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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged. As best understood, Applicant seems to be arguing that the groups of claims are “so linked as to form a single general inventive concept” because claim 1 is generic. However, per MPEP 1893.03(d), “A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding special technical feature. The expression special technical features is defined as meaning those technical features that define the contribution which each claimed invention, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” Examiner established a restriction requirement that the shared technical feature is NOT a special technical feature because it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive. Restriction requirement remains. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are examined.
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 1-2, 4-12 are
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.
Claim 1 citing “ the retaining member” with no antecedent basis, and it is not clear with element it is refereeing to, rendering claim indefinite, specially it is not clear if it is related to retaining member of claims 5-7 and 11-12. For examination, it is interpreted the retaining member is for retaining the housing holder onto the chassis is coupled thereto.
Remaining claims are rejected due dependency.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 20170153265 A1 in view of Baba, US 20160087372 A1 and Beakas, US 4901562 A.
Claim 1
Yamamoto in e.g., FIGS. 21-27 teaches:
A wheel speed sensing device comprising:
a first sensor module including:
a first housing including a first sensor housing 305A,302A and a first sheathed wire 51 connected to a rear end of the first sensor housing 305A,302B
a first wheel speed sensor 311 disposed inside the first sensor housing 305A,302A and
a first cable (41:e.g.,¶00057,0102,0108,0111) connected to a rear end of the first wheel speed sensor (311) to transmit a detecting signal of (e.g., ¶0057) the first wheel speed sensor 311 to an electronic controller (e.g., ¶0073), while a predetermined front section thereof 51,41 is disposed inside the first cable housing 305A,302A;
a second sensor module including:
a second housing including a second sensor housing 305B,302B and a second sheathed wire 52 connected to a rear end of the second sensor housing 305B,302B
a second wheel speed sensor (312) disposed inside the second sensor housing 305B, and
a second cable (42) connected to a rear end of the second wheel speed sensor 312 to transmit a detecting signal (e.g., ¶0057) of the second wheel speed sensor 312 to an electronic controller (e.g.,¶0073), while a predetermined front section thereof 52,42 is disposed inside the second cable housing 305B,302B;
and
housing holder (e.g., FIG.24) connecting the first housing and the second housing 305A,305B,302A,302B so that the first sensor module and the second sensor module are aligned and arranged side by side (e.g., FIGs.21-24);
wherein the housing holder includes:
a retaining portion (portion 303 retaining 305A,305B,302A,302B plus portion 60 retaining 51,52) for retaining an outer surface of the first housing and the second housing 305A,305B,302A,302B, and
an extending portion (PORTION 303 INCLUDING 303A) for protruding and extending upward from the retaining portion such that the retaining member for retaining the housing holder onto a chassis is coupled thereto (function is met by 303A, e.g., ¶0108).
Yamamoto teaches a resin mold portion (305A, 302A / 305B, 302B) that integrally covers both the wheel speed sensor (311/312) and an end portion of the cable (51/52) as a single, continuously molded structure (see ¶0121: the resin mold portion... covers the detection unit... and an end portion of the sheathed wire). Yamamoto does not specifically teach the first cable housing, with a predetermined front section of the first cable disposed inside that separate first cable housing; nor does Yamamoto teach the corresponding separate second cable housing connected to a rear end of the second sensor housing, also Yamamoto does not specifically teach a retaining portion for surrounding an outer surface the first housing and the second housing.
However, In the similar field of endeavor, sensor cable protection, Baba in figs, 1-5 teaches a housing including a first sensor housing 12 and a first cable housing 16,24,22 (e.g., ¶0016) connected to a rear end of the first sensor housing 12, a sensor 10 disposed inside the sensor housing 12, and a cable 14 connected to a rear end of the sensor 10 to transmit a detecting signal of the sensor 10 to an electronic controller (not shown control unit), while a predetermined front section thereof (a section of 14 inside 16,24) is disposed inside the first cable housing 16,24,22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Baba’s cable housing for Yamamoto’s housing and modify Yamamoto's first sensor housing and second sensor housing— each integrally molded with a section of the respective sheathed wire — by instead forming a separately-formed cable housing structured as taught by Baba's sensor housing , coupled to a rear end of each respective sensor housing via cable housing as taught by Baba, such that the modified Yamamoto's first housing includes a first sensor housing and a first cable housing connected to a rear end of the first sensor housing, with a predetermined front section of the first cable disposed inside the first cable housing; and the modified Yamamoto's second housing includes a second sensor housing and a second cable housing connected to a rear end of the second sensor housing, with a predetermined front section of the second cable disposed inside the second cable housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Baba teaches that a cable harness exiting a sensor housing is prone to bending, stretching, vibration, and temperature-cycling-induced damage even beneath its own protective jacket (Baba¶0002: "Cable breakage/failure resulting from incurred harsh angles due to vibrations and high temperature conditions causes the cable to damage even under the protective jacket of the harness"), and that a separately-formed, mechanically-coupled cable housing mitigates this failure mode without requiring redesign of the underlying sensor housing (Baba ¶0020: "designed to retrofit to the existing sensor... requires no changes in design of the sensor"); applying this known, art-recognized cable-protection technique from an analogous field (Baba) to Yamamoto's wheel speed sensor modules, to yield the predictable result of a wheel speed sensing device with improved cable durability at the sensor-to-cable transition, would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(D).
Furthermore, In the similar field of endeavor, Beakas (see e.g., fig.9 and e.g., claim 12) teaches a retaining portion 92 for surrounding an outer surface the first housing 99 and the second housing 111.
Yamamoto teaches a fixed member (303) joining first and second sensor housings (305A/302A, 305B/302B) via through holes (303B, 303C), the periphery of which is integrated with the housings' resin mold portions. Beakas teaches, in the same field of wheel-speed-sensor mounting brackets, a retaining portion for surrounding an outer surface the first housing and the second housing which retains an electromagnetic sensor along a meaningful length of the sensor's body (molding integral with the bracket", providing full circumferential surrounding). It would have been obvious to modify Yamamoto's through-hole joints (303B/303C) to instead be tube-shaped, as taught by Beakas, extending along a greater portion of the sensor housings' length, because Beakas teaches that this configuration provides secure retention and stable positioning of a wheel speed sensor relative to its mount , a known concern in this field given the need to maintain a consistent air gap under vibration.
Claim 2
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 1, Yamamoto teaches wherein the retaining portion 303,60 includes:
a sensor housing retaining portion (303C,B) disposed to surround rear portions (e.g., fig.24 some portions of sensor housing are surrounded by 303C,B) of the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing 305A,302A,305B,302B and Yamamoto teaches a cable retaining portion (60) disposed to surround (e.g., ¶0102,0111) the first cable 51 and the second cable 52.
The modified Yamamoto with Beakas as cited above teaches the retaining portion includes:
a sensor housing retaining portion disposed to surround rear portions of the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing (Yamamoto’s retaining portion 303,60 combined with Beakas’s retaining portion which surrounds sensor housing outer surfaces ) based on obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the retaining portion of the modified Yamamoto with Beakas combination as these two distinct sub-portions — one securing the rigid sensor housings for stable positional/air-gap control, and a separate one binding and providing strain relief to the flexible cable pair — because Yamamoto itself already discloses both structures (303 and 60) performing exactly these two distinct functions at their respective locations, such that segregating the single retaining portion of claim 1 into these two functionally-tailored zones would have yielded the predictable result of appropriately supporting each type of component (rigid housing vs. flexible cable) according to its own retention needs.
Yamamoto’s retaining portion 303 retains the housings to hold them together (see e.g., 303/FIG. 24), it would be obvious to simply extend 303's retaining geometry rearward to also grip the modified Yamamoto’s cable housings now present at that location — same structure, same purpose (secure joint retention), just longer, and teach a cable housing retaining portion disposed to surround the first cable housing and the second cable housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to consolidating retention into one continuous holder, rather than two separate retention schemes, and to reduce part count and improves rigidity. See MPEP 2143(A) for KSR rationale (combining known elements to yield a predictable result).
Alternatively this is obvious over Lee,US7484990B1:
In the similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches essentially a one-piece structure with exactly the two functional claimed sections. In other words, Lee teaches wherein the retaining portion (100: 11,14) includes: a housing retaining portion 11 disposed to surround rear1 portions housing 20, and a cable housing retaining portion 14 disposed to surround 2the cable housing (15,16 and cable 30 in boot 32). Yamamoto teaches a housing holder (303) joining the first and second sensor housings. Baba teaches adding a separate cable housing (16) at the rear of each sensor housing. Lee teaches, in the analogous field of cable/connector retention, a single retention device having one end coupled to a connector housing and a second end providing a tubular grip securing the cable at its strain-relief boot, i.e., one continuous retaining structure with a housing-engaging section and a boot/cable-housing-engaging section. It would have been obvious to use Lee’s housing retaining for the modified Yamamoto's housing holder to include, in addition to the sensor-housing-engaging structure, a corresponding cable-housing-engaging section as taught by Lee, extending rearward to also grip the cable housings introduced by the Baba modification. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches that gripping the cable at its strain-relief boot, in addition to the connector/housing, "buttresses" the strain relief and further secures the connection, a known technique for improving mechanical robustness at a housing-to-cable transition, which would predictably improve the durability of Yamamoto's modified sensor modules under vehicle vibration.
Claim 4
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas (and alternatively over Lee) teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 2, Baba teaches wherein the cable housing 16 includes: a cylindrical body 24 disposed to surround an outer circumferential surface of the cable 14 , and a flange 34,36 protruding and extending radially outward from an outer circumferential surface of the cylindrical body 24; therefore the modification teaches wherein the first cable housing includes :a first cylindrical body disposed to surround an outer circumferential surface of the first cable, and a first flange protruding and extending radially outward from an outer circumferential surface of the first cylindrical body; and wherein the second cable housing includes: a second cylindrical body disposed to surround an outer circumferential surface of the second cable, and a second flange protruding and extending radially outward from an outer circumferential surface of the second cylindrical body, based on obviousness and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Baba‘s cylindrical body and flanges for the modified Yamamoto‘s cable housing. One of ordinary skill in the art knows using flanges would have been motivated to make this modification in order to limit the movements.
Claim 5
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 1, Yamamoto, as modified above, teaches a housing holder (303) connecting the first housing and the second housing. Yamamoto does not explicitly teach the retaining portion as comprising two separate, fastened-together members — a first retaining member surrounding rear lower portions of the first and second housings, and a second retaining member surrounding rear upper portions of the first and second housings and fastened to the first retaining member.
Beakas teaches, in the same field of wheel speed sensor mounting brackets, a mounting bracket formed of two separate members ; an inner bracket (21) and an outer bracket (29) which are attached together to jointly define the retaining/cavity structure for the sensor and rotor disk (Beakas citing: "The mounting bracket of the speed sensor 19 also includes an outer bracket 29 which is attached to the inner bracket 21... The brackets 21 and 29 can be attached by any suitable means such as fasteners, welding, or an adhesive").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Yamamoto's housing holder (303) as two separate members fastened together, as taught by Beakas, rather than as a single unitary piece. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because forming a retaining structure from two fastened-together members, as taught by Beakas, is a known, conventional approach in wheel speed sensor bracket construction that facilitates assembly around the sensor housings (e.g., enclosing a housing from two sides rather than requiring insertion through a single molded aperture), yielding the predictable result of a securely retained pair of sensor housings (besides, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961).)).
As for the specific orientation of the two members — a lower member surrounding rear lower portions and an upper member surrounding rear upper portions, as opposed to, e.g., Beakas's axially-abutting plate arrangement — the selection of a particular parting plane (radial/vertical vs. axial) for a two-piece retaining or enclosure structure is a well-known, generic, and field-independent design choice in mechanical and enclosure design, involving only routine skill, particularly where, as here, no criticality or unexpected result is attributed to the specific choice of an upper/lower split over any other split-plane orientation. As discussed above the generic and field-independent nature of well-known mechanical joining and retention techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an upper/lower split-plane arrangement for Yamamoto's modified two-piece housing holder as a matter of routine design choice.
Claim 6
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 5, Yamamoto, as modified above to include a first retaining member and a second retaining member per claim 5, further discloses (¶0074,0103, describing fixed member 303/203 as elongate and plate-shaped with an insertion hole portion 303A/203A formed on one end for receiving a connecting member such as a bolt for fixing to a vehicle) that the portion of the housing holder providing for attachment to the vehicle chassis is positioned at an end of the holder structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having designated the upper retaining member as the second retaining member per the claim 5 modification above, to position Yamamoto's chassis-attachment structure (corresponding to the claimed extending portion) so as to protrude and extend from an upper portion of that second retaining member, since Yamamoto's own fixed member already positions its chassis-attachment structure (insertion hole 303A) at an elevated location relative to the sensor housings (¶0058: "the side on which the resin mold portion... is disposed is the upper side, and the side on which an insertion hole portion... is disposed is the lower side" [Embodiment 1]; analogous upper positioning in Embodiment 3, ¶0113). Locating this chassis-attachment feature on the upper retaining member, once the retaining portion is divided into upper and lower members per claim 5, would have been a matter of straightforward engineering choice consistent with Yamamoto's own existing upper-side placement of its chassis-mounting structure, requiring no more than ordinary skill.
Claim 7
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 5, Yamamoto, as modified above per claims 1 and 5, teaches a housing holder divided into a first (lower) retaining member and a second (upper) retaining member, each surrounding rear portions of the first and second sensor housings and cable housings (per the claim 1 modification incorporating Baba's cable housing structure). Claim 7 further requires that each of the first and second retaining members itself be subdivided into a sensor-housing-retaining sub-portion and a cable-housing-retaining sub-portion.
This subdivision follows as a matter of routine design choice from the claim 1 and claim 5 modifications already made: having modified Yamamoto's housing holder to (i) be divided into upper and lower fastened members (per claim 5) and (ii) retain both a sensor housing portion and a (Baba-taught) cable housing portion along the length of each sensor module (per claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each of the upper and lower retaining members with a sensor-housing-engaging sub-section and a cable-housing-engaging sub-section, consistent with the underlying components each member is intended to retain. This is further supported by the generic and well-known nature of forming a single retaining/enclosure member with multiple distinct sub-sections tailored to the differently-shaped components it retains (see, e.g., Lee, teaching a single retention device having a housing-engaging section (11) and a distinctly-shaped cable/boot-engaging section (14) formed as sub-portions of one integrated retaining structure). Dividing each of Yamamoto's modified upper and lower retaining members into a sensor-housing sub-portion and a cable-housing sub-portion, corresponding respectively to the sensor housing and cable housing components each member surrounds, would have yielded the predictable result of a retaining structure conforming to and securing both types of components along their length, and would have required no more than ordinary skill in the art to implement.
Claims 2 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 20170153265 A1 in view of Baba, US 20160087372 A1 and Beakas, US 4901562 A and Lee, US7484990B1.
Claim 2
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 1, Yamamoto teaches wherein the retaining portion 303,60 includes:
a sensor housing retaining portion (303C,B) disposed to surround rear portions (e.g., fig.24 some portions of sensor housing are surrounded by 303C,B) of the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing 305A,302A,305B,302B and Yamamoto teaches a cable retaining portion (60) disposed to surround (e.g., ¶0102,0111) the first cable 51 and the second cable 52.
The modified Yamamoto with Beakas as cited above teaches the retaining portion includes:
a sensor housing retaining portion disposed to surround rear portions of the first sensor housing and the second sensor housing (Yamamoto’s retaining portion 303,60 combined with Beakas’s retaining portion which surrounds sensor housing outer surfaces ) based on obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the retaining portion of the modified Yamamoto with Beakas combination as these two distinct sub-portions — one securing the rigid sensor housings for stable positional/air-gap control, and a separate one binding and providing strain relief to the flexible cable pair — because Yamamoto itself already discloses both structures (303 and 60) performing exactly these two distinct functions at their respective locations, such that segregating the single retaining portion of claim 1 into these two functionally-tailored zones would have yielded the predictable result of appropriately supporting each type of component (rigid housing vs. flexible cable) according to its own retention needs.
Yamamoto’s retaining portion 303 retains the housings to hold them together (see e.g., 303/FIG. 24), it would be obvious to simply extend 303's retaining geometry rearward to also grip the modified Yamamoto’s cable housings now present at that location — same structure, same purpose (secure joint retention), just longer, and teach a cable housing retaining portion disposed to surround the first cable housing and the second cable housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to consolidating retention into one continuous holder, rather than two separate retention schemes, and to reduce part count and improves rigidity. See MPEP 2143(A) for KSR rationale (combining known elements to yield a predictable result).
Alternatively this is obvious over Lee,US7484990B1:
In the similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches essentially a one-piece structure with exactly the two functional claimed sections. In other words, Lee teaches wherein the retaining portion (100: 11,14) includes: a housing retaining portion 11 disposed to surround rear3 portions housing 20, and a cable housing retaining portion 14 disposed to surround 4the cable housing (15,16 and cable 30 in boot 32). Yamamoto teaches a housing holder (303) joining the first and second sensor housings. Baba teaches adding a separate cable housing (16) at the rear of each sensor housing. Lee teaches, in the analogous field of cable/connector retention, a single retention device having one end coupled to a connector housing and a second end providing a tubular grip securing the cable at its strain-relief boot, i.e., one continuous retaining structure with a housing-engaging section and a boot/cable-housing-engaging section. It would have been obvious to use Lee’s housing retaining for the modified Yamamoto's housing holder to include, in addition to the sensor-housing-engaging structure, a corresponding cable-housing-engaging section as taught by Lee, extending rearward to also grip the cable housings introduced by the Baba modification. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches that gripping the cable at its strain-relief boot, in addition to the connector/housing, "buttresses" the strain relief and further secures the connection, a known technique for improving mechanical robustness at a housing-to-cable transition, which would predictably improve the durability of Yamamoto's modified sensor modules under vehicle vibration.
Claim 7
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 5, Yamamoto, as modified above per claims 1 and 5, teaches a housing holder divided into a first (lower) retaining member and a second (upper) retaining member, each surrounding rear portions of the first and second sensor housings and cable housings (per the claim 1 modification incorporating Baba's cable housing structure). Claim 7 further requires that each of the first and second retaining members itself be subdivided into a sensor-housing-retaining sub-portion and a cable-housing-retaining sub-portion.
This subdivision follows as a matter of routine design choice from the claim 1 and claim 5 modifications already made: having modified Yamamoto's housing holder to (i) be divided into upper and lower fastened members (per claim 5) and (ii) retain both a sensor housing portion and a (Baba-taught) cable housing portion along the length of each sensor module (per claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each of the upper and lower retaining members with a sensor-housing-engaging sub-section and a cable-housing-engaging sub-section, consistent with the underlying components each member is intended to retain. This is further supported by the generic and well-known nature of forming a single retaining/enclosure member with multiple distinct sub-sections tailored to the differently-shaped components it retains (see, e.g., Lee, teaching a single retention device having a housing-engaging section (11) and a distinctly-shaped cable/boot-engaging section (14) formed as sub-portions of one integrated retaining structure). Dividing each of Yamamoto's modified upper and lower retaining members into a sensor-housing sub-portion and a cable-housing sub-portion, corresponding respectively to the sensor housing and cable housing components each member surrounds, would have yielded the predictable result of a retaining structure conforming to and securing both types of components along their length, and would have required no more than ordinary skill in the art to implement.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 20170153265 A1 in view of Baba, US 20160087372 A1 and Beakas, US 4901562 A and Ortiz, US 20200083775 A1 (evidence by CN201707342U).
Claim 8
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas the wheel speed sensing device of claim 7, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the first housing and the second housing include: first fixing protrusions for protruding in a vertical direction on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces, and wherein the housing holder further includes: first fixing through holes vertically penetrated through at least one of the lower sensor housing retaining portion and the upper sensor housing retaining portion, so that the first fixing protrusions are inserted thereinto.
However, it is well known that that precise, secure, non-shifting positioning of the sensor relative to its mount is a known(see CN201707342U as evidentiary document5), wheel speed sensors depend on a tight, consistent air gap to the tone wheel; vehicle vibration is a constant operating condition). A vertical fixing protrusion engaging a through-hole is a straightforward, well-known way to prevent a housing from shifting axially or rotating within its retaining bracket under vibration , and per MPEP 2143 (C) "known technique solving a known problem in the same field, yielding a predictable result".
For example:
In the similar field of endeavor, Ortiz in fig.3 teaches wherein fixing protrusion 62 for protruding6 on at least one of the mating surfaces 12, and a hole7 82 penetrated through at least one of the surfaces 12,22, so that the protrusion inserted thereinto (e.g., ¶0036-39).
Therefore,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ortiz’s protrusion and hole for the modified Yamamoto’s the first housing and the second housing and provide art to provide the sensor housing with a fixing protrusion protruding in a vertical direction, insertable into a corresponding through-hole formed in the housing holder's retaining portion to provide the sensor housing with a fixing protrusion protruding in a vertical direction, insertable into a corresponding through-hole formed in the housing holder's retaining portion, and first fixing protrusions for protruding in a vertical direction on at least one of the modified Yamamoto’s upper and lower surfaces, and wherein the modified Yamamoto’s housing holder further includes: first fixing through holes vertically penetrated through at least one of the modified Yamamoto’s lower sensor housing retaining portion and the modified Yamamoto’s upper sensor housing retaining portion, so that the modified Yamamoto’s first fixing protrusions are inserted thereinto, as a known technique for preventing axial and rotational displacement of a component secured within a bracket or holder. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because wheel speed sensors are known in the art to require precise and stable positioning relative to their mounting structure to maintain a consistent sensing gap and reliable signal output under the vibration and thermal cycling conditions of a vehicle environment8 , and a protrusion-and-through-hole engagement is a known, conventional means of achieving secure, repeatable positioning between mating mechanical components.
Examiner holds that Ortiz’s system is structurally the same concept as claim 8: a protrusion on one part, a through-hole in the mating part, protrusion inserted into hole to secure the two together. The differences (vertical direction, "upper and lower surfaces" specifically, sensor-housing-into-retaining-portion rather than housing-portion-to-housing-portion) are implementation details, not a different inventive concept, in other words, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim 11
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 5, although does not teach: wherein the first retaining member includes a fastening protrusion or a fastening groove at one side and the other side, and wherein the second retaining member includes a fastening groove or a fastening protrusion corresponding to the fastening protrusion or the fastening groove at one side and the other side. However:
First : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a first and second retaining member as two separate parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961).
Second: it is common knowledge in the art to use fastening protrusion or a fastening groove at one side and the other side as a well-known joining technique and for example In the similar field of endeavor, Robert teaches wherein a first member 20 includes a fastening protrusion 25 or a fastening groove at one side and the other side, and wherein the second member 21 includes a fastening groove 50 or a fastening protrusion corresponding to the fastening protrusion 25 or the fastening groove at one side and the other side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ortiz’s members including fastening protrusion or a fastening groove for the modified Yamamoto‘s retaining member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to releasably and securely joining two members.
Claim 12
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas and Ortiz teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 11, although Yamamoto does not teach wherein the housing holder further include:
a connecting member having one side connected to one side of the first retaining member and the other side connected to one side of the second retaining member to connect the first retaining member and the second retaining member, that the use of a mating fastening protrusion and fastening groove (or an equivalent tongue-and-groove / snap-fit engagement) to releasably join two housing members — such as an upper housing member and a lower housing member of an enclosure — at corresponding sides is a well-known joining technique in the mechanical and electromechanical arts, and would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is considered to be common knowledge, or well-known in the art, such that it does not require documentary evidence in support thereof, as it is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first retaining member with a fastening protrusion or fastening groove at one side and the other side, and the second retaining member with a corresponding fastening groove or fastening protrusion at one side and the other side, as claimed, in order to releasably and securely join the first retaining member and the second retaining member using a known, conventional fastening arrangement, yielding the predictable result of a securely assembled two-piece housing. for example In the similar field of endeavor, Ortiz teaches a connecting member 62 having one side connected to one side of the first member 12 and the other side connected to one side of the member to connect the member 12 and the second member 29. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ortiz’s members including fastening protrusion or a fastening groove for the modified Yamamoto‘s housing holder having one side connected to one side of the first retaining member and the other side connected to one side of the second retaining member to connect the first retaining member and the second retaining member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent connecting members separated from each other.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 20170153265 A1 in view of Baba, US 20160087372 A1 and Beakas, US 4901562 A and Ortiz, US 20200083775 A1 (evidence by CN201707342U) and Robert ,US 3851435 A.
Claim 9
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas and Ortiz teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 8, the limitation “wherein the first fixing protrusions include: a protrusion body for protruding from upper surface or lower surface of the first sensor housing or the second sensor housing at a predetermined height, and a hook additionally for protruding by being extended in the front and rear directions from an extended end of the protrusion body” is taught based on obviousness in view of Robert. Robert teaches the fixing protrusion include: a protrusion body 25 for protruding from one of mating surfaces 20 at a predetermined height (see fig.5), and a hook9 35 additionally for protruding by being extended from an extended end of the protrusion body 25, Robert teaches, in the analogous field of self-locking mechanical fasteners for joining two members, a fastening means comprising a tongue (25) formed integrally with a first member, the tongue having a protrusion (35) extending from one of its sides near, but spaced from, its forward end (see FIG. 6; description: "a short protrusion 35 extending downwardly therefrom... near, but spaced from, the forward end of the tongue 25"), the protrusion having a sloping leading surface (36) to facilitate insertion and a trailing, generally vertical surface (37) configured to engage and lock against a spanning member (56) of a groove (59) formed in a second member, once the tongue is inserted therethrough (see FIG. 7; "When the trailing edge 37 of the protrusion 35 passes the rear edge of the spanning member 56, the tongue 25 snaps downwardly in place with the trailing edge of the protrusion 35 engaging the rear edge of the spanning member 56").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the modified Yamamoto's fixing protrusion with an integral hook extending from its extended end, in the manner taught by Robert's tongue protrusion (35), rather than as a plain protrusion body alone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Robert teaches that such a hook, formed integrally at the extended end of a protruding member, provides a self-locking engagement once inserted into a corresponding groove or through-hole — securing the joined components against withdrawal without requiring welding, screws, bolts, or additional tools or fixtures (see, e.g., "provides a means for fastening the frame members both quickly and securely without the need for tools, welding skill, jigs or fixtures... [the members] once joined, are permanently locked together"). Applying this known, self-locking hook-and-protrusion technique to secure Yamamoto's sensor housing fixing protrusion within the housing holder's fixing through-hole would have yielded the predictable result of a securely and resiliently retained sensor housing under the vibration and thermal cycling conditions of a vehicle environment, and would have required no more than ordinary skill to implement.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 20170153265 A1 in view of Baba, US 20160087372 A1 and Beakas, US 4901562 A (and Ortiz, US 20200083775 A1 (evidence by CN201707342U) Roberts and Dangel, US 5577779 A.
Claim 10
Yamamoto in view of Baba and Beakas Ortiz Robert teaches the wheel speed sensing device of claim 9, although Yamamoto does not teach “wherein the housing holder further includes: an elastic guide for protruding inwardly from the first fixing through hole to a front and rear of the first fixing through holes, and elastically deformed upward by the hook when the first fixing protrusions enter, and restored after the first fixing protrusions enter, and disposed so that a lower surface of the hook is caught”. Dangel, in the analogous field of automotive wiring-harness and connector component joining, teaches a resilient tab (28) integrally molded to a second component (16), the tab (28) extending outwardly from the second component (16) and into an aperture (30) formed in a locking frame (14), such that the tab is deflected upon insertion of a locking arm (10) having a projection (20) with a step portion (22) into the aperture (30) ("The resiliency of tab 28 allows the tab to deflect toward second component 16 when locking arm 10 is inserted into aperture 30"). After the projection (20) passes the fixed crossmember (26) of the locking frame, the locking arm returns to its original shape, and the resilient tab (28) likewise substantially returns to its original shape while continuing to press against the locking arm, thereby securing the engagement and preventing inadvertent release ( see e.g., "tab 28 substantially returns to its original shape, but remains in contact with the back side of locking arm 10... The urging of tab 28 against locking arm 10... prevents inadvertent release of the locking arm").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fixing through hole of the modified Yamamoto housing holder with a resilient, deflectable elastic guide corresponding to Dangel s resilient tab (28), positioned to deflect upon entry of the fixing protrusion's hook and to restore afterward so as to secure the hook against withdrawal, as taught by Dangel. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Dangel teaches that a resilient, deflectable tab positioned within a mating aperture allows a lock mechanism to be engaged and released, where applicable, without the use of tools, prevents inadvertent disengagement of the joined components under normal handling and vibration, and — critically for automotive under-vehicle applications — provides secure, repeatable engagement that is inexpensive to mold integrally with the housing (see e.g., Dangle: "the lock mechanism can be engaged and released without the use of tools"; "prevents accidental disengagement"). Applying this known, art-recognized resilient-tab retention technique — already disclosed by the same general field of endeavor (automotive wiring-harness/connector component manufacturer) as the wheel-speed-sensor field at issue — to secure the fixing protrusions of the modified Yamamoto’s sensor housings within the housing holder's through holes would have yielded the predictable result of a securely and repeatably assembled wheel speed sensing device, resistant to inadvertent separation under vehicle vibration and thermal cycling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See Lee citation” "comprising a segment 11 coupled at one end to connector 20."
2 for "cable housing," matching Caterpillar's boot). Per the spec: "A second end of segment 11 is coupled to a tubular grip 14. Grip 14 secures the cable in place by grasping the cable... at or near its strain-relief boot 32."
3 See Lee citation” "comprising a segment 11 coupled at one end to connector 20."
4 for "cable housing," matching Caterpillar's boot). Per the spec: "A second end of segment 11 is coupled to a tubular grip 14. Grip 14 secures the cable in place by grasping the cable... at or near its strain-relief boot 32."
5 CN201707342U clearly discloses/teaches: "the installation site accuracy of Hall chip are difficult to control... causes the sensor head after the injection moulding not meet the requirements, causing entrucking after detector gap inconsistent" and its stated fix requires precision: "the thickness range of Hall chip upper surface to casing assembly outer face is 0.5～0.6 millimeter."
6 See citation of Oritz e.g., "each insertion portion 60 includes an ear 62 that consists of an enlarged portion of the flange 18."
7 "The receiving portion 80 includes a slot 82 that is formed in the inward-facing surface 30 of the pillar 28, a vacancy 83... and an elastic latch 86..." So 80 is the umbrella label for the whole receiving structure (slot + internal cavity + latch together), while 82 is specifically the groove/slot that the ear presses into."
8 (see, e.g., CN201707342U, describing the need to control Hall chip positional accuracy to maintain a specified sensing-gap tolerance)
9 89 is the hook portion as a whole; 90 is specifically its tip. Per the spec: "a hook portion 89 is defined at the latch free end 88. The hook portion 89 includes an angled surface 92... between a hook tip 90... and a hook shoulder 91."
Prosecution Insights