inside the cover member and is filled at least to a height spaced apart from one end portion of the main board appears to embrace all variants from a “main board not touched by the filler” to “mainboard entirely covered by the filler” and further contradicts the description (see Pg. 20-21)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) is 1, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” as being anticipated by CARTER (EP 3440438 B1).
Referring to Claim 1, CARTER teaches a sensor apparatus ([0001]) comprising:
a transducer defined as a detection signal transceiver that generates and receives a signal for detection ([0014]: “ultrasonic transducer structure, an electrical-to-acoustic and acoustic-to-electrical device 206, such as a piezoelectric cell, to convert the electric signals to sound and back again”; Fig. 2 #206);
a main board electrically connected to the transducer and on which a control chip that interprets and processes signals transmitted from the transducer is mounted ([0014]: “printed circuit board 203 that holds the circuitry to produce the ultrasonic signal, to receive the echo and to process an output”, Fig. 2 #203);
a cover member configured to accommodate the transducer ([0015] “transducer face 208 to provide protection to the piezoelectric cell and matching block from liquids and vapors in the storage tank”);
a lower housing having one end which is connected to the cover member and configured to accommodate a portion of the main board ([0014] “transducer housing”, Fig.2 #210, 208, 209);
an upper housing configured to accommodate the remaining portion of the main board ([0014] “cover to protect the enclosed electronics”, Fig. 2 #202);
a coupler configured to connect the other end of the lower housing and one end of the upper housing ([0014] “mounting”, Fig. 2 #204).
Referring to Claim 8, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coupler includes:
a barrel-shaped coupler body, and a partition rib configured to protrude and surround the outer circumferential surface of the coupler body, wherein one end of the upper housing is in contact with one surface of the partition rib, wherein the other end of the lower housing is in contact with the other surface of the partition rib, and wherein the outer surface of the partition rib is exposed to an outside (Fig. 2 #204).
Referring to Claim 10, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 8, further comprising:
a lower sealing mounted on an outer circumferential surface of the coupler body between the partition rib and one end portion of the coupler body and in close contact with an inner circumferential surface of the lower housing ([0018] “Transducer mounting surface and groves 1110 for O-rings help seal attachment points to the housing”, Fig. 11 #111 0);
an upper sealing mounted on the outer circumferential surface of the coupler body between the partition rib and the other end portion of the coupler body and in close contact with an inner circumferential surface of the upper housing ([0014] “O-rings and structure 212 to prevent intrusion into the sensor at the point the cover meets the housing”, Fig. 2 #212)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
As best understood by the Examiner, in view on the rejections of Claim(s) 2 under 35 USC § 112 above, Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARTER as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of BAYARSAIKHAN (DE102011077553A1).
Referring to Claim 2, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a filler filled inside the cover member, wherein the filler is filled at least to a height spaced apart from one end portion of the main board.
BAYARSAIKHAN teaches a filler filled inside the cover member, wherein the filler is filled at least to a height spaced apart from one end portion of the main board ([0009], [0027], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor apparatus disclosed in CARTER with the filler taught in BAYARSAIKHAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided mechanical stability, especially against vibrations as taught by BAYARSAIKHAN ([0007]).
Claim(s) 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARTER as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of BETTS (US 20090141590 A1)
Referring to Claim 3, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a gasket interposed at a portion where the lower housing and the cover member are connected.
BETTS teaches a gasket interposed at a portion where the lower housing and the cover member are connected ([0033]; Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor apparatus disclosed in CARTER with the gasket taught in BETTS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a seal between front housing assembly and rear housing assembly when they are assembled.as taught by BETTS ([0042]).
Referring to Claim 4, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 3, but doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a cap bolt configured to connect the cover member and the lower housing.
BETTS teaches a cap bolt configured to connect the cover member and the lower housing ([0033]; [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor apparatus disclosed in CARTER with the cap bolt taught in BETTS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a seal between front housing assembly and rear housing assembly when they are assembled.as taught by BETTS ([0042]).
Referring to Claim 5, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 4, wherein the cover member includes:
a front cover coupled to a front surface of the transducer ([0013]-[0016]);
a back cover configured to accommodate the transducer and having a front surface to which the front cover is coupled ([0013]-[0016]), wherein the back cover includes:
a transducer accommodating part configured to accommodate the transducer, a cap bolt accommodating part extending from a rear surface of the transducer accommodating part and configured to accommodate the cap bolt therein ([0013]-[0016]);
However, CARTER doesn’t explicitly teach a gasket seating part extending from an inner circumferential surface of the cap bolt accommodating part and having a rear surface on which the gasket is placed.
BETTS teaches a gasket seating part extending from an inner circumferential surface of the cap bolt accommodating part and having a rear surface on which the gasket is placed ([0033]; [0042]; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor apparatus disclosed in CARTER with the gasket taught in BETTS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a seal between front housing assembly and rear housing assembly when they are assembled.as taught by BETTS ([0042]).
Referring to Claim 6, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 5, wherein the cap bolt includes:
a base in close contact with a front surface of the gasket seating part, and a fastening sleeve extending from a rear surface of the base, extending inside the cap bolt accommodating part, and having a thread formed on an outer circumferential surface ([0013]-[0015]; Fig. 1-2).
Referring to Claim 7, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 6, wherein the lower housing includes:
a lower housing body with a hollow barrel shape, and an insert neck extending from a front surface of the lower housing body and having a thread formed on an inner circumferential surface, wherein the fastening sleeve is inserted into an inner portion of the insert neck and screwed to the insert neck ([0013]-[0015]; Fig. 1-2).
Referring to Claim 9, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 8, but doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising at least one light emitting element mounted on the main board, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting element is emitted to the outside through an outer surface of the partition rib.
BETTS teaches at least one light emitting element mounted on the main board, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting element is emitted to the outside through an outer surface of the partition rib ([0037]; [0045], Fig. 4A, 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor apparatus disclosed in CARTER with at least one light emitting element taught in BETTS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved brightness while providing efficient light transmission with minimal loss or scatter while driving the flasher to display the enlarged range interleaved with the compressed range as taught by BETTS (Abstract).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARTER as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of ZHANG (US 2016/0195372 A1).
Referring to Claim 11, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising: a connect plug inserted into the other end of the upper housing; one or more terminals soldered to the main board through the connect plug, wherein the connect plug includes: a plug body; a first seating rib extending from one end portion of the plug body; a second seating rib extending from one end portion of the plug body and formed opposite the first seating rib, and wherein the first seating rib extends longer than the second seating rib.
ZHANG teaches a connect plug inserted into the other end of the upper housing (Fig. 1);
one or more terminals soldered to the main board through the connect plug ([0027]-[0028]), wherein the connect plug includes:
a plug body ([0027]);
a first seating rib extending from one end portion of the plug body ([0027]);
a second seating rib extending from one end portion of the plug body and formed opposite the first seating rib, and wherein the first seating rib extends longer than the second seating rib ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor apparatus disclosed in CARTER with the connect plug taught in ZHANG with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved alignment of the connect plug relative to the main body as taught by ZHANG ([0007]).
Referring to Claim 12, CARTER teaches the sensor apparatus of claim 11, wherein a seating jaw protrudes from the other end portion of the main board (Fig. 1), wherein the seating jaw includes:
a first seating jaw with which the first seating rib is in contact (Fig. 1);
a second seating jaw with which the second seating rib is in contact, and wherein the second seating jaw protrudes longer than the first seating jaw (Fig. 1).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
