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
The drawings sheet filed 11 February 2026 is acknowledged and accepted and accordingly the drawings objection made in the last office action mailed 12 November 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no reasoning or rational underpinning regarding why a person skilled in the art would modify Cheve in view of Sonntag. Applicant remarks that there is no reason to utilize the teaching of Sonntag because Cheve already discloses a protective cover 16 and therefore the skilled artisan would not look to Sonntag to provide this benefit.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully disagrees that there is a lack of motivation to combine the teaching of Sonntag with that of Cheve. In particular, obviousness can be established or negated a number of ways (see MPEP 2143.01 regarding the various described suggestions or motivations to modify references) but in particular, the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and cannot change the principle of the operation of a reference. Accordingly, as acknowledged by Applicant, Cheve discloses a protective cover 16 but the examiner contends that adding an additional protective cover neither renders the prior art satisfactory for it intended purpose nor changes the principal operation of the references. Furthermore, as noted in the last office action mailed 12 November 2025, the additional motivation was provided regarding “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.” and therefore there is another motivation that would reasonably lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the teaching of Sonntag to modify Cheve’s sensor to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully contends that the rejection to pending claim 1 is proper and is upheld as noted in further detail below.
Applicant further argues that claim 8 depends from claim 1 but Moreau does not cure the purported deficiencies of Cheve and Sonntag. Applicant thus concludes that claim 8 is patentable in the event that claim 1 is patentable over the prior art for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that because the rejection of claim 1 has been upheld, the claim of claim 8 is also considered herein to still be proper and is also therefore upheld as noted in further detail below.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheve et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0285513 A1 (hereafter Cheve), prior art of record, in view of Sonntag et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0288198 A1 (hereafter Sonntag), prior art of record.
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).
As to claim 19: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the light emitter (18 of Sonntag) is encased by the circuit board (20 of Cheve) and the light guide (19 of Sonntag) (the light emitter 18 of Sonntag is considered to be encased by the circuit board 20 of Cheve and guide 19 of Sonntag because said emitter is placed thereupon and encased within a housing component similar to Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 43-45 regarding the light guide 56, light emitter 50, and circuit board 28 as well as being depicted in Applicant’s fig. 4 at least by virtue of the guide 19 of Sonntag being an exterior component that encases the emitter ).
As to claim 20: Cheve as modified by Sonntag teaches the sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the light guide (19 of Sonntag) engages the circuit board (20 of Cheve) (in the combination of Cheve and Sonntag, the guide 19 of Sonntag is considered to engage the circuit board 20 similar to the function disclosed in Sonntag ¶ 26).
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), prior art of record, in view of Sonntag et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0288198 A1 (hereafter Sonntag), prior art of record, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Moreau et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0328217 A1 (hereafter Moreau), prior art of record.
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
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 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
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights