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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Claims 4, 16 and 21 have been amended. Entry of this amendments accepted and made of record.
Previous objections to claim 4 and 16 have been withdrawn in view of amendments filed October 17, 2025.
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 1-2, 5, 10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily et al. (US 8870455) (hereinafter Daily) in view of Devey et al. (US 2009/0066353) (hereinafter Devey).
Regarding claim 1, Daily teaches a temperature sensor device for sensing a temperature of a surface of an object, comprising:
a temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14);
and a housing (assembly) (10) having a measuring cavity (recess) (36) in which the temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14) is disposed (see Figures 1, 3 and 4), a measuring surface (bottom surface) (32) contacting the surface of the object (tube surface) (30), an outer shell (heat shield) (46), an inner shell (mounting pad) (42), and an outer cavity (receptacle) (50) enclosed between the outer shell (heat shield) (46) and the inner shell (mounting pad) (42), the outer shell (heat shield) (46), the inner shell (mounting pad) (42), and the outer cavity (receptacle) (50) thermally insulate the measuring cavity (recess) (36) and the measuring surface (bottom surface) (32) from an environment of the object (see Figures 1, 3 and 4 and column 3, lines 21-62 and column 4, lines 13-42).
However, Daily does not explicitly teach a thermistor.
Devey teaches a thermistor (thermistor) (see paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor as taught by Daily with a thermistor as taught by Devey. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide an temperature sensor that has fast response, is cost efficient and is widely available.
Regarding claim 2, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Daily further teaches the housing being integrally formed in a single piece (Note: Daily teaches the heat shield (46), docking device (28), sheath (16) and mounting pad (42) being welded in place; see Figures 1, 3 and 4; column 3, lines 20-35, column 4, lines 13-36 and column 5, lines 1-5)
Regarding claim 5, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach the outer shell and the measuring surface being integrally formed in a single piece.
Although, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach the housing being integrally formed in a single piece, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the outer shell and the measuring surface being integrally formed in a single piece, since it has been held that making an old device integral without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more cost effective housing.
Regarding claim 10, Daily further teaches the outer shell (heat shield) (46) and the inner shell (mounting pad) (42) is made of metal material (metallic material) (see column 4, lines 18-19 and column 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Daily further teaches the inner shell (mounting pad) (42) contacting the measuring surface (at least thermally contacting the bottom surface (32)) (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Daily further teaches the measuring surface (bottom surface) (32) having a curved shape (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach the outer shell and the inner shell are manufactured by 3D metal printing, injection molding, or machining.
Machining is very well known in the art as evidenced by Devey (see paragraph 0050).
However, Official Notice is given that 3D metal printing was well known in the art at the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the outer shell and the inner shell as taught by the prior combination being 3D manufactured by machining as taught by Devey. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide rapid prototyping and accelerate product development
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 11, 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily in view of Devey and further in view of Hieda et al. (JPH01248031) (hereinafter Hieda).
Regarding claim 3, Daily in view of Devey teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach the housing having a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity is formed between the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface.
Hieda teaches the housing having a measuring cavity shell (top surface of substrate (2) where hole (3) is formed; see Figures 2-3), the measuring cavity (hole) (3) being formed between the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface (the temperature sensor is arranged around the hole (3) for the support substrate (2); see examples and Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination with the housing having a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity is formed between the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface as taught by Hieda. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to avoid the influence of radiation from the external environment.
Regarding claim 4, Daily as modified by Devey teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach the housing having an inner cavity between the inner shell and a measuring cavity shell.
Hieda teaches the housing having an inner cavity (opening part) (9) between the inner shell (inner covering) (5) and a measuring cavity shell (top surface of substrate (2) where hole (3) is formed; see Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination with the housing having an inner cavity between the inner shell and a measuring cavity shell as taught by Hieda. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to avoid the influence of radiation from the external environment.
Regarding 6, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
However, Daily as modified by Devey and Hieda does not explicitly teach the measuring cavity shell, the inner shell, and the outer shell are integrally formed in a single piece.
Although, Daily as modified by Devey and Hieda does not explicitly teach the housing being integrally formed in a single piece, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the measuring cavity shell, the inner shell, and the outer shell are integrally formed in a single piece, since it has been held that making an old device integral without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more cost effective housing.
Regarding claim 7, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
However, Daily as modified by Devey and Hieda does not explicitly teach the measuring cavity shell, the inner shell, the outer shell, and the measuring surface being integrally formed in a single piece.
Although Daily as modified by Devey and Hieda does not explicitly teach the housing being integrally formed in a single piece, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the measuring cavity shell, the inner shell, and the outer shell are integrally formed in a single piece, since it has been held that making an old device integral without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more cost effective housing.
Regarding claim 8, Daily further teaches the outer cavity (receptacle) (50) being filled with a gas (at least air) of less thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of the outer shell (heat shield) (46) and the inner shell (mounting pad) (42) (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach the outer shell and the inner shell are made of a same metal material.
Hieda teaches the outer shell (outer coating) (4) and the inner shell (inner cover) (5) being made of a same metal material (aluminum) (see Examples and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination with the outer shell and the inner shell are made of a same metal material as taught by Hieda. One would motivated to make this combination in order to provide a temperature sensor that is cost effective.
Regarding claim 13, Daily further teaches the inner shell (mounting pad) (42) having a rectangular shape (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Daily teaches a method of manufacturing a temperature sensor device, comprising:
providing the temperature sensor device (thermocouple) (14); and manufacturing a housing (assembly) (10), the housing (assembly) (10) having an outer shell (heat shield) (46), an inner shell (mounting pad) (42), an outer cavity (receptacle) (50) enclosed between the outer shell (heat shield) (46) and the inner shell (mounting pad) (42), the outer shell (heat shield) (46), the inner shell (mounting pad) (42), and the outer cavity (receptacle) (50) thermally insulate a measuring cavity (recess) (36) and a measuring surface (bottom surface) (32) from an environment of the object (tube surface) (30), the temperature sensor device (thermocouple) (14) being disposed in the measuring cavity (recess) (36).
However, Daily does not explicitly teach manufacturing a housing by 3D metal printing, injection molding, or machining, a measuring cavity shell and the measuring cavity being defined by the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface.
Machining is very well known in the art as evidenced by Devey (see paragraph 0050).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing as taught by the prior combination being manufactured by machining as taught by Devey. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a temperature sensor that is cost effective.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity being defined by the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface.
Hieda teaches a measuring cavity shell (top surface of substrate (2) where hole (3) is formed; see Figures 2-3), a measuring cavity (hole) (3) defined by the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface shell (top surface of substrate (2) where hole (3) is formed; see Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination with a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity being defined by the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface as taught by Hieda. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to avoid the influence of radiation from the external environment.
Regarding claim 17, Daily teaches the temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14) being located above the measuring surface (bottom surface) (32) (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hieda further teaches the temperature sensor element (temperature sensor) (1) being located below a top portion of the measuring cavity shell (the temperature sensor is arranged in the hole (3) for the support substrate (2); see examples and Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination the temperature sensor element being located below a top portion of the measuring cavity shell as taught by Hieda. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to avoid the influence of radiation from the external environment.
Regarding claim 19, Daily further teaches the temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14) being located above the surface of the object (tube surface) (30) (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Daily further teaches the temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14) does not contact the surface of the object (tube surface) (30) (see Figure 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily in view of Devey in view of Hieda as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Ahrend et al. (DE 102015001405) (hereinafter Ahrend).
Regarding claim 9, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
However, Daily as modified by Devey and Hieda does not explicitly teach the inner cavity and/or the outer cavity is a vacuum
Ahrend teaches an inner cavity being a vacuum (see page 5, lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination with the inner cavity with a vacuum as taught by Ahrend. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a good thermal insulation as known in the art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daily in view of Devey in view of Hieda in further view of Richards (US 5558436) (hereinafter Richards).
Regarding claim 21, Daily teaches a temperature sensor device for sensing a temperature of a surface of an object, comprising:
a temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14);
and a housing (assembly) (10) having a measuring cavity (recess) (36) in which the temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14) is disposed (see Figures 1, 3 and 4), a measuring surface (bottom surface) (32) contacting the surface of the object (tube surface) (30), an outer shell (heat shield) (46), an inner shell (mounting pad) (42), and an outer cavity (receptacle) (50) formed between the outer shell (heat shield) (46) and the inner shell (mounting pad) (42), the measuring surface (bottom surface) (30) of the housing (assembly) (10) forms a bottom of the measuring cavity (recess) (36) and separates the temperature sensor element (thermocouple) (14) from the surface of the object (tube surface) (30) (see Figures 1, 3 and 4 and column 3, lines 21-62 and column 4, lines 13-42).
However, Daily does not explicitly teach a thermistor, a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity is eclosed between the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface.
Devey teaches a thermistor (thermistor) (see paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor as taught by Daily with a thermistor as taught by Devey. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a temperature sensor that has fast response, is cost efficient and is widely available.
However, Daily as modified by Devey does not explicitly teach a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity is eclosed between the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface.
Richards teaches a measuring cavity shell (back aluminum cover (17)), the measuring cavity (space occupied by sensing element (14)) being enclosed between the measuring cavity shell (back of aluminum cover (17)) and the measuring surface (aluminum cover) (17) (see Figure 2 and column 2, lines 30-49).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor device as taught by the prior combination with the housing having a measuring cavity shell, the measuring cavity is enclosed between the measuring cavity shell and the measuring surface as taught by Richard. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide an accurate temperature measurement by thermally isolating the temperature sensor from unwanted thermal radiation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument in page 2 of the Remarks that: “Daily does not teach ‘an outer cavity enclosed between the outer shell and the inner shell’ ”, this argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the claim language does not exclude the Prior Art. Daily discloses in Figure 4 an outer cavity (receptacle) (50) enclosed (at least partially) between the outer shell (heat shield) (46) and the inner shell (mounting pad) (42). Therefore, Daily meets the claimed language as claimed in claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 16, applicant have presented similar arguments to those presented for independent claim 1. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/JANICE M SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855