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 § 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 1-5 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 recites the limitation "the terminal seat" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. The claim recites “the terminal seat” in line 7 and “a terminal seat” in line 8. It is unclear if the latter is intended to refer to the former. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will read the two “terminal seat”s as the same part.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and incorporate it in its entirety and are therefore likewise rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behtan (DE 10 2017 114 080 A1) in view of De Monte (DE 10 2023 211 573 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Behtan teaches a sensor ([0034], line 5; Fig 3: 5), comprising a plurality of front cover clamping parts ([0035], line 3); Fig 3: 19), and the plurality of front cover clamping parts are arranged at unequal intervals along a circumference (Fig 6); a front cover ([0035], line 1; Fig 3: 18), comprising a plurality of sensor clamping parts, and the plurality of sensor clamping part are suitable for clamping with the plurality of front cover clamping parts ([0035], line 4); the terminal seat; and a terminal seat, comprising: a terminal seat body, forming a front opening and an accommodating space, the accommodating space is communicated to the front opening, and suitable for accommodating at least a part of the sensor ([0034], lines 8-11; Fig 3: 17). However, it does not teach a connecting terminal, configured in the accommodating space.
De Monte teaches a connecting terminal, configured in the accommodating space ([0017], lines 6-9; [0019], lines 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Behtan with the connecting terminals of De Monte since such a modification would have allowed for easier transfer of power and data to and from the transducer.
With respect to claim 2, Behtan as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the connecting terminal is precast in the accommodating space or integrally formed with the terminal seat body.
De Monte teaches a connecting terminal is precast in an accommodating space or integrally formed a body ([0017], lines 22-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Behtan with the electrical contact integration of De Monte since such a modification would have created a more secure connection with easy manufacturing.
With respect to claim 3, Behtan as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach at least one terminal seat positioning part, the terminal seat body comprises at least one sensor positioning part, and the at least one sensor positioning part is suitable for clamping with the at least one terminal seat positioning part.
De Monte teaches at least one terminal seat positioning part, the terminal seat body comprises at least one sensor positioning part, and the at least one sensor positioning part is suitable for clamping with the at least one terminal seat positioning part ([0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Behtan with the positioning parts of De Monte since such a modification would have ensured a good connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights