NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 9-15 are elected. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn. Considering the applicant’s election, the examiner is now examining the claims 9-15.
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 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.
Claims 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 2022/0396471 Al, cited by Applicants).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki teaches a sensor (Fig.1-6), comprising: a sensor section (fig.3) including a first element portion (11), a second element portion (12), and a temperature sensor (11E, [0076] discloses that the element 11E performs as a temperature sensor), the first element portion including a first resistance element (11, [0024]) and a first conductive member (21, [0024]), the second element portion including a second resistance element (12, [0028]); and a circuit section (70) including a detector and a controller (the processor disclosed in [0035] implicitly includes a detector and a controller), the circuit section being configured to perform a first operation [0036], in the first operation, the controller being configured to control a first power based on a detection signal of the temperature sensor ([0036]), in the first operation, the controller being configured to supply the first power to the first conductive member to increase a first temperature of the first element portion [0036], and in the first operation, the detector being configured to output a detected value corresponding to a difference between a first signal corresponding to a first resistance of the first resistance element in a first state in which the first temperature is raised and the second signal corresponding to a second resistance of the second resistance element ([0038] discloses “in the first operation, for example, the temperature of the first detection element llE rises, and the temperature of the first resistance member 11 also rises. On the other hand, the processor 70 does not supply a current to the second conductive member 22 in, for example, the first operation. In the first operation, no current flows through the second conductive member 22, and the temperatures of the second detection element 12E and the second resistance member 12 do not substantially change. The first resistance member 11 and the second resistance member 12 become, for example, at least a part of a half-bridge circuit. The first ratio of the first electric resistance to the second electric resistance depends on the temperature difference between the two resistance members.” Thus, a difference between a first signal corresponding to a first resistance of the first resistance element in a first state in which the first temperature is raised and the second signal corresponding to a second resistance of the second resistance element could be measured).
Regarding Claim 10, the sensor according to claim 9 is taught by Yamazaki.
Yamazaki further teaches the sensor further comprising: a base (41; fig.1), the first element portion (11), the second element portion (12) and the temperature sensor (11E) being fixed to the base (shown in fig.1 and discussed in [0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, the sensor according to claim 10 is taught by Yamazaki.
Yamazaki further teaches the sensor wherein the sensor section further includes a first support portion (31S) fixed to the base (fig.1, [0047]), and a second support portion (32S) fixed to the base (shown in fig.1), the first support portion supports the first element portion (shown in fig.1), a first gap (g1) is provided between the base (41S) and the first element portion (11) [0025], the second support portion supports the second element portion (shown in fig.1), and a second gap (g2) is provided between the base and the second element portion [0029].
Regarding Claim 14, the sensor according to claim 9 is taught by Yamazaki.
Yamazaki further teaches the sensor wherein the detection signal changes depending on a second temperature around the sensor section, and the first power changes depending on the second temperature (implicitly taught in [0038]).
Regarding Claim 15, the sensor according to claim 9 is taught by Yamazaki.
Yamazaki further teaches wherein the first signal changes depending on a detection target around the sensor section, and the second signal does not change depending on the detection target (implicitly taught in [0038]), or a change rate of the second signal with respect to the detection target is lower than a change rate of the first signal with respect to the detection object (the first condition is implicitly taught in [0038]).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0077493 Al, cited by the applicants, “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 12, the sensor according to claim 9 is taught by Yamazaki.
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach wherein the controller includes a drive circuit and a processing circuit, the drive circuit is configured to supply the first power to the first conductive member, and the processing circuit is configured to control the first power by controlling the drive circuit based on the detection signal.
However, Wang teaches a sensor comprising a controller (70; fig.10) wherein the controller includes a drive circuit (implicit in the controller 70) cand a processing circuit (75), the drive circuit is configured to supply the first power to the first conductive member, and the processing circuit is configured to control the first power by controlling the drive circuit based on the detection signal ([0110]-[0113]).
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 controller and its functionality with the teaching of Wang since both arts are similar in structure and the function of the controller would improve the characteristics of the sensor.
Regarding Claim 13, the sensor according to claim 12 is taught by Yamazaki in view of Wang.
Wang further teaches wherein the processing circuit (fig.10) includes a processor (75) and a memory (76), the memory is configured to store a relationship between a change in the detection signal and a control value regarding the first power [0115], and the processor is configured to control the drive circuit based on the relation stored in the memory and the detection signal supplied to the controller [0115].
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kurui et al. (US 2024/0068970 A1) teaches a sensor includes a detection device, a switch circuit, and a detection circuit. The detection device includes a first detection section and a second detection section. The first detection section includes a first detection element. The first detection element includes a first conductive member and a first resistance member. The second detection section includes a second detection element. The second detection element includes a second conductive member and a second resistance member. In a first operation, the switch circuit is configured to supply a first current to the first conductive member and not to supply the first current to the second conductive member, and the detection circuit is configured to output a first signal corresponding to a difference between a first electrical resistance of the first resistance member and a second electrical resistance of the second resistance member [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 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 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 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.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights