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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 15-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 24-28 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Examiner reminds Applicant that the BPAI sustained the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 27 under 35 USC 103 for obviousness over Landis and Gibson to which Applicants arguments 1-4 are drawn, as well as the rejection of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, and 24-26 under 35 USC 103 for obviousness over Landis, Gibson, and Lin to which Applicants argument 6 is drawn. Regardless, Examiner addresses all arguments as follows:
Argument 1: Applicant respectfully notes that the Office Action asserts that Landis' coupling of sensor cartridge 122 and retaining cap 124 to sensor head assembly 120 is being alleged to meet the limitation of a "body having a latching feature configured to couple the body to a housing device" Respectfully, sensor head assembly 120 is not taught or suggested by Landis as being a housing device as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and reminds applicant USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”). It is applicant’s burden to show that the interpretation by the examiner is unreasonably broad by pointing to evidence (e.g. applicant’s specification, dictionary definitions, etc.) to why skilled artisans would not agree with the examiner’s position- see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F .3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this case, the housing device is broadly set forth in the claims. Figure 8 of Landis clearly shows element 120 (indicated in the rejection as a housing device) housing various elements therein.
Argument 2: Applicant also notes that the Office Action employs the Landis reference to allegedly provide a "latching feature configured to couple the body to a housing device. "The Office Action cited attachment member 174 of Landis as allegedly providing this feature. However, attachment member 174 is clearly a component of sensor retaining cap 124 and not senor cartridge 122. Further, attachment member 174 merely attaches to sensor head assembly 120, which as described above, is not a housing device, as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection, Examiner considers the body to comprise both elements 122 and 124 as element 124 is mounted over 122 for protecting the sensor cartridge 122 from damage (e.g., impact damage) and subsequently attached to the housing device (120) as seen in Figure 3 via a latching feature (Col 7, Lines 25-33).
Argument 3: Applicant also notes that the Office Action alleges that Landis provides the claimed tool- less insertion into the housing device at Column 5, Lines 57-66 with regard to the "snap-fit, a latch... or the like." For reference, Applicant provides Column 5, lines 57-66 of Landis below:
The sensor head assembly 120 may include an attachment member 138 for mounting the sensor 112 to the mounting structure 114 (shown in FIG. 3). In the illustrated embodiment. the attachment member 138 includes a thread 140 for threadably connecting the sensor 112 to the mounting structure 114. But, in addition or alternatively to the thread 140, the attachment member 138 may use any other mounting strategy, such as, but not limited to, an adhesive, an interference fit, a snap-fit, a latch, a clip, a clamp, a threaded fastener, and/or the like.
Clearly, attachment member 138 on sensor head assembly 120 couples sensor head assembly 120 to mounting structure 114 and not to sensor cartridge 122 or anything that may fairly be considered a gas sensor module, as claimed.
Examiner respectfully notes that Examiner inadvertently inserted an incorrect citation in this instance (this has been remedied in the below rejection). Sensor cartridge (122), which is part of the body, is inserted into the housing device 120 and is interfitted via the connector mechanism (Fig 8) without the use of tools.
Argument 4: Page 3 of the Office Action conceded that Landis does not disclose the claimed sealing mechanism disposed about the body and configured to create a seal between the gas sensor module and the housing device. For this subject matter, the Office Action asserted that Gibson provides a "sealing mechanism (88) disposed about a body 70 to thermally and resiliently seal the connection between the components of the gas sensor apparatus (Par. 0019 and 42) as shown in Figure 1."
Clearly, the cited paragraphs indicate that polytetrafluoroethylene seal ring 88 is disposed between first and second electrical terminals 50, 80. Paragraph [0042] (Emphasis added), Accordingly, the provision of PTFE 88 between connectors 50, 80 does not meet the requirement of independent claim 1 that specifies that the sealing mechanism be disposed about the body. Applicant notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word about as "in a circle around" and this definition is not satisfied by the ' between" teaching of Gibson.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reading the reference more narrowly than intended. The disclosure of “seal ring 88, is placed between the first and second electrical terminals 50, 80” does not state that is axially between end faces of these structures as purported by applicant. Electrical terminal 80 which comprises a terminal shield 78 which “is disposed inside of the oxygen sensor's electrical terminal 50…while the connector shell 76 surrounds the oxygen sensor's electrical terminal 50, disposed generally around an exterior surface thereof”. Furthermore, Figure 3 clearly show the seal ring (88) as having a larger inner diameter than the terminal shield of the electrical terminal 80 (See Examiner's Figure 1 below) and a seat in which the seal ring is ultimately seated. Combining these elements of the disclosure, it is clear that the ring is located around the terminal shield to form a seal when the shield is axially inserted and seated within electrical terminal 80 prior to twisting the housings together.
Examiner’s Figure 1 (From Fig 3)
[AltContent: textbox (Seat in which the seal ring is located upon full insertion of 80 into 50)][AltContent: textbox (Shows respective inner diameter of the seal ring and corresponding outer diameter of element 80)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
257
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Argument 5: Page 4 of the Office Action also conceded that Landis does not disclose the "protrusion having a flattened top portion, a tapered portion and a linear side portion, wherein the fattened top portion, the tapered portion and the linear side portion are configured to align the gas sensor module, when inserted into the housing device, so that the flattened top portion, the tapered portion and the linear side portion rotate along with the gas sensor module until aligned with the corresponding alignment portion of the housing device." For this subject matter the Office Action turned to the OE reference and asserted that OE's key protrusion (23) has a flattened top portion and chamfered (e.g., tapered) portion extending therefrom into linear side portions. However, Applicant respectfully notes that OE does not teach or suggest any tapering or chamfering as alleged by the Office Action. To the extent that this rejection may be maintained, Applicant respectfully requests a specific indication of where this teaching may be. Without such indication, Applicant is left to speculate.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to Examiner’s Figure 2 below which provides specific indication of tapering/chamfering of the protrusion 23.
Examiner’s Figure 2
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Tapering/Chamfering)]
PNG
media_image2.png
175
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Argument 6: Regardless of the applicability of various deficiencies set forth above to independent claim 8, Applicant respectfully notes that Page 6 of the Office Action concedes that Landis does not disclose "a pair of latching points each comprising an extended section configured to interact with a pair of diametrically opposed latching features each comprising an inclined latch portion of the latching feature with a tab extending away from the inclined latch portion...." With respect to this subject matter. the Office Action referred to Lin having a pair of latching features 241. However, Applicant notes that both Lin and Lothmann appear to teach rectangular connectors. Thus, even if the latches are located on opposite sides of the connector, they cannot be considered to be diametrically opposite from one another as set forth in independent claim 8.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and reminds applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); see Ex parte Wright Appeal 2006-000003, slip op. at 8 (BPAI Apr. 6, 2006) (informative opinion); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have fairly suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, not the ability to combine their specific structures. See In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Landis provides a clear teaching of two cylindrical elements being latched together and both Lin and Lothmann teach the use of a pair of latches located on opposite edges of a structure with a straight line passing through the center of the structures and one of ordinary skill would clearly understand how to apply the teaching of opposing latches to a cylindrical member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis (US Patent 9,719,813) in view of Gibson et al (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0170794) and Oe et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0282798).
As to Claims 1 and 27, Landis discloses a gas sensor module comprising:
a body (122,124) having a latching feature (174; Col 7, Lines 25-33) configured to couple the body to a housing device (120);
a gas sensor (Col 6, Lines 23-29: ”sensing element (not shown)” mounted within body (122,124) of sensor (112); Col. 4, Line 21-24) mounted within the body and configured to provide an electrical indication related to a gas (Col 5, Lines 26-41 and Col 6, Lines 20-25, 50-54);
a pin (164,204; Fig 6) configured to establish an electrical connection between a header of the housing device and the gas sensor (Col 6, Line 44-Col 7, Line 3);
wherein the body is configured to be tool-lessly inserted into the housing device (Sensor cartridge (122), which is part of the body, is inserted into the housing device 120 and is interfitted via the connector mechanism (Fig 8) without the use of tools).
However, Landis discloses that the apparatus as disclosed is to be hermetically sealed, but does not disclose wherein the gas sensor module further comprises a sealing mechanism disposed about the body and configured to create a seal between the gas sensor module and the housing device.
Gibson et al teach a similar gas sensor module (Fig 1) having a sealing mechanism (88) disposed about a body (70) to thermally and resiliently seal the connection between the components of the gas sensor apparatus (Par. 0019 and 42) as shown in Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the gas sensor module of Landis to include the sealing mechanism as taught by Gibson et al to thermally and resiliently seal the connection between the components.
Further, Landis does not disclose a pin guide on the gas sensor module or the protrusion extending radially from an outside diameter of the body in a manner where it is spaced apart from the pin guide in a radial direction. Instead, Landis teaches the pin guide (206) and radially spaced protrusion (186) being located on the housing to which the module is connected and the corresponding interlocking features (204 and 190, respectively) located on the cartridge (122) and wherein the protrusion is configured to align with a corresponding alignment portion (‘second additional key component’; Col 8, Lines 45-48) of the housing device. Applicant is reminded that the reversal of components in a prior art reference, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, placing the pin guides and protrusion(s) on the cartridge and the corresponding features within the housing would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. To this point, Gibson is evidence of such reversal in that Gibson et al disclose a similar sensor connection wherein a gas sensor module (14) comprises pin guides (80) to receive pins (54) located within the connected housing member and corresponding protrusions (84) and alignment portions (86; Fig 3) located on the cartridge member (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Landis to have the pin guides and protrusions located on the gas module and the pins within the housing as taught by Gibson et al with a reasonable expectation of success as this is merely a reversal of components producing expected and predictable results.
Finally, Landis does not explicitly disclose the protrusion having a flattened top portion, a tapered portion and a linear side portion, wherein the flattened top portion, the tapered portion and the linear side portion are configured to align the gas sensor module, when inserted into the housing device, so that the flattened top portion, the tapered portion and the linear side portion rotate along with the gas sensor module until aligned with the corresponding alignment portion of the housing device.
Oe et al teach a similar interlocking male-female connection having a key protrusion (23) which corresponds with a key groove (8d) wherein both the protrusion has a flattened top portion and chamfered (e.g. tapered) portions extending therefrom into linear side portions (Fig 2B; See Examiner’s Figure 2 above) which facilitates the mating of the protrusion with the groove. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusion of Landis to include tapered portions as taught by Oe et al to assist in the alignment of the protrusion with the corresponding mating member.
As to Claim 5, Landis discloses the gas sensor module of claim 3, wherein the protrusion is further configured to be received by the corresponding alignment portion of the housing device (Col 8, Line 66-Col 9, Line 7).
Claims 8, 11, 12, 14, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis in view of Gibson et al, Lin (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0287655) and Lothmann et al (US Patent 4,586,773).
Landis discloses a gas sensor system comprising:
a housing device (120) comprising:
a housing alignment portion (186);
a header (156); and
a gas sensor module comprising:
a body (122,124) having a latching feature configured to couple the body to the latching point of the housing device:
a gas sensor (Col 6, Lines 23-29: ”sensing element (not shown)” mounted within body (122,124) of sensor (112); Col. 4, Line 21-24) mounted within the body and configured to provide an electrical indication related to a gas (Col 5, Lines 26-41 and Col 6, Lines 20-25, 50-54);
a gas sensor alignment feature (158/190) extending radially from an outer diameter of the body (@160) and being configured to engage the housing alignment portion (186; Col 8, Line 66-Col 9, Line 7);
a pin (164,204) configured to connect to the header;
wherein the gas sensor module is configured to be tool-lessly inserted into the housing device (e.g., “snap-fit, a latch…or the like”: Col. 5, Line 57-66).
However, while Landis discloses that the connection between the body (122,124) and the housing (120) can be a snap-fit or a latch component (Col 5, Lines 57-66 and Col 6, Lines 8-15) in place of a threaded connection, Landis does not explicitly disclose details to such latch components as claimed (a pair of latching points each comprising an extended section configured to interact with a pair of diametrically opposed latching features each comprising an inclined latch portion of the latching feature with a tab extending away from the inclined latch portion such that the latching feature is configured to disconnect from the latching point, upon application of a compression force).
Lin teaches a similar electrical connection having a male (90/93) and female member (92/93) that are secured to one another (Fig 2) via a pair of latching points each comprising an extended section (brackets) separated by a slot (Fig 2) configured to interact with a pair of diametrically opposed latching features (241) each comprising an inclined latch portion of the latching feature with a tab extending away from the inclined latch portion by a tab support (Figs 3a-3c; Examiner considers the tab to comprise the upper surface of the engaging structure 240 and the support to comprise the body which extends from the latch to the upper surface; See Examiner's Figure below) wherein the stab support extends through the slot (Fig 2) to provide a visual indication of connection and such that the latching feature is configured to disconnect from the latching point, upon application of a compression force in order to positively and releasably secure the members together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembling feature of Landis to including the latching structures as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation of success order to positively and releasably secure the members together while providing a visual indication of the positive connection.
Examiner’s Figure (From Fig 3C)
PNG
media_image3.png
89
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
If, arguendo, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the tab support and tab to be disclosed by Lin, Lothmann et al disclose a similar male-female connector having a latch feature with a tab (21) of a given width to facilitate pressing by a user and the tab having a tab support of a lesser width (Fig 1) which is configured to pass through a latching point (15; Figs 6-7) such that the tab is depressed to allow the disconnection of the male-female connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tab of Lin to be provided with a greater width than the corresponding tab support as taught by Lothmann et al to facilitate the depressing of the latching feature during the disconnection of the latch.
Further, Landis does not disclose a pin guide on the gas sensor module or the protrusion extending radially from an outside diameter of the body in a manner where it is spaced apart from the pin guide in a radial direction. Instead, Landis teaches the pin guide (206) and radially spaced protrusion (186) being located on the housing to which the module is connected and the corresponding interlocking features (204 and 190, respectively) located on the cartridge (122) and wherein the protrusion is configured to align with a corresponding alignment portion (‘second additional key component’; Col 8, Lines 45-48) of the housing device. Applicant is reminded that the reversal of components in a prior art reference, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, placing the pin guides and protrusion(s) on the cartridge and the corresponding features within the housing would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. To this point, Gibson is evidence of such reversal in that Gibson et al disclose a similar sensor connection wherein a gas sensor module (14) comprises pin guides (80) to receive pins (54) located within the connected housing member and corresponding protrusions (84) and alignment members (86) located on the cartridge member (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Landis to have the pin guides and protrusions located on the gas module and the pins within the housing as taught by Gibson et al with a reasonable expectation of success as this is merely a reversal of components producing expected and predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis in view of Gibson et al, Lin and Lothmann et al as applied to Claims 8, 11, 12, 14, and 24-26 above, and further in view of Oe et al.
Landis in view of Gibson et al, Lin and Lothmann et al disclose the module significantly as claimed, but do not explicitly disclose the protrusion having a flattened top portion, a tapered portion and a linear side portion, wherein the flattened top portion, the tapered portion and the linear side portion are configured to align the gas sensor module, when inserted into the housing device, so that the flattened top portion, the tapered portion and the linear side portion rotate along with the gas sensor module until aligned with the corresponding alignment portion of the housing device.
Oe et al teach a similar interlocking male-female connection having a key protrusion (23) which corresponds with a key groove (8d) wherein both the protrusion has a flattened top portion and chamfered (e.g. tapered) portions extending therefrom into linear side portions (Fig 2B; See Examiner’s Figure 2 above) which facilitates the mating of the protrusion with the groove. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusion of Landis to include tapered portions as taught by Oe et al to assist in the alignment of the protrusion with the corresponding mating member.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3649 12/2/2025