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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3,17-20 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.
As to claim 3, “the integrated wire” was not initially claimed. Is claim 2 somehow so limited?
As to claim 3, what structure does the “the integrated wire” refer to? Figure 1 suggests that the integrated wire 140 includes the sheath 143 that was separately claimed in claim 2. More confusing is that Para 60 (Pub) suggest that the integrated wire 140 includes the cable 141, which cable is claimed in claim 2. In effect, it’s not clear whether the cable, wire and sheath are separate elements, or in the alternative, if they overlap (i.e. one element includes the other). It appears that the same individually claimed structure (cables, sheath, wires) is claimed twice. What is Applicant’s intent in claim 3?
As to claim 17, it’s not clear if this claim includes a step of “performing” molding, or in the alternative, if it merely defines what the “holder” (of line 3, claim 16) is by employing a product-by-process (i.e. structural) limitation.
As to claim 18, “between the connecting of the plurality of cables and the forming of the housing” is confusing. What element/structure does each of the “forming of the housing” and “connecting of the plurality of cables” relate to such that a gap is defined there “between” the “connecting of the plurality of cables” and “forming of the housing”? Are the “forming of the housing” and “connecting of the plurality of cables” even indicative of locations; the certainly do not appear to be steps, as action verbs are not clearly placed.
As to claim 18, are “forming of the housing” (italics added) and “connecting of the plurality of cables” (italics added) somehow intended to be additional steps; or in the alternative, are they somehow intended to be structural references defining the gap of (whatever) is “between” those two locations.
As to claim 20, it’s not clear if this claim further limited the method to include molding, or in the alternative, if it merely defines what the “holder” (of line 3, claim 16) is by employing a product-by-process (i.e. structural) limitation. The claim certainly does not make it clear that - - forming includes the step of injection molding - - . Method claims are based upon steps, and no step is apparent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al CN 107990894.
Wang teaches a wheel speed and acceleration sensing device comprising: a housing (Figure 2 shows housing pin package); a wheel speed sensor which is disposed in the housing and detects the wheel speed of the vehicle (“speedometer”); and an acceleration sensor (measures “three axial acceleration data” (Wang’s claim 1) which is disposed in the housing and detects the vertical acceleration of the vehicle.
As to claim 1, either “ROADVEHICLE” (Figure 2) suggests a vehicle on the ground with wheels, or in the alternative, terms such as pitch and roll angles (ABSTRACT) suggest employing such with air vehicle that includes landing wheels, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to employ such with air vehicle that includes landing wheels because the terms naturally suggest applying such in that manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Volker et al EB 2455278.
As to claim 1, Volker teaches a wheel speed and acceleration sensing device comprising: a housing 40 (visible in Fig. 7); a wheel speed sensor 34 (measuring device 33 has a speedometer 34 which is disposed in the housing (visible in Figure 7)) and detects the wheel speed of the vehicle; and an acceleration sensor 37 (measuring device 33 has the accelerometer, which is disposed in housing, visible in Figure 7)) which is disposed in the housing and detects the vertical acceleration of the vehicle. The speed of the drive unit is indicative (units/time-period) of the speed of the wheel 13, most clearly recognized when the vehicle is traveling in a straight line. The accelerometer senses bumps over a roots.
“The measuring device (33) has, for example, a speedometer (34)” per Volker.
“The measuring device (33) can have at least one other sensor (37).” per Volker.
“Acceleration sensor, with which the vehicle movements are recorded in one or more spatial axes and the accelerations occurring. By way of example, it can be ascertained whether the vehicle (1) is moved over a longer incline or over a short-term obstacle, for example a root.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volker as applied against claim 1, and further in view of Guo et al CN 218157963.
Volk does not refer to a sheath.
As to claims 2,3, it would have been obvious to connect the sensors to Volk’s controller with a sheath because Guo teaches (ABSTRACT) joining speed and acceleration sensor output via rubber sleeve/sheath to both protect and simplify wire connections.
As to claim 3, sheathed harnesses employ connectors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Lu et al DE 10327590.
Lu et al teach (Figure 3) a wheel speed and acceleration sensing device comprising: a housing 52; a wheel speed sensor which is disposed in the housing and detects the wheel speed of the vehicle (Figure 1); and an acceleration sensor which is disposed in the housing and detects the vertical acceleration of the vehicle. The Roll speed sensor value is that of the wheel.
“Regarding 3 is a registration system 16 shown with a yaw rate sensor 30 , Roll speed sensor 31 and pitch speed sensor 32 , together with lateral acceleration sensor 27 , a longitudinal acceleration sensor 28 , and vertical acceleration sensor 29 which are inside a housing 52 are mounted.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights