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
This action is responsive to correspondence filed December 17, 2025.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending. Claim 2 has been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following elements: “regulating part” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2018/0364108) (hereinafter Tanaka) in view of Matsushima et al. (US 2020/0014083) (hereinafter Matsushima).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a temperature sensor comprising: a sensor part (regulating member) (7) detects a temperature of a part to be measured; and
a biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) that is capable of pressing the sensor part (regulating member) (7), wherein the biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) includes:
a pressing part (holding portion) (9) that presses the sensor part (regulating member) (7) toward the part to be measured;
a biasing part (coil spring) (4) that applies to the pressing part (holding portion) (9) a biasing force toward one side in a pressing direction in which the sensor part (regulating member) (7) is pressed toward the part to be measured; and
a part to be held (mounting member) (3) that is to be held by a holding member (locking frame) (2) in a state where movement of the part to be held (mounting member) (3) to the other side in the pressing direction is regulated, the part to be held (mounting member) (3) includes a locking piece (side walls) (34,35) that is elastically deformable in an intersecting direction intersecting with the pressing direction, and a locking part (locking portion) (37) that is provided on the locking piece (side walls) (34,35) and is to be locked by the holding member (locking frame) (2) in a state where movement of the locking part (locking portion) (37) to the other side in the pressing direction is regulated, and the biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) includes a regulating part (spring holding portion) (38) that regulates movement of the locking piece (side walls) (34, 35) in the intersecting direction and prevents release of locking between the locking part (locking portion) (37) and the holding member (locking frame) (102).
However, Tanaka does not explicitly teach a flexible thin-plate wire.
Matsushima teaches a flexible thin-plate wire (a flexible thin plate-like electric-wire) (20) (see paragraph 0043).
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 Tanaka being provided on a flexible thin-plate wire as taught by Matsushima. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide faster rection times compared to traditional sensor designs allowing for a more accurate temperature measurement. Additionally, flexible thin-plate wire allows for a compact design.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka further teaches the regulating part (spring holding portion) (38) includes a pressing part-side regulating wall (outer surface of spring holding portion (38)) which is provided in the pressing part (holding portion) (9) and with which the locking piece (side walls) (34, 35) is brought into contact before the locking between the (locking portion) (37) and the holding member (locking frame) (2) is released (see Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka further teaches a temperature sensor comprising: a sensor part (regulating member) (7) detects a temperature of a part to be measured; and a biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) that is capable of pressing the sensor part (regulating member) (7), wherein the biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) includes a biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) module including:
a pressing part (holding portion) (9) that presses the sensor part (regulating member) (7) toward the part to be measured; a biasing part (coil spring) (4) that applies to the pressing part (holding portion) (9) a biasing force toward one side in a pressing direction in which the sensor part (regulating member) (7) is pressed toward the part to be measured; and a part to be held (mounting member) (3) that engages with the pressing part (holding portion) (9) in a state where the biasing part (coil spring) (4) is placed therebetween, and the biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) module is configured to be held by a holding member (locking frame) (2) in a state where movement of the part to be held (mounting member) (3) to the other side in the pressing direction is regulated (see Figures 1-4).
However, Tanaka does not explicitly teach a flexible thin-plate wire.
Matsushima teaches a flexible thin-plate wire (a flexible thin plate-like electric-wire) (20) (see paragraph 0043).
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 Tanaka being provided on a flexible thin-plate wire as taught by Matsushima. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide faster rection times compared to traditional sensor designs allowing for a more accurate temperature measurement. Additionally, flexible thin-plate wire allows for a compact design.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches a temperature sensor comprising:
a sensor part (regulating member) (7) detects a temperature of a part to be measured; and a biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) that is capable of pressing the sensor part (regulating member) (7), wherein the biasing member (ceiling wall) (32) includes: a pressing part (holding portion) (9) that presses the sensor part (regulating member) (7) toward the part to be measured; a biasing part (coil spring) (4) that applies to the pressing part (holding portion) (9) a biasing force toward one side in a pressing direction in which the sensor part (regulating member) (7) is pressed toward the part to be measured; and a part to be held (mounting member) (3) that is to be held by a holding member (locking frame) (2) in a state where movement of the part to be held (mounting member) (3) to the other side in the pressing direction is regulated, the part to be held (mounting member) (3) is configured to be capable of being moved relative to the holding member (locking frame) (2) in an intersecting direction intersecting with the pressing direction, and in a state where the part to be held (mounting member) (3) has been moved in a relative manner in the intersecting direction to be positioned in a predetermined position with respect to the holding member (locking frame) (2), when the part to be held (mounting member) (3) is pressed by the biasing part (coil spring) (4) toward the other side in the pressing direction, the part to be held (mounting member) (3) is held by the holding member (locking frame) (2) in a state where movement of the part to be held (mounting member) (3) in the intersecting direction is regulated (see Figure 1-4).
However, Tanaka does not explicitly teach a flexible thin-plate wire.
Matsushima teaches a flexible thin-plate wire (a flexible thin plate-like electric-wire) (20) (see paragraph 0043).
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 Tanaka being provided on a flexible thin-plate wire as taught by Matsushima. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide faster rection times compared to traditional sensor designs allowing for a more accurate temperature measurement. Additionally, flexible thin-plate wire allows for a compact design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitations of the regulating part includes a locking part-side regulating wall that is included in the locking part and is to face the holding member in the intersecting direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant arguments in page 2 of the Remarks that “the ceiling wall 32 is part of the mounting member 3 and does not include the holding portion 9, the coil spring 4, and the mounting member 3.” This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submit that the biasing member/ceiling wall 32 when assembled in the temperature sensor 1 as disclosed in Tanaka figure 4 includes the pressing part/holding portion 9, the biasing part/coil spring 4, and the part to be held/mounting member 3. Therefore, the ceiling wall 32, the mounting member 3, the holding portion 9, the coil spring 4, and the mounting member 3 of Tanaka meets the claimed language as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding Applicant arguments in page 2 of the Remarks that “the regulating member 7 is a resin component that prevents contact with the thermistor 5 and the heat collecting plate 8 or the electric wire 6 and the heat collecting plate 8. The regulating member 7 does not detect a temperature of a part to be measured.” This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the regulating member 7 is part of the sensor main body 2, used for detecting temperature for example a cell in-vehicle battery. Therefore, the regulating member 7 meets that claimed language of “detecting a temperature to be measured” as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 2 of the Remarks that “the spring holding portion 38 of Tanaka does not regulate movement of the side walls 34, 35 (alleged locking piece) or prevent release of the locking between the locking portion 37 (alleged locking part) and the locking frame 102 (alleged holding member).” This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the spring holding portion 38 is the part connects the side walls 34, 35 to the spring 4, therefore, it regulates the intersecting direction and upward and downward movement of the walls 34, 35. Without the spring holding portion 38, the spring alone would not be connected to the walls 34, 35 to allow to regulate the movement of the walls 34, 35. Additionally, the holding portion 38 maintains the locking portion 37 firmly pressed against the locking frame 102 preventing the release of the locking between the locking portion 37 (alleged locking part) and the locking frame 102. Therefore, the spring holding portion 38, the side walls 34, 35, the locking portion 37 and the locking frame 102 as disclosed by Tanaka, meets the claimed language of “the biasing member includes a regulating part that regulates movement of the locking piece in the intersecting direction and prevents release of locking between the locking part and the holding member” as claimed in claim 1.
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 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