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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s
election somehow explicitly both without traverse and with traverse of Invention I
in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment and the Examiner has examined all of the claims despite Applicant’s amendment being non-consonant with the restriction; as the examined claims now straddle across the original bounds of the restriction, the Examiner cautions Applicant that the Examiner presently intends to withdraw the entirety of the restriction at the time of an allowance.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2024 & 02/07/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawing(s) is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for not showing claimed features. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shutter” (at least claim 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings (fig. 1) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 1/8 inch (0.32 cm) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. The Examiner is requesting larger font size in fig. 1 for easier reading of the words.
The drawings (figs. 2-4, 7-8) are objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
Element(s) 203 (sensor), 207 (opening; alternatively provide artistic shading to represent), 209 (cover) of fig. 1, 305 (ASIC), 307 (sensor), 315 (opening; alternatively provide artistic shading to represent), 413 (laser; alternatively use laser symbol within triangle) &/or 415 (laser radiation) of fig. 4, similarly 713 (laser) &/or 715 (laser radiation) of figs. 7-8 need appropriate legends in the form of descriptive text labels in addition to any reference characters already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), and MPEP § 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”). Appropriate Correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
The following title is suggested: “METHOD FOR PRODUCING A METALLIC SENSOR WITH INTEGRAL CONNECTION.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
inclusion of phrase which can be implied (“is also described”; Examiner suggests restructuring last sentence into the first sentence as “A sensor and a method for producing the sensor”); and
insufficient assistance to the reader in deciding whether to consult the full patent text (e.g., welding, virtual cross, heat transfer, etc.).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 22-24, 26-30, 35-36, and 38 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 26, 30, 35, & 38,
the Examiner objects to the use of the pronoun “it” in the claim, noting in particular that while the antecedent basis of the pronoun is present, the use of a pronoun is ambiguous as to which element the pronoun is being substituted for. In all cases, “it” is presumed to be substituted for the immediately preceding noun in the limitation. The Examiner suggests explicit recitations.
As to claim 29,
there is an extraneous space preceding the period.
As to claim 24,
“laseron” is a typo lacking the space between the words, the Examiner suggesting “laser on”.
As to claim 22 and 24,
the Examiner objects to the unnecessary use of idiomatic language utilizing an analogy of holding items in one’s hands to describe the claim (i.e., phrases “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”, while appropriate to the specification, are an informal explanation that should be avoided in the claims).
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 20-21, 29, 31-32, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by newly cited Steinich (US 20120001623 A1; hereafter “Steinich”).
Regarding independent claim 20,
Steinich teaches a method for producing a sensor (fig. 1, sensor 1) (Title “SENSOR WITH LASER WELDED COVER”; Abstract “In order to configure a housing of a sensor, in particular of an angle sensor, long term leak tight in the best way possible a cover is not glued into the pot shaped housing or screwed in and sealed, but welded in the housing through a laser. In spite of the sensor chip already being in the housing, the heat induction is so small that the sensor chip is not damaged even though the sensor chip is very small”), comprising the following steps:
arranging a sensor module (fig. 1, sensor element 4) in a metallic housing (fig. 1, housing 2),
wherein the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) has a housing opening (opening of housing 2) (opening of housing 2); and
fixing a metallic cover (fig. 1, cover 3) on or in the housing opening (opening of housing 2) to close the housing opening (opening of housing 2) using the cover (fig. 1, cover 3),
wherein the fixing includes an integral connecting of the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) (Title; Abstract; [0012] “cover is welded to the housing through a laser”; [0014] “Both components are preferably made from metal, in particular the same metal, preferably a non-magnetizable metal”; [0015] “perform the welding method”; [0017] “Thus, the housing is tight after the cover is welded on”).
Regarding independent claim 31,
Steinich teaches a sensor (fig. 1, sensor 1) (Title “SENSOR WITH LASER WELDED COVER”; Abstract “In order to configure a housing of a sensor, in particular of an angle sensor, long term leak tight in the best way possible a cover is not glued into the pot shaped housing or screwed in and sealed, but welded in the housing through a laser. In spite of the sensor chip already being in the housing, the heat induction is so small that the sensor chip is not damaged even though the sensor chip is very small”), comprising:
a sensor module (fig. 1, sensor element 4) which is arranged in a metallic housing (fig. 1, housing 2), wherein the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) has a housing opening (opening of housing 2);
wherein the housing opening (opening of housing 2) is closed using a metallic cover (fig. 1, cover 3), the metallic cover (fig. 1, cover 3) being integrally connected to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) (Title; Abstract; [0012] “cover is welded to the housing through a laser”; [0014] “Both components are preferably made from metal, in particular the same metal, preferably a non-magnetizable metal”); [0015] “perform the welding method”; [0017] “Thus, the housing is tight after the cover is welded on”).
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 20,
Steinich teaches wherein the integrally connecting includes laser welding using a welding laser (Title “SENSOR WITH LASER WELDED COVER”; Abstract; [0012] “cover is welded to the housing through a laser”).
Regarding claim 32, which depends on claim 31,
Steinich teaches wherein the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) is integrally connected to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) by the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) being laser welded to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) (Title “SENSOR WITH LASER WELDED COVER”; Abstract; [0012] “cover is welded to the housing through a laser”).
Regarding claim 29, which depends on claim 21,
Steinich teaches wherein the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) includes a sleeve (portion of housing within which sensor element 4 is arranged) within which the sensor module (fig. 1, sensor element 4) is arranged, and
wherein the housing opening (opening of housing 2) is an open side (top side) of the sleeve (portion of housing within which sensor element 4 is arranged).
Regarding claim 37, which depends on claim 32,
Steinich teaches wherein the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) includes a sleeve (portion of housing within which sensor element 4 is arranged) within which the sensor module (fig. 1, sensor element 4) is arranged, and
wherein the housing opening (opening of housing 2) is an open side (top side) of the sleeve (portion of housing within which sensor element 4 is arranged) which is closed using the cover (fig. 1, cover 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 26-27, 30, 35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over newly cited Steinich (US 20120001623 A1; hereafter “Steinich”).
Regarding claim 26 and claim 35, where claim 26 depends on claim 21 and where claim 35 depends on claim 32,
Steinich reasonably teaches wherein the housing opening (opening of housing 2) is delimited by a receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 2),
wherein the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) is formed such/in-such-a-way (Examiner notes this as merely a trivial difference in claimed phrasing between claim 26 & claim 35, each of which are still taught) that the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) receives the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) substantially without play (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided),
wherein the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) is arranged in the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) to close the housing opening (opening of housing 2) ([0015] “In order to exactly perform the welding method the cover contacts a shoulder in an interior circumference of the pot shaped housing before welding for the purpose of positioning, in particular a circumferential shoulder. This shoulder protrudes radially inward at least by the amount of a single cover thickness, better by twice the amount of the cover thickness, even better by three times the amount of the cover thickness from the wall of the pot shaped housing”; [0027]-[0032]).
The Examiner acknowledges that Steinich does not explicitly state the idiomatic phrase “substantially without play”.
However:
It does not matter that the feature shown (in this case wherein the receiving portion receives the cover substantially without play) is unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2125 and In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In the present case, cover 3 is shown in fig. 1 snuggly fitting into the receiving portion (see near shoulder 6) of the housing 2.
Furthermore, Steinich already teaches that the cover of the sensor is welded to the sensor housing in the best way possible to be long term leak tight (Abstract “In order to configure a housing of a sensor, in particular of an angle sensor, long term leak tight in the best way possible a cover is not glued into the pot shaped housing or screwed in and sealed, but welded in the housing through a laser”). It is the Examiner's position that if the cover is able to have an insubstantial amount of “play”, then the housing would be unlikely to be tight.
Additionally, 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, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the tightness of fitting between parts and therefore the associated amount of play.
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Steinich reasonably teaches wherein the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) is formed in such a way that the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) receives the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) substantially without play, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, in view of the above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so further optimize Steinich receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) to receive the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) substantially without play for the expected benefit of tighter housing including with less chances of leaks. The Examiner additionally notes that in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” In the present case, making a housing have less play in the fitting is a common-sense enhancement that is desirable for making the housing more durable &/or efficiently tight. See MPEP § 2144(II).
Regarding claim 30 and claim 38, where claim 30 depends on claim 29 and where claim 38 depends on claim 37,
Steinich reasonably teaches wherein the housing opening (opening of housing 2) is delimited by a receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 2),
wherein the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) is formed such/in-such-a-way (Examiner notes this as merely a trivial difference in claimed phrasing between claim 30 & claim 38, each of which are still taught) that the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) receives the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) substantially without play (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided),
wherein the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) is arranged in the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) to close the housing opening (opening of housing 2) ([0015] “In order to exactly perform the welding method the cover contacts a shoulder in an interior circumference of the pot shaped housing before welding for the purpose of positioning, in particular a circumferential shoulder. This shoulder protrudes radially inward at least by the amount of a single cover thickness, better by twice the amount of the cover thickness, even better by three times the amount of the cover thickness from the wall of the pot shaped housing”; [0027]-[0032]), and
wherein the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) is formed on an end face (face on top side) of the open side (top side) of the sleeve (portion of housing within which sensor element 4 is arranged).
The Examiner acknowledges that Steinich does not explicitly state the idiomatic phrase “substantially without play”.
However:
It does not matter that the feature shown (in this case wherein the receiving portion receives the cover substantially without play) is unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2125 and In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In the present case, cover 3 is shown in fig. 1 snuggly fitting into the receiving portion (see near shoulder 6) of the housing 2.
Furthermore, Steinich already teaches that the cover of the sensor is welded to the sensor housing in the best way possible to be long term leak tight (Abstract “In order to configure a housing of a sensor, in particular of an angle sensor, long term leak tight in the best way possible a cover is not glued into the pot shaped housing or screwed in and sealed, but welded in the housing through a laser”). It is the Examiner's position that if the cover is able to have an insubstantial amount of “play”, then the housing would be unlikely to be tight.
Additionally, 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, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the tightness of fitting between parts and therefore the associated amount of play.
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Steinich reasonably teaches wherein the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) is formed in such a way that the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) receives the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) substantially without play, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, in view of the above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so further optimize Steinich receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) to receive the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) substantially without play for the expected benefit of tighter housing including with less chances of leaks. The Examiner additionally notes that in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” In the present case, making a housing have less play in the fitting is a common-sense enhancement that is desirable for making the housing more durable &/or efficiently tight. See MPEP § 2144(II).
Regarding claim 27, which depends on claim 26,
Steinich teaches further comprising forming the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) on the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) ([0021] “At its outer circumference the housing includes at least one circumferential groove or shoulder in an outer enveloping surface, wherein the groove or shoulder can be used for attaching the housing at an enveloping component through clamping brackets”; [0022] “For simple and precise production the housing is preferably produced as a turned component”).
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.
Claim(s) 22 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Steinich in view of newly cited Egawa* et al (JP 2019158572 A; hereafter “Egawa”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 21,
Steinich teaches wherein at least one welding region is specified at which the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) is to be laser welded to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2),
wherein, based on the at least one specified welding region (silent to number of regions), a relative movement between the welding laser on the one hand, and the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) and the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) on the other hand, is controlled in such a way that the at least one specified welding region reaches a laser welding range of the welding laser so that the welding laser welds the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) at the welding region that has reached the laser welding range ([0012] “the cover is welded to the housing through a laser”; [0013] “automate the welding the best way possible and in order to be able to assure in particular an even velocity of the laser along the weld gap which avoids punctiform temperature peaks, the pot shaped housing is preferably configured rotation symmetrical and the cover is a circular disc and the welding process is performed under CNC control with a velocity that is as even as possible”).
Steinich is silent to wherein there are a plurality of specified welding regions.
Egawa teaches a method for producing a sensor (fig. 1, sensor 100) (Title “METHOD FOR PRODUCING GAS SENSOR, METHOD FOR SECURING SENSOR ELEMENT PROTECTION COVER, AND WELDING DEVICE”; Abstract “method for securing a sensor element protection cover with which a sputtering generation suppression, a securing of welding strength, and a longer life of a welding rod are realized when a cover for protecting a protrusion of the sensor element from a housing is secured by welding with respect to the housing that holds the sensor element”), comprising the following steps: arranging a sensor element (fig. 1, sensor element 10) in a metallic housing (fig. 1, housing 1), wherein the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) has a housing (fig. 1, housing 1) opening; and fixing a metallic cover (fig. 1, cover 2) on or in the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) opening to close the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) opening using the cover (fig. 1, cover 2), wherein the fixing includes an integral connecting of the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) to the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) (paragraph before middle of page 3 “spot welding is performed to completely fix the protective cover 2 to the housing 1”), wherein, based on the specified welding regions (fig. 1, welding target regions RE), a relative movement between the welding laser on the one hand, and the cover and the housing on the other hand, is controlled in such a way that the specified welding regions each reach a laser welding range of the welding laser so that the welding laser welds the cover to the housing at the welding region that has reached the laser welding range, wherein welding regions (fig. 1, welding target areas RE) are specified at which the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) is to be welded to the housing (fig. 1, housing 1), wherein, based on the specified welding regions (fig. 1, welding target areas RE), a relative movement between the welder on the one hand, and the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) and the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) on the other hand, is controlled in such a way that the specified welding regions (fig. 1, welding target areas RE) each reach a welding range of the welder so that the welder welds the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) to the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) at the welding region (fig. 1, welding target area RE) that has reached the welding range (about middle third of page 3 “spot welding is performed to completely fix the protective cover 2 to the housing 1. As shown in FIG. 1B, a plurality of regions (welding target regions) RE to be spot-welded are determined in advance on the outer surface of the fitting portion 2c of the protective cover 2. The welding target area RE is defined at equal intervals and at even positions in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c. For example, although it is preferable that the four welding target regions RE are determined by being separated by 90 ° in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c, an aspect in which more welding target portions are provided may be employed. That is, the welding target region RE is determined so that a plurality of sets of two welding target regions RE that are separated from each other by 180 ° (opposite each other with the sensor element 10 interposed therebetween) can be formed. Spot welding is performed on each welding target region RE, and a welded portion W is formed as shown in FIG. 1C, whereby the protective cover 2 is fixed to the housing 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Egawa’s welding in just spots for integrally connecting the cover to the housing with Steinich’s welding thereby decreasing costs & time as well as reducing imparted heat which decreases possibility of damage to sensitive electronics and/or enables decrease in other costs such as enabling use of less material for heat sinking (e.g., thinner walls).
Regarding claim 33, which depends on claim 32,
Steinich teaches wherein the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) is welded to the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) on at least one welding region.
Steinich is silent to wherein there are a plurality of specified welding regions.
Egawa teaches a method for producing a sensor (fig. 1, sensor 100) (Title “METHOD FOR PRODUCING GAS SENSOR, METHOD FOR SECURING SENSOR ELEMENT PROTECTION COVER, AND WELDING DEVICE”; Abstract “method for securing a sensor element protection cover with which a sputtering generation suppression, a securing of welding strength, and a longer life of a welding rod are realized when a cover for protecting a protrusion of the sensor element from a housing is secured by welding with respect to the housing that holds the sensor element”), comprising the following steps: arranging a sensor element (fig. 1, sensor element 10) in a metallic housing (fig. 1, housing 1), wherein the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) has a housing (fig. 1, housing 1) opening; and fixing a metallic cover (fig. 1, cover 2) on or in the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) opening to close the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) opening using the cover (fig. 1, cover 2), wherein the fixing includes an integral connecting of the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) to the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) (paragraph before middle of page 3 “spot welding is performed to completely fix the protective cover 2 to the housing 1”), wherein, based on the specified welding regions (fig. 1, welding target regions RE), a relative movement between the welding laser on the one hand, and the cover and the housing on the other hand, is controlled in such a way that the specified welding regions each reach a laser welding range of the welding laser so that the welding laser welds the cover to the housing at the welding region that has reached the laser welding range, wherein welding regions (fig. 1, welding target areas RE) are specified at which the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) is to be welded to the housing (fig. 1, housing 1), wherein, based on the specified welding regions (fig. 1, welding target areas RE), a relative movement between the welder on the one hand, and the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) and the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) on the other hand, is controlled in such a way that the specified welding regions (fig. 1, welding target areas RE) each reach a welding range of the welder so that the welder welds the cover (fig. 1, cover 2) to the housing (fig. 1, housing 1) at the welding region (fig. 1, welding target area RE) that has reached the welding range (about middle third of page 3 “spot welding is performed to completely fix the protective cover 2 to the housing 1. As shown in FIG. 1B, a plurality of regions (welding target regions) RE to be spot-welded are determined in advance on the outer surface of the fitting portion 2c of the protective cover 2. The welding target area RE is defined at equal intervals and at even positions in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c. For example, although it is preferable that the four welding target regions RE are determined by being separated by 90 ° in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c, an aspect in which more welding target portions are provided may be employed. That is, the welding target region RE is determined so that a plurality of sets of two welding target regions RE that are separated from each other by 180 ° (opposite each other with the sensor element 10 interposed therebetween) can be formed. Spot welding is performed on each welding target region RE, and a welded portion W is formed as shown in FIG. 1C, whereby the protective cover 2 is fixed to the housing 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Egawa’s welding in just spots for integrally connecting the cover to the housing with Steinich’s welding thereby decreasing costs & time as well as reducing imparted heat which decreases possibility of damage to sensitive electronics and/or enables decrease in other costs such as enabling use of less material for heat sinking (e.g., thinner walls).
Claim(s) 24 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Steinich in view of newly cited Egawa and in further view of newly cited Gmeiner (US 20040111185 A1; hereafter “Gmeiner”).
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 22,
Steinich as previously modified by Egawa (see analysis of preceding claims) reasonably suggests wherein the welding regions are located on a virtual cross (Egawa about middle third of page 3 “The welding target area RE is defined at equal intervals and at even positions in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c. For example, although it is preferable that the four welding target regions RE are determined by being separated by 90 ° in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c, an aspect in which more welding target portions are provided may be employed. That is, the welding target region RE is determined so that a plurality of sets of two welding target regions RE that are separated from each other by 180 ° (opposite each other with the sensor element 10 interposed therebetween) can be formed. Spot welding is performed on each welding target region RE, and a welded portion W is formed as shown in FIG. 1C, whereby the protective cover 2 is fixed to the housing 1”; The Examiner notes that these four welding targes would be at the four edges of the cross),
wherein the relative movement is controlled based on the virtual cross such that the welding laser on the one hand, and the cover (fig. 1, cover 3) and the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) on the other hand move relative to one another (not necessarily along the virtual cross) so that the welding regions each reach within the laser welding range.
Steinich as modified by Egawa does not explicitly teach wherein the relative movement is controlled based on the virtual cross such that the welding laser on the one hand, and the cover and the housing on the other hand move relative to one another along the virtual cross so that the welding regions each reach within the laser welding range.
Gmeiner teaches wherein the relative movement is controlled based on the virtual cross (see figs. 3 and 4 each showing two possible cross/cruciform paths) such that the welding laser on the one hand, and the workpiece being welded on the other hand move relative to one another along the virtual cross so that the welding regions each reach within the laser welding range (Title “Method And Device For Machining A Workpiece; Abstract “A method for machining workpieces by means of a multiaxial manipulator, such as an industrial robot, with a tool moved proportionally by a control unit of the manipulator and which can perform characteristic movements”; [0002] “laser welding tool”; [0011] “laser welding methods”; [0028]; [0029]; [0040]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gmeiner’s cross/cruciform toolpath with Steinich’s (modified by Egawa) four ends of a cross welds, thereby providing a dependable path which utilizes only orthogonal movements (e.g., x̂, ŷ) in an easily trackable manner and thereby simplifying path movement and path tracking and thus reducing possibility of errors and/or enabling use of a cheaper/simpler tool manipulator/tracking-system.
Regarding claim 34, which depends on claim 33,
Steinich as previously modified by Egawa (see analysis of preceding claims) reasonably suggests (additional narrower interpretation provided) wherein the welding regions are located on a virtual cross (Egawa about middle third of page 3 “The welding target area RE is defined at equal intervals and at even positions in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c. For example, although it is preferable that the four welding target regions RE are determined by being separated by 90 ° in the circumferential direction of the fitting portion 2c, an aspect in which more welding target portions are provided may be employed. That is, the welding target region RE is determined so that a plurality of sets of two welding target regions RE that are separated from each other by 180 ° (opposite each other with the sensor element 10 interposed therebetween) can be formed. Spot welding is performed on each welding target region RE, and a welded portion W is formed as shown in FIG. 1C, whereby the protective cover 2 is fixed to the housing 1”; The Examiner notes that these four welding targes would be at the four edges of the cross).
The Examiner notes for compact prosecution and narrower interpretation:
Steinich as modified by Egawa does not explicitly teach a full virtual cross (only just the edges welded); in other words,Steminer as modified by Egawa does not explicitly teach wherein the relative movement is controlled based on the virtual cross such that the welding laser on the one hand, and the cover and the housing on the other hand move relative to one another along the virtual cross so that the welding regions each reach within the laser welding range.
Gmeiner teaches wherein the relative movement is controlled based on the virtual cross (see figs. 3 and 4 each showing two possible cross/cruciform paths) such that the welding laser on the one hand, and the workpiece being welded on the other hand move relative to one another along the virtual cross so that the welding regions each reach within the laser welding range (Title “Method And Device For Machining A Workpiece; Abstract “A method for machining workpieces by means of a multiaxial manipulator, such as an industrial robot, with a tool moved proportionally by a control unit of the manipulator and which can perform characteristic movements”; [0002] “laser welding tool”; [0011] “laser welding methods”; [0028]; [0029]; [0040]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gmeiner’s cross/cruciform toolpath with Steinich’s (modified by Egawa) four ends of a cross welds, thereby providing a dependable path which utilizes only orthogonal movements (e.g., x̂, ŷ) in an easily trackable manner and thereby simplifying path movement and path tracking and thus reducing possibility of errors and/or enabling use of a cheaper/simpler tool manipulator/tracking-system.
Furthermore, the operation involves a manufacturing process wherein the order of operations matters; in the present case, however, the claim is drawn to an apparatus. The determination of whether a wherein/whereby/adaptation or similar clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case as put forth by MPEP § 2111.04, and it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production as put forth by MPEP § 2113 (see also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that while the locations of the finished welds matters, the virtual cross path itself appears to be inconsequential to the finished sensor.
Claim(s) 25, 28, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Steinich in view of newly cited Blunier et al (US 20150208539 A1; hereafter “Blunier”).
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 21,
Steinich teaches a welding laser (Title “SENSOR WITH LASER WELDED COVER”).
Steinich does not teach wherein the welding laser is a picosecond laser, so that the laser welding is performed using picosecond laser pulses.
Blunier teaches wherein a welding laser is a picosecond laser, so that the laser welding is performed using picosecond laser pulses (Title “METHOD FOR PRODUCING A HERMETIC HOUSING FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE”; Abstract “A method produces a housing with at least one hermetically sealed receiving space for an electronic component, the receiving space including at least a part of the interior of the housing”; [0015]-[0016], [0151] “sensor”; [0003] “already known to use laser radiation, for example also ultra-short pulses of such laser beams, to close off these housings”; [0013] “advantageous if multiple electronic devices are introduced, positioned and/or fixed in place in a tubular housing, at a distance from one another in the longitudinal direction, one after the other, through the at least one opening, whereupon the housing is heated by means of laser radiation, by emission of nanosecond and/or picosecond energy pulse”; [0014]; [0033] “opening in the housing is melted/welded using a laser”; [0042] “It is advantageous if the housing consists of two housing parts and the two housing parts are welded to one another by means of laser radiation with emission of energy in the nanosecond and/or picosecond range, pulsed or continuous. In this way, the energy required for welding can be metered well and the electronic device can thereby be effectively protected against the action of heat”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Blunier’s picosecond pulsed laser welding with Steinich’s generic laser welding for the expected purpose of welding while advantageously further protecting electronic devices within Steinich’s housing from heat.
Regarding claim 28, which depends on claim 27,
Steinich teaches further comprising forming the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) on the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) ([0021] “At its outer circumference the housing includes at least one circumferential groove or shoulder in an outer enveloping surface, wherein the groove or shoulder can be used for attaching the housing at an enveloping component through clamping brackets”; [0022] “For simple and precise production the housing is preferably produced as a turned component”).
Steinich does not teach wherein the forming includes milling the receiving portion from the housing.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that milling out the inner portion of a housing is a conventional and routine activity.
Furthermore, and as factually supporting evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Blunier teaches forming which includes milling the internal portion of the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) ([0075] “It is advantageous if the depression is mechanically produced in the housing part (e.g. by means of milling, ultrasound drilling) or using ion-beam removal, laser-beam removal, powder blasting or chemical etching. All these methods allow production of a depression within the scope of a proven production process, which thereby takes place in controlled manner”; [0176] “For example, the depression 32 can be milled into the housing part 107. It is also conceivable, however, that the depression is produced using an ion bean, a material removal method, for example with a laser or powder blasting. Likewise, the grooves provided for the feeder openings 33 can also be milled, for example, or produced by means of an ion beam”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Blunier’s (Examiner asserted conventional) milling for forming the internal portion of a housing and grooves thereof with Steinich’s forming of a housing for the expected advantages of high precision operations which can be reliably controlled even for intricate details.
Regarding claim 36, which depends on claim 35,
Steinich teaches forming the receiving portion (portion near shoulder 6) on the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) ([0021] “At its outer circumference the housing includes at least one circumferential groove or shoulder in an outer enveloping surface, wherein the groove or shoulder can be used for attaching the housing at an enveloping component through clamping brackets”; [0022] “For simple and precise production the housing is preferably produced as a turned component”).
Steinich does not teach wherein the receiving portion is milled out of the housing.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that milling out the inner portion of a housing is a conventional and routine activity.
Furthermore, and as factually supporting evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Blunier teaches forming which includes milling the internal portion of the housing (fig. 1, housing 2) ([0075] “It is advantageous if the depression is mechanically produced in the housing part (e.g. by means of milling, ultrasound drilling) or using ion-beam removal, laser-beam removal, powder blasting or chemical etching. All these methods allow production of a depression within the scope of a proven production process, which thereby takes place in controlled manner”; [0176] “For example, the depression 32 can be milled into the housing part 107. It is also conceivable, however, that the depression is produced using an ion bean, a material removal method, for example with a laser or powder blasting. Likewise, the grooves provided for the feeder openings 33 can also be milled, for example, or produced by means of an ion beam”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Blunier’s (Examiner asserted conventional) milling for forming the internal portion of a housing and grooves thereof with Steinich’s forming of a housing for the expected advantages of high precision operations which can be reliably controlled even for intricate details.
Furthermore, the operation involves a manufacturing process wherein the order of operations matters; in the present case, however, the claim is drawn to an apparatus. The determination of whether a wherein/whereby/adaptation or similar clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case as put forth by MPEP § 2111.04, and it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production as put forth by MPEP § 2113 (see also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that while the finished housing matters, the particular method of milling appears to be inconsequential to the finished sensor.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Steinich in view in view of newly cited Egawa and in further view of newly cited Miller et al (US 4560856 A; hereafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 22,
Steinich is silent to a shutter of the welding laser and Steinich does not teach wherein the shutter of the welding laser is controlled during laser welding such that the shutter is opened only within the welding regions and is otherwise closed.
Miller teaches wherein a shutter (shutter) of the welding laser (pis controlled during laser welding such that the shutter is opened only within the welding regions (site) and is otherwise closed (Title “Pulsed Laser Machining Apparatus”; Abstract “The application of the laser pulses to the work piece is controlled by an inner-cavity shutter that is opened to permit a precise number of pulses to be directed onto the work piece”; col. 1, ll. 54-65 “apparatus and methods for welding a work piece by precisely controlling the lasing energy and in particular controlling the number of laser pulses imparted to the work piece”; col. 7, ll. 3-15 “control means illustratively in the form of a shutter control circuit”; col. 7, ll. 16-40 “a laser control circuit is provided for generating a series of timing signals of a selected frequency and pulse width to be applied to a counter of the shutter control circuit. The timing signals are generated in synchronism with the emission of the laser pulses and, in particular, serve to actuate a laser lamp for exciting the laser with bursts of radiation of the selected frequency and pulse width. The counter begins to count the timing signals upon the opening of the shutter and continues counting until reaching a number corresponding to that number of laser pulses to be directed onto the machining site, at which time the shutter is closed. The shutter opening is initiated by a signal which is applied to the shutter control circuit. The shutter control circuit is responsive to the initiate lasing signal to open the shutter after receipt of the next timing signal, whereby only whole laser pulses are directed by the shutter onto the machining site of the work piece. In an illustrative embodiment of this invention, the initiate lasing signal is developed by a mechanism for moving the work piece with respect to the laser beam and, in particular, when the moving mechanism has stopped moving the work piece with respect to the laser path, the initiate lasing signal is generated”; col. 12 line 66 through col. 13 line 20 “shutter 212 is selectively opened and closed to permit alignment of the grid 16 with respect to the laser beam 178, remaining closed during all other periods as a safety measure”; col. 15 line 67 through col. 16 line 18 “triggers, to dispose the innercavity shutter 188 and the BRH safety shutter 212 to their open positions, to initiate the welding process”; col. 26, ll. 28-51 “If a seam weld has been performed, step 1094 closes the dump shutter 190 and the safety BRH shutter 212”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller’s selective shuttering means for a laser welder and associated method with Steinich’s laser welding for the expected purpose of providing both control and safety and thus ensuring that laser welding is properly performed at expected welding sites while commonsensically & safely not improperly exposing laser light when not welding a designated welding site.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 07MAR2026