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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the assembled state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the assembled state of the housing parts". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore to this, the metes and bounds of the sought operative embodiment of the “housing for a sensor” are indefinitely defined as the claim recitation is predicated on a conditional state that is not necessitated. Applicant should structurally and/or functionally relate the parts of the housing so as to set forth clear metes and bounds of the operative embodiment (and likewise as seen in claim 8 that provides the housing of cl. 1).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the free ends of which". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the free ends of which". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the side webs or the free end thereof". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the outside of chamfers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the direction of the housing upper part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the interior". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the two apertures". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US 2013/0120945 A1), hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao teaches a housing comprising:
a housing upper part 10 (Fig. 2 and [0013]: “The upper cover 10 includes a top plate 11 and two first walls 12.”); and
a housing lower part 20 (Fig. 2 and [0014]: “Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, the bottom cover 20 further includes a bottom plate 21 and four sidewalls 23.”); wherein,
in the assembled state, the housing upper part 10 and the housing lower part 20 form a receiving space which is suitable to receive a circuit board 3 (Fig. 2 and [0012]: “The electronic device 100 includes a housing 1, a circuit board 3 received in the housing 1, a fixing portion 5, and a locking portion 7.” – Examiner further notes that this recitation is predicated on a conditional (“[when] in the assembled state”) which is not positively necessitated by the claim, and, as such, the recitations there relating to the conditional do not hold particular patentable weight.),
wherein the housing lower part comprises a deformable means 7 which, in the assembled state of the housing parts 10/20, are bent into the receiving space (Fig. 2 and [0022]: “The locking portion 7 is perpendicularly extends from the bottom plate 21. The locking portion 7 includes two locking parts 71 parallel with each other and two fixing components 73 respectively engaging with the locking parts 71. The line connecting with the two locking part 71 is parallel with the sidewall 23. Each locking parts 71 substantially corresponds to the supporting portion 53. The height of the locking part 71 is equal to the distance between the supporting portion 53 and the bottom plate 21. Each locking part 71 is a substantially frustum of a cone and is perpendicularly set on the bottom plate 21. Each of the locking parts 71 defines a locking hole 712 corresponding to the through hole 32. The locking hole 712 is a blind hole in a concavity depressed from the upper surface of the locking portion 71 in an axial direction. The inner surface of the locking hole 712 defines a screw thread for engaging with the fixing component 73. The fixing component 73 is screwed into the locking hole 712 to fix the end of the circuit board 3 on the bottom plate 21. In the embodiment, the fixing components 73 are two screws.” – The locking portions 7 are qualitatively “deformable” as, given a strong enough applied force, the structures would be expected to be deformed. Further, as the structures extend upward into the receiving space for the PCB 3, they are thereby “bent into” the receiving space. – Further, similarly as above, the recitation is predicated on a conditional (“in the assembled state”) not positively necessitated by the claim and, as such, the recitations thereto do not hold particular patentable weight.),
as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhao teaches the housing discussed above wherein the deformable means 7 comprise at least two side webs (The side conical surfaces of the deformable mounting means 7.), the free ends of which are bent toward one another (The surfaces converge toward/are bent toward each other.), as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Zhao teaches the housing discussed above wherein the side webs or the free end thereof rest under pressure on corresponding chamfers on the housing upper part and/or the housing lower part (See Fig. 3 showing the conical portions of the deformable means 7 resting on chamfered stepped edges of the housing lower part, the deformable means 7 being under pressure thereon by force of gravity.), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Zhao teaches the housing discussed above wherein the side webs are part of the housing lower part or are integrally molded on the housing lower part (Fig. 2 shows the side webs as integrally molded with the housing lower part 20.) and project with their free ends in the direction of the housing upper part (The free ends (which receive screws 73) are in the direction of the housing upper part 10.), and
wherein the side webs rest under pressure with their free ends laterally on the outside of chamfers in the interior of the housing upper part (See Fig. 2 showing the free ends of the deformable means 7 laterally on the outside of chamfers in the interior of the housing upper part, as provided through the bottom plate 21 of the housing lower part 20.) and, as a result, are bent into the receiving space while deforming (As this recitation is predicated on a conditional (“while deforming”) not positively required by the claim, such recitations thereto are not afforded patentable weight.),
as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Zhao teaches the housing discussed above wherein the side webs project from a support base for the circuit board and thus form a receiving trough for the circuit board (See Fig. 2 showing the side webs of the deformable means 7 forming a trough therebetween over which the circuit board 3 is inserted.), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further, Zhao teaches the housing discussed above wherein a plurality of apertures which are separated from one another by at least one dividing wall are formed in the support base of the receiving trough (See Fig. 2 showing a plurality of circular apertures in the bottom plate 21 adjacent to the PCB 3 and within the receiving trough formed by the deformable means 7, each being individually sepatrated by an internal cylindrical dividing wall.), and/OR wherein a further receiving trough for an optical filter adjoins the support base, wherein the further receiving trough is opposite the receiving trough for the circuit board, as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhao teaches the housing discussed above further comprising at least one latching lug, configured to engage in a recess in the housing upper part and/or on the housing lower part, formed on the housing lower part and/or on the housing upper part, so that the housing upper part and the housing lower part are connected to each other (See Fig. 2 showing screws on each end of the long sidewall of the lower part 20 facing outwardly corresponding to screw holes/grooves of the upper cover 10 so as to connect together the upper and lower parts.), as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the housing of Claim 1 (See the rejection of Claim 1 above.) and a circuit board 3, the edge regions of which are clasped by the deformable means 7, so that the circuit board 3 is pressed against a support base in the housing and is immovably clamped in the receiving space (See Fig. 2 showing the PCB 3 immobilized by screws so as to be immovably clamped in the receiving space by the deformable means 7.), as in Claim 8
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Battrell et al. (US 2018/0292319 A1), hereinafter “Battrell”. Zhou has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the circuit board carries at least one light-emitting diode (LED) for emitting excitation light and at least one photodiode for detecting fluorescent light, wherein the LED projects into a first aperture in the support base, wherein the photodiode projects into a second aperture in the support base, and wherein the two apertures are separated from each other by a non-transparent dividing wall, as in Claim 9.
However, Battrell teaches a respective housing and PCB sensor wherein a circuit board carries at least one light-emitting diode (LED) 1331 (Fig. 24A) for emitting excitation light and at least one photodiode 1337 (Fig. 24B and [0146]) for detecting fluorescent light (Abstract). Therein, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to merely substitute the sensor housing of Battrell with that of Zhou as the housings serve the identical purpose of immobilizing and protecting a PCB.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Zhou wherein the circuit board carries at least one light-emitting diode (LED) for emitting excitation light and at least one photodiode for detecting fluorescent light, such as suggested by Battrell, as a mere particular use of the housing of Zhou for its intended purpose of immobilizing and protecting a PCB.
Regarding the recitation: “wherein the LED projects into a first aperture in the support base, wherein the photodiode projects into a second aperture in the support base, and wherein the two apertures are separated from each other by a non-transparent dividing wall”, Battrell provides for such an aperture and spacing arrangement through the apertures 1304 and the dividing wall formed as a block holding the pin junction as seen through Fig. 23, and would be obvious to utilize in Zhou so as to maintain the particular sought optical arrangement of Battrell for its purpose of fluorescence measurement, and wherein apertures and dividing walls are common in fluorescence measurement devices for controlling the beam so as to avoid incident light from reaching the detector.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. Further, Zhou is modified with the apertures and dividing wall of Battrell as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therein, Battrell shows the dividing wall as resting on a dichroic filter 1334, thereby meeting the claim limitation “wherein the dividing wall rests with its lower end on an optical filter”.
Thus, as one skilled in the art would seek to maintain the particular optical arrangement of Battrell, as such optical arrangements are sensitive and specific, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when modifying Zhou in view of Battrell, that the dividing wall rests with its lower end on an optical filter, such as suggested by Battrell, so as to maintain the particular optical arrangement of Battrell within the generic housing of Zhou.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights