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 amendment filed 19 March 2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the controller of Lu is only sensing thermal radiation or a change in electrical conductivity and therefore does not read on the limitation of detecting a phase change. Applicant additionally argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Schneider with Lu because there is no reason to combine the references. As the claim is written, the controller is required to detect two excitation responses wherein excitation responses indicate that a phase change has occurred because it has reached a phase change temperature. Therefore, if there is a controller in the prior art that can sense the temperature (excitation response), the Examiner considers it to read onto the claimed invention. In the instant case, Schneider teaches excitation responses of magnetic particles in response to excitation by an electromagnetic field, but not by a controller. However, Lu does teach a controller that is coupled to the excitation source (Paragraph [0024]), is integrated with a sensor head (Paragraph [0010]), and receive signals of temperature (Paragraph [0042]). Given that both references are magnetic temperature sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found both references in a search for how to sense temperature through a change in magnetic properties and would have been motivated to combine the controller of Lu with the invention of Schneider in order to have more control over the experimental scenario, such as manipulating characteristics of the driving coil (Lu [0024]) or transmitting results to other devices (Lu [0024]). Therefore, the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10 are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6030118 A (Schneider) and further in view of US 20160252415 A1 (Lu).
Regarding claim 1: Schneider teaches a sensor, comprising: a plurality of enclosures (2, Fig. 1 shows an enclosure; Col. 8 Lns. 19-20 discloses a plurality of units, each having a respective enclosure); a plurality of phase change materials (3, Fig. 1) each disposed in a corresponding enclosure of the plurality of enclosures (Col. 8 Lns. 19-20 discloses a plurality of units, each having a respective phase change material), wherein at least a first phase transition temperature of a first phase change material of the plurality of phase change materials is different than a second phase transition temperature of a second phase change material of the plurality of phase change materials (Col. 8 Lns. 20-24); and a plurality of particles disposed in the plurality of enclosures (Col. 3 Lns. 25-27); a coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field configured to excite the plurality of particles (Col. 4 Lns. 8-11), wherein: exciting corresponding particles of an enclosure when the corresponding particles are disposed in a first location causes a first excitation response (Col. 4 Lns. 1-7: particles are magnetized by using the coil when the system is in the first configuration, e.g. as shown in Fig. 3. This causes a first response signal to the applied magnetic field), and exciting the corresponding particles of the enclosure when the corresponding particles are disposed in a second location causes a second excitation response (should the magnetic field generated by the coil be applied to the system in a different configuration from the initial one, e.g. as shown in Fig. 4, the particles would generate a second response signal different from the first response signal).
Schneider does not directly teach that the first excitation response is detectable by a controller or that the second excitation response is detectable by the controller indicating a corresponding phase change material of the enclosure has reached a corresponding phase transition temperature such that the corresponding particles moved from the first location to the second location.
However, Lu teaches a controller (24) coupled to the excitation source (40) (see at least paragraph [0024]).
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 excitations response of Schneider with the detection methods of Lu. This is because they are both magnetic temperature sensors. This is important in order to detect and manage excitation responses.
Regarding claim 2: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), wherein the plurality of particles are magnetic particles (Col. 3 Lns. 25-27).
Regarding claim 3: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), wherein each of the plurality of enclosures includes a phase change material that is different than remaining phase change materials of the plurality of phase change materials (Col. 8 Lns. 20-24).
Regarding claim 4: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), further comprises adhesive pads configured to attach the sensor to an object (Col. 3 Lns 46-53). Schneider does not directly teach that the sensor is removably attached.
However, the apparatus of Schneider is meant to irreversibly indicate the temperature it measures. Therefore, it is implied that the apparatus is removably attached so that it may be replaced once it crosses the threshold and makes its indication.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to removably attach the sensor to an object in light of the invention of Schneider.
Regarding claim 5: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the plurality of enclosures are disposed around the coil.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil moved past the container (Col. 4 Lns 8-11).
Applicant has not disclosed that placing the enclosures around the coil provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of generating a magnetic field.
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 coil placement of Schneider with enclosures around the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected placing the enclosures around the coil to be one of several straightforward ways of generating a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 6: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the coil is arranged as a square and the plurality of enclosures includes one enclosure on each of four sides of the square.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil moved past the container (Col. 4 Lns 8-11).
Applicant has not disclosed that placing the enclosures around the coil provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of generating a magnetic field.
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 coil placement of Schneider with enclosures around the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected placing the enclosures around the coil to be one of several straightforward ways of generating a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 7: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the coil is arranged as an octagon and the plurality of enclosures includes one enclosure on each of eight sides of the octagon.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil moved past the container (Col. 4 Lns 8-11).
Applicant has not disclosed that placing the enclosures around the coil provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of generating a magnetic field.
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 coil placement of Schneider with enclosures around the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected placing the enclosures around the coil to be one of several straightforward ways of generating a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 9: Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that it further comprises two or more terminals electrically coupled with the coil.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil fed with a current (Col. 4 Lns. 11-12).
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 current-fed coil of Schneider with two or more terminals electrically coupled with the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have the coil to have terminals in order for the current to be supplied.
Regarding claim 10: Schneider teaches a temperature detection system, comprising: a plurality of sensors (2, Figs. 1-6; Col. 8 Lns. 18-19), each including: a plurality of enclosures (2, Fig. 1 shows an enclosure; Col. 8 Lns. 19-20 discloses a plurality of units, each having a respective enclosure); a plurality of phase change materials (3, Fig. 1) each disposed in a corresponding enclosure of the plurality of enclosures (Col. 8 Lns. 19-20 discloses a plurality of units, each having a respective phase change material), wherein at least a first phase transition temperature of a first phase change material of the plurality of phase change materials is different than a second phase transition temperature of a second phase change material of the plurality of phase change materials (Col. 8 Lns. 20-24); and a plurality of particles disposed in the plurality of enclosures (Col. 3 Lns. 25-27); a coil configured to generate an electromagnetic (EM) field configured to excite the plurality of particles (Col. 4 Lns. 8-11), wherein: exciting corresponding particles of an enclosure when the corresponding particles are disposed in a first location causes a first excitation response (Col. 4 Lns. 1-7: particles are magnetized by using the coil when the system is in the first configuration, e.g. as shown in Fig. 3. This causes a first response signal to the applied magnetic field), and exciting the corresponding particles of the enclosure when the corresponding particles are disposed in a second location causes a second excitation response (should the magnetic field generated by the coil be applied to the system in a different configuration from the initial one, e.g. as shown in Fig. 4, the particles would generate a second response signal different from the first response signal).
Schneider does not directly teach a first excitation response detectable by a controller, a second excitation response detectable by the controller indicating a corresponding phase change material of the enclosure has reached a corresponding phase transition temperature such that the corresponding particles moved from the first location to the second location, nor that a controller configured to: apply an excitation voltage or an excitation current for generating the EM field, determine, based on a characteristic of the excitation voltage or the excitation current, a temperature or a temperature range reached by the temperature detection system.
However, Lu teaches and a controller (controller 42) coupled to the excitation source (40) (see at least paragraph [0024]) and configured to: apply an excitation voltage or an excitation current for generating the EM field (excitation source 40), determine, based on a characteristic of the excitation voltage or the excitation current, a temperature or a temperature range reached by the temperature detection system ("This change in conductivity may be used to determine the temperature of the shaft 14", Para [0042]).
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 excitations response of Schneider with the detection methods of Lu. This is because they are both magnetic temperature sensors. This is important in order to detect and manage excitation responses.
Regarding claim 11: Modified Schneider teaches the temperature detection system of claim 10 (see above), wherein the plurality of particles are magnetic particles (Schneider: Col. 3 Lns. 25-27).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Schneider teaches the temperature detection system of claim 10 (see above), wherein, for each of the plurality of sensors, each of the plurality of enclosures includes a phase change material that is different than remaining phase change materials of the plurality of phase change materials (Schneider: Col. 8 Lns. 20-24).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Schneider teaches the temperature detection system of claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of sensors further comprises adhesive pads configured to removably attach the sensor to an object (Schneider: Col. 3 Lns 46-53). Modified Schneider does not directly teach that the sensor is removably attached.
However, the apparatus of Schneider is meant to irreversibly indicate the temperature it measures. Therefore, it is implied that the apparatus is removably attached so that it may be replaced once it crosses the threshold and makes its indication.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to removably attach the sensor to an object in light of the invention of Schneider.
Regarding claim 14: Modified Schneider teaches the temperature detection system of claim 10 (see above), but does not directly teach that, for each of the plurality of sensors, the plurality of enclosures are disposed around the coil.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil moved past the container (Schneider: Col. 4 Lns 8-11).
Applicant has not disclosed that placing the enclosures around the coil provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of generating a magnetic field.
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 coil placement of Schneider with enclosures around the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected placing the enclosures around the coil to be one of several straightforward ways of generating a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 15: Modified Schneider teaches the temperature detection system of claim 10 (see above), but does not directly teach that, for each of the plurality of sensors, the coil is arranged as a square and the plurality of enclosures includes one enclosure on each of four sides of the square.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil moved past the container (Col. 4 Lns 8-11).
Applicant has not disclosed that placing the enclosures around the coil provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of generating a magnetic field.
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 coil placement of Schneider with enclosures around the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected placing the enclosures around the coil to be one of several straightforward ways of generating a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 16: Modified Schneider teaches the temperature detection system of claim 10 (see above), but does not directly teach that, for each of the plurality of sensors, the coil is arranged as an octagon and the plurality of enclosures includes one enclosure on each of eight sides of the octagon.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil moved past the container (Col. 4 Lns 8-11).
Applicant has not disclosed that placing the enclosures around the coil provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of generating a magnetic field.
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 coil placement of Schneider with enclosures around the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected placing the enclosures around the coil to be one of several straightforward ways of generating a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 10 (see above), but does not directly teach that it further comprises two or more terminals electrically coupled with the coil.
However, Schneider does disclose a coil fed with a current (Col. 4 Lns. 11-12).
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 current-fed coil of Schneider with two or more terminals electrically coupled with the coil. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have the coil to have terminals in order for the current to be supplied.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6030118 A (Schneider) and US 20160252415 A1 (Lu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9039280 B2 (Peroulis).
Regarding claim 19: Modified Schneider teaches the sensor of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the controller is configured to detect a resonant frequency of the electromagnetic field to determine a temperature or a temperature range reached by the sensor.
However, Peroulis teaches “MEMS sensor arrangement includes a multimorph MEMS sensor which is a micro-scale beam, typically a cantilever, whose deflection is temperature-dependent. This deflection is sensed capacitively. Specifically, capacitance changes versus temperature, resulting in changes in resonant frequency versus temperature, are measured when integrated with an inductor.” (Paragraph [0044]).
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 controller of Modified Schneider with the resonant frequency measurements of Peroulis. This is because they both use frequency to measure temperature (in at least Lu [0024] and Peroulis [0044]). This is important in order to take temperature measurements where there is potential for high temperatures, moving and rotating parts, and where there is no line of sight for communication with a sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA FITZPATRICK whose telephone number is (703)756-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JULIA FITZPATRICK/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855