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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 02/06/26 regarding rejected claim 1 page 9-11, the new added limitation “the detection cavity is also located between the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly; and a plurality of light traps provided in the detection cavity that is located between the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly” has been found in new reference of Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of new reference of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512). Please see the following new rejection.
2. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/26/26, have been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 12-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512). Hereafter “Kirihara” and “Politze”. (Please see attached file for Kirihara’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Kirihara teaches an oil fume sensor comprising:
a housing having an accommodation cavity, an air inlet, and an air outlet, wherein a region of the accommodation cavity located between the air inlet and the air outlet is formed as a detection cavity that is in communication with the air inlet and the air outlet (figure 4, cover 110 is not different from a housing. Spaces 42, 44, 51, 52, area around the area DA, are not different from an accommodation cavity with the air inlet 101, the air outlet 102. The area around the area DA is not different from a detection cavity);
a light emitting assembly configured to emit light to the detection cavity (figure 4, a light emitting assembly 120, the area around the area DA is not different from the detection cavity);
a light receiving assembly configured to receive the light emitted from the light emitting assembly, wherein the detection cavity is also located between the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly (figure 4, the area around the area DA is not different from the detection cavity, which is located between the light emitting assembly 120 and a light receiving assembly 130); and
a plurality of light traps provided in the detection cavity that is located the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly, the plurality of light traps defining shapes of a plurality of light trap cavities inside the detection cavity (figure 4, a plurality of light traps 115, 40, 50, defining shapes of a plurality of light trap cavities inside the area around the area DA, a light receiving assembly 130, the light emitting assembly 120), wherein:
when oil fumes particles are absent in the detection cavity, light emitted from the light emitting assembly are reflected by the plurality of light traps into the plurality of light trap cavities inside the detection cavity to absorb and to trap the light emitted from the light emitting assembly inside the detection cavity (Figure 4, particles 2 are not different from oil fumes particles. Page 3, lines 41-44. It is inherent that when particles are absent, the light output from the light projection system 120, passed through the detection area, are reflected by the plurality of light traps 115, 40, 50, is absorbed and trapped); and
when oil fumes particles are present in the detection cavity:
a first portion of light emitted from the light emitting assembly is reflected by the oil fumes particles towards the light receiving assembly (figure 4, particles 2 are not different from oil fumes particles. It is inherent that a first portion of light emitted from the light emitting assembly 120 is reflected by the particle 2, towards the light receiving assembly 130); and
a second portion of light emitted from the light emitting assembly that are not reflected by the oil fumes particles are trapped and absorbed by the plurality of light trap cavities inside the detection cavity (figures 4, 11, 12, 13, particles 2 are not different from oil fumes particles. It is inherent that a second portion of light emitted from the light emitting assembly 120 that are not reflected by the particles 2 are trapped and absorbed by the plurality of light trap cavities 40, 50, 115. Page 3, lines 30-32, 41-45; Page 14, lines 16-32; Page 15, lines 20-32).
However, Kirihara does not teach a plurality of light traps is located between the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly. Politze teaches a plurality of light traps is located between the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly (figure 1, diaphragms 1.3a, 1.3b, 1.4a, 1.4b, are not different from light traps, which are is located between the light emitting assembly 1.1a, 1.1b and the light receiving assembly 1.2a, 1.2b; [0028]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara by having a plurality of light traps is located between the light emitting assembly and the light receiving assembly in order to avoid stray reflections (Politze, [0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, selection of roughness of a cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities is greater than or equal to 12.5 microns or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate roughness of a cavity wall for the benefit of well operated light trap cavity for the system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly both pass through the detection cavity. Kirihara teaches this limitation (figures 4, 10-14, optical axis of the light emitting assembly 120 and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly 130 both pass through the detection cavity, the area around the area DA is not different from a detection cavity).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the housing has a first side wall and a second side wall, the second side wall is tightly fitted to an outer side of the first side wall in such a way that the accommodation cavity forms an enclosed space. Kirihara teaches this limitation (figure 2, front cover 100 is not different from a first side wall, back cover 110 is not different from the second side wall).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a lower housing and an air inlet pipe penetrating the lower housing, the air inlet pipe internally includes an air inlet cavity, the air inlet being formed where the air inlet cavity communicates with the accommodation cavity, and the air inlet cavity tapering towards the air inlet. Kirihara teaches this limitation (figures 2, 4, spaces 42, 44, 51, 52, area around the area DA are not different from an accommodation cavity with the air inlet 101, back cover 110 is not different from a lower housing).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a detection cavity is formed where the accommodation cavity contacts oil fumes, the detection cavity having an inclined guide surface and a through hole that is formed at a lower cavity wall of the detection cavity, and the inclined guide surface is configured to guide an oil drop to be discharged out of the detection cavity through the through hole. Kirihara teaches this limitation (figures 2, 4, spaces 42, 44, 51, 52, area around the area DA are not different from an accommodation cavity, The area around the area DA is not different from a detection cavity. Surface from inlet 101 through particle 2 to outlet 102 is not different from an inclined guide surface and a through hole to guide particle drop to be discharged out of the detection cavity through the through hole).
7. Claim(s) 2-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512), further in view of JP 4157212 (JP4157212). Hereafter “Kirihara”, “Politze”, “JP4157212”. (Please see attached file for Kirihara’s reference. JP4157212’s reference is in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Kirihara in view of Politze teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for each one of the plurality of light trap cavities has a conical cross section. JP4157212 teaches the plurality of light trap cavities has a conical cross section, (figure 1, light traps A, B has shape similar to a conical cross section). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze by having a conical cross section light trap in order to remove stray light efficiently.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly; and a conical vertex at least one of the plurality of light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly, and the light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly. Kirihara teaches an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly (figures 4, 10-14, an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly 120 and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly 130). JP4157212 teaches a conical vertex of at least one of the plurality of light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly (figure 1, light trap A has a conical vertex falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly 4), and the light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly, (figure 1, light trap A arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze by having light trap arranged symmetrically in order to remove stray light efficiently.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 5, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly; and a conical vertex of at least one of the plurality of light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly, and the plurality of light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly. Kirihara teaches an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly (figures 4, 10-14, an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly 120 and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly 130). JP4157212 teaches a conical vertex of at least one of the light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light receiving assembly (figure 1, light trap B has a conical vertex falls on the optical axis of the light receiving assembly 4), and the light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light receiving assembly, (figure 1, light trap A arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light receiving assembly 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Harley by having light trap arranged symmetrically in order to remove stray light efficiently.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a plurality of protruding ribs of an arc-shaped section protrudes from a cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities. JP4157212 teaches a plurality of protruding ribs of an arc-shaped section protrudes from a cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities, (figure 1, light traps A, B, shielding plates 11, 12, are not different from a plurality of protruding ribs arc-shaped section). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze by having a plurality of protruding ribs in order to absorb stray light efficiently.
8. Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512), further in view of Clayton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0340899). Hereafter “Kirihara”, “Politze”, “Clayton”. (Please see attached file for Kirihara’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a color of cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities is black. Clayton teaches a color of cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities is black, ([0058], lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze by having oblique angle being about 70 degrees in order to implement light trap cavity with anti-reflective wall ([0058], lines 10-14).
9. Claim(s) 10-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512), further in view of further in view of Lind (U.S. Pat. No. 6,337,741). Hereafter “Kirihara”, “Politze”, “Lind”. (Please see attached file for Kirihara’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 10-11, Kirihara in view of Politze teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the light emitting/receiving assembly comprises a light emitter/receiver and a transmitting/receiving lens, the light emitter/receiver is located at a focal point of the transmitting/receiving lens, and light emitted from the light emitter being incident to the detection cavity by the transmitting lens. Lind teaches the light emitting/receiving assembly comprises a light emitter/receiver and a transmitting/receiving lens, the light emitter/receiver is located at a focal point of the transmitting/receiving lens, and light emitted from the light emitter being incident to the detection cavity by the transmitting lens, (claims 2, 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze by having the light emitter/receiver being located at a focal point of the transmitting/receiving lens in order to focus light for detecting efficiently.
10. Claim(s) 15, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512), further in view of Walls et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0149578). Hereafter “Kirihara”, “Politze”, “Walls”. (Please see attached file for Kirihara’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, it is inherent that the oil fume sensor should be mounted in the appliance casing. However, Kirihara in view of Politze do not teach a fan assembly mounted in the appliance casing. Walls teaches a fan assembly mounted in the appliance casing ([0085], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze by having a fan assembly mounted in the appliance casing in order to move the fluid ([0085], lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Harley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a plurality of protruding ribs of an arc-shaped section protrudes from cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities. JP4157212 teaches a plurality of protruding ribs of an arc-shaped section protrudes from cavity walls of the plurality of light trap cavities, (figure 1, light traps A, B, shielding plates 11, 12, are not different from a plurality of protruding ribs arc-shaped section). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Harley by having a plurality of protruding ribs in order to absorb stray light efficiently.
11. Claim(s) 16-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirihara et al. (WO 2016067495) in view of Politze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0066512), further in view of Walls et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0149578), further in view of JP 4157212 (JP4157212). Hereafter “Kirihara”, “Politze”, “Walls”, “JP4157212”. (Please see attached file for Kirihara’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Kirihara in view of Politze and further in view of Walls teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for each one of the light trap cavities has a conical cross section. JP4157212 teaches each one of the light trap cavities has a conical cross section, (figure 1, light traps A, B has shape similar to a conical cross section). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze and further in view of Walls by having a conical cross section light trap in order to remove stray light efficiently.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Kirihara in view of Politze and further in view of Walls teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly, and a conical vertex of at least of the plurality of the light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly, and the plurality of light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly. Kirihara teaches an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly (figures 4, 10-14, an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly 120 and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly 130). JP4157212 teaches a conical vertex of at least of the plurality of the light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly (figure 1, light trap A has a conical vertex falls on the optical axis of the light emitting assembly 4), and the plurality light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly, (figure 1, light trap A arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light emitting assembly 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze and further in view of Walls by having light trap arranged symmetrically in order to remove stray light efficiently.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, 19, Kirihara in view of Politze and further in view of Walls teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly, and a conical vertex of at least of the plurality of the light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light receiving assembly, and the plurality of light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light receiving assembly. Kirihara teaches an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly (figures 4, 10-14, an angle is formed between an optical axis of the light emitting assembly 120 and an optical axis of the light receiving assembly 130). JP4157212 teaches a conical vertex at least of the plurality of the light trap cavities falls on the optical axis of the light receiving assembly (figure 1, light trap B has a conical vertex falls on the optical axis of the light receiving assembly 4), and the plurality of light trap cavities are arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light receiving assembly, (figure 1, light trap A arranged symmetrically about the optical axis of the light receiving assembly 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kirihara in view of Politze and further in view of Walls by having light trap arranged symmetrically in order to remove stray light efficiently.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
May 1, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights