NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dames et al. (US 2014/0333284 A1, “Dames”) in view of Huber Johannes (DE 102022212746 A1, cited by Applicants, “Huber”).
Regarding Claim 1, Dames a sensor apparatus (Fig.1A-1D) having at least one sensor element (12), with at least one data conducting interface (16), with at least one power supply device, and with at least one carrier structure (Fig.1B; 14 and structures in between two sensing elements 12), wherein the carrier structure forms at least two segments (shown in fig.1A), and that the segments are connected flexibly to each other (shown in Fig.1C and discussed in [0051]-[0052]).
Dames does not explicitly teach the at least one sensing element with at least one power supply device.
However, Huber teaches at least one sensing element with at least one power supply device ([0004]: “The sensor unit may also include an energy storage cell, in particular a chemical cell, a rechargeable battery or a battery.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate power supply device of Huber in the sensing of Dames since it is known in the art to have power supply device in the sensing device to supply the sensors with electrical energy [0004].
Regarding Claim 2, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the carrier structure is designed flexibly, and that the flexible connection between the segments is formed by sections of the carrier structure (shown in Fig.1C and discussed in [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding Claim 3, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the carrier structure is of elongated design, and that the segments and the flexible connections between the segments are formed from the elongated carrier structure (shown in Fig.1C and discussed in [0041], [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding Claim 4, the sensor apparatus according to claim 3 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames does not explicitly teach wherein at least one segment has a trapezoidal footprint.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have at least one segment with a trapezoidal footprint, since applicant has not disclosed that such structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the structure of Dames. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one segment with a trapezoidal footprint instead of Dames’ rectangular footprint, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein at least one segment surrounds at least a section of at least one further segment (implicitly shown in Fig.1C).
Regarding Claim 6, the sensor apparatus according to claim 5 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein at least one segment has a rounding (implicitly shown in Fig.1C and discussed in [0041]).
Regarding Claim 7, the sensor apparatus according to claim 5 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the segments are substantially circular in shape, and that the segments are arranged substantially concentrically (implicitly shown in Fig.1C).
Regarding Claim 8, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the flexible connection between two adjacent segments is formed by strut-like sections of the carrier structure (implicitly shown in Fig.1B-1D).
Regarding Claim 9, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Huber further teaches wherein at least two adjacent segments are each surrounded by a protective body, and that the minimal angle between the two segments is delimited by the outer shape of the respective protective bodies (protective layer/lacquer layer is disclosed in [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, the sensor apparatus according to claim 9 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the protective bodies have lateral areas facing the connection areas between two segments, and that the lateral areas each subtend an angle with the carrier structure (implicitly shown in Fig.1B-1D and discussed in [0073]).
Regarding Claim 11, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Modified Dames does not explicitly teach wherein a first segment has sensor elements, and that a second segment has a power supply.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a second segment with a power supply, since applicant has not disclosed that such structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the structure of Dames. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second segment with a power supply, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 12, the sensor apparatus according to claim 11 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein at least one further segment has the data conducting interface ([0050]; Fig.1A-1D), and/or that at least one further segment has an evaluator.
Regarding Claim 13, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the minimal angle between two adjacent segments is limited by the distance of the segments from each other (implicitly shown in Fig.1B-1D, [0046]; Fig.16A-16E, [0108]-[0110]).
Regarding Claim 14, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein at least one segment has a mounting region for mounting the sensor apparatus ([0013]; Claim 19).
Regarding Claim 15, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein at least one segment has at least one rigidly constructed area (Fig.1A-1D; elements 10A-10B) to accommodate components that are to be soldered ([0048] discloses that the first and second loop connector elements 10A and 10B are configured to detachably connect, or engage, with one another. One of ordinary skill in the art may use this area to accommodate components that are to be soldered.).
Regarding Claim 20, a method for producing the sensor apparatus; according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein a carrier structure (Fig.1B; 14) is provided (structures (14) provided in between two sensing elements 12), wherein segments are produced from the carrier structure, and that flexible connections are formed between the segments (shown in Fig.1A-1D and discussed in [0041]; [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding Claim 21, the method for producing the sensor according to claim 20 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Dames further teaches wherein the flexible connection of the segments is formed by the carrier structure (shown in Fig.1A-1D and discussed in [0041]; [0051]-[0052]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dames in view of Huber and further in view of Khoche (US 2019/0340483 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the sensor apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Dames in view of Huber.
Modified Dames does not explicitly teach wherein at least one sensor element has the form of a piezoelectric element.
However, Khoche teaches a multilayer roll or sheet that includes a plurality of divisible adhesive segments each of which includes wireless communications and transducing functionalities [0004] wherein at least one sensor element has the form of a piezoelectric element [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dames sensor with the teaching of Khoche since sensor/transducer comprising piezoelectric element is known in the art which would be responsive to change in pressure, strain or any deformation.
Regarding Claim 17, the sensor apparatus according to claim 16 is taught by Dames in view of Huber and Khoche.
Modified Dames, specifically Khoche, teaches wherein the segment with the piezoelectric element has a lower mass than the other segments (apparently Khoche’s piezoelectric element is much lighter than the connecting segments of modified Dames. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the segment with the piezoelectric element with a lower mass than the other segments, since it is a matter of design choice and it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).).
Regarding Claim 18, the sensor apparatus according to one of claim 16 or 17 is taught by Dames in view of Huber and Khoche.
Modified Dames, specifically Khoche, wherein an acoustic impedance jump is formed between at least two segments [0073].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dames in view of Huber and further in view of Niemann et al. (US 2017/0248552 A1, “Neimann”).
Regarding Claim 19, Dames in view of Huber teaches the sensor apparatus according to claim 1.
Modified Dames does not teach a motor vehicle with the sensor apparatus.
Modified Dames discloses that the flexible current sensor is formed into a closed loop surrounding a conductor (such as in an electrical substation) in which the current is required to be sensed [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of modified Dames in a motor vehicle since this would precisely sense desired sensing parameter in a desired environment.
In any event, Niemann teaches a sensor device for detecting moisture on a roadway of a vehicle, particularly a motor vehicle, having at least one structure-borne sound sensor and having at least one circuit carrier, wherein the structure-borne sound sensor is collected in a signal-conducting manner to the circuit carrier [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sensor of modified Dames in Niemann’s motor vehicle since this would precisely sense desired sensing parameter, such as for example vibration, in a desired environment.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ferreira et al. (US 2020/0284883 A1) teaches an optical component for a LIDAR Sensor System. The optical component may include an optical element having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface, a first lens array formed on the first main surface, and/or a second lens array formed on the second main surface. The optical element has a curved shape in a first direction of the LIDAR Sensor System [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
