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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 29, 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegemann et al. (US 2012/0206290 A1), hereinafter Wegemann, in view of Zou et al. (WO 2014/146614 A1), hereinafter Zou.
Regarding claim 1, Wegemann discloses a device (level measuring device 1) for transmitting and receiving signals (see paragraph 0037) that satisfies intrinsically safe requirements (see paragraph 0020) comprising:
a circuit board (printed circuit board 5) having a plurality of components (see paragraph 0035) including a millimeter-wave waveguide (waveguide 3); and
a housing (casing 2) coupled to the circuit board (5) filled with a potting material (casting 4) encapsulating the plurality of components including the millimeter-wave waveguide (see paragraph 0040 and Fig. 1b).
Examiner Note: Electromagnetic waves having a frequency within the range of 30 GHz
(10 mm) to 300 GHz (1 mm) are generally considered to be millimeter waves. Wegemann discloses that its device is adapted for frequencies that fall within this range (see paragraph 0019).
Wegemann lacks a specific teaching that the housing defines a plurality of zones.
Zou discloses an electronic device comprising a circuit board (PCB 204) having a plurality of components with different heights (components 2031, 2032, and 2033) mounted thereon, and a housing (case 201 and partitions 2071, 2073, and 3071), coupled to the circuit board (204), defining a plurality of zones (see Figs. 2-3) filled with a potting material (pottant 205) encapsulating the plurality of components (paragraph 0015).
Zou is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of encapsulating components having different sizes (see Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0038). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Wegemann so that the housing is partitioned into a plurality of zones filled with the potting material. Doing so would reduce the amount of potting material required to protect the components (Zou: see paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 4, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the housing (Zou: 201, 2071, 2073, and 3071) includes a plurality of fences (Zou: 2071, 2073, and 3071) on a top side of the circuit board (Zou: 204) defining the plurality of zones (Zou: see Figs. 2-3) which are filled with the potting material (205).
Regarding claim 5, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 4, wherein a first zone (Zou: leftmost zone as shown in Figs. 2a-b) of the plurality of zones encloses a first plurality of components (Zou: 2031) of the plurality of components, and the potting material (Zou: 205) in the first zone encapsulates the first plurality of components (Zou: see Figs. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 6, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the plurality of fences (Zou: 2071) of defining the first zone (Zou: leftmost zone as shown in Figs. 2a-b) is at least one mm higher than the first plurality of components (Zou: 2031; see paragraph 0020).
Wegemann in view of Zou does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the potting material from the first plurality of components to a first free surface of the potting material is at least one mm. Zou, however, does disclose that the potting material rises above top surfaces of the plurality of components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a thickness of the potting material from the first plurality of components to a first free surface at least one mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 6, wherein a second zone (Zou: rightmost zone as shown in Figs. 2a-b) of the plurality of zones encloses the millimeter-wave waveguide (Wegemann: 3) and the potting material (Wegemann: 4; Zou: 205) in the second zone encapsulates the millimeter-wave waveguide (Wegemann: see paragraph 0040; Zou: see Figs. 2a-b showing the tallest component 2033 encapsulated in pottant 205).
Regarding claim 8, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of fences of the second zone (Zou: 2073) is at least one mm higher than the millimeter-wave waveguide (Wegemann: 3; Zou: see paragraph 0020).
Wegemann in view of Zou does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the potting material from the millimeter-wave waveguide to a second free surface of the potting material is at least one mm. Zou, however, does disclose that the potting material rises above a top surface of the component disposed in the second zone (Zou: see Figs. 2a). Likewise, Wegemann discloses that its potting material completely surrounds the waveguide (Wegemann: see paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a thickness of the potting material from the millimeter-wave waveguide to a second free surface at least one mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 8, wherein a third zone (Zou: middle zone as shown in Figs. 2a-b) of the plurality of zones encloses a second plurality of components (Zou: 2032) of the plurality of components, and the potting material (Zou: 205) in the third zone encapsulates the second plurality of components (Zou: see Figs. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of fences (Zou: 2071 and 2073) defining the third zone (Zou: middle zone as shown in Figs. 2a-b) is at least one mm higher than the second plurality of components (Zou: 2032; see paragraph 0020).
Wegemann in view of Zou does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the potting material from the second plurality of components to a third free surface of the potting material is at least one mm. Zou, however, does disclose that the potting material rises above top surfaces of the plurality of components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a thickness of the potting material from the second plurality of components to a third free surface at least one mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegemann and Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boren (US 2009/0081963 A1).
Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou further teaches that the circuit board has a top side and a bottom side, and a space between the bottom side and the housing defines a cavity filled with the potting material (Wegemann: see Fig. 1b; Zou see Figs. 2a and 3a).
Wegemann and Zou lack a specific teaching that the housing connected to the bottom side defines a plurality of cavities.
Boren discloses an intrinsically safe wireless communication device (400; see paragraph 0091) comprising a circuit board (printed circuit board 640) and a housing (non-metallic portion 430). The circuit board has a top side and a bottom side, and the housing is connected to the bottom side defining a plurality of cavities (see Fig. 6).
Boren is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Wegemann in view of Zou so that the space below the circuit board is partitioned into a plurality of cavities. This could be done by merely extending the partitions of Zou through the circuit board so that they connect to a bottom portion of the housing. One would be motivated to make this modification to more stably fix the circuit board to the housing.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegemann in view of Zou and Boren as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hinze (US 2009/0059541 A1).
Wegemann in view of Zou and Boren teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou and Boren lacks a specific teaching that the circuit board defines a plurality of holes for the potting material to flow from the top side of the circuit board into the plurality of cavities.
Hinze discloses a circuit board (PCB 28) having a hole (fill hole 62) that allows a potting material (60) to flow from a top side of the circuit board into a cavity beneath a bottom side of the circuit board (see paragraph 0015 and Fig. 2).
Hinze is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of disposing potting material in a cavity beneath a circuit board. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Wegemann in view of Zou and Boren so that the circuit board defines at least one hole above each cavity. Doing so would be beneficial because the zones above the circuit board could be filled with potting material at the same time as their corresponding cavities below the circuit board. This would allow each to cure at the same time and provide a uniform encapsulant.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegemann in view of Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGuire (US 2011/0171497 A1).
Wegemann in view of Zou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wegemann in view of Zou lacks a specific teaching that the device further comprises a battery cup and a battery therein, and wherein an area between the battery cup and battery is filled with the potting material.
McGuire discloses a device for transmitting and receiving signals (wireless field device 10) that satisfies intrinsically safe requirements (see Abstract) comprising a battery cup (battery module 12 and/or enclosure 66) and a battery therein (battery 64), and wherein an area between the battery cup and the battery is filled with a potting material (see paragraph 0025).
McGuire is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a battery cup with a battery therein and fill an area between the battery cup and battery with the potting material. Doing so would provide an intrinsically safe power supply to power the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights