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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 4/8/26, has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending upon entry of this Amendment, claims 1-7 and 15-16 are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered and are moot as the amendments necessitated new ground of rejection in view of Otomaru, US 10768131 B2.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites “a first that connects the one end of the heater and the third connector, and a second via that connects the other end of the heater and the fourth connector.” it is not clear what are first and second rendering claim indefinite. For examination, it is interpreted as first and second elements connected to the heater and connectors.
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.
Claims 8,10, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A in view of Otomaru, US 10768131 B2.
Claim 8
PARK in figs.1-3 discloses:
A liquid leakage sensor that detects a liquid (see section: technical Field), comprising:
an insulator including a first insulating layer 200, a second insulating layer 100, and a third insulating layer 300, which are stacked in an order of (fig.3) the third insulating layer 300, the second insulating layer 100, and the first insulating layer 200,
wherein the second insulating layer 100 includes a first electrode and a second electrode
a first detector (110,120) that detects adhesion of the liquid based on a change in impedance (e.g., ¶0018) between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (120);
a heater (300,150) is arranged in the third insulating layer 300 and that heats (e.g., ¶0011,¶0020-¶0021) the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120, a first connector p2 and a second connector p3 arranged in the first insulating layer 200,
wherein the first connector p2 connects the first electrode 110 and a first external device (detector change in impedance device), and the second connector p3 connects the second electrode 120 and the first external device (detector change in impedance device); and
a third connector p1 and a fourth connector p4 arranged in the first insulating layer 200,
wherein the third connector p1,130 and the fourth connector p4,140 connect the heater 150 and a second external device (device to produce current for heater).
PARK does not specifically teach : a substrate having a main surface; an insulator including a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer, which are stacked on the main surface, wherein when the main surface is viewed in the normal direction from above, one end of the first electrode is arranged to overlap with the first connector, and one end of the second electrode is arranged to overlap with the second connector, and
wherein when the main surface is viewed in the normal direction from above, one end of the heater is arranged to overlap with the third connector, and the other end of the heater is arranged to overlap with the fourth connector.
In the similar field of endeavor, Otomaru teaches:
a substrate (2 in Fig. 1E) having a main surface (2); an insulator including a first insulating layer (Fig.1A), a second insulating layer (Fig.1B,1C), and a third insulating layer (Fig.1D), which are stacked on the main surface 2, wherein when the main surface 2 is viewed in the normal direction from above, one end of the first electrode 3a, 6a,5a is arranged to overlap with the first connector (4a), and one end of the second electrode 3d,6d,5d is arranged to overlap with the second connector (4d), and
wherein when the main surface 2 is viewed in the normal direction from above, one end of the heater (7,8a) is arranged to overlap with the third connector 9a , and the other end of the heater 7 is arranged to overlap with the fourth connector 9b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Otomaru‘s substrate having a main surface for park‘s sensor including a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, and a third insulating layer, which are stacked on the modified PARK’s main surface, wherein when the modified PARK’s main surface is viewed in the normal direction from above, one end of the first electrode is arranged to overlap with the modified PARK’s first connector, and one end of the second electrode is arranged to overlap with the modified PARK’s second connector, and wherein when the modified PARK’s main surface is viewed in the normal direction from above, one end of the heater is arranged to overlap with the modified PARK’s third connector, and the other end of the heater is arranged to overlap with the modified PARK’s fourth connector. One of ordinary skill in the art knows capability of detecting detection targets contained in exhaust gas with high accuracy is demanded in the sensor substrate and sensor device (e.g., col.1 lines 48-50 of Otomaru) would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have stacked layers while have a compact footprint.
Please note that although Otomaru‘s third and fourth connectors are not on the first insulating layer, however, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use connectors 4b,4c on the first insulating layer for heater 7, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 1010 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim 10
PARK in view of Otomaru teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, wherein the first insulating layer 200 is formed with an opening (210,220) penetrating in 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).
Claim 13
PARK in view of Otomaru 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 14
PARK in view of Otomaru 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 17
PARK in view of Otomaru teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, wherein the second insulating layer 100 includes: a first 130 that connects the one end of the heater 150 and the third connector p1, and a second 140 via that connects the other end of the heater 150 and the fourth connector p4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 A in view of Otomaru, US 10768131 B2 and Takano, US 20130276517 A1.
Claim 9
PARK in view of Otomaru 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, KR 20180019892 in view of Otomaru, US 10768131 B2 and YU, WO 2019143176 A1.
Claim 11
PARK in view of Otomaru teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8,
PARK does not specifically teach wherein the first connector and the second connector the third connector and the forth 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 Otomaru, US 10768131 B2 MIZUKOSHI1, JP 2020169907 A.
Claim 12
PARK in view of Otomaru teaches the liquid leakage sensor of claim 8, but does not teach 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights