CTNF 18/739,645 CTNF 91504 NON-FINAL REJECTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 3 recites the limitation " the at least one lip portion" which has not been previously defined. This limitation is first found in claim 2, but claim 3 does not depend on claim 2. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Storrie et al. (US 2011/0079138 Al, cited by Applicants, “Storrie”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Storrie teaches a protective shield (fig.1-2; elements 50, 22, 42, 210) for a sensor subassembly (fig.1-6; element 200, [0030] - [0036], [0040], [0043], [0049]), the protective shield comprising: a cover member (fig.1-2; element 22, [0031]); and a plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) extending from the cover member (fig.1-2; element 22), each of the plurality of mounting tabs adapted to engage with a sensor housing (fig.1-2; element 210) of the sensor subassembly (element 200) (shown in fig.1-6 and discussed in [0031]-[0036]), wherein the cover member (element 22) is adapted to cover at least one sensor (fig.5; element 82) accommodated in the sensor subassembly [0049] ([0030] - [0036], [0040], [0043], [0049]). Regarding Claim 2 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein the plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) are engaged with at least one lip portion (fig.2; element 25) defined on an outer peripheral surface of the sensor housing (210) (shown in fig.2). Regarding Claim 4 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein each of the plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) extends from a bottom peripheral surface (25) of the cover member in an orthogonal orientation relative to the cover member (shown in fig.2 the tabs are extending first orthogonal, then parallel to the surface. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Storrie.). Regarding Claim 5 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein a bottom peripheral surface (25) of the cover member facing the sensor housing (210) (shown in fig.2), the sensor housing, and the plurality of mounting tabs collectively define a plurality of airflow channels (collective structure creates airflow channels in between 25 and inner part of 42, as shown in fig.2). Regarding Claim 7 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein each of the plurality of mounting tabs are equidistant (shown in fig.1-3). Regarding Claim 8 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein a first set of mounting tabs from the plurality of mounting tabs abuts at least one lip portion (fig.2; 43) of the sensor housing and a second set of mounting tabs from the plurality of mounting tabs engage with the at least one lip portion defined on the outer peripheral surface (fig.2; element 218) of the sensor housing (shown in fig.2 where 43 meets 218). Regarding Claim 9 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein a plurality of grooves is defined on a bottom peripheral surface of the cover member facing the sensor housing (Storrie discloses a groove 34 defined on a bottom peripheral surface of the cover member 22 facing the sensor housing element 210 ([0034] and fig.2). Including a plurality of grooves would be considered by the skilled person as a design option as the need arises.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Wade et al. (US 2018/0372675 Al, cited by the applicants, “Wade”) . Regarding Claim 3 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie further teaches wherein the plurality of mounting tabs is adapted to slidably engage with the at least one lip portion (fig.2; element 23) defined on the outer peripheral surface of the sensor housing (210) of the sensor subassembly to restrict a movement of the cover member relative to the sensor housing (fig.2 shows that elements 42 could be engaged slidably, thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Storrie). In any event, Wade teaches a gas sensor housing wherein the plurality of mounting tabs (sensor pins 1105) is adapted to slidably engage [0047] with the at least one lip portion defined on the outer peripheral surface of the sensor housing of the sensor subassembly to restrict a movement of the cover member relative to the sensor housing [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Wade’s teaching regarding slidable pins/tabs since such slidable structure is known in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Guang et al. (CN 114062592 A, cited by the applicants, “Guang”) . Regarding Claim 6 , the protective shield according to claim 5 is taught by Storrie. Storrie does not explicitly teach wherein one or more parameters of the plurality of airflow channels are adjusted by modifying at least one of a length of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, a thickness of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, and a number of the plurality of mounting tabs. However, Guang teaches a multi gas detection device comprising a sensing house (fig.1; element 1) and a plurality of airflow channels (fig.1; elements 205) wherein one or more parameters of the plurality of airflow channels are adjusted by modifying at least one of a length of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, a thickness of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, and a number of the plurality of mounting tabs ([0002], [0034]-[0044] and fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Guang’s teaching regarding the plurality of airflow channels since this would facilitate the introduction of external gas into the detection chamber for detection or for any other reason. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust one or more parameters of the plurality of airflow channels by modifying at least one of a length of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, a thickness of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, and a number of the plurality of mounting tabs, since applicant has not disclosed that such adjustment solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with modified Storrie . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Kekalainen et al. (WO 2014/114469 A2, cited by the applicants, “Kekalainen”) . Regarding Claim 10 , the protective shield according to claim 1 is taught by Storrie. Storrie does not explicitly teach wherein the cover member is made of a heat-reflective material. However, Kekalainen teaches a gas sensor enclosed in a sensor housing 40 (p.7; line 16 - p.9; line 11 and figs. 1- 2). An upwardly facing surface of the sensor housing, when the sensor housing is mounted to the lid 20, is provided with a reflective metal foil, for example aluminium foil, heat-reflecting layer (p.9; 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Kekalainen’s reflective metal foil since this would to assist the sensor housing to maintain a workable operating temperature . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11-12, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Moon et al. (US 6,195,912 Bl, “Moon”) . Regarding Claim 11 , Storrie teaches a sensor subassembly (fig.1-6; element 200) comprising: a sensor housing (element 210) adapted to enclose at least one sensor (fig.5; element 82), and a protective shield (fig.1-2; elements 50, 22, 42) adapted to be removably fastened to the sensor housing (shown in fig.1-5), the protective shield comprising: a cover member (fig.1-2; element 22, [0031]); and a plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) extending from the cover member (shown in fig.2), each of the plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) adapted to engage (shown in fig.1-3) with the sensor housing (fig.1-2; element 210), wherein the cover member (fig.1-2; element 22) is adapted to cover the at least one sensor (shown in fig.1-5) ([0030] - [0036], [0040], [0043], [0049]). Storrie does not teach at least one internal heater, and control circuitry electrically connected to the at least one sensor and the at least one internal heater. However, Moon teaches a sensor subassembly comprising a sensor (fig.1; element 38), at least one internal heater (fig.1; element 34), and control circuitry (fig.1; element 230, control, col.12; line 3) electrically connected to the at least one sensor and the at least one internal heater (shown in fig.1 and discussed in col.12; lines 3-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Moon’s heater and control system since utilizing heater and control system in a sensor house is known in the art which would provide heat to the system as required. Regarding Claim 12 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein the plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) are engaged with at least one lip portion (fig.2; element 25) defined on an outer peripheral surface of the sensor housing (210) (shown in fig.2). Regarding Claim 14 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein each of the plurality of mounting tabs (fig.1-2; elements 42) extends from a bottom peripheral surface (25) of the cover member in an orthogonal orientation relative to the cover member (shown in fig.2 the tabs are extending first orthogonal, then parallel to the surface. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Storrie.). Regarding Claim 15 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein a bottom peripheral surface (25) of the cover member facing the sensor housing (210) (shown in fig.2), the sensor housing, and the plurality of mounting tabs collectively define a plurality of airflow channels (collective structure creates airflow channels in between 25 and inner part of 42, as shown in fig.2). Regarding Claim 17 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein each of the plurality of mounting tabs are equidistant (shown in fig.1-3). Regarding Claim 18 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein a first set of mounting tabs from the plurality of mounting tabs abuts at least one lip portion (fig.2; 43) of the sensor housing and a second set of mounting tabs from the plurality of mounting tabs engage with the at least one lip portion defined on the outer peripheral surface (fig.2; element 218) of the sensor housing (shown in fig.2 where 43 meets 218). Regarding Claim 19 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein a plurality of grooves is defined on a bottom peripheral surface of the cover member facing the sensor housing (Storrie discloses a groove 34 defined on a bottom peripheral surface of the cover member 22 facing the sensor housing element 210 ([0034] and fig.2). Including a plurality of grooves would be considered by the skilled person as a design option as the need arises.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Moon and further in view of Wade . Regarding Claim 13 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie further teaches wherein the plurality of mounting tabs is adapted to slidably engage with the at least one lip portion (fig.2; element 23) defined on the outer peripheral surface of the sensor housing (210) of the sensor subassembly to restrict a movement of the cover member relative to the sensor housing (fig.2 shows that elements 42 could be engaged slidably, thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Storrie). In any event, Wade teaches a gas sensor housing wherein the plurality of mounting tabs (sensor pins 1105) is adapted to slidably engage [0047] with the at least one lip portion defined on the outer peripheral surface of the sensor housing of the sensor subassembly to restrict a movement of the cover member relative to the sensor housing [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Wade’s teaching regarding slidable pins/tabs since such slidable structure is known in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Moon and further in view of Guang . Regarding Claim 16 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 15 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie does not explicitly teach wherein one or more parameters of the plurality of airflow channels are adjusted by modifying at least one of a length of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, a thickness of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, and a number of the plurality of mounting tabs. However, Guang teaches a multi gas detection device comprising a sensing house (fig.1; element 1) and a plurality of airflow channels (fig.1; elements 205) wherein one or more parameters of the plurality of airflow channels are adjusted by modifying at least one of a length of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, a thickness of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, and a number of the plurality of mounting tabs ([0002], [0034]-[0044] and fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Guang’s teaching regarding the plurality of airflow channels since this would facilitate the introduction of external gas into the detection chamber for detection or for any other reason. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust one or more parameters of the plurality of airflow channels by modifying at least one of a length of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, a thickness of each of the plurality of mounting tabs, and a number of the plurality of mounting tabs, since applicant has not disclosed that such adjustment solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with modified Storrie . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storrie in view of Moon and further in view of Kekalainen . Regarding Claim 20 , the sensor subassembly according to claim 11 is taught by Storrie in view of Moon. Storrie does not explicitly teach wherein the cover member is made of a heat-reflective material. However, Kekalainen teaches a gas sensor enclosed in a sensor housing 40 (p.7; line 16 - p.9; line 11 and figs. 1- 2). An upwardly facing surface of the sensor housing, when the sensor housing is mounted to the lid 20, is provided with a reflective metal foil, for example aluminium foil, heat-reflecting layer (p.9; 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Storrie’s system by incorporating Kekalainen’s reflective metal foil since this would to assist the sensor housing to maintain a workable operating temperature. Conclusion 07-96 The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Murakami et al. (US 2015/0355142 Al) teaches a sensor element 101 of a gas sensor 100 includes a blocking portion 65 including an outer blocking layer 67 that is formed to cover, in an upper surface of a multilayer body, at least a part of an upper closest region 6a where an outer pump electrode 23 is not disposed and a distance up to a third inner cavity 61 is minimal. The outer blocking layer 67 does not have conductivity for one or more among various types of substances containing oxygen. The outer blocking layer 67 is disposed between a lead line 93 for the outer pump electrode and the upper surface of the multilayer body to provide insulation therebetween, and is disposed between an upper connector pad 91 and the upper surface of the multilayer body to provide insulation there between. A porous protective layer 24 covers the outer pump electrode 23 [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 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 11 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 12 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 13 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/739,645 Page 14 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights