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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Fig. 5 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
It is unclear what is meant by wherein the open housing has thermoplastic. The specification states [0023] The open housing can have a thermoplastic. This can prove advantageous, in particular because a sealing connection between the expansion body and the open housing can be achieved by this means. A sealing connection between these two elements can permit a precise and efficient introduction of thermoset. Thermoplastic material can offer good adhesion of the open housing to the expansion body. The background, [0004], discusses encapsulation with thermoplastics in the prior art.
It is not clear whether the housing is made of material comprising thermoplastic or if the thermoplastic is a separate layer to adhere the housing to the body.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as having a thermoplastic layer between the body and the housing.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 10-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huizinga et al. (US20130014595) in view of Hanks et al. (US9780618).
Claim 1: Huizinga teaches a method for constructing a force sensor group (force sensor 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing an expansion body (force ring 2) that has at least one integrated force sensor element ([0021] Strain gauges 3 attached to measure deformation of the force ring 2); providing a printed circuit board (printed circuit board (PCB) 4) having at least one electronic component (electronic components 5) that is configured to receive at least one measurement signal from the force sensor elements ([0036] Fig. 9 shows the circuit diagram for part of the electrical components 5, the electrical components receive analog force signals); electrically connecting the printed circuit board to the force sensor element of the expansion body ([0034] the sensing elements 3 are bonded to corresponding bonding pads on the PCB); applying a protective material to the sensing elements ([0034]).
Huizinga fails to teach protecting an electrical connection by applying a potting compound to the electrical connections, and media-tight overmolding of the printed circuit board and at least one section of the expansion body to seal the electronic component and the force sensor element or to seal and to mechanically protect the electronic component and the force sensor element.
However, Hanks teaches circuit board 40 which is initially overmolded with epoxy (which is electrically insulating and is a potting material) and a stator assembly 36 including the circuit board 40 and sensors is subsequently encapsulated with overmolding 46 to seal the circuit board and sensors (col. 3, lines 32-48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a potting material and overmolding, as taught by Hanks, with the method of Huizinga in order to provide multiple layers of protection for the circuit board and sensors (Hanks, col. 3, lines 46-48).
Claim 2: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 1. Huizinga teaches the expansion body of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the step of media-tight overmolding comprises: positioning an open housing on the expansion body in a sealing manner; and introducing thermoset into the open housing in order to overmold the printed circuit board and at least sections of the expansion body in a media-tight manner.
However, Hanks teaches introducing thermoset (overmolding varnish 46) into an open housing (fixture) in order to overmold the printed circuit board and at least sections of the expansion body in a media-tight manner (col. 4, lines 4-13; claim 10); the fixture is configured to hold the stator 36 and circuit board 40 during the overmolding process wherein it provides a thin coating of the varnish 46 at the inner diameter of the stator assembly 36 so as to not interfere with the rotor 38. Further the fixture creates the shape of the cured overmolding 46 as seen in Figs. 5, 9 compared to the assembly without overmolding 46 in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an open housing (fixture) as taught by Hanks, with the method and expansion body of Huizinga in order to protect the circuit board and sensors from water infiltration (Hanks, col. 3, lines 38-41).
Claim 4: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 2. Huizinga fails to teach wherein the open housing is removed from the force sensor group after introduction of thermoset into the open housing.
However, Hanks teaches wherein the open housing is removed from the force sensor group after introduction of thermoset into the open housing (col. 4, lines 4-13; claim 10).
It would have been obvious to a remove the open housing from the force sensor group for the obvious benefit of reusing the housing.
Claim 6: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 1. Huizinga fails to teach wherein the thermoset is injected during the media-tight overmolding of the printed circuit board and at least sections of the expansion body.
However, Hanks teaches vacuum pressure impregnation wherein overmolding (thermoset varnish) is flowed into (injected) to the fixture which holds the stator 36 and circuit board 40 (Col. 4, lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to inject the thermoset during overmolding, as taught by Hanks, with the method of claim 1 in order to prevent water infiltration with a hydrophobic varnish (Hanks, col. 3, lines 38-41).
Claim 10: Huizinga teaches a force sensor group for a motor vehicle ([0007] electromagnetic brake system), the force sensor group comprising: an expansion body (force ring 2) with at least one integrated force sensor element ([0021] Strain gauges 3 attached to measure deformation of the force ring 2); a printed circuit board (printed circuit board (PCB) 4) having at least one electronic component (electronic components 5) that is configured to receive at least one measurement signal from the force sensor element elements ([0036] Fig. 9 shows the circuit diagram for part of the electrical components 5, the electrical components receive analog force signals) and to establish at least one electrical connection between the printed circuit board and the expansion body ([0034] the sensing elements 3 are bonded to corresponding bonding pads on the PCB); applying a protective material to the sensing elements ([0034]).
Huizinga fails to teach a media-tight seal of the printed circuit board and at least sections of the expansion body.
However, Hanks teaches a circuit board 40 which has a media-tight seal of overmolded (which is electrically insulating and is a potting material) and a stator assembly 36 including the circuit board 40 and sensors encapsulated with overmolding 46 to seal the circuit board and sensors (col. 3, lines 32-48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use overmolding, as taught by Hanks, with the device of Huizinga in order to provide multiple layers of protection for the circuit board and sensors (Hanks, col. 3, lines 46-48).
Claim 11: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the force sensor group according to claim 10. Huizinga fails to teach wherein the media-tight seal has thermoset.
Hanks teaches wherein the media-tight seal has thermoset (overmolding varnish 46 is a thermoset varnish, i.e. cured; Col. 4, lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a thermoset, as taught by Hanks, with the method of Huizinga in order to provide multiple layers of protection for the circuit board and sensors (Hanks, col. 3, lines 46-48)
Claim 13: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method of claim 1, and thus teaches a force sensor group constructed in accordance with the method according to claim 1.
Claim 14: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the force sensor according to claim 10. Huizinga further teaches that the force sensor assembly is typically applied in automotive electromagnetic braking for a vehicle ([0007] electromagnetic brake system).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huizinga in view of Hanks further in view of Lobianco et al. (US20180233423) further in view of Fox (US20080107889)
Claim 3: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the open housing is pressed against the expansion body with a predetermined pressure while the thermoset is introduced into the open housing.
However, Lobianco teaches an overmold material 130, Fig. 3, including a dam 135 (also called a barrier) made of thermoplastic [0038] and seals against a PCB 105. The barrier is mechanically coupled to the die 100 and PCB 105 to create a seal ([0004, 0038, 0043], claim 10). Therefore, it is known to create a seal via mechanical coupling. Mechanical couplings are taught by Fox, wherein a seal is mechanically created between a skin 22 and substrate 12 which is filled with a compressible material 24 such as foam. The seal is created when the skin 22 is pressed into the substrate 12 with force or pressure [0033]. Therefore, force/compression/squeezing is a known manner of mechanically coupling two elements to form a seal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an open housing, as taught by Lobianco in order to create a barrier to stop the flow of overmold by creating a seal against a PCB ([0037-0038], and further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a seal to create a boundary for a filling material via pressure/force/compression, which is a mechanical coupling method as taught by Fox.
Claims 5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huizinga in view of Hanks further in view of Lobianco.
Claim 5: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the open housing has thermoplastic.
However, Lobianco teaches an overmold material 130, Fig. 3, including a dam 135 (also called a barrier) made of thermoplastic [0038] which seals against a PCB 105.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a thermoplastic as taught by Lobianco with the method of claim 1 in order to create a barrier to stop the flow of overmold by creating a seal against a PCB ([0037-0038].
Claim 9. Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the step of media-tight overmolding comprises: positioning or attaching an open housing on the expansion body in a sealing manner; and coating the printed circuit board and at least sections of the expansion body with varnish.
However, Lobianco teaches an overmold material 130, Fig. 3, including a dam 135 (also called a barrier) made of thermoplastic which is attached to and seals against a PCB 105 prior to encapsulation with overmold material 130 [0038].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a thermoplastic as taught by Lobianco with the method of claim 1 in order to create a barrier to stop the flow of overmold by creating a seal against a PCB ([0037-0038].
Claims 7-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huizinga in view of Hanks further in view of Liskow (US11166391).
Claim 7: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the open housing is attached to the expansion body, and the thermoset is poured into the open housing up to a specified level.
However, Liskow teaches an open housing (circumferential barrier or frame part 25 both act as an open housing) attached to a printed circuit board 2 (frame 25 attached in Fig. 3) and thermoset (potting) is poured in via dispensing head (col. 5, lines 20-43) to a specified level (the second region 8b, Fig. 1) within the frame 25 is filled to a greater filling level than the first region 8a outside the frame part (filling level equates to material thickness, col. 3, lines 21-30, col. 5, lines 19-33). The greater filling level in region 8b is due to the height of the sensor 4 in order to completely covers the electronic components 24, the contact assembly with the connecting means 41, and the sensor element 4 on the first side 21 of the printed circuit board 2. Therefore, the specified filling level is a level which completely covers the intended elements.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Liskow with the method of claim 1 in order to completely cover the intended circuit board elements in a mechanically stable manner and adequately protect the elements from the aggressive transmission fluid and metal chips contained therein (Liskow, col. 2, lines 47-53).
Claim 8: Huizinga in view of Hanks further in view of Liskow teaches the method according to claim 7. Huizinga fails to teach wherein thermoset is poured into the open housing under the application of a vacuum.
However, Hanks teaches introducing a potting/overmolding (both are epoxy) when the device is under a vacuum (vacuum pressure impregnation VPI, col. 3, lines 37-41 and col. 4, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to pour the thermoset under a vacuum, as taught by Hanks, with the method of claim 7 in order to effectively fill cavities with overmolding and prevent ingress of solids and liquids (Col. 3, lines 41-45).
Claim 12: Huizinga in view of Hanks teaches the force sensor group according to claim 10, but fails to teach comprising an open housing that is attached in a sealing manner to the expansion body and to the printed circuit board.
However, Liskow teaches an open housing (circumferential barrier or frame part 25 both act as an open housing) attached to a printed circuit board 2 (frame 25 attached in Fig. 3) and thermoset (potting) is poured in via dispensing head (col. 5, lines 20-43) to a specified level (the second region 8b, Fig. 1) within the frame 25 is filled to a greater filling level than the first region 8a outside the frame part (filling level equates to material thickness, col. 3, lines 21-30, col. 5, lines 19-33). The greater filling level in region 8b is due to the height of the sensor 4 in order to completely covers the electronic components 24, the contact assembly with the connecting means 41, and the sensor element 4 on the first side 21 of the printed circuit board 2. Therefore, the specified filling level is a level which completely covers the intended elements.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Liskow with the device of claim 10 in order to completely cover the intended circuit board elements in a mechanically stable manner and adequately protect the elements from the aggressive transmission fluid and metal chips contained therein (Liskow, col. 2, lines 47-53).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/24/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
