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 .
Summary
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9: These claims use the term “non-water-exposed region” however this only seems to be a statement of intended use. There does not appear to be any particular structure annexed to this language. Claim 1 further recites that it is “where water exposure is suppressed.” Again, there does not appear to be specific structure associated with this limitation. If the Applicant is only designating one side of the apparatus of the other, more generic language can be used such as first side and second side or sensor side and terminal side.
Regarding claims 6 and 10: The language used to refer to the through-holes is indefinite. The language “the through-hole is formed in both the first face and the second face” means that a single through-hole would pass completely through the apparatus. It is clear from the specification that this is not what claims 6 and 10 are supposed to mean. The Examiner recommends using language such as “at least one through-hole” in claim 1, and then using “wherein the at least one through-hole includes at least two through-holes formed in the first face and at least one through-hole formed in the second face” or something similar.
Regarding claims 3 and 7: The language “the connector exposed section is a connecting section to be connected to a connector connectable to another electrical component” is indefinite. It is written in terms of intended use. Any wire lead can be considered as a structure “to be connected to a connector connectable to another electrical component.” The Examiner recommends using language such as “wherein the connector exposed section includes terminals located in a recess of a tubular section of the second molded part” or something similar. Please note that in the prior art rejections below, art was applied that shows the narrower embodiment of exposed terminals in a recess of the outer housing.
Regarding claims 2-10: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by SHIMIZU et al. (US 2023/0003559). Please note that the US publication of SHIMIZU only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1). However, the Japanese publication JP 2021085740 does qualify as 102(a2) art. Because the US publication is an English language equivalent of the Japanese publication, reference will only be made to the US publication.
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, SHIMIZU discloses: A molded component (FIG. 3) comprising: an internal component (FIGS. 4, 5) including: an electronic component body (120); and a lead wire (124 in FIG. 6) extending from the electronic component body (FIG. 6); a connection terminal (153) connected to the lead wire (FIG. 6); a first molded part (primary molded part 131 in FIGS. 4, 5) covering the internal component (FIG. 4) and holding the connection terminal (at 137); and a second molded part (secondary molded part 140 in FIGS. 2 and 3; para. 45) covering the first molded part (para. 45), wherein the second molded part has a non-water-exposed region located in a region where water exposure is suppressed (right side in FIGS. 2 and 3), and a through-hole (141 in FIG. 2) extending from a surface of the second molded part to reach the first molded part is formed only in the non-water-exposed region of the second molded part (para. 56-57).
Regarding claim 2: SHIMIZU discloses: the first molded part (131 in FIGS. 4 and 5) includes: a head (132) covering the electronic component body (para. 47-48); a connection terminal holder (136, 137, 138) holding a portion of the connection terminal (FIG. 4; para. 48); and a joint section (the middle of 131 in between 132 and 136) joining the head to the connection terminal holder (FIGS. 4 and 5), the lead wire (124 in FIG. 6) and the connection terminal (153) each have, in the joint section, an exposed section exposed from the first molded part (area around 153 in FIG. 4), the exposed section of the lead wire and the exposed section of the connection terminal are connected to each other by solder (not shown in FIGS.) in the joint section (para. 51), and the second molded part covers the exposed section of the lead wire, the exposed section of the connection terminal, and the solder connecting the exposed section of the lead wire and the exposed section of the connection terminal to each other, in the joint section (FIGS. 2 and 3; para. 45).
Regarding claims 3 and 7: As best understood, SHIMIZU discloses: the connection terminal has a connector exposed section exposed from the first molded part and the second molded part (cable 150), and the connector exposed section is a connecting section to be connected to a connector connectable to another electrical component (Any lead, such as cable 150, is connectable to an electrical connector.).
Regarding claims 4 and 8: SHIMIZU discloses: the non-water-exposed region (right side in FIGS. 2 and 3) includes a region covering the electronic component body (The side opposite the cable 150 is the side with the sensor as can be seen in FIGS. 4 and 5).
Regarding claims 6 and 10: SHIMIZU discloses: the second molded part (140 in FIGS. 2 and 3) has a first face (facing upwards in FIG. 3) and a second face (facing upwards in FIG. 2) oriented in a direction opposite to a direction in which the first face is oriented (FIGS. 2 and 3), the through-hole is formed in both the first face and the second face, and the through-hole includes at least two through-holes formed in the first face (FIGS. 2 and 3 show one through-hole in the second face and three through-holes in the first face.).
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMIZU in view of SHINJO et al. (US 5821744).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, and 9: As best understood, SHIMIZU discloses: the connection terminal has a connector exposed section exposed from the first molded part and the second molded part (cable 150).
SHINJO teaches a connector exposed section (inside connector part 10 in FIG. 4) is a connecting section to be connected to a connector connectable to another electrical component (using exposed terminals 1c in FIG. 5; col. 6 lines 6-11). SHINJO also teaches an O-ring in an outer portion of case 5 (unlabeled, but clearly visible on the outside of 5 in FIG. 3), thus meeting the limitations of claims 5 and 9
One skilled in the art would be motivated to replace the cable 150 of SHIMIZU with the exposed terminals in a recess as taught by SHINJO so that installation is simplified because a premade connector is simply pressed into the recess 10 instead of having to solder wires or insert wire ends into separate terminals. If the installation is more simple, assembly costs will be lowered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights