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 January 29, 2026.
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are currently pending. Claims 1-5 and 17 have been amended. Claims 14 has been canceled. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner inadvertently did not set forth prior art rejection of claim 17. Komatsu et al. (WO2021124474A1) (hereinafter Komatsu) in view of Tu (US20160231008A1) (hereinafter Tu) teaches all the limitations of claim 17. A Non-Final is set forth below.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (WO2021124474A1) (hereinafter Komatsu) in view of Tu (US20160231008A1) (hereinafter Tu).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsu teaches a housing assembly comprising:
a housing (101) (see paragraph 0020);
a temperature sensor (60) abutting an outer wall of the housing (101) (see paragraph 0045 and fig. 5);
and a fixing bracket (10) comprising a fixing portion (42) and connection portions (41) located on two sides of the fixing portion (42) (see paragraphs 0045, 0051 and fig. 5 and 7), wherein:
the connection portions (41) is fixedly connected to the housing (101) (see fig. 7);
a mounting cavity (45) is formed between the fixing portion (42) and the housing (101) (see paragraphs 0052, 0072 and fig. 7);
the temperature sensor (60) is located in the mounting cavity (45) (see paragraphs 0053, 0072 and fig. 7);
the fixing portion (42) comprises a top plate (42a) and side plates (42b) connected to two sides of the top plate (42a) (see fig. 7);
each top plate (42a) and the side plates (42b) abuts the temperature sensor (60) and each of the side plates (42b) is in contact with the temperature sensor (60) at a position, relative to the housing (101), higher than a longitudinal axis of the temperature sensor (60), relative to the housing (101) (see fig. 7 and 11-12);
and the fixing portion (42) has an inlet end to allow the temperature sensor (60) to be mounted in the mounting cavity (45) and a pressing sheet (bifurcated portion (24) of spring (20)) is disposed at an end of each of the side plates (42b) facing away from the inlet end (see fig. 7), the pressing sheet (bifurcated portion (24) of spring (20)) extending in an axial direction of the temperature sensor (60) (see fig. 7).
However, Komatsu does not explicitly teach an angle formed between the top plate and each of the side plates is an obtuse angle.
Tu teaches an angle formed between the top plate (plate) (1) and each of the side plates (side plate) (2) is an obtuse angle (angle greater than 90 degrees) (see fig. 2 and page 2, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixing portion of Komatsu with an angle formed between the top plate and each of the side plates is an obtuse angle as taught by Tu. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to allow the fixing assembly to accommodate sensors with different shapes or sizes.
Regarding claim 2, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Komatsu further teaches the inlet end is provided with an arc-shaped protrusion (21c) facing towards the temperature sensor (60), and the arc-shaped protrusion (21c) abuts the temperature sensor (60) (see paragraphs 0059, 0062, 0084, 0086, 0094 and Figs. 7, 9, 11-12).
Regarding Claim 15, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Komatsu further teaches wherein a weld (see paragraph 0052) is disposed on each of the connection portions (41) (see fig. 6), the connection portion (41) being welded to the housing (101) through the weld (see paragraphs 0052-0053).
Regarding Claim 16, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Komatsu further teaches a compressor (101) (see paragraph 0052) comprising the housing assembly (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 16, Komatsu further teaches an air conditioner comprising the compressor (101) (see paragraphs 0012 and 0052 and fig. 5).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Tu as applied to claim 2, in further view of Mohammad et al. (US2020/0011740A1) (hereinafter Mohammad).
Regarding claim 3, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 2,
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu does not explicitly teach in an axial direction of the temperature sensor, the mounting cavity is tapered in a direction facing away from the inlet end.
Mohammad teaches in an axial direction of the temperature sensor (104), the mounting cavity is tapered (152) in a direction facing away from the inlet end (see paragraphs 0050 and 0052; figs. 5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination with in an axial direction of the temperature sensor, the mounting cavity is tapered in a direction facing away from the inlet end as taught by Mohammad. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to secure a hosing assembly where the mounting cavity is tapered away from the inlet end which would restrict the movement of the temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 4, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 2, Komatsu further teaches the side plates comprise two side plates (42b) (see fig. 42b).
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu does not explicitly teach a distance between the two side plates decreasing in a direction facing away from the inlet end.
Mohammad teaches wherein a distance between the two side plates decreases away from the inlet end (see paragraphs 0050 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination with a distance between the two side plates decreasing in a direction facing away from the inlet end as taught by Mohammad. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to secure a hosing assembly where the mounting cavity is tapered away from the inlet end which would restrict the movement of the temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 5, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu does not explicitly teach a distance between the top plate and the housing decreases in a direction facing away from the inlet end.
Mohammad teaches wherein a distance between the top plate and the housing decreases in a direction facing away from the inlet end (crimped end 122) (see paragraphs 0050 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination with a distance between the top plate and the housing decreases in a direction facing away from the inlet end as taught by Mohammad. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to secure a hosing assembly where the mounting cavity is tapered away from the inlet end which would restrict the movement of the temperature sensor.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 3, Komatsu in view of Tu and Mohammad teaches each of a width and a height of an end (112) of the mounting cavity facing away from the inlet end is smaller than a diameter of the temperature sensor (104) (see Mohammad; paragraphs 0052 and 0052; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 4, Komatsu in view of Tu and Mohammad teaches each of a width and a height of an end (112) of the mounting cavity facing away from the inlet end is smaller than a diameter of the temperature sensor (104) (see Mohammad; paragraphs 0052 and 0052; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 5, Komatsu in view of Tu and Mohammad teaches each of a width and a height of an end (112) of the mounting cavity facing away from the inlet end is smaller than a diameter of the temperature sensor (104) (see Mohammad; paragraphs 0050 and 0052; Fig. 5).
Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Tu and Mohammad in further view of Casses et al. (US2017/0346241A1) (hereinafter Casses).
Regarding claim 9, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 3, Komatsu teaches wherein the inlet end (fig. 7) has an opening having a width greater than a diameter of the temperature sensor (fig. 12 where the temperature sensor is inserted into the opening cavity).
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad does not explicitly teach a flared opening.
Casses teaches a flared opening (44) (see paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination to have a flared opening as taught by Casses. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to secure a housing assembly with a flared opening facilitating the insertion of the temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 10, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 4, Komatsu teaches wherein the inlet end (fig. 7) has an opening having a width greater than a diameter of the temperature sensor (fig. 12 where the temperature sensor is inserted into the opening cavity).
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad does not explicitly teach a flared opening.
Casses teaches a flared opening (44) (see paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination to have a flared opening as taught by Casses. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to secure a housing assembly with a flared opening facilitating the insertion of the temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 11, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 5, Komatsu teaches wherein the inlet end (fig. 7) has an opening having a width greater than a diameter of the temperature sensor (fig. 12 where the temperature sensor is inserted into the opening cavity).
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad does not explicitly teach a flared opening.
Casses teaches a flared opening (44) (see paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination to have a flared opening as taught by Casses. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to secure a housing assembly with a flared opening facilitating the insertion of the temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 14 the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad does not explicitly a pressing sheet is disposed at an end of each of the side plates facing away from the inlet end, the pressing sheet extending in the axial direction of the temperature sensor.
Casses teaches wherein a pressing sheet (at least 34) is disposed at an end (see fig. 1) of each of the two side plates facing away from the inlet end (fig. 1 where clearly at least 34 is facing away from an inlet), the pressing sheet (34) extending in the axial direction of the temperature sensor (see paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination with a pressing sheet is disposed at an end of each of the side plates facing away from the inlet end, the pressing sheet extending in the axial direction of the temperature sensor as taught by Casses. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to clamp and secure the temperature sensor in place.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Tu and Mohammad in view of Casses, in further view of Liu et al. (CN203404870U) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 12, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad and Casses does not explicitly teach a heat-sensitive sleeve is sleeved on the temperature sensor, an outer diameter of the heat-sensitive sleeve being greater than the width of the flared opening.
Liu teaches a measuring assembly for outdoor machine of air conditioner and further teaches a heat-sensitive sleeve (221) (see paragraph 0053) is sleeved over the temperature sensor (see paragraph 0053), an outer diameter (231) of the heat-sensitive sleeve being greater than the width of the flared opening (see paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by the prior combination to have a heat-sensitive sleeve is sleeved over the temperature sensor, an outer diameter of the heat-sensitive sleeve being greater than the width of the flared opening as taught by Liu. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to secure a housing assembly with a heat-sensitive sleeve sleeved over the temperature sensor with an outer diameter of the heat-sensitive sleeve being greater than the width of the flared opening.
Regarding claim 13, the prior combination teaches all the imitations of claim 12.
However, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad and Casses and Liu does not explicitly teach a length of the fixing portion is smaller than an effective temperature-sensing length of the temperature sensor in the axial direction of the temperature sensor.
Although, Komatsu as modified by Tu and Mohammad and Casses and Liu does not explicitly teach a length of the fixing portion is smaller than an effective temperature-sensing length of the temperature sensor in the axial direction of the temperature sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the length of the temperature sensor in an axial direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide more accurate temperature measurements.
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights