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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 20, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 12-13 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.
Regarding claims 12-13, the limitations “lower radial end” and “upper radial end” of the sleeve are indefinite because it is unclear what portions of the sleeve these terms refer to. The specification teaches the position of fastening line in the axial direction, but does not clearly define a lower or upper radial end. Therefore, the scope of the claims is unclear.
For purposes of applying prior art, the limitations are interpreted as the fastening line to be spaced from both ends of the sleeve along the axial direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maus et al. (US 5887427 A)
Regarding Claim 1 – Maus teaches a feedthrough in a housing component that is subject to thermal loading for a functional assembly (Figs 1-2; 1, 4, 5), the feedthrough comprising: an inner conductor (Figs 1-2; 7); an outer conductor (Figs 1-2; 8) having a sleeve assigned to or formed on the outer conductor that retains or makes it possible to fasten the feedthrough to the housing component (Figs 1-2; 6, 8, 4, 5; Maus teaches “sheath 6 protrudes into a penetration aperture 5 formed in the shell 4” and “sheath 6 may be connected materially with the shell 4, in particular by welding or soldering”); and an electrically insulating component between the outer conductor and the inner conductor (Figs 1-2; 9 between 7 and 8), the electrically insulating component retaining the inner conductor relative to the outer conductor in an electrically insulated fashion (Figs 1-2; 7, 8, 9; Maus teaches “Two electrical conductors 7, 8 are disposed coaxially to one another” and “conductors 7, 8 are electrically insulated from one another by… insulation layer 9”).
Regarding Claim 2 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, wherein the inner conductor has a cylindrically symmetrical form and the outer conductor cylindrically symmetrically surrounds the inner conductor (Figs 1-2; 7, 8; Maus teaches “Two electrical conductors 7, 8 are disposed coaxially to one another” and “said conductors are mutually concentric”).
Regarding Claim 3 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, wherein the sleeve surrounds an outer lateral surface of the outer conductor and has at least two spatially separate mounting regions (Figs 1-2; 6 surrounding 8; Maus teaches “The sheath 6 may be connected materially with the shell 4” and “the sheath 6 is provided with an external thread 11”) or the sleeve is formed in one piece with the outer conductor and forms at least one mounting region.
Regarding Claim 19 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, wherein the functional assembly is an exhaust-gas catalytic converter or a turbocharger (Figs 1-2; 1, 4; Maus teaches “metal shell is part of an electrically heatable catalytic converter”).
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.
Claims 4, 6-9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US 5887427 A) in view of Taylor (US 7517258 B1)
Regarding Claim 4 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a first mounting region provides a mechanical connection between the sleeve and the outer conductor and a second mounting region provides a mechanical connection between the sleeve and the housing component of the functional assembly.
Taylor teaches a first mounting region provides a mechanical connection between the sleeve and the outer conductor (Fig 4; 202, 204, 206; Taylor teaches “inner ferrule 204 that is laser-welded to the outer sleeve at laser-weld joint 206”) and a second mounting region provides a mechanical connection between the sleeve and the housing component of the functional assembly (Fig 4; 202, 220, 224; Taylor teaches solder joint 224 is formed between sleeve 202 and the housing).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with a first mounting region provides a mechanical connection between the sleeve and the outer conductor and a second mounting region provides a mechanical connection between the sleeve and the housing component of the functional assembly as taught by Taylor to address “cyclic fatigue in solder joints used to join metallic components having substantially different CTEs” and provide a reliable hermetic seal between the feedthrough and housing.
Regarding Claim 6 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, wherein the first mounting region is formed on an inner surface of the sleeve (Taylor Fig 5; 302, 304, 336; Taylor teaches ferrule 304 is inserted into recess 336 of sleeve 302 and welded to the sleeve along their adjoining surfaces) and the second mounting region is formed on an outer lateral surface of the sleeve (Taylor Fig 5; 302, 322, 326; Taylor teaches upper solder joint 322 is formed adjacent outer sidewall 326 of sleeve 302).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with the first mounting region is formed on an inner surface of the sleeve and the second mounting region is formed on an outer lateral surface of the sleeve as taught by Taylor to provide a reliable hermetic connection between the feedthrough and the housing.
Regarding Claim 7 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, wherein the second mounting region is radially and/or axially offset relative to the first mounting region (Taylor Fig 5; 322, 338; Taylor teaches upper solder joint 322 between sleeve 302 and housing 316 and weld joint 338 between sleeve 302 and ferrule 304 at a lower portion of the sleeve).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with the second mounting region is radially and/or axially offset relative to the first mounting region as taught by Taylor to provide separate connections between the sleeve and ferrule and between the sleeve and housing.
Regarding Claim 8 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, wherein the second mounting region provides a mechanical connection to the housing component of the functional assembly of an exhaust gas system of a motor vehicle in a mounted state and is connected to the housing component of the functional assembly of the exhaust gas system of the motor vehicle by a soldered connection or a welded connection (Maus Figs 1-2; 6, 4; Maus teaches “sheath 6 may be connected materially with the shell 4, in particular by welding or soldering”).
Regarding Claim 9 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, wherein the first mounting region, which provides a mechanical connection between the outer conductor and the sleeve in a mounted state is formed by a soldered connection or a welded connection on the sleeve and is retained on a mounting region of the sleeve (Taylor Fig 4; 202, 204, 206; Taylor teaches sleeve 202 is laser welded to ferrule 204 at joint 206).
Regarding Claim 15 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a material of the sleeve consists of or comprises at least one of a metal, iron, an iron alloy, an iron-chromium alloy, an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, Kovar, titanium, a titanium alloy, steel, standard steel, stainless steel, nonrusting steel, high-temperature-stable ferritic steel, NiFe-based material, NiFe45, NiFe47, austenitic steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, AlSiC, magnesium, or a magnesium alloy.
Taylor teaches a material of the sleeve consists of or comprises at least one of a metal, iron, an iron alloy, an iron-chromium alloy, an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, Kovar, titanium, a titanium alloy, steel, standard steel, stainless steel, nonrusting steel, high-temperature-stable ferritic steel, NiFe-based material, NiFe45, NiFe47, austenitic steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, AlSiC, magnesium, or a magnesium alloy (Fig 4; 202; Taylor teaches “The outer sleeve is preferably made of a material, such as stainless steel”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with a material of the sleeve consists of or comprises stainless steel as taught by Taylor because Taylor teaches that the sleeve material “has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) proximate or relatively close to that of the housing” allowing the sleeve to be “reliably hermetically sealed” within the housing.
Regarding Claim 16 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a material of the outer conductor consists of or comprises a metal, iron, an iron alloy, an iron-chromium alloy, an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, Kovar, titanium, a titanium alloy, steel, standard steel, stainless steel, nonrusting steel, high-temperature-stable ferritic steel, NiFe-based material, NiFe45, NiFe47, austenitic steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, AlSiC, magnesium, or a magnesium alloy.
Taylor teaches a material of the outer conductor consists of or comprises a metal, iron, an iron alloy, an iron-chromium alloy, an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel alloy, an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, Kovar, titanium, a titanium alloy, steel, standard steel, stainless steel, nonrusting steel, high-temperature-stable ferritic steel, NiFe-based material, NiFe45, NiFe47, austenitic steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, AlSiC, magnesium, or a magnesium alloy (Fig 4; 204; Taylor teaches ferrule 204 is preferably made of a material “such as Kovar”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with a material of the outer conductor consists of or comprises Kovar as taught by Taylor because Taylor teaches Kovar has a CTE proximate to the dielectric material, such that the dielectric “may be readily hermetically bonded” to the conductive ferrule.
Claims 5, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US 5887427 A) in view of Taylor (US 7517258 B1) and in further view of Wegrzyn et al. (US 20090204172 A1)
Regarding Claim 5 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sleeve has a radially narrowed portion in a region of the first mounting region.
Wegrzyn teaches the sleeve has a radially narrowed portion in a region of the first mounting region (Figs 5A-5C; 216, 206, 502, 504; Wegrzyn [0043] teaches “rotary swaging… diametrical reduction of annular members” wherein sleeve 216 is deformed inwardly into grooves 504 and thereby affixed to conductor 206).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus in view of Taylor with the sleeve has a radially narrowed portion in a region of the first mounting region as taught by Wegrzyn because Wegrzyn teaches that the sleeve arrangement “increases the connection strength between components of the feedthrough assembly” thereby providing increased mechanical retention between the sleeve and conductor.
Regarding Claim 10 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first mounting region, which provides a mechanical connection between the outer conductor and the sleeve in a mounted state is retained on the sleeve by a press fit or by a mechanical pressing element.
Wegrzyn teaches the first mounting region, which provides a mechanical connection between the outer conductor and the sleeve in a mounted state is retained on the sleeve by a press fit or by a mechanical pressing element (Figs 4A-4C; 206, 216, 402, 505; Wegrzyn [0042] teaches “a crimping force” reduces the sleeve inner diameter, thereby “increasing press-fitting forces” between conductor 206 and sleeve 216).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus in view of Taylor with the first mounting region, which provides a mechanical connection between the outer conductor and the sleeve in a mounted state is retained on the sleeve by a press fit or by a mechanical pressing element as taught by Wegrzyn to increase the strength and fatigue resistance of the connection.
Regarding Claim 11 – Maus in view of Taylor and Wegrzyn teaches the feedthrough of claim 10, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of material of the outer conductor is less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of material of the sleeve (Taylor Fig 4; 204, 202; Taylor teaches ferrule 204 is preferably Kovar and sleeve 202 is preferably stainless steel, and that “the CTE of the stainless steel sleeve is substantially greater than the CTE of Kovar”).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US 5887427 A) in view of Taylor (US 7517258 B1) and in further view of Gahwiller et al. (EP 0121137 A1)
Regarding Claim 12 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a fastener on the first mounting region has a radially encircling form and an annularly closed fastening line formed on the first mounting region is offset in relation to a lower radial end and an upper radial end of the sleeve.
Under the interpretation above, Gahwiller teaches the missing fastening arrangement (Fig 2c; 26, 36, 38, 42; Gahwiller [0018] teaches a “circumferential seal weld bead 42… seal 42 extends circumferentially around the joint” with weld 42 positioned along sleeve 26 between upper end 36 and lower end 38).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus in view of Taylor with the circumferential fastening arrangement as taught by Gahwiller because Gahwiller teaches the seal weld 42 provides a primary seal and contributes to joint rigidity.
Regarding Claim 13 – Maus in view of Taylor teaches the feedthrough of claim 4, wherein the second mounting region formed on an outer lateral surface of the sleeve has an encircling form (Taylor Fig 4; 202, 224, 228; Taylor teaches solder joint 224 formed along outer sidewall 228 of sleeve 202 from an annular shaped solder preform), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an annularly closed fastening line formed on the second mounting region is offset in relation to a lower radial end and an upper radial end of the sleeve.
Under the interpretation above, Gahwiller teaches the missing fastening arrangement (Fig 2c; 26, 36, 38, 42; Gahwiller [0018] teaches a “circumferential seal weld bead 42… seal 42 extends circumferentially around the joint” with weld 42 positioned along sleeve 26 between upper end 36 and lower end 38).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus in view of Taylor with the circumferential fastening arrangement as taught by Gahwiller because Gahwiller teaches the seal weld 42 provides a primary seal and contributes to joint rigidity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US 5887427 A) in view of Wegrzyn et al. (US 20090204172 A1)
Regarding Claim 14 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sleeve forms a gap between an outer lateral surface of the outer conductor and an inner surface of the sleeve.
Wegrzyn teaches the sleeve forms a gap between an outer lateral surface of the outer conductor and an inner surface of the sleeve (Figs 3A-3C; 206, 216, 306; Wegrzyn [0040] teaches “an inner diameter 306 of sleeve 216 is slightly larger than an outer diameter of terminal conductor 206”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with the sleeve forms a gap between an outer lateral surface of the outer conductor and an inner surface of the sleeve as taught by Wegrzyn to facilitate insertion and positioning of the conductor within the sleeve.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US 5887427 A) in view of Rosiewicz (US 20080317427 A1)
Regarding Claim 20 – Maus teaches the feedthrough of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing component subject to thermal loading is part of a chemical production plant.
Rosiewicz teaches the housing component subject to thermal loading is part of a chemical production plant (Fig 1; 100, 102, 108; Rosiewicz [0019] teaches passing fibers through a wall of a pressure vessel “such as used in a chemical plant, to extract data from distributed temperature and pressure sensors inside the vessel”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Maus with the housing component subject to thermal loading is part of a chemical production plant as taught by Rosiewicz to obtain data from temperature and pressure sensors inside the vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/ADITYA SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
