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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In particular, Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 7 notes that figure 1 depicts “a sensor module 2 of the state of the art” and accordingly the examiner interprets this disclosure as indicating that only that which is old is illustrated. Furthermore, because each of Applicant’s as-filed specification disclosures in ¶ 7-11 appear to be drawn to difficulties encountered in the prior art in relation to the depicted structure of figure 1, the examiner is interpreting this as being further evidence that figure 1 is illustrating only that which is old.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-3, 7, 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheve et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0285513 A1 (hereafter Cheve) in view of Sonntag et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0288198 A1 (hereafter Sonntag).
As to claim 1: Cheve discloses a sensor module (14; see fig. 1 and ¶ 22) configured to detect a mechanical vibration (see ¶ 6) of a component (see ¶ 25; the vibration sensor 42 allows the sensor module to detect vibrations of various components, such as wheel 10 as disclosed in ¶ 30), the sensor module (14) comprising:
a base (18; see fig. 2 and ¶ 23) configured to be secured on the component (see ¶ 24 which notes “the base 18 is attached to the wheel 10”);
a circuit board (20; see fig. 2 and ¶ 25) mechanically connected (¶ 26) to the base (18) and having a first side (36; see fig. 6) facing the base (18) (see ¶ 25) and a second side (38; see fig. 6) facing away from the base (see ¶ 25).
Cheve does not explicitly teach:
a light emitter;
the light emitter being disposed on the second side;
a casing inside which is housed the circuit board,
wherein the casing comprises a cover and a light guide facing the light emitter, the cover comprising a through-hole through which the light emitter is able to pass and inside which extends the light guide, one of the cover or the light guide being overmolded on the other.
However, Sonntag teaches:
a light emitter (18; see fig. 3 and ¶ 26);
the light emitter (18) being disposed on a second side (the side facing light guide 19 is considered to be on a second side of circuit board 8b);
a casing (4; see fig. 1 and ¶ 24) inside which is housed a circuit board (8b) (see ¶ 25 and 26 as well as fig. 3 regarding the relative positions of the casing 4 and the circuit board 8b),
wherein the casing (4) comprises a cover (6; see fig. 3 and ¶ 24) and a light guide (19; see ¶ 24) facing the light emitter (see fig. 3), the cover (6) comprising a through-hole through which the light emitter is able to pass (see fig. 3 and ¶ 26 regarding the opening formed by the projection of the light guide 19) and inside which extends the light guide (see ¶ 26), one of the cover or the light guide being overmolded on the other (see ¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheve’s sensor module to include a light emitter; the light emitter being disposed on the second side; a casing inside which is housed the circuit board, wherein the casing comprises a cover and a light guide facing the light emitter, the cover comprising a through-hole through which the light emitter is able to pass and inside which extends the light guide, one of the cover or the light guide being overmolded on the other because such a design is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of both protecting internal sensing components such as suggested in Sonntag ¶ 25 and 26 while also allowing for a visual indication of the status of operation of the sensor to be known to a user, such as also suggested in Sonntag ¶ 26. Accordingly, such a construction would allow a user of Cheve’s sensor to both know that the internal components are protected from potential damage while also being able to quickly assess whether the sensor is operating as normally or not.
As to claim 2: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the cover (6 of Sonntag) comprises a front part comprising the through-hole (see the examiner’s marked up fig. 3 of Sonntag below), and a mounting skirt (see examiner’s marked up fig. 3 of Sonntag below) extending from the front part and surrounding the circuit board (8b of Sonntag; see examiner’s marked up fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
1242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the through-hole (the opening formed by the projection of the light guide 19 of Sonntag as disclosed in ¶ 26) has a conical form (see fig. 3 of Sonntag regarding the different diameters of the light guide 19 which is formed in said through-hole; because the light guide 19 has a tapering form as depicted, it is considered to also have a conical form).
As to claim 7: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 1, comprising a potting material (48 of Cheve; see ¶ 25) between the casing (4 of Sonntag) and the second side of the circuit board (see ¶ 25 of Cheve).
As to claim 9: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board (20 of Cheve) comprises a piezoelectric vibration sensor (42 of Cheve; see ¶ 25).
As to claim 10: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 2, wherein the through-hole (the opening formed by the projection of the light guide 19 of Sonntag as disclosed in ¶ 26) has a conical form (see fig. 3 of Sonntag regarding the different diameters of the light guide 19 which is formed in said through-hole; because the light guide 19 has a tapering form as depicted, it is considered to also have a conical form).
As to claim 18: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches a vehicle wheel assembly (see fig. 1 of Cheve and ¶ 22 as well as further details in ¶ 24) comprising:
a wheel (10 of Cheve; see ¶ 22) having a component comprising studs (12 of Cheve; see ¶ 24) and;
a sensor module according to claim 1 mounted on the studs of the wheel (see Cheve ¶ 24; the sensor module 14 is disclosed as being mounted on the lugs 12 that are considered to be studs and accordingly the sensor module taught by the combination of Cheve and Sonntag as described previously above regarding the limitations of claim 1 is considered to be mounted thereon).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheve et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0285513 A1 (hereafter Cheve) in view of Sonntag et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0288198 A1 (hereafter Sonntag) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Moreau et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0328217 A1 (hereafter Moreau).
As to claim 8: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, including potting material (48 of Cheve), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the potting material comprises a polymer.
However, Moreau teaches that potting material may comprise a polymer (see ¶ 180).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheve’s potting material to comprise a polymer because polymers are an art recognized material that achieves the useful and predictable result of protecting electronic components, such as suggested in ¶ 180 of Moreau. Accordingly, such a polymer construction for Cheve’s potting material would improve the longevity of Cheve’s sensor module device by protecting the electronic components therein from damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 11-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a light guide that is made of a translucent material, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1. In particular, although Sonntag discloses a light guide (see ¶ 25 and 26), there does not appear to be a disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or other motivation regarding the light guide being made of a translucent material. Additionally, because Sonntag ¶ 26 specifically discloses the light guide being arranged as close as possible to the illuminant 18 in order to prevent unwanted scattering of light, there does not appear to be a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Sonntag’s light guide because this would contravene said prevention of light scattering.
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan the light guide comprising a main base being in contact with the cover all around the through-hole of the cover, the width of the tube being larger than the width of the light emitter, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those recited in parent claim 1.
As to claim 6: The claim depends directly from claim 5 and accordingly is also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims at least by virtue of the instant claim’s dependency.
As to claim 11: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a light guide that is made of a translucent material, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1, 2, and 10.
In particular, the limitations of the instant claim are noted to be the same as claim 4 which was indicated objected to for the reasons noted previously above and accordingly said reasons are also applicable to the instant claim but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claim 12-17: Each of said claims depends ultimately from claim 11 and accordingly each of said claims are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims at least by virtue of each of said claims’ dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855