Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 18/590,321

TEMPERATURE SENSOR AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING TEMPERATURE SENSOR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Priority
Feb 14, 2022 — JP 2022-020222 +2 more
Examiner
LEE, KYUNG S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Yazaki Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
1009 granted / 1156 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
1169
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§112
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1156 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (JP’335 in IDS) in view of Lyle et al. Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches temperature sensor (temperature sensor 1; see under the heading of “Best-Mode” and at least fig. 1, comprising: a pair of leads (terminals 3 and lead wires 4); a thermistor (thermistor element 2) provided on the pair of leads; a first resin part composed of an epoxy resin (epoxy resin cover 5) and covering the thermistor and a part of the pair of leads near the thermistor with predetermined rigidity; and a second resin part (polyphenylene ether [PPE] resin cover 6) covering a portion of the first resin part (5) and a part of the pair of leads so that a portion of the first resin part near the thermistor (2) is exposed, wherein a thermal conductivity of the first resin part is larger than a thermal conductivity of the second resin part (epoxy resin cover 5 is 1.0-3.0 W/m·K and PPE cover 6 is 0.2-0.28 W/m·K). Mori teaches the claimed invention except for using a pair of lead frame. Lyle teaches a temperature sensor using a pair of lead frames (lead frames 12, 14; see at least figs. 4-5) to attach the thermistor (thermistor 36) onto the lead frames for the purpose of increasing the sensor device’s mechanical strength (“rigid frame”) and for the purpose eliminating the use of a substrate (see col. 2, lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lyle with Mori, since the use of the lead frames taught by Lyle increase the structure (rigid frame) of the sensor device of Mori without the use of a substrate or a board. Regarding claim 2, Mori teaches the sensor being placed at one end of the leads and the heat transfer is suppressed at an intermediate part of at least one of the pair of leads in a longitudinal direction relative to other portions of the pair of lead frames in the longitudinal direction (see the PPE cover 6 covering the intermediate part [by reference number 7] of the epoxy resin cover 5 in fig. 1 of Mori). Regarding claim 3, Mori teaches the claimed invention except the width dimension value of at least one of the pair of lead frames is reduced at an intermediate part in a longitudinal direction of the lead frames. Lyle teaches the lead frames having the reduced width intermediate part (by reference number 12 compared to the opposite end by reference number 16; see fig. 1) for the purpose increase the accuracy of the temperature reading (col. 2, lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lyle with Mori, since the narrowed intermediate part taught by Lyle increase the sensitivity of the temperature sensor of Mori. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is allowed. Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or suggest the method for manufacturing a temperature sensor, comprising: “providing a first resin part having a predetermined rigidity by covering the thermistor and a portion of the pair of lead frames near the thermistor with epoxy resin by use of transfer molding after the thermistor is installed on the pair of lead frames; and providing a second resin part covering a portion of the first resin part and a part of the pair of lead frames by use of insert molding so that a portion of the first resin part near the thermistor is exposed after the first resin part is provided, wherein a thermal conductivity of the first resin part is larger than a thermal conductivity of the second resin part.” Above claimed manufacturing method is not found in the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1994. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM M-F. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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. /KYUNG S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12706234
OVER-CURRENT PROTECTION DEVICE
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12693106
INORGANIC STRAIN GAUGE
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12695010
THERMISTOR LAYER, ELECTRODE FOR BATTERY, BATTERY, AND THERMISTOR
2y 12m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12695009
A COMPOSITE THERMISTOR ELEMENT
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12688956
VACUUM VALVE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1156 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month