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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pre-Appeal Brief, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han in view of Andersson (US 2021/0008940).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14-20. Applicant argues Han (KR 10-0880156 B1) (1) does not teach an alignment feature “A review of Han discloses that the feature to which the Examiner refers is described in the reference itself as a fastener, not the claimed alignment feature. Specifically, the Examiner refers to the structure numbered as 250 in Fig. 7 of Han. (Final Action at 3-4.) Han's description, however, refers to a "fixing part 200a" that "further comprises a fastening portion 250 of the clip shape." Han does not mention any alignment structure or function whatsoever. … Applicant's claimed alignment feature (as shown above) is different in appearance, structure, and function from Han's "fastening portion 250 of the clip shape."”; (2) Han's curved fastener clip does not include (a) a protruding leg that extends from a bottom surface of the main body; or (b) a protruding leg defining an inner surface that is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the main body as recited in the claims; (3) Han's fastener clip does not include a protrusion that extends from the protruding leg at a position spaced from the bottom surface of the main body.
In response to (1), the definition of “alignment” is ‘an adjustment to a line; arrangement in a straight line’. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alignment. Comparing applicant’s ‘alignment feature’ (204) that extends around (figs. 3A, 4) the suspension component (102) to Han’s ‘alignment feature’ (250) that extends around (fig. 7) the suspension component (300) with both showing arrangements in straight lines. Moving on to the claimed structure as described in claim 1, Han discloses the alignment feature (250) includes a first leg that extends from a bottom surface of the main body (200a) (“a clip-shaped fastening part (250) that extends a certain length on both sides of the fixing part so that the fixing part (200a) is fixed to the plate spring (300)”; Machine Translation of Description “MTD” page 4, lines 42-43) … such that the main body (200a) of the sensor (110) is in contact with a first surface of the suspension component (300; top surface) (“an adhesive for contact with the plate spring (300) is applied to the bottom surface of the fixed part (200a) to provide primary fixation”; MTD page 4, lines 43-45) and the alignment feature (250) is in contact with a second surface (bottom surface seen in fig. 7) of the suspension component (300) (“a clip-shaped fastening part (250) that extends a certain length on both sides of the fixing part so that the fixing part (200a) is fixed to the plate spring (300) … by providing secondary fixation through the fastening part (250), the fixed part (200a) is made to adhere more firmly to the plate spring (300).”; MTD page 4 lines 42-46).The claim 1 limitations that are not disclosed by Han “a protrusion that extends from the first leg at a position spaced from the bottom surface of the main body” are taught by Andersson (US 2021/0008940). Andersson teaches of the alignment feature further comprises a protrusion (Modified fig. 2, below) that extends from a surface of the protruding leg (114) at a position spaced from the bottom surface of the sensor main body (102) (paragraph 67 describes the clamping structure being applied to a leaf spring “(the) sensor arrangement may be installed at each of the two springs” and paragraph 139 describes the clamping structure being applied to a leaf spring). (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably secure the sensor. (Paragraph 139.) In addition, because both Han and Andersson teach using sensors attaching to leaf springs, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (having a curved leg from the top to the bottom of the element being measured) for the other (having a protrusion that extends underneath and clamps the element being measured) to achieve the predictable result of securing a sensor onto a leaf spring. The combination of Han in view of Andersson completely meets the claimed limitations of the “alignment feature”: in claim 1. Any other supposed “different in appearance, structure, and function” by applicant is not included in claim 1. Examiner’s arguments apply equally to independent claim 7 which is broader to claim 1 as it does not claim a protrusion and claim 17 which is the method claim of claim 1.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
454
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Protrusion;
Also first protrusion (left) and second protrusion (right))]
In response to (2a), examiner notes the term “protruding leg” is nowhere in the pre-appealed claims filed 10-20-2025. As discussed above, Han clearly discloses a first (protruding) leg that extends from a bottom surface of the main body (200a) (“a clip-shaped fastening part (250) that extends a certain length on both sides of the fixing part so that the fixing part (200a) is fixed to the plate spring (300)”; Machine Translation of Description “MTD” page 4, lines 42-43). (Emphasis added.)
In response to (2b), examiner notes the term “protruding leg” is nowhere in the pre-appealed claims filed 10-20-2025. Applicant’s argument is directed towards claims 5 and 12. Examiner agrees that Han does not disclose the claimed feature of “the inner surface of the alignment feature is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sensor body” and that claim 5 was correctly rejected by Han in view of Andersson but it was Examiner’s error of rejecting claim 12 under 102(a)(1) by Han that led to the withdraw of the final rejection. The other claimed rejections were agreed as appropriate by the attendees of the pre-appeal conference. Andersson teaches, in a different embodiment, of the inner surface of the alignment feature (202; seen in fig. 12) is substantially perpendicular (figs. 8-9, 11-12) to the bottom surface (shown in figs. 8-9, 11) of the sensor main body (116). (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alignment feature structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the sensor holder from sliding out of place. (Paragraph 133.) In the alternative, Andersson teaches of clamping the sensor body (102) around the exterior of the element to be sensed. (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably secure the sensor. (Paragraph 139.) The question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be by using the teachings of clamping the sensor holder (110) around a vehicle element (106) into Han; Han, as modified, discloses the inner surface of the alignment feature (250) is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sensor main body (200a) (since Andersson teaches of wrapping and clamping the inner side of the a sensor holder to the exterior element being measured, the side legs of Han 250 would be wrapped along the sides of the suspension component 300 and perpendicular to the sensor main body 200a).
In response to (3), examiner notes the term “protruding leg” is nowhere in the pre-appealed claims filed 10-20-2025. Examiner agrees that Han does not disclose the claimed feature of “a protrusion that extends from the protruding leg at a position spaced from the bottom surface of the main body”. This is why Examiner uses the teaching reference Andersson to teach an alignment feature that has a protrusion (Modified fig. 2, above) extending from a surface of the protruding leg (114) at a position spaced from the bottom of the sensor main body (102) (paragraph 67 describes the clamping structure being applied to a leaf spring “(the) sensor arrangement may be installed at each of the two springs”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (KR 10-0880156 B1; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 10, Han discloses an angle sensor (MTD page 2) comprising: a main body (110, 200a) and an alignment feature (250) that extends from the sensor main body, wherein the main body (110, 200a) includes a first contact surface (bottom surface of 110, 200a) in contact with a first surface (top surface; fig. 7) of a suspension component (300, 310) (MTD page 2 “the first detection sensor (110) is first fixed to the plate spring (300) by the adhesive portion (112)”) and the alignment feature (250) includes a second contact surface (fig. 7, surface that contacts bottom of suspension component 300, 310) in contact with a second surface of the of the suspension component (300, 310). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 11, Han discloses the alignment feature (250) includes a leg (fig. 7 showing opposing legs extending from sides of the sensor main body) that extends from a bottom surface (fig. 7) of the main body (110, 200a) proximate a first side of the main body; and the second contact surface (fig. 7, surface the contacts bottom of suspension component 300, 310) comprises a surface of the leg (fig. 7 showing opposing legs extending from sides of the sensor main body). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 14, Han discloses the alignment feature (250) includes a first leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) that extends from a bottom of the main body (110, 200a) proximate a first side of the main body (fig. 7) and a second leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) that extends from the bottom of the main body (110, 200a) proximate a second side of the main body (110, 200a); the first leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) includes a first contact surface (fig. 7 surface contacting one side of leaf spring); and the second leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) includes a second contact surface (fig. 7 surface contacting opposite side of leaf spring) substantially parallel to the first contacting surface (fig. 7 shows the legs contacting the sides of the leaf spring as parallel to one another). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 15, Han discloses the first contact surface (fig. 7 surface contacting one side of leaf spring) is spaced from the second contact surface (fig. 7 surface contacting opposite side of leaf spring) by a distance corresponding to a width (fig. 7) of the suspension component (300, 310). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
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 1-5, 8-9, 12, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 10-0880156 B1; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) in view of Andersson (US 2021/0008940).
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Han discloses a load monitoring system (MTD paragraph 1) comprising: a suspension component (300, 310); and a sensor (110) coupled to the suspension component that includes an alignment feature (250) extending from a main body of the sensor (110); wherein the alignment feature (250) includes a first leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) extending from a bottom of the sensor main body (110, 200a) such that the main body (110, 200a) of the sensor contacts a first surface (top surface; fig. 7) of the suspension component, and the alignment feature (250) is in contact with a second surface (side or bottom surface; fig. 7) of the suspension component (MTD pages 3-4). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.) Han discloses an alignment feature that curves from the top to the bottom surface of the suspension component but does not specifically disclose a protrusion. Andersson teaches of the alignment feature further comprises a protrusion (Modified fig. 2, below) extending from a surface of the protruding leg (114) at a position spaced from the bottom of the sensor main body (102) (paragraph 139 describes the clamping structure being applied to a leaf spring). (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably secure the sensor. (Paragraph 139.) In addition, because both Han and Andersson teach using sensors attaching to leaf springs, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (having a curved leg from the top to the bottom of the element being measured) for the other (having a protrusion that extends underneath the element being measured) to achieve the predictable result of securing a sensor onto a leaf spring.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
454
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Protrusion;
Also first protrusion (left) and second protrusion (right))]
With respect to claim 2, Han, as modified, discloses the sensor (110) is an angle sensor (MTD page 2). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claims 3 and 20, Han, as modified, discloses the suspension component comprises a leaf spring (300; fig. 4) including a main leaf (300). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 4, Han, as modified, discloses the bottom surface of the sensor main body abuts a top surface of the main leaf (300, 310) (MTD pages 3-4 “an adhesive for adhesion with the plate spring (300) is applied to the lower surface of the fixed portion (200a) to perform primary fixation”); and an inner surface of the alignment feature (250) contacts an edge of the main leaf (300, 310) (fig. 7 showing the alignment feature wrapping around the edge of the leaf spring; MTD pages 3-4 “secondary fixation is performed through the fastening portion (250), thereby allowing the fixed portion (200a) to adhere more firmly to the plate spring (300)”). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 5, Han discloses the alignment feature as wrapping around the leaf spring (fig. 7) and not specifically the inner surface of the alignment feature is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sensor main body. Andersson teaches, in a different embodiment, of the inner surface of the alignment feature (202; seen in fig. 12) is substantially perpendicular (figs. 8-9, 11-12) to the bottom surface (shown in figs. 8-9, 11) of the sensor main body (116). (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alignment feature structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the sensor holder from sliding out of place. (Paragraph 133.) In the alternative, Andersson teaches of clamping the sensor body (102) around the exterior of the element to be sensed. (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably secure the sensor. (Paragraph 139.) The question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be by using the teachings of clamping the sensor holder (110) around a vehicle element (106) into Han; Han, as modified, discloses the inner surface of the alignment feature (250) is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sensor main body (200a) (since Andersson teaches of wrapping and clamping the inner side of the a sensor holder to the exterior element being measured, the side legs of Han 250 would be wrapped along the sides of the suspension component 300 and perpendicular to the sensor main body 200a).
With respect to claim 8, Han, as modified, discloses the first leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) is proximate a first side of the sensor main body (fig. 7) and further includes a second leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) that extends from the bottom of the main body (110, 200a) proximate a second side of the sensor main body (110, 200a); the first leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) includes a first contact surface (fig. 7 surface contacting bottom of leaf spring); and the second leg (fig. 7 shows legs on opposite sides of the body 110, 200a) includes a second contact surface (fig. 7 surface contacting bottom of leaf spring) substantially parallel to the first contacting surface (fig. 7 shows the legs contacting the bottom of the leaf spring as parallel to one another). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 9, Han, as modified, discloses a fastener (112) coupling the sensor (110) to the suspension component (300, 310). (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
With respect to claim 12, Han discloses the first contact surface (bottom surface of 110, 200a) comprises the bottom surface of the main body but the alignment feature (250) as wrapping around the leaf spring (fig. 7) and not specifically the inner surface of the alignment feature is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sensor main body. Andersson teaches of the inner surface of the alignment feature (202) is substantially perpendicular (figs. 8-9, 11-12) to the bottom surface of the sensor main body (116). (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the alignment feature of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In the alternative, Andersson teaches of clamping the sensor body (102) around the exterior of the element to be sensed. (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably secure the sensor. (Paragraph 139.) The question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be by using the teachings of clamping the sensor holder (110) around a vehicle element (106) into Han; Han, as modified, discloses the inner surface of the alignment feature (250) is substantially perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sensor main body (200a) (since Andersson teaches of wrapping and clamping the inner side of the a sensor holder to the exterior element being measured, the side legs of Han 250 would be wrapped along the sides of the suspension component 300 and perpendicular to the sensor main body 200a).
With respect to claim 16, Han is silent regarding a protrusion. Andersson teaches of the alignment feature further comprises: a first protrusion (Modified fig. 2, above) that extends from the first contact surface (fig. 2) in a direction toward the second contact surface (fig. 2); and a second protrusion (Modified fig. 2, above) that extends form the second contact surface in a direction toward the first contact surface (fig. 2). (Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 103-139.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably secure the sensor. (Paragraph 139.)
With respect to claim 19, Han discloses receiving data from the sensor (110); and determining a load on the suspension component (300, 310) based at least in part on the data (MTD page 4) received by the sensor. (Figs. 1-9, MTD pages 1-4.)
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Andersson, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Brown (US 7,761,258).
With respect to claim 18, Han, as modified, is silent regarding calibrating the sensor. Brown teaches of calibrating the sensor. (Figs. 10-11, col. 7, lines 42-67, col. 8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the attachment sensor structure as described in Andersson into the invention of Han, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to measure the angular displacement of the loaded and unloaded vehicle in order to have a reference frame within which the system can operate. (Col. 8, lines 2-4.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
