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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 03/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “3a” in Fig. 1, “h” in Fig. 6, “t4” in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the opening” in Claim 1 should be “the at least one opening”
“the first protrusion” in Claim 4 should be “the first protrusions”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN (CN113514047) in view of Sato (US2021/0096150).
Regarding Claim 1. Sun teaches, in Fig. 1-3b, Fig. 7, pages 7-9 and claim 1, a sensor apparatus comprising:
a sensor (4);
a sensor arrangement part (1) in which the sensor is arranged;
a first board (502) provided to the sensor arrangement part;
a second board (501) arranged parallel to the first board to be stacked above the first board;
a shielding cover (2) provided to cover the sensor arrangement part and including at least one opening; and
a base (3) being in tight contact with the sensor arrangement part and fixing the sensor arrangement part, wherein
the first board and the second board are directly attached to the sensor arrangement part (see Fig. 2),
an interior space (inside 2) accommodating the sensor, the sensor arrangement part, the first board and the second board is defined by the shielding cover and the base by fixing the shielding cover to the base with the opening of the shielding cover facing the base (see Fig. 2a),
Sun does not disclose the sensor apparatus is attached to another apparatus with a bottom of the base being in tight contact with the another apparatus.
Sato teaches, in Fig. 4, the sensor apparatus (10) is attached to another apparatus (2) with a bottom of the base (150, {156, 157} by screw) being in tight contact with the another apparatus ([0046]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor apparatus as disclosed by Sun with the bottom of the base fixing parts as disclosed by Sato in order to can be easily installed, for example, at a metal surface or the like of a device (Sato, [0046]).
Regarding Claim 2. Sun and Sato teaches the sensor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor arrangement part (Sun, 1, see pages 8-9) includes
a predetermined surface (Sun, see Fig.3a-3c, 102),
a plurality of first protrusions (Sun, 103) (Sun, Fig. 3a-c, Fig. 7), that are arranged to protrude from the predetermined surface and to which the first board is attached (see Fig. 3a), and
a plurality of second protrusions (Sun, 101) that are arranged to protrude from the predetermined surface and to which the second board is attached (Sun, see Fig. 3a); and
first crest surfaces are formed on crests of the plurality of first protrusions (Sun, 103 in 4 sides) to be in contact with the first board (see Fig. 3a);
the first crest surfaces are independent of each other (Sun, as shown in Fig. 3a);
second crest surfaces are formed on crests of the plurality of second protrusions (Sun, 101 in 4 sides) to be in contact with the second board (Sun, see Fig. 3a);
the second crest surfaces are independent of each other (Sun, see Fig. 3a);
the first crest surfaces and the second crest surfaces are parallel to the predetermined surface, and are parallel to each other (Sun, see Fig. 3a); and
the second protrusions have a protrusion amount from the predetermined surface greater than the first protrusions (Sun, see Fig. 3a, 101 is further distance(protrudes further) than 103).
Regarding Claim 3. Sun and Sato teaches the sensor apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first board (Sun, 502) includes cut-out parts (Sun, not directly shown/identified, surface area visually missing from 502 (smaller board) as compared to 501 (bigger board) in Fig. 7) avoiding the second protrusions.
Regarding Claim 4. Sun and Sato teaches the sensor apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the sensor arrangement part and the first protrusion comprises metal (for grounding purposes- it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416);
the first board includes a multilayer board including at least a wiring pattern or a through hole (Sun, not directly stated however it is well known in the art to have board with those limitations or structures) (see Sato- Fig. 4); and
the first board includes attachment parts (Sun, screw holes or not directly shown- screws) that are attached to the first crest surfaces of the first protrusions (Sun, when put together) and arranged at positions avoiding at least the wiring pattern or the through-hole (to avoid or affect the electrical structures/functions of the board- as known in the art).
Regarding Claim 5. Sun and Sato teaches the sensor apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the first board including a grounding pattern (Sun, not directly described, but well known in the art to have a board with grounding pattern) electrically connected to the sensor arrangement part to have a common potential to the sensor arrangement part (to prevent any unnecessary/unforeseen electrical issues/problems); and
the attachment parts of the first board are arranged in parts of the first board in which the grounding pattern is arranged (Sun, not shown but is well known in the art to ground the attachment parts so as to prevent any electrical interference).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm.
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, TIMOTHY DOLE can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights