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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 20090022505 – listed on Applicant’s IDS, full translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) a sensor 10 for distance and/or position measurement (proximity sensor: middle p. 2) having an essentially cylindrical housing (i.e. the outer body/housing of sensor 10, as shown in Figs. 1-6) and a sensor element operating according to inductive, capacitive, or eddy current principles (top-middle p. 2), which is at least partially arranged in the housing (as shown in Figs. 1-6), comprising:
at least one fastening region “N” (the whole of the threaded region: top p. 4) is formed on the surface of the housing (as shown in Fig. 4-6), which fastening region “N” extends around the housing in the circumferential direction (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6) and is formed as a raised portion or as a recess (both: see Fig. 4 and 6), wherein the housing is connectable in a force-fitting manner (via the projections 19 and the clamping screws: middle p. 4) exclusively with the fastening region “N” to a fastening device 11 (i.e. connected to the cover housing 11 by the threads “N”: bottom p. 3), such that the location of the clamping is reproducibly determined (i.e. the sensor 10 can be detached and then re-attached to the cover 11 using and “at” the location of the thread N).
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the fastening region “N” is delimited by material recesses from the surface of the housing outside the fastening region (if the fastening region is taken to be the portion of the thread N at the protrusions 19, then threads outside such a region will define the claimed material recesses: see Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the material recesses are V-shaped (i.e. the recesses in adjacent screw threads: see Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the fastening region “N” is formed by a plurality of point-shaped raised portions (i.e. when viewed from the side, the tips of the screw threads come to a point: see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the point-shaped raised portions (i.e. when viewed from the side, the tips of the screw threads come to a point: see Fig. 6) are integrally formed with the housing or are applied to the housing (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the fastening region “N” extends in a ring shape around the housing (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the fastening region “N” runs in a ring around the housing (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6) and wherein an outer diameter of the housing in the fastening region is larger than a outer diameter of the housing outside the fastening region (i.e. the housing at the right end of the sensor 10 in Figs. 4 and 6 is smaller in diameter than the threaded portion: see Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) in an axial direction of the sensor 10, a distance between a measuring surface of the sensor 23 (middle-bottom p. 4) and the fastening region “N” is formed in such a way that compensation of the different temperature expansion of the housing and the fastening device is achieved (i.e. there is some gap or “play” between the threads and the casing 11 so that a difference in thermal expansion between the two will be compensated for).
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the fastening device 11 has an opening for receiving the sensor 10 (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6) and wherein the housing is connectable in a force-fitting manner (via the projections 19 and the clamping screws: middle p. 4) exclusively with its fastening region “N” to the fastening device 10.
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the fastening device 11 is configured so that the sensor 10 may be connected to the fastening device with a circumferential clamp (middle p. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Choi discloses (Figs. 1-6) the sensor 10 may be arranged in the opening in such a way that a fastening means 19 (top p. 4) engages the fastening region “N” of the housing (as shown in Fig. 6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20090022505).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 10, Choi is applied as above, but does not disclose the raised portion has a height of a maximum of 0.05 mm and/or wherein the at least one recess has a depth of a maximum of 0.05 mm; and the width of the annular fastening region is in a range of approximately 0.5 mm and approximately 2.5 mm; and the outer diameter of the housing in the fastening region is at most one of: 0.05 mm larger than that diameter of the housing outside the fastening region; at most 0.02 mm larger than that diameter of the housing outside the fastening region and: 0.01 mm, larger than that diameter of the housing outside the fastening region.
However, such a modification would be merely a change in size/proportion of the threads, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Choi so that the raised portion has a height of a maximum of 0.05 mm and/or wherein the at least one recess has a depth of a maximum of 0.05 mm; and the width of the annular fastening region is in a range of approximately 0.5 mm and approximately 2.5 mm; and the outer diameter of the housing in the fastening region is at most one of: 0.05 mm larger than that diameter of the housing outside the fastening region; at most 0.02 mm larger than that diameter of the housing outside the fastening region and: 0.01 mm, larger than that diameter of the housing outside the fastening region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04-28-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the exact position of the force-fit on the sensor is reproduced) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the “location of the clamping is reproducibly determined” – which the examiner interprets to mean that the housing is able to be connected again (or re-connected) at the same location. In its current wording, the degree of exactness of the location’s reproducibility is unclear/undefined, so broadly speaking, since the sensor 10 of Choi could be removed from the housing 11 and then reconnected at the threads “N” (to any degree of insertion or tightening), then Choi still reads on the claim language.
The examiner notes that applicant makes several comments on Choi in relation to the claim language (i.e. that the screw is helical and that the sleeve is in contact with the ridges and recesses of the screw), but does not connect these comments to an argument as to how the claim language would overcome the reference, therefore, Applicant's comments here fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights