DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 10 are pending in the present application.
Claims 9 – 10 are withdrawn (see election section below).
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “two lead members with rigidity” (emphasis added) in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigidity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (see instant publication at [0029] “lead member 112 has the rigidity, that is, the rigidity thereof is high, for example… is a metal plate (for example, a lead frame)”), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, examples are given but no definition of how much/what level of rigidity is required to meet this limitation is defined.
Would a generally stiff set of metal wires meet “two lead members with rigidity”? If not, what is the ascertainable and concrete limitation? If so, where would the line of demarcation between a wire with rigidity and one without rigidity be?
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution lead members with rigidity will be considered as any lead without a direct statement that such member is flexible or otherwise not rigid (including at least metal plates and other leads not generally considered flexible as per the specification).
However, positive in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds applicant intends to claim regarding the lead members is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/590,321 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim set anticipates the instant claims as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
A thermistor assembly, comprising: (see reference claim 1)
a thermistor; two lead members with rigidity (see reference claim 1, indents 1, 2 and 3); and
a first resin portion (see at least reference claim 1, indents 3-4),
wherein first end portions of the two lead members are connected with the thermistor (see reference claim 2 “the thermistor is provided at one end of the pair of lead frames” and claim 1, indent 2), and
the thermistor is sealed by the first resin portion (see reference claim 1, indent 3 regarding the resin covering the thermistor).
Regarding claims 2-3:
Instant claim 2: see reference claim 3 – plate like shape
Instant claim 3: see reference claim 4 – transfer molding
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(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.
(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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsunaga et al. (US 20190383668; hereinafter Matsunaga).
Regarding claim 1, Matsunaga teaches regarding a thermistor assembly (abstract), comprising:
a thermistor (13),
two lead members with rigidity (11/12; see [0046-47] teaching that the lead frames 11 and 12 are conductive metal plates); and
a first resin portion (14; [0048] “sensor body 10 also includes a resin mold portion 14”),
wherein first end portions of the two lead members are connected with the thermistor (see at least fig. 1C showing this connected configuration), and
the thermistor is sealed by the first resin portion (see at least figs. 1C and 10 showing that resin mold 14 seals the thermistor).
Regarding claim 2, Matsunaga teaches that each of the two lead members is a metal plate ([0046] “The first lead frame 11 and the second lead frame 12 are conductive, and may be formed using, for example, a metal plate.”; see also [0073] “The lead frame material 20 can be made of a metal plate by press-forming.”).
Regarding claim 3, Matsunaga teaches that the first resin portion is molded by a transfer molding ([0007] “The molding may include forming the resin mold portion by transfer molding.”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsunaga teaches that each of the two lead members is provided with a second end portion of the corresponding lead member (upper as drawn; see fig. 10) with which a lead wire (at least one of conductors/cables/wires 521/521a) is connected (see at least fig. 10 showing this connection to be made; see fig. 11B showing this connection between lead 11 and conductor/wire 521a).
Regarding claim 5, Matsunaga teaches that a shape of the second end portion of each one of the two lead members is a connector shape (see fig. 10 showing this connector shape at the ends of lead frames 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 6, Matsunaga teaches regarding a temperature sensor, comprising: the thermistor assembly according to claim 1 (see treatment of claim 1 above); a case (40; see fig. 10; [0123]) having an accommodation area (40a) that is open in a second direction (up as drawn in fig. 11); and a second resin portion (at least 50/51; [0135] “housing 51 … is made of, for example, a synthetic resin”; see fig. 10), wherein the second resin portion is disposed in the accommodation area so as to seal the first resin portion (see figs. 11A-B showing this configuration; see also fig. 10).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 20190383668; hereinafter Matsunaga) in view of Segler et al. (US 5949324; hereinafter Segler).
Regarding claim 7, Matsunaga lacks direct and specific teaching regarding a connection member for connecting with a measurement target, wherein the connection member includes a hole, the case includes an insertion port into which the connection member is inserted, and the connection member is inserted into the insertion port of the case such that the thermistor is positioned inside the hole.
However, Segler teaches regarding a thermistor in a mold (abstract; see fig. 3 and thermistor 260) having a connection member for connecting with a measurement target (see at least figs. 2, 3 and 23 showing examples of the connection member for connecting the thermistor device to related/associated structure 32/308; see col. 10, ¶ at 11 teaching regarding attachment to “a wall 306 of an associated structure 308”), wherein the connection member includes a hole (see fig. 23), and that a variety of connection grooves/ports (see at least fig. 23), and the connecting members are inserted into the various connections portions such that the thermistor is positioned inside the hole (see fig. 23 showing that thermistor 260 is positioned in the hole).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connections for a thermistor sensor housing of Matsunaga with the specific knowledge of using the connections for a thermistor sensor housing including connection to a measurement target of Segler. This is because such connections allow for securely positioning the sensor at a desired location ofr measuring a targeted temperature. This is important in order for the temperature measurement to be properly located for an end user desired measurement.
Regarding claim 8, Matsunaga teaches that the lead member and the case have first guide portions respectively for positioning the thermistor with respect to the case in the first direction (see at least [0235] teaching regarding guide grooves and guide projections; see also fig. 16 showing grooves and projections for guiding the placement of components).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
See especially:
Lyle et al. (US 6091317); teaching regarding a temperature sensor assembly with specifically “a pair of rigid lead frames (12, 14) … containing a thermistor (36)” (emphasis added; abstract; see also figs. 1-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights