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
The amendments and remarks, filed on 5/18/2026, has been entered. The claim amendments overcome the previous claim objections of claims 2-27 and 112(b) rejection of claims 8 and 24.
The amendments and remarks, filed on 5/18/2026, has been entered. The claim amendments do not overcome the previous prior art rejection, and Applicants arguments are addressed below.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-35 are pending with claims 1-27 being examined and claims 28-35 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-9, 11-12, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundal et al (US 20140157864 A1; hereinafter “Sundal”; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sundal teaches a sensor (Sundal; Abstract), comprising:
a printed circuit board (Sundal; para [57]; a first PCB 200);
a detector mounted on the printed circuit board (Sundal; para [57]; Photodiode 202 is provided on a first PCB 200);
an inner dome that is electrically conductive and is mounted on the printed circuit board so as to form a diffusion chamber around the detector (Sundal; Fig. 3; para [58, 66]; second chamber part 108 is formed integrally with the rear housing part 104…First PCB 200 is dimensioned so that it extends substantially across the whole width of the inside of first chamber part 106); and
an outer dome that is electrically conductive and is mounted on the printed circuit board, surrounding the inner dome (Sundal; Fig. 2; para [58, 65]; First chamber part 106 is formed integrally with the front housing part 102…First PCB 200 is dimensioned so that it extends substantially across the whole width of the inside of first chamber part 106);
wherein the inner dome is configured to receive a first voltage and the outer dome is configured to receive a second, different voltage (Sundal; para [69]; the housing parts 102, 104, this is readily achieved either by forming the entire housing parts 102, 104 (including the integrally moulded chamber parts 106,108) of conductive material). The limitation “arranged to apply a first voltage to the inner dome and a second voltage to the outer dome” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The sensor disclosed by Sundal teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is arranged to and capable of performing the intended use and/or function language of applying the first voltage and the second voltage. Examiner notes that “a first voltage” and “a second voltage” are not positively recited elements of the claim, and therefore, are not elements of the claimed sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first voltage has a magnitude greater than that of the second voltage. Examiner notes that “a first voltage” and “a second voltage” are not positively recited elements of the claim, and therefore, are not elements of the claimed sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second voltage is ground. Examiner notes that “a first voltage” and “a second voltage” are not positively recited elements of the claim, and therefore, are not elements of the claimed sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor is arranged to apply a detector bias voltage to the detector. The limitation “arranged to apply a detector bias voltage to the detector” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The sensor disclosed by Sundal teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is arranged to and capable of performing the intended use and/or function language of applying a detector bias voltage to the detector. Examiner notes that “a detector bias voltage” are not positively recited elements of the claim, and therefore, are not elements of the claimed sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner dome is connected to a first conductive layer of the printed circuit board so as to form a faraday shield around the detector (Sundal; para [69]; when the first and second chamber parts 106, 108 are mated together, they are electrically connected and form a Faraday cage around the photodiode 202).
Regarding claim 7, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the outer dome is connected to a second conductive layer of the printed circuit board so as to form a faraday shield around the inner dome (Sundal; para [69]; when the first and second chamber parts 106, 108 are mated together, they are electrically connected and form a Faraday cage around the photodiode 202).
Regarding claim 8, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner dome and the outer dome are substantially the same shape and concentrically arranged (Sundal; Fig. 2, 3). Sundal teaches that the chamber part 106 and 108 are substantially the same shape.
Regarding claim 9, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner dome has a rounded shape (Sundal; Fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 11, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein a diffusion path for air exchange with the interior volume of the inner dome passes between the inner dome and the outer dome (Sundal; para [63]; the spacer ribs ensure a gap of at least 0.1 mm between the inner surface of the perimeter wall of the outer chamber 106 and the outer surface of the perimeter wall of the inner chamber 108. This gap provides the diffusion path by which gas may enter or leave the diffusion chamber).
Regarding claim 12, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 11, wherein an entrance to the diffusion path is located centrally in a roof of the outer dome (Sundal; para [18]; the first and second diffusion chamber parts are each formed as a tube, open at one end and closed at the other).
Regarding claim 19, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein a biasing member is provided to bias the outer dome towards the printed circuit board and to ensure electrical contact of the outer dome with the printed circuit board (Sundal; para [64]; The orientation of first PCB 200 is determined by aligning projections 120 on the inside of first chamber part 106 with locating holes 204 in first PCB 200).
Regarding claim 20, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 19, wherein the biasing member comprises one or more clips provided on the outer dome that extend through holes in the printed circuit board and engage with a side of the printed circuit board opposite the side on which the outer dome is located (Sundal; para [90]; the front and rear housing parts 102, 104 may be fixed together in any suitable way, e.g. via clips, hooks or screws).
Regarding claim 21, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 19, wherein the outer dome is arranged to bias the inner dome into electrical contact with the printed circuit board (Sundal; para [66]; the second chamber part 108 has a number of rim projections 112 which extend from the rim 109 of second chamber part 108 towards PCB 200…the two chamber parts 106, 108 are mated together as described above, it is these rim projections 112 which contact the first PCB 200 and hold it in position.
Regarding claim 22, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 21, wherein a spacer is provided between the outer dome and the inner dome so as to transmit a biasing force from the outer dome to the inner dome (Sundal; para [63]; twelve spacer ribs 110 are equally spaced around the perimeter wall of the first chamber part 106).
Regarding claim 23, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 22, wherein an entrance to a diffusion path is located centrally in a roof of the outer dome (Sundal; para [18]; the first and second diffusion chamber parts are each formed as a tube, open at one end and closed at the other), and wherein the spacer forms a ring around the entrance and has one or more holes or channels formed in its side wall to allow air to flow from the entrance along the diffusion path (Sundal; para [62, 63]; these spacer ribs 110 ensure that the chamber 105 is not air tight. The spacer ribs 110 ensure that gas can still diffuse from the outside of chamber 105…twelve spacer ribs 110 are equally spaced around the perimeter wall of the first chamber part 106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundal.
Regarding claim 10, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 9, wherein the inner dome has a rounded cuboid shape with rounded edges and corners. Sundal discloses the claimed invention except for the inner dome has a rounded cuboid shape with rounded edges and corners. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the shape of the inner dome, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). A change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundal in view of Ding (CN 101393144 A; hereinafter “Ding”; English translation attached; already of record).
Regarding claim 13, Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 1, with the printed circuit board.
Sundal does not teach wherein the sensor further comprises a gasket arranged to seal against a surface of the printed circuit board.
However, Ding teaches an analogous art of a diffusion-type accumulative alpha energy spectrum method for measuring radon gas in the soil (Ding; Abstract) comprising a printed circuit board (Ding; pp 4, para 7; circuit board 13) and a gasket (Ding; pp 4, para 7; O-shaped sealing ring 5) arranged to seal against a surface of the printed circuit board (Ding; Fig. 3; pp 6, para 2; circuit board 13 are provided with a system for circuit proof O-shaped sealing ring 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the sensor of Sundal to comprise the O-ring as taught by Ding, because Ding teaches that the O-ring provides a moisture-proof sealing from electronic circuit (Ding; pp 6, para 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sundal teaches the sensor as claimed in claim 13, wherein the gasket is biased against the printed circuit board by a lip formed on at least one of the inner dome and the outer dome (Sundal; Fig. 2, 3; the examiner interprets the lip as the bottom rim as seen in the figures and the gasket taught by Ding seals the printed circuit board).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 15 contains the allowable subject matter “wherein the gasket is located between the inner dome and the outer dome”. Claim 16 comprises the allowable subject matter based on the dependency on claim 15. Claim 17 contains the allowable subject matter “wherein the gasket seals against an outer surface of the inner dome except that one or more air channels are formed to bypass the gasket and are formed along the outer surface of the inner dome, connecting with a rim of the inner dome adjacent to the printed circuit board. Claim 18 comprises the allowable subject matter based on the dependency on claim 17. Claim 15 and 17 claim that the gasket is positioned between the inner dome and the outer dome positioned on the printed circuit board. The closest prior art being Gordon et al (US 20210364659 A1; hereinafter “Gordon”; priority filed on 5/20/2020; already of record) teaches a first sleeve and chamber parts wherein a gasket is positioned in between, but fails to disclose the printed circuit board. Thus, it would have not been obvious to modify Gordon, as Sundal is modified in view of Ding to disclose the gasket.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 24 contains the allowable subject matter “wherein the one or more locating recesses are deep that the one or more locating pins do not contact the bottom of the one or more recesses”. Claims 25-27 comprises the allowable subject matter based on the dependency on claim 24. The closest prior art being Sundal teaches that the one or more recesses are openings which the pins go through to secure the PCB to the inner dome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, and the arguments are not found to be persuasive. The non-persuasive arguments are addressed below.
In the Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, the Applicant argues that the claim amendments are patentable over Sundal. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Sundal does not teach the inner and outer dome being configured to receive different voltages because when the two parts are mated together, they would be in electrical contact and receive a single voltage. The limitations are directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the sensor, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Sundal and the inner dome and outer dome of Sundal is capable of “receiving a first voltage” and “receiving a second voltage”, respectively. As such, it is deemed that the claimed inner and outer dome is not differentiated from the inner and outer dome of Sundal (see MPEP §2114). The Applicant agrees that the inner and outer dome of Sundal is conductive, therefore the respective dome would be capable of receiving a voltage. Further, each respective dome would be capable of receiving different voltages prior to mating. The Examiner suggests the Applicant provide which structure is providing the voltage to the respective domes, and how the voltages are used by the sensor to potentially overcome the prior art.
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights