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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0168080 to Yamamoto et al. (herein Yamamoto) in view of WIPO Publication WO 2019/116680 to Goshima et al. (herein Goshima, US 2020/0353658 is being used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the fixation part 24 corresponds to the injection-molded article recited in the instant claims and is formed via injection molding (paragraph 0044). Yamamoto teaches that the fixation part 24 is substantially oval plate-shaped has a bolt insertion hole 52 on one side in the longitudinal direction and a through-hole 54 on the other side in a longitudinal direction (paragraph 0048 and Fig 3) wherein the bolt insertion hold 52 and the through-hole 54 correspond to the second and first holes recited in the instant claims, respectively, and the area therebetween corresponds to the recited coupling portion.
Yamamoto is silent as to the fixed member having a weld.
Goshima teaches an injection molded article that includes a base as a thin plate-shaped member connected to a gate of the mold and a plurality of protrusions each having a hole extending through the base (abstract). Fig 1 of Goshima shows the gate GA in the middle of a first substrate 12a in between protrusions 13 and 14 (paragraphs 0042-0044) which would correspond to the middle of the fixation part of Yamamoto and the coupling portion recited in the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the gate location taught by Goshima because applying a known technique to a known device has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding the weld being present in the coupling portion, page 4 of the instant specification discloses that using a gate in the coupling portion (or the middle of the fixation part of Yamamoto) is what causes the weld to form in the coupling portion when the resin flows into the part, around the holes, and back into the coupling portion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the fixation part of Yamamoto as modified according to Goshima to include a weld in the middle of the fixation part thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto and Goshima teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Fig 4 of Yamamoto shows that the fixation part 24 has a middle portion that meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Yamamoto and Goshima teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above.
The fixation part of Yamamoto as modified according to Goshima to include a gate in the middle would meet the claimed limitations, i.e. the gate would leave a flash or gate trace.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto and Goshima teach all the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above.
Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, a cover part 22 that covers the rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires correspond to the sensor, sensor holder, and electric wire recited in the instant claims. Fig 1 of Yamamoto shows that the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires 30 pass through the through-hole 54 of the fixation part 24 (paragraph 0049).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Goshima.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the fixation part 24 corresponds to the injection-molded article recited in the instant claims and is formed via injection molding (paragraph 0044). Yamamoto teaches that the fixation part 24 is substantially oval plate-shaped has a bolt insertion hole 52 on one side in the longitudinal direction and a through-hole 54 on the other side in a longitudinal direction (paragraph 0048 and Fig 3) wherein the bolt insertion hold 52 and the through-hole 54 correspond to the second and first holes recited in the instant claims, respectively, and the area therebetween corresponds to the recited coupling portion.
Yamamoto is silent as to the fixed member having a weld.
Goshima teaches an injection molded article that includes a base as a thin plate-shaped member connected to a gate of the mold and a plurality of protrusions each having a hole extending through the base (abstract). Fig 1 of Goshima shows the gate GA in the middle of a first substrate 12a in between protrusions 13 and 14 (paragraphs 0042-0044) which would correspond to the middle of the fixation part of Yamamoto and the coupling portion recited in the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the gate location taught by Goshima because applying a known technique to a known device has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto and Goshima teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, a cover part 22 that covers the rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires correspond to the sensor, sensor holder, and electric wire recited in the instant claims. Fig 1 of Yamamoto shows that the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires 30 pass through the through-hole 54 of the fixation part 24 (paragraph 0049).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of U.S. Patent 5,556,582 to Kazmer (herein Kazmer).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the fixation part 24 corresponds to the injection-molded article recited in the instant claims and is formed via injection molding (paragraph 0044). Yamamoto teaches that the fixation part 24 is substantially oval plate-shaped has a bolt insertion hole 52 on one side in the longitudinal direction and a through-hole 54 on the other side in a longitudinal direction (paragraph 0048 and Fig 3) wherein the bolt insertion hold 52 and the through-hole 54 correspond to the second and first holes recited in the instant claims, respectively, and the area therebetween corresponds to the recited coupling portion.
Yamamoto is silent as to the fixed member having a weld.
Kazmer teaches an injection molding process wherein the valves controlling the flow of mold material are adjusted during molding (abstract). Fig 4 of Kazmer shows a mold having an injection valve on either end, and Kazmer teaches that these valves control the flow of mold material into the mold such that the knit line in the middle of the mold where the two flows meet can be controlled (Col 6, lines 6-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the process of Kazmer because it would result in a knit line having greater tensile strength (Col 6, lines 6-21). Examiner notes that modifying the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the process of Kazmer would result in a knit line or weld in the middle of the fixation part, i.e. the part corresponding to the claimed coupling part.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto and Kazmer teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Fig 4 of Yamamoto shows that the fixation part 24 has a middle portion that meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Yamamoto and Kazmer teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above.
Modifying the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the process of Kazmer would result in the fixation part being made in a mold having a mold material inlet at either end. Given that the fixation parts has bolt insertion hold 52 and through-hole 54 in it, these mold material inlets would necessarily be in the annular portion of the holes as recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto and Kazmer teach all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 4 as discussed above.
Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, a cover part 22 that covers the rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires correspond to the sensor, sensor holder, and electric wire recited in the instant claims. Fig 1 of Yamamoto shows that the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires 30 pass through the through-hole 54 of the fixation part 24 (paragraph 0049).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Kazmer.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the fixation part 24 corresponds to the injection-molded article recited in the instant claims and is formed via injection molding (paragraph 0044). Yamamoto teaches that the fixation part 24 is substantially oval plate-shaped has a bolt insertion hole 52 on one side in the longitudinal direction and a through-hole 54 on the other side in a longitudinal direction (paragraph 0048 and Fig 3) wherein the bolt insertion hold 52 and the through-hole 54 correspond to the second and first holes recited in the instant claims, respectively, and the area therebetween corresponds to the recited coupling portion.
Yamamoto is silent as to the fixed member having a weld.
Kazmer teaches an injection molding process wherein the valves controlling the flow of mold material are adjusted during molding (abstract). Fig 4 of Kazmer shows a mold having an injection valve on either end, and Kazmer teaches that these valves control the flow of mold material into the mold such that the knit line in the middle of the mold where the two flows meet can be controlled (Col 6, lines 6-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the process of Kazmer because it would result in a knit line having greater tensile strength (Col 6, lines 6-21).
Modifying the fixation part of Yamamoto to be made using the process of Kazmer would result in the fixation part being made in a mold having a mold material inlet at either end. Given that the fixation parts has bolt insertion hold 52 and through-hole 54 in it, these mold material inlets would necessarily be in the annular portion of the holes as recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto and Kazmer teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Yamamoto teaches a wheel speed sensor (abstract) comprising a rotation detection member 20, a cover part 22 that covers the rotation detection member 20, output wires 30, and fixation part 24 (paragraph 0044 and Fig 2) wherein the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires correspond to the sensor, sensor holder, and electric wire recited in the instant claims. Fig 1 of Yamamoto shows that the rotation detection member 20, cover part 22, and output wires 30 pass through the through-hole 54 of the fixation part 24 (paragraph 0049).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783