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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 12, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-7 & 9 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 10, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026, please refer to pp. 4-7 of Applicant remarks, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments, pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Non-Final Office Action, mailed February 10, 2026, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose the currently amended independent claim 1 limitation(s). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pg. 5-6 of Applicant remarks, presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Soyama (US2011/0018529) in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), as cited by the Applicant, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, “the Office cannot modify the base reference (Soyama) in such a way as to make it unsuitable for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation,” and “Second, Contant does not teach a coil arranged at the first end of the lid…, nor does Contant teach a first end of the insert facing a coil,” of amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first section the Examiner would like to highlight is how the prior art reference(s), Soyama (US2011/0018529), in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), read on the 103 modification that was previously presented in the Non-Final OA (pp. 5-6), in regard to “the Office cannot modify the base reference (Soyama) in such a way as to make it unsuitable for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation.” The rejection does not propose rigidly locking the exterior of Soyama’s rotor to the housing using Contant’s external latches. Instead, the modification takes the interior spring-loaded latching hooks taught by Contant, specifically the circumferentially-spaced resilient fingers 163 (Figs. 9 & 10; [0058], [0060], & [0067]) or resilient axially spaced tabs 179b (Figs. 7 & 11; [0066] & [0112]) that flex radially to hold internal components, and incorporates them into the interior of Soyama’s rotor 40 (Fig. 2; [0049], [0055]-[0060], [0063]-[0064], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0078], [0080]-[0082], [0114], &[0116]-[0117]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. This interior modification would securely hold Soyama’s internal components, such as the magnet 71 embedded at the center area of the rotor, without the need for adhesives or friction-fitting. Since these latching hooks are located “interiorly”, the exterior of the rotor 40 remains entirely free to rotate within the housing. Thus, preserving Soyama’s principle of operation. Further, please refer to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2143.02, MPEP 2143(I)(A), MPEP 2143(I)(C), MPEP 2143(I)(D), MPEP 2144(I), and MPEP2144(II). The rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious over Soyama in view of Contant is, therefore, maintained.
The second section the Examiner would like to highlight is how the prior art reference(s), Soyama (US2011/0018529), in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), read on amended independent claim 1, in regard to “Second, Contant does not teach a coil arranged at the first end of the lid…, nor does Contant teach a first end of the insert facing a coil.” Under BRI (Please refer to MPEP 2111.01(I)-(IV) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)), “arranged at the first end in the lid” does not strictly require the coil to be flush against the absolute terminal ceiling of the lid. Contant discloses the inductive spool assembly 130 and coil 136 disposed entirely within the cap 120 (Figs. 3, 6, & 15; [0003]-[0004], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052], [0088]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. The cap itself constitutes the “first end” or upper extremity of the overall sensor housing assembly, therefore positioning the coil within this upper cap satisfies the limitation of being arranged “at the first end”. Further, please refer to MPEP 2145(IV), Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead argues that Contant individually does not teach these claim limitations. All of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in the combination of Soyama or Contant, and it is the combination of the references that renders the claimed invention obvious. Contant teaches utilizing an inducive coil 136 arranged within the upper housing cap 120 to enable wireless, inductive charging from outside the sensor (Figs. 3, 6, & 15; [0003]-[0004], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052], [0088]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. If a POSITA were to modify Soyama’s sensor to include wireless inductive charging as taught by Contant, they would naturally arrange the coil at the “first end” (upper cover 20) of Soyama’s lid (Fig. 2; [0049]-[0050], [0053]-[0055], [0076]-[0077], [0080]-[0081], [0114], & [0116]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. Placing it at the first end ensures the coil is positioned as close to the exterior environment as possible to maximize inductive coupling as purposed by Contant. Further, taking Soyama in combination with Contant, Soyama discloses the coil (spring 50) seated on the spring receiving face 25 of the housing cover 20 (the lid). This places the coil at the first end of the lid, thus overcoming the assertion of hindsight bias. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, the insert (Soyama’s rotor 40) features a spring receiving face 43 that faces and receives this coil (return spring 50) ([0049], [0055], [0058]-[0059], [0067], [0071]-[0074], [0080]-[0082], & [0116]-[0118]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. The rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious over Soyama in view of Contant is, therefore, maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pg. 6 of Applicant remarks, presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Soyama (US2011/0018529) in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), as cited by the Applicant, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, “The Office equates Soyama’s rotor 40 with Applicant’s recited insert…The Office adds Contant’s latches to Soyama’s rotor, thereby making Soyama’s rotor not rotatably arranged within the housing, thereby making it unsuitable for its intended purpose. Further, adding Contant’s inductive coil to Soyama’s rotational position sensor changes Soyama’s principle of operation…” of amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into one section. The majority of these arguments have already been explained in the responses provided above. The section the Examiner would like to highlight is how the prior art reference(s), Soyama (US2011/0018529), in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), further expand the mapped claim limitations that were previously presented in the Non-Final OA (pp. 5-6), and explained above, in regard to “The Office equates Soyama’s rotor 40 with Applicant’s recited insert…The Office adds Contant’s latches to Soyama’s rotor, thereby making Soyama’s rotor not rotatably arranged within the housing, thereby making it unsuitable for its intended purpose. Further, adding Contant’s inductive coil to Soyama’s rotational position sensor changes Soyama’s principle of operation…”. The rejection does not propose rigidly locking the exterior of Soyama’s rotor to the housing using Contant’s external latches. Further, the rejection does not map Contant’s latches 137 as the “insert”, instead the “insert” is mapped to Soyama’s rotor 40. Contant is relied for teaching the addition of interior spring-loaded latching hooks, specifically the circumferentially-spaced resilient fingers 163 (Figs. 9 & 10; [0058], [0060], & [0067]) or resilient axially spaced tabs 179b (Figs. 7 & 11; [0066] & [0112]) that flex radially to hold internal components, and incorporates them into the interior of Soyama’s rotor 40 (Fig. 2; [0049], [0055]-[0060], [0063]-[0064], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0078], [0080]-[0082], [0114], &[0116]-[0117]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. This interior modification would securely hold Soyama’s internal components, such as the magnet 71 embedded at the center area of the rotor (Fig. 2; [0075], [0085]-[0093, [0097], [0102], & [0104]), without the need for adhesives or friction-fitting. Since these latching hooks are located “interiorly”, the exterior of the rotor 40 remains entirely free to rotate within the housing. Further, it would be obvious to integrate interior latching hooks (like Contant’s fastening means) inside Soyama’s hollow rotor to allow the shaft S to snap into place, ensuring a secure connection “spring-loaded orthogonal to the axis” without external hardware. Thus, preserving Soyama’s principle of operation. Further, please refer to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2143.02, MPEP 2143(I)(A), MPEP 2143(I)(C), MPEP 2143(I)(D), MPEP 2144(I), and MPEP2144(II). The rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious over Soyama in view of Contant is, therefore, maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 6-7 of Applicant remarks, presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Soyama (US2011/0018529) in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), as cited by the Applicant, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, “That neither Contant nor Soyama discloses a coil at the end of the lid suggests the Office’s rationale is based solely upon Applicant’s disclosure and is, therefore, impermissible hindsight,” and “Last, Contant does not teach an end surface of a first end of the insert facing the coil as required…,” of amended independent claim 1.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner would like to highlight how the prior art reference(s), Soyama (US2011/0018529), in view of Contant (US2020/0309975), read on amended independent claim 1, in regard to “That neither Contant nor Soyama discloses a coil at the end of the lid suggests the Office’s rationale is based solely upon Applicant’s disclosure and is, therefore, impermissible hindsight,” and “Last, Contant does not teach an end surface of a first end of the insert facing the coil as required…”. Under BRI (Please refer to MPEP 2111.01(I)-(IV) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)), “arranged at the first end in the lid” does not strictly require the coil to be flush against the absolute terminal ceiling of the lid. Contant discloses the inductive spool assembly 130 and coil 136 disposed entirely within the cap 120 (Figs. 3, 6, & 15; [0003]-[0004], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052], [0088]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. The cap itself constitutes the “first end” or upper extremity of the overall sensor housing assembly, therefore positioning the coil within this upper cap satisfies the limitation of being arranged “at the first end”. Furthermore, please refer to MPEP 2145(IV), Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead argues that Contant individually does not teach these claim limitations. All of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in the combination of Soyama or Contant, and it is the combination of the references that renders the claimed invention obvious. Contant teaches utilizing an inducive coil 136 arranged within the upper housing cap 120 to enable wireless, inductive charging from outside the sensor (Figs. 3, 6, & 15; [0003]-[0004], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052], [0088]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. If a POSITA were to modify Soyama’s sensor to include wireless inductive charging as taught by Contant, they would naturally arrange the coil at the “first end” (upper cover 20) of Soyama’s lid (Fig. 2; [0049]-[0050], [0053]-[0055], [0076]-[0077], [0080]-[0081], [0114], & [0116]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6. Placing it at the first end ensures the coil is positioned as close to the exterior environment as possible to maximize inductive coupling as purposed by Contant. Furthermore, taking Soyama in combination with Contant, Soyama discloses the coil (spring 50) seated on the spring receiving face 25 of the housing cover 20 (the lid). This places the coil at the first end of the lid, thus overcoming the assertion of hindsight bias. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, the insert (Soyama’s rotor 40) features a spring receiving face 43 that faces and receives this coil (return spring 50) ([0049], [0055], [0058]-[0059], [0067], [0071]-[0074], [0080]-[0082], & [0116]-[0118]), please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-6.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyama et al. (US 2011/0018529 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 27, 2011, hereinafter Soyama), in view of Contant (US 2020/0309975 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 1, 2020, hereinafter Contant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Soyama, teaches:
Assembly for a sensor, the assembly comprising (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0047], [0049], [0057], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]: teaches the base sensor assembly, sensor unit 70): a lid designed in a shape of a hollow cylinder and closed at a first end (Figs. 1-4; [0021]-[0025], [0050], [0055], [0080], & [Claim 18]: discloses the housing body/cover, which constitute the lid of a hollow cylinder with a closed first end), and an insert in a shape of a hollow cylinder, inserted into the lid in such a way that a first end of the insert is facing the coil and a second end of the insert protrudes from the lid (Figs. 2, 5, & 7; [0021]-[0026], [0047], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0059], [0061], [0065], [0067], [0076]-[0077], & [0080]: rotor 40 (insert) is a hollow cylinder, inserted into the housing (lid) and the cylindrical portion protrudes out to connect to the shaft),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
a coil arranged at the first end of the lid,
wherein the insert has at least one latching hook located interiorly designed to be spring-loaded orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the insert.
However, Contant, further teaches:
a coil arranged at the first end in the lid (Figs. 3, 6, & 15; [0003]-[0004], [0041], [0048]-[0049], [0052], [0088], & [0090]: discloses the coil arrangement, coil 136 arranged in the first end in the lid/cap120),
wherein the insert has at least one latching hook located interiorly designed to be spring-loaded orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the insert (Fig. 6; [0049], [0052], & [0058]: latches are interior and spring-loaded orthogonally (radially outward) on the internal assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the insert (rotor) of Soyama to include latching hooks and inductive coil mechanisms as taught by Contant in order to facilitate a snap-fit assembly, reduce the part count by eliminating separate retainers (external fasteners), simplify and improve the manufacturing process by allowing the insert to self-secure within the housing or against internal components upon insertion, further allowing the rotational sensor of Soyama to be hermetically sealed and wirelessly communicate, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Soyama, teaches:
Assembly for a sensor according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0037], [0047], [0049], [0057], [0067], [0076], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
wherein the insert has at least three partial regions arranged in the lid, wherein a first partial region borders a second partial region, the second partial region borders a third partial region and the third partial region borders the second end of the lid, and wherein an external diameter of the first partial region is larger than a diameter of the second partial region and the external diameter of the second partial region is larger than an external diameter of the third partial region.
However, Contant, further teaches:
wherein the insert has at least three partial regions arranged in the lid (Figs. 15-16; [0090]: carrier 240 (insert) with surfaces (regions) 241a (third partial region), 241b (second partial region), and 241c (first partial region), arranged withing the housing lid (cap 220)), wherein a first partial region borders a second partial region ([0090]), the second partial region borders a third partial region ([0090]), and the third partial region borders the second end of the lid ([0090]-[0092] & [0097]: surface 241a (third partial region) extends to upper end 240a, engaging the top 221 of cap 220 (lid)), and wherein an external diameter of the first partial region is larger than a diameter of the second partial region ([0090]) and the external diameter of the second partial region is larger than an external diameter of the third partial region ([0090]: teaches 241c (1st region) > 241b (2nd region) > 241a (3rd region)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the insert (rotor) of Soyama to include three defined partial regions with progressively decreasing cylindrical diameters as taught by Contant, to improve the assembly process, allowing the insert to guide itself into the lid (housing cover) through progressively tighter clearances, to ensure precise concentric alignment of the insert within the lid before final latching or spring-loading occurs, where the combination would yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Soyama, teaches:
Assembly for a sensor according to claim 2 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0037], [0047], [0049], [0057], [0067], [0076], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]), wherein an intermediate space between an interior wall of the lid and the second partial region and the third partial region of the insert (Figs. 2, 5, & 7; [0055]-[0056], [0067], [0076]: disk portion 42 (first region), annular position portion 44 (second region), cylindrical portion 41 (third region), rotor 40 (insert), penetrating hole 21 (interior wall), Fig. 5 shows the space between the lid wall and the rotor regions 41 and 44)
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
is filled with an adhesive.
However, Contant, further teaches:
is filled with an adhesive ([0053 & [0058]: teaches using adhesive for securing the insert to the housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Soyama by filling the intermediate space between the lid and the insert regions with an adhesive, as taught by Contant, in order to fix the insert within the lid, prevent vibration/rattling between the components, and/or to hermetically seal the internal sensor elements from the external environment, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Soyama, teaches:
Assembly for a sensor according to claim 2 (Figs. 1-4 & 7; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0037], [0042], [0047], [0049], [0056]-[0057], [0067]-[0068], [0076], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]), wherein the insert has a fourth partial region outside the lid (Fig. 4; [0055]-[0056], [0068] & [0077]: rotor 40 (insert) with cylindrical portion 41, with extending portion (fourth region) through and outside the housing cover 20 (lid) via the penetrating hole 21, Fig. 4 shows the cylindrical portion 41 protruding outside the lid),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
the external diameter of the fourth partial region is smaller than the external diameter of the third partial region, wherein a first seal is arranged on an outer side of the fourth partial region.
However, Contant, further teaches:
the external diameter of the fourth partial region is smaller than the external diameter of the third partial region ([0047] & [0089]-[0090]: teaches diameter reduction for steps/seals where 241a (3rd region with protruding partial region constituting the 4th region) is less than surface 241b (2nd region) and a larger radius than adjacent structure (e.g., light guide 228) and the annual recess provides a smaller diameter), wherein a first seal is arranged on an outer side of the fourth partial region (Fig. 3; [0047]: teaches sealing arrangement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protruding insert (rotor) of Soyama to include a fourth partial region with a smaller diameter (e.g., a groove or stepped tip) located outside the lid, and to arrange a seal (such as an O-ring or wiper seal) in this region as taught by Contant, to provide an improved positive physical seal, that would enhance the sensor’s reliability by more effectively preventing dust and moisture to enter the housing, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Soyama, teaches:
Assembly for a sensor according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0037], [0047], [0049], [0050]-[0052], [0057], [0067], [0076], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]), wherein the insert has a first positioning element in the form of a projection which engages the coil (Figs. 2, 5, & 7; [0049], [0055], [0067], & [0071]-[0072]: teaches rotor 40 (insert) with annular positioning portion 44 (1st position element/projection) engaging return spring 50 (coil)),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
and has a second positioning element in the form of a track which is setup to receive a circuit board pushed through the second end of the insert.
However, Contant, further teaches:
and has a second positioning element in the form of a track which is setup to receive a circuit board pushed through the second end of the insert (Fig. 3 & 11; [0064], [0067]-[0068], [0070], [0072], [0076]-[0077], & [0089]: teaches recesses 174 (2nd position element/track) in carrier 140/battery holder170 (carrier), where the aligned recesses receive circuit board 195 pushed/seated into the insert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the insert (rotor) of Soyama to include tracks for receiving a circuit board as taught by Contant, where the modification would allow the sensor electronics to be integrated into the rotating body itself, creating a modular, self-contained sensing unit, or to improve and facilitate easier assembly by sliding the circuit board into pre-aligned tracks on the insert, reducing the need for separate fastening clips on the main body, and yielding predictable expected results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Soyama, teaches:
Assembly for a sensor according to claim 5 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0037], [0047], [0049], [0057], [0067], [0076], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
wherein the insert has a third positioning element at a second end, which is setup to align a light source of the circuit board.
However, Contant, further teaches:
wherein the insert has a third positioning element at a second end (Figs. 3, 8, 16, & 18; [Abstract], [0041], [0057], [0070], [0072], [0076]-[0077], [0089], [0095], [0105], [0107], & [Claim 1]: light guide 143/228 (third positioning element) at upper connection member 150 (second end of insert)), which is setup to align a light source of the circuit board (Figs. 3, 8, 16, & 18; [Abstract], [0041], [0057], [0070], [0072], [0076]-[0077], [0089], [0095], [0105], [0107], & [Claim 1]).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, where the modification of the insert (rotor) of Soyama to include a positioning element (such as a light guide or optical coupler) as taught by Contant, would allow for optical status indication or data transmission from the rotating body to the stationary housing (or vice versa) without physical contact, that would provide a robust communication channel that maintains alignment during rotation or vibration, as taught by Contant’s alignment of the light guide with the LED, and the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding independent claim 7, Soyama, teaches:
A sensor, comprising; an assembly comprising (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0047], [0049], [0057], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]: teaches the base sensor assembly, sensor unit 70) a lid configured in a shape of a hollow cylinder and closed at a first end (Figs. 1-4; [0021]-[0025], [0050], [0055], [0080], & [Claim 18]: discloses the housing body/cover, which constitute the lid of a hollow cylinder with a closed first end); and an insert in a shape of a hollow cylinder inserted into the lid in such a way that a first end of the insert faces the coil and a second end of the insert protrudes from the lid (Figs. 2, 5, & 7; [0021]-[0026], [0047], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0059], [0061], [0065], [0067], [0076]-[0077], & [0080]: rotor 40 is a hollow cylinder, inserted into the housing (lid) and the cylindrical portion protrudes out to connect to the shaft),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
a coil arranged at a first end in the lid, wherein the insert has at least one latching hook located in the interior thereof configured to be spring-loaded orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the insert; and a circuit board which extends through the second end of the insert into the assembly and latched with the latching hook.
However, Contant, further teaches:
a coil arranged at the first end in the lid (Figs. 3, 6, & 15; [0003]-[0004], [0041], [0048]-[0049], [0052], [0088], & [0090]: discloses the coil arrangement, coil 136 arranged in the first end in the lid/cap120), wherein the insert has at least one latching hook located in the interior thereof configured to be spring-loaded orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the insert (Fig. 6; [0049], [0052], [0058], & [0098]: latches are interior and spring-loaded orthogonally (radially outward) on the internal assembly); and a circuit board which extends through the second end of the insert into the assembly and latched with the latching hook (Figs. 3, 8, 16, & 18; [Abstract], [0041], [0048]-[0049], [0052], [0057]-[0058], [0070], [0072], [0076]-[0077], [0089], [0095], [0105], [0107], & [Claim 1]: teaches circuit board 195 held by the insert with finger 163 (latching hooks)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the insert (rotor) of Soyama to include latching hooks and inductive coil mechanisms as taught by Contant in order to facilitate a snap-fit assembly, reduce the part count by eliminating separate retainers (external fasteners), simplify and improve the manufacturing process by allowing the insert to self-secure within the housing or against internal components upon insertion, further allowing the rotational sensor of Soyama to be hermetically sealed and wirelessly communicate, and substituting Soyama’s clips with Contant’s latching hooks on the insert would further streamline the assembly, allowing the insert and circuit board to be assembled as a single unit before insertion into the housing, improving the manufacturing, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Soyama, teaches:
The sensor according to claim 7 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0047], [0049], [0057], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
having at least one spring-loaded element which electrically contacts the coil and the circuit board.
However, Contant, further teaches:
having at least one spring-loaded element which electrically contacts the coil and the circuit board ([0048]-[0049], [0052], [0057]-[0058], [0068]-[0072], [0088], [0098], & [0103]: teaches the coil and spring-loaded electrical contacts (e.g., metal tabs 290) to connect the power source battery to the circuit board to facilitate assembly).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, where the modification of Soyama’s sensor assembly to include a coil connected via wires, however Contant also teaches the use of spring-loaded electrical components to connect components, such as the battery, to the circuit board, to allow for movement and easy assembly, and would have been obvious to a POSITA to substitute the wired connection of coil 136 with spring-loaded contacts (analogous to tabs 290) to facilitate the modular assembly of the spool assembly 130, creating an assembly having a spring-loaded element that electrically contacts the coil and circuit board, and the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Soyama, teaches:
The sensor according to claim 8 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0005], [0011]-[0012], [0020], [0024]-[0025], [0031], [0047]-[0049], [0050], [0055], [0057]-[0059], [0067], [0071]-[0074], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
wherein the spring-loaded element is selected from a group consisting of a spring contact, an edge connector and a cable clamp.
However, Contant, further teaches:
wherein the spring-loaded element is selected from a group consisting of a spring contact ([0052], [0068]-[0072], [0098]-[0100], & [0103]: teaches the use of spring contacts (i.e., tabs 290) to establish electrical connections), an edge connector and a cable clamp ([0052], [0068]-[0072], [0098]-[0100], & [0103]: “…tabs 290 are disposed at ends of battery 190 and are spring loaded to axially compress battery 190 therebetween. Tabs 290 are made of metal (e.g., steel), and provide both a physical and electrical connection between battery 190 and circuit board 195.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensor housing assembly of Soyama to include and use the spring-loaded elements, from the claimed group, to enable electrical connections to facilitate assembly as taught by Contant, to enable electrical connections between the coil and the circuit board, eliminated the need for soldering and facilitating the “detachably attachable” assembly desired in Soyama, where Contant teaches a “spring contact”, one of the members of the Markush group, and under the MPEP 2117, if a claim recites “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C,”, prior art only needs to teach A (or B, or C), thus yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Soyama, teaches:
The sensor according to claim 7 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0042], [0047], [0049], [0055], [0057], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]), wherein the assembly and the circuit board being arranged in a housing (Figs. 1, 2, & 5; [0049]-[0052]: teaches sensor with a circuit board are arranged in a housing (concave portion)), wherein a tube closure ([0055]: teaches housing cover 20 (tube closure) fitted to the housing),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
which has a plug insert, being arranged on one end of the circuit board in the housing, and a second seal being arranged between the tube closure and an interior wall of the housing.
However, Contant, further teaches:
which has a plug insert, being arranged on one end of the circuit board in the housing (Figs. 2-4; [0043]-[0047]: teaches a tube closure (cap 120) with a plug insert (sleeve 122/lower end 120b) that physically insert into the housing opening, closing the end where the circuit board 195 resides), and a second seal being arranged between the tube closure and an interior wall of the housing ([0047]: teaches using multiple seals, discloses a secondary annular seal assembly 129, and sealing against the radially inner surface (interior wall) of the housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soyama’s housing cover to include the sealing configuration of Contant (plug-insert sealing interface and secondary seal) to protect the circuit board and the sensors from environmental contaminants (dust/moisture), a standard design requirement for sensors, and to ensure the housing provided by Soyama ensure the “accommodating concave portion 11a” is hermetically sealed, preventing failure (waterproof seal for circuit board 60). The motivation for this modification is to provide enhanced environmental isolation and waterproofing, preventing the ingress of moisture or debris from damaging the internal circuit board and sensor components. This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding a predictable result that ensures the operational longevity and durability of the sensor (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Soyama, teaches:
The sensor according to claim 10 (Figs. 1-2; [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0031], [0047], [0049]-[0052], [0055]-[0057], [0080]-[0082], & [0090]-[0092]: teaches circuit board in a housing cavity/space),
Soyama, is silent in regard to:
wherein the circuit board is surrounded by gas.
However, Contant, further teaches:
wherein the circuit board is surrounded by gas ([0042], [0071], [0077]: teaches circuit board moving within a sealed cavity, inherently surrounded by gas, circuit board moves relative to the housing (moving prof mass), the relative motion physically requires the circuit board to be surrounded by a non-solid medium (i.e., gas/air) within the inner cavity 102, relative movement necessitates a gas/fluid surrounding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the assembly and arrange the circuit board of Soyama such that the circuit board is surrounded by gas-filled (air-filled) cavity/space, as taught by Contant, to enable the necessary clearances for operation or assembly/disassembly, allowing for relative movement of internal components, as taught by Contant’s “proof of mass”, and to facilitate the “detachably attachable” nature of the board desired by Soyama, yielding predictable results (KSR). Since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foerster et al. (US2022/0373370A1) discloses a sensor device, electrical device having a sensor device, and vehicle having a sensor device. Forwerck (US2024/0151602A1) discloses a hook and snap pressure sensor assembly. Ius et al. (US2013/0192312A1) discloses a home appliance with a displacement sensor module connected to a coil element and coil housing. Maggard et al. (US2019/0075225A1) discloses optical sensor housing.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 17, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights