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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group II, and Species C without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-14 are examined, remaining claims are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK, KR 20180019892 A.
Claim 8
PARK in figs.1-3 discloses:
A liquid leakage sensor that detects a liquid (see section: technical Field), comprising:
a first detector (100,200) that detects adhesion of the liquid based on a change in impedance (e.g., ¶0018) between a first electrode (110) and a second electrode (120); and
a heater (300,150) that heats (e.g., ¶0011,¶0020-¶0021) the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120.
Claim 13
PARK teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, wherein a base material of the first electrode and the second electrode contains copper (e.g., ¶0019).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A.
Claim 14
PARK teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, wherein a temperature of the heater is set to be equal to or higher than an environmental temperature around the liquid leakage sensor (e.g., ¶0001¶0005) .
PARK teaches most aspects of the instant invention. However, PARK does not explicitly teach around the liquid leakage sensor and equal to or lower than 200 degrees C. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that temperatures provided by the heater would affect sensitivity of sensing to solve the problem of leakage in a solid state due to freezing ( see PARK ¶0004¶0005). The specific claimed equal to or lower than 200 degrees C, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” degrees C Temperature disclosed by PARK that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired temperature, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the equal to or lower than 200 degrees C is used, as already suggested by PARK. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the equal to or lower than 200 degrees C stated and since these equal to or lower than 200 degrees C. are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of PARK. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed equal to or lower than 200 degrees C or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A in view of Takano, US 20130276517 A1.
Claim 9
PARK teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, but does not teach wherein the heater is a micro-heater.
In the similar field of endeavor, Takano in e.g., fig.5 teaches wherein the heater is a micro-heater (e.g., ¶0064 sensors 30,31 include microheater).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Takano‘s microheater for PARK‘s heater. One of ordinary skill in the art knows the microheater is capable of heating a small area of about several tens of micrometers square would have been motivated to make this modification in order to solve large and heavy detectors (e.g., Takano: ¶0008-¶0009) .
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A in view of MEIER , US 20230183880 A1.
Claim 10
PARK teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, further comprising:
an insulator including a first insulating layer 200, a second insulating layer 100, and a third insulating layer 300,
wherein the first insulating layer 200, the second insulating layer 100, and the third insulating layer 300 are stacked (better shown on fig.3) in an order of the third insulating layer 300, the second insulating layer 100, and the first insulating layer 200,
wherein the second insulating layer 100 includes the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120,
wherein the third insulating layer 300 includes the heater 150,
wherein the first insulating layer 200 is formed with an opening (210,220) penetrating in a normal direction ( better shown on fig. 1) of the main surface (since they are stacked also normal direction main surface 200), and
wherein the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120 are exposed in a region overlapping with the opening when the main surface is viewed from above (as clearly shown on figs.1 and 3).
PARK does not specifically teach a substrate having a main surface ; and wherein the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer , and the third insulating layer are on the main surface.
Examiner holds it is common knowledge in the art to use substrate to support different stacked layers of sensor, for example:
In the similar field of endeavor, MEIER in fig.8 teaches a substrate 200 having a main surface ; and wherein the first layer 800, the second layer802 , and the third layer 804 are on the main surface 200.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MEIER‘s substrate for PARK‘s insulating layers wherein the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer , and the third insulating layer are on the modified PARK’s main surface. One of ordinary skill in the art knows substrates support, protect, and sometimes actively enhances the sensing elements and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use these benefits (see e.g., ¶0004 of MEIER) .
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A in view of YU, WO 2019143176 A1.
Claim 11
PARK teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, further comprising:
a first connector (P1,P4) that connects the heater (150 ,via 130,140)and a first external device (e.g., ¶0023) ; and
a second connector (P2,P3)that connects the first detector (100,110,120) and a second external device (¶0023),
PARK does not specifically teach wherein the first connector and the second connector are covered with a waterproof resin.
In the similar field of endeavor, YU teaches connectors 200 and teaches (see underlined portions on translation copy on pages7-8 and 12 for , fluorocarbon resin) to protect layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use YU‘s resin for PARK‘s connectors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect connectors while increasing sensitivity (see underlined portions on translation copy on pages7-8 and 12).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A in view of MIZUKOSHI1, JP 2020169907 A.
Claim 12
PARK teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode have a combteeth-like shape.
In the similar field of endeavor, MIZUKOSHI teaches wherein the first electrode 46 and the second electrode 47 have a combteeth-like shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MIZUKOSHI ‘s combteeth-like shape for PARK‘s electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to covering larger surface areas, better contact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record