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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 (RCE for claims filed 01/20/2026) has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 5 and 7 are canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-17 remain pending and are examined herein on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have introduced 112(b) indefiniteness rejections (see 112(b) section below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 (hereinafter, Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since Hand teaches that the temperature sensor element may be surrounded by "air in the cavity" (Remarks, p.6, underlined) and as such a skilled person has no reason to fully enclose the temperature sensor element. However, the argument fails as applicant's argument against Hand ignores that Nathan is cited for this limitation (see Final action p.5). As an aside, even the cited portion of Hand in the Remarks makes clear that the element is "in the cavity" where the cavity is closed by the heat-conducting element -- i.e. the element IS completely surrounded. Regardless, Nathan not Hand is cited for this limitation.
Applicant then argues that Hand is to a tube/pipe fluid temperature measurement system (true) and that Nathan is to temperature sensing for an electric charging plug/system (also true). Then applicant concludes that "there is absolutely no reason to combine Hand with Nathan". This argument is not persuasive because the claim as constructed is to a device for determining temperature and limits by the geometry and relative structural arrangement of the device. Both Nathan and Hand are also to temperature/thermal sensors (see at least abstract of each) and as such are analogous art to the instant invention as currently claimed. Further, no argument is made regarding the teaching, suggestion and motivation to combine as already given in the Final at pp.5-6.
Regarding analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor (here temperature sensing with housing/structures around the sensitive element) or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant then argues regarding the limitations having to do with the flat surface and angle (see claims 5 and 7). This argument is oriented to one embodiment of Hand and ignores the portion of Hand cited in the Final. Specifically, that the contact element of Hand conforms to desired measurement target shapes. (see Final at p.7). Motivation/suggestion for one of ordinary skill to understand that if a flat surface is to be measured the conformable contact element should be conformed to said flat surface is given (Final p.7; citing Hand at [0010]; [0012] and [0027]).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 ( CCPA 1981).
Therefore, the position of the office must remain that upon knowledge of the cited art one of ordinary skill in the art would have had all the information and motivation required to make the invention as claimed at the time it was made.
See rejections under 35 USC 103 updated for the amended language and reiterated below.
Further, while the citations below are to the specific portions of the prior art that Examiner felt were most pertinent the entire disclosures of the cited documents (Hand, Nathan and Lilleland) are cited broadly for all they teach (see MPEP 2123 stating that references “are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”)
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.
Claims 6, 9-10 and 17 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.
Specifically, claim 6 depends from canceled claim 5 and claims 9, 10 and 17 depend from canceled claim 7.
These dependency errors create indefiniteness regarding dependency and antecedent basis issues.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution these claims will be considered on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
However, positive in claim recitation of proper dependency and proper antecedent basis is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-4, 6, and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand (US 20190226918) in view of Nathan et al. (US 20120212179, hereinafter Nathan) and Lilleland et al. (US 20190293495, hereinafter Lilleland).
Regarding claim 1, Hand teaches a device for determining the temperature of an object (abstract; [0025] “contact temperature sensor 1”; see figs. 1 and 2), comprising a main body (at least contact body 3 and clamp 5; [0025]; see fig. 2) with an interior space delimited by walls (portions interior to at least elements 3/5 for delimiting the space with the object; see figs. 1 and 2) for receiving an object (see fig. 1 showing receipt of test piece/pipe 7/9 with unillustrated fluid; [0025-26]), the temperature of which is to be determined (abstract; [0026]), wherein at least one determination element (30; “temperature sensor element”; [0026]) configured to determine the temperature is arranged or formed within at least one wall (see fig. 2 showing this configuration/arrangement), and wherein at least one thermally conductive contact element (at least 33; heat-conducting metal sheet; [0027]; see also 39) is arranged or formed on or in the wall within which the determination element is arranged or formed (see fig. 2 showing this arrangement; see [0027-28]), wherein the contact element has a first surface portion (see at least figs. 2 and 1 showing this surface portion).
Hand lacks direct and specific teaching that the determination element is completely surrounded by a material forming the wall; that there is no direct contact between the contact element and the determination element which is arranged or formed within the wall and that the surface portion has at least one flat surface, and wherein the contact element comprises at least one further surface portion running at an angle to the first surface portion.
However, Nathan teaches a temperature sensor (36) having a determination element (see at least [0033] “temperature sensor 36 may be thermistor, positive temperature coefficient (PTC) device, negative coefficient (NTC) device, or other element suitable to measure temperature”) where the determination element is injection molded into the wall(s) of the device/housing ([0035] “temperature sensor 36 and part of the positive and negative connectors not extending exteriorly may be injection molded within a housing”; see fig. 1; see also [0009]) where there is no direct contact between the determination element and the contact element(s) (at least 30/32 are conductive contact elements; [0035]; see fig. 1) and is for use on a vehicle (12; see abstract; see fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature sensor of Hand with the specific knowledge of the temperature sensor where there is no direct contact between the contact element and the determination element which is arranged or formed within the wall of Nathan. This is because injection molding the sensor into the wall/housing allows for placing the sensor in a desired location (see [0036] of Nathan). This is important in order to provide better control over thermal flows from the contact element(s) and the temperature sensitive portion(s).
Further, Lilleland teaches a temperature probe with housing (abstract) having a thermally conductive contact portion ([0051] “TIM 304 is provided on the sensor 116, such that the TIM 304 is between the sensor 116 and the surface being measured” … “TIM 304 improves the thermal interface of the sensor 116 to the surface of the object to improve the accuracy of the temperature measurement”; see fig. 5) with a flat surface portion with is molded around the sensor such that a right angle is formed ([0051] “In one form, the TIM 304 is a sheet material or molded in place material that is deposited to the exposed surface of the sensor 116”; see fig. 5 showing the sheet embodiment in view of [0051] where the molded concept/embodiment will produce a right angle).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the contact element of Hand as modified by Nathan with the specific knowledge of using the flat/sheet contact surface element which is molded around the sensor forming an angle of Lilleland. This is because such a flat and molded/angled thermal contact element allows for providing the benefits of the contact element to a desired geometry (see fig. 5 and [0051] of Lilleland; see [0010] of Hand teaching the benefits of conforming to a shape of the test piece; see also [0012] and [0027] of Hand). This is important in order to provide a robust and quality device with improved accuracy ([0051] of Lilleland) to an end user.
Regarding claim 2, Hand teaches that the determination element is electrically insulated with respect to the contact element due to its arrangement or formation in the wall ([0016] teaches that the temperature sensor element is glass or epoxy coated; see fig. 2; see also Nathan at [0035] and [0009] teaching that the housing element is also in the wall and that the housing material is non-conducting).
Regarding claim 3, Hand teaches that the contact element is arranged or formed on the wall adjacently to the determination element arranged or formed within the wall (see at least fig. 2 showing this arrangement with the contact element 33 on the wall adjacent the determination element 30; see also Nathan - fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hand teaches that the contact element is arranged or formed movably mounted in at least one degree of freedom of movement on or in the wall within which the determination element is arranged or formed ([0010] teaches that “the heat-conducting pad remains flexible even in the assembled state of the contact temperature sensor, the heat-conducting metal sheet and the heat-conducting pad together can also conform to a change, in particular a repeated change, in the surface shape of the test piece”; see figs. 1 and 2 as well as [0012] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Hand teaches that in the operating state of the device, the first surface portion forms, with a side facing the wall, a support region (see fig. 2 showing that the conforming contact area is supported in at least each side) for supporting the contact element on the wall (see fig. 2 showing this configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Hand teaches that the at least one further surface portion forms a fastening region for fastening the contact element to or in the wall ([0034] teaches that the opposite side of the surface contacting the test piece/pipe is fastened with at least adhesive; see also fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hand teaches that at least one recess-shaped receiving region for receiving the at least one further surface portion is arranged or formed in the wall ([0010] teaches that the flexible heat-conducting pad conforms so as to form a receiving region for the object so as to increase contact/conductance; see also [0027] and [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Hand teaches that the at least one further surface portion is dimensioned with regard to its longitudinal extension in such a way that it at least in portions surrounds the determination element (see fig. 2 showing that elements 33 and 39 are configured in such longitudinally extending manner and in a surrounding arrangement around the sensor 30).
Regarding claim 11, Hand teaches that the contact element is formed of or comprises a thermally conductive metal or is formed of or comprises a thermally conductive metal structure ([0027] teaches at least copper and/or nickel).
Regarding claim 12, Hand lacks direct and specific teaching that the main body is formed from an injection-mouldable or injection-moulded plastics material (Hand does disclose using plastic in the main body - see [0029])
However, Nathan teaches a temperature sensor (36) having a determination element (see at least [0033] “temperature sensor 36 may be thermistor, positive temperature coefficient (PTC) device, negative coefficient (NTC) device, or other element suitable to measure temperature”) where the determination element is injection molded into the wall(s) of the device/housing ([0035] “temperature sensor 36 and part of the positive and negative connectors not extending exteriorly may be injection molded within a housing”; see fig. 1; see also [0009]) where there is no direct contact between the determination element and the contact element(s) (at least 30/32 are conductive contact elements; [0035]; see fig. 1) and is for use on a vehicle (12; see abstract; see fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature sensor of Hand with the specific knowledge of the temperature sensor where there is no direct contact between the contact element and the determination element which is arranged or formed within the wall of Nathan. This is because injection molding the sensor into the wall/housing allows for placing the sensor in a desired location (see [0036] of Nathan). This is important in order to provide better control over thermal flows from the contact element(s) and the temperature sensitive portion(s).
Regarding claim 13, Hand as modified by Nathan lacks direct and specific teaching that the plastics material comprises at least one of: polyamide imide (PAI), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), polyphenyl sulphone (PPSU), polyimide (PI), or polyphthalamide (PPA).
However, Lilleland teaches a temperature probe with housing (abstract) where “housing 110 may be made of plastic, such high-performance polyimide-based plastics, such as polyether ether ketone, or other suitable material.” ([0038]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plastic in the housing of Hand as modified by Nathan with the specific knowledge of using the specific PEEK housing of Lilleland. This is because such “high-performance polyimide-based plastics” (Lilleland at [0038]) allows for providing such known high-performance characteristics to the housing. This is important in order to provide a robust and quality device to an end user.
Regarding claim 14, Hand lacks direct and specific teaching of an evaluation device for evaluating signals supplied by the determination element with regard to at least one evaluation criterion.
However, Hand does disclose a contact pin connected to the sensor (15; [0026]; see figs. 1 and 2; see also Lilleland at least at [0019] teaching that “electrical connectors are electrically coupled to the signal processing circuit to communicably couple the sensor and the signal processing circuit” --- is a known concept).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the use of the contact pin of Hand with an evaluation device for evaluating the signals from the sensor. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected an evaluation device to be required to evaluate and interpret the raw signals from the sensor for measuring temperature. This is because such evaluation allows for producing meaningful results from the raw data passes via conductors to the contact pin and will further allow an end user to meaningfully use the device.
Regarding claim 15, Hand teaches a device according to claim 1 (see treatment of claim 1 above).
Hand lacks direct and specific teaching of a vehicle.
However, Nathan teaches a temperature sensor (36) for use on a vehicle (12; see abstract; see fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature sensor of Hand with the specific knowledge of using the temperature sensor on a vehicle of Nathan. This is because vehicles utilize temperature sensors for control of current and other heat sources (see abstract of Nathan). This is important in order to provide better control over thermal flows in vehicles.
Regarding claim 16, Hand teaches a method for producing ([0032-34] the device is assembled and arranged) a device for determining the temperature of an object (abstract; [0025] “contact temperature sensor 1”; see figs. 1 and 2), the method comprising: forming or providing a main body (at least contact body 3 and clamp 5; [0025]; see fig. 2 showing such provision) with an interior space delimited by walls for receiving the object (portions interior to at least elements 3/5 for delimiting the space with the object; see figs. 1 and 2; see fig. 1 showing receipt of test piece/pipe 7/9 with unillustrated fluid; [0025-26]), wherein at least one determination element (30; “temperature sensor element”; [0026]) configured for determining the temperature is arranged or formed within at least one wall (see fig. 2 showing this configuration/arrangement), and arranging or forming at least one thermally conductive contact element on or in the wall within which the determination element is arranged or formed (at least 33; heat-conducting metal sheet; [0027]; see also 39; see fig. 2 showing this arrangement; see [0027-28]).
Hand lacks direct and specific teaching that the determination element is completely surrounded by a material forming the wall and there is no direct contact between the contact element and the determination element which is arranged or formed within the wall.
However, Nathan teaches a temperature sensor (36) having a determination element (see at least [0033] “temperature sensor 36 may be thermistor, positive temperature coefficient (PTC) device, negative coefficient (NTC) device, or other element suitable to measure temperature”) where the determination element is injection molded into the wall(s) of the device/housing ([0035] “temperature sensor 36 and part of the positive and negative connectors not extending exteriorly may be injection molded within a housing”; see fig. 1; see also [0009]) where there is no direct contact between the determination element and the contact element(s) (at least 30/32 are conductive contact elements; [0035]; see fig. 1) and is for use on a vehicle (12; see abstract; see fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for producing a temperature sensor of Hand with the specific knowledge of the temperature sensor where there is no direct contact between the contact element and the determination element which is arranged or formed within the wall of Nathan. This is because injection molding the sensor into the wall/housing allows for placing the sensor in a desired location (see [0036] of Nathan). This is important in order to provide better control over thermal flows from the contact element(s) and the temperature sensitive portion(s).
Regarding claim 17, Hand lacks direct and specific teaching that the angle is a right angle.
However, Nathan teaches a temperature sensor (36; see fig. 1) which may have a square/rectangular shape which forms a right angle with the measurement area(s) (see fig. 1; see also Lilleland at [0051] and fig. 5 as cited in claim 1 above).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature sensor of Hand with the specific knowledge of using the temperature sensor having right angled measurement directionals of Nathan. This is because such a right angle allows for sensing heat flows/temperature in desired directions. This is important in order to provide desired and accurate temperature measurement(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855