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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks on pages 8-12, Applicant argues that nothing in paragraph 0048 or any other portion of West discloses or suggests that the sensor board 280 should be detachably fixed to the housing 204 such that it is possible to attach and detach the sensor board 280 with respect to the housing 204. This paragraph simply notes that the sensor board 280 is sized to fit within the cavity 240 within the housing 204. Thus, West does not disclose that “the sensor substrate is detachably fixed to the housing main body, such that it is possible to attach and detach the sensor substrate with respect to the housing main body” as recited in amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because West does teach and suggest the claimed invention, not necessarily the disclosed invention. The amended limitation is rejected as followed: the sensor substrate (280) is detachably fixed to the housing main body ([0048]), such that it is possible to attach and detach the sensor substrate (280) with respect to the housing main body (i.e. remove lid 226 ([0041-0042]; FIG. 4) and connector 290 to detach sensor substrate from cavity 240; [0048]; FIG. 4). To further extrapolate, based on the specification and the drawings as disclosed in West, the sensor substrate 280 (FIG. 4-5) is sized to fit within the cavity 240 ([0048]). With FIG. 4 showing that the lid 226 is removable ([0040-0041]) and FIG. 5 showing that the sensor board 280 is electrically connected to the main board 228 via connector 290 ([0048]), West discloses enough information to enable a user to attach/detach the sensor board 280 to the cavity 240. Thus, West is considered to teach the claimed invention.
With respect to the remarks on pages 12-13, Applicant argues that West does not disclose “the alarm element includes one of a speaker, or a luminous body” as recited in claim 7. West discloses that the signal light 268 is formed on the motherboard 250. However, there is no teaching that the signal light could be replaced by a speaker. West further discloses that the user notification device 516 could provide audible warning. However, nothing in West discloses that the user notification device 516 is located on any kind of substrate contained in the housing 204. Thus, West does not disclose the claimed limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because West does disclose the claimed limitation. Specifically, paragraph 0067 teaches “the sensor assembly 500 may be the same or similar to sensor assemblies 200” (of FIGs. 2-5) with the exception that the sensor assembly (232; FIG. 5) has a low and high concentration refrigerant gas sensor (504, 508). Thus, “the notification device 516, such as a warning light” is equivalent to the signal light 268 of FIG. 5 ([0053]). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the signal light could be replaced by a speaker”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this particular case, the claim only requires that the alarm element is one of a speaker or a luminous body, in which 268/512 is considered a luminous body. Thus, West is considered to disclose the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(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 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by West et al. (US Publication 2023/0003604; hereinafter West).
With regards to claim 1, West discloses an alarm comprising:
a refrigerant sensor (284) capable of detecting a refrigerant ([0037, 0048]; FIG. 4-5);
an alarm element (268/516) that is capable of notifying whether the refrigerant is detected by the refrigerant sensor ([0045, 0074-0075]);
an alarm element substrate (250) to which the alarm element is attached to ([0045]; FIG. 5);
a sensor substrate (280) to which the refrigerant sensor (284) is attached to ([0048]; FIG. 5), and
a housing (204) that houses the alarm element (268/516) and the sensor substrate (280) on an inside thereof (FIG. 4-5), wherein the sensor substrate (280) is a separate body from the alarm element substrate (250; [0045, 0048]; FIG. 5), and is electrically connected (via wiring 244) to the alarm element substrate ([0048]; FIG. 5),
the housing has
a housing main body (204) that holds the alarm element substrate and the sensor substrate ([0042, 0045]), and
a lid (226) that is detachably fixed to the housing main body ([0041]), and that covers the alarm element substrate and the sensor substrate ([0041-0042]; FIG. 4), and
the sensor substrate (280) is detachably fixed to the housing main body ([0048]), such that it is possible to attach and detach the sensor substrate (280) with respect to the housing main body (i.e. remove lid 226 ([0041-0042]; FIG. 4) and connector 290 to detach sensor substrate from cavity 240; [0048]; FIG. 4).
With regards to claim 7, West discloses the alarm according to claim 1, wherein the alarm element (268/516) includes one of a speaker, or a luminous body ([0045, 0074-0075]).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US Publication 2023/0003604; hereinafter West) in view of Berto et al. (US Publication 2006/0171129; hereinafter Berto).
With regards to claim 2, West teaches the alarm according to claim 1. However, West is silent regarding the alarm further comprising: a covering member that is fixed to the housing main body, in a state where the covering member covers a portion of the alarm element substrate.
Berto teaches a printed circuit board (320) comprising a covering member (310), in a state where the covering member covers a portion of the element substrate ([0042]; FIG. 3A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the covering member as taught by Berto to the alarm as taught by West with reasonable expectation of reducing the bending stress of the element substrate ([0012]; Berto). Thus, the combination of West, as taught by Berto, would teach a covering member (310; Berto) that is fixed to the housing main body (via the attachment of substrate 250; West).
With regards to claim 3, West, as combined with Berto, teaches the alarm according to claim 2, wherein the covering member (310; Berto) sandwiches a portion of the alarm element substrate (250; West) in between with the housing main body (204; West), and is in contact with the alarm element substrate (see FIG. 3A of West, 250 is mounted directly and in contact with the PCB substrate).
With regards to claim 4, West, as combined with Berto, teaches the alarm according to claim 3, wherein the covering member (310; Berto) and the alarm element substrate (250; West) are jointly fastened to the housing main body by a bolt (302, 304, 306, 308; [0042]; Berto).
With regards to claim 5, West, as combined with Berto, teaches (citations to West unless specified otherwise) the alarm according to claim 2 further comprising:
a first electric part (290; FIG. 5) that is connected to the sensor substrate (280), wherein
the covering member (310) has an opposite portion that is disposed so as to face the sensor substrate (a part of 310 of Berto, mounted on 250 of West, faces the sensor substrate 280 of West), and
when the sensor substrate (280) is attached to the housing main body (204) in a different orientation, the opposite portion collides with at least one of the refrigerant sensor or the first electric part (the opposite portion is capable of colliding with 290 depending on how the user is attaching the sensor substrate 280).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US Publication 2023/0003604; hereinafter West) in view of Kuo et al. (US Publication 2008/0248679; hereinafter Kuo).
With regards to claim 6, West teaches the alarm according to claim 1. However, West is silent regarding wherein the housing main body has a first claw and a second claw that detachably fix the sensor substrate, the first claw and the second claw hook onto an outer perimeter of the sensor substrate from one side, the first claw and the second claw are disposed so as to sandwich the sensor substrate in a second direction, which is orthogonal to a first direction perpendicular to a surface of the sensor substrate, and the first claw is elastically deformable in the second direction.
Kuo teaches a housing main body (3; FIG. 1) wherein the housing main body (3) has a first claw (32) and a second claw (32) that detachably fix a circuit board substrate (2; [0014]), the first claw and the second claw hook onto an outer perimeter of the sensor substrate from one side ([0014-0015]; FIG. 1-2), the first claw and the second claw are disposed so as to sandwich the sensor substrate in a second direction (direction along the long length of 3 as in FIG. 1; [0014]), which is orthogonal to a first direction perpendicular to a surface of the sensor substrate (vertical direction as in FIG. 1; [0014-0015]), and the first claw (32) is elastically deformable in the second direction ([0014]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first and second claw as taught by Kuo to hold the sensor substrate as taught by West to tightly fixed the movement of the circuit board substrate ([0014]; Kuo) as originally intended.
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights