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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nonaka et al. (U.S. 2006/0244245, hereafter referred to as Nonaka).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Nonaka teaches a crash sensor for a vehicle 1, comprising: a housing 71 defining an internal volume; a pressure sensor element 3 disposed in the internal volume of the housing; and a membrane configured to isolate the internal volume of the housing from ambient air (see para. 0041, ‘diaphragm’; also see figure 6: 101), wherein the membrane is deformable for transmitting a pressure pulse indicative of a crash for detection by the pressure sensor element (see figure 3, collision is determined based in part on a threshold level of pressure).
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) 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Tartrou et al. (EP 3835747, hereafter referred to as Tartrou).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Tartrou further teaches a cover (connection 5) overlying the housing 2 to at least partially enclose the internal volume, the cover defining a channel having an opening opposite from the pressure sensor element 10; and an internal seal 20 disposed between the cover and the pressure sensor element (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nonaka with the teaching of Tartrou in order to protect the inside of a housing of the sensor assembly from the ingress of dust and/or fluid.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, One piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Foo et al. (U.S. 20160039378, hereafter referred to as Foo).
Nonaka does not explicitly teach the structure of the pressure sensor as described.
Foo teaches alternative design to a pressure sensor in a similar application of impact detection/analysis wherein the pressure sensor element 322 has a top 326 defining a port hole (see para. 0055) and wherein the membrane is attached directly to the pressure sensor element (see para. 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nonaka with the teaching of Foo since this sensor design was well known in the art.
None of the references explicitly teach wherein the membrane is attached directly to the to top the pressure sensor element and overlying the port hole,
However, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. ln re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Yun (WO 2020/197168).
Nonaka teaches a crash sensor for a vehicle 1, comprising: a housing 71 defining an internal volume; a pressure sensor element 3 disposed in the internal volume of the housing; and a membrane configured to isolate the internal volume of the housing from ambient air (see para. 0041, ‘diaphragm’; also see figure 6: 101), wherein the membrane is deformable for transmitting a pressure pulse indicative of a crash for detection by the pressure sensor element (see figure 3, collision is determined based in part on a threshold level of pressure).
However, Nonaka does not explicitly teach wherein housing 71 includes a cover.
Yun further teaches a similar pressure sensor device wherein a housing 10 (see figure 4) includes a cover 30 overlying the housing to at least partially enclose the internal volume, the cover defining a channel 33 having an opening opposite from the pressure sensor element 29 and including an internal seal (41, 42) disposed between the cover 30 and the sensor element 29; Yun further teaches an equalization passage 36, and a breathable membrane 40 covering the passage (see figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nonaka with the teaching of Yun since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Additionally, regarding claims 5 and 14, 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.
Additionally, regarding clams 8 and 17, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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 at (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 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
