DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 9 are pending in the present application.
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.
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 3, 6 and 9 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.
Claim 3 contains the trademark/trade name “Kovar” (Kovar is a trademark of CRS Holdings, inc., Delaware). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a nickel–cobalt ferrous alloy compositionally identical to FerNiCo 1 (~29% Ni; ~17% Co; ~0.2% Si; ~0.3% Mn; <0,01% C; Balance Fe – by weight), designed to have substantially the same thermal expansion characteristics as borosilicate glass (≈5 ppm/K between 30 and 200 °C, to ≈10 ppm/K at 800 °C) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As best understood, in order to expedite prosecution and for purpose of examination the term “Kovar” will be considered as a nickel–cobalt ferrous alloy with ~29% Ni; ~17% Co; ~0.2% Si; ~0.3% Mn; <0,01% C; Balance Fe – by weight.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected by dependency on claim 3.
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.
Claim 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 20210165161; hereinafter Sekiguchi) in view of Uematsu et al. (US 20150226610; hereinafter Uematsu).
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi teaches a temperature sensor used in a molding machine (abstract; [0052]), comprising:
a cylindrical fiber probe (at least 4; see 2e; see also 2f and 3 more generally; [0055]; see fig. 4 showing several layers into which the fiber is inserted; see fig. 5 showing that these portions are cylindrical) into which an optical fiber (at least 2d; [0055]) is inserted (see fig. 4);
a sleeve member formed in an annular shape (at least 110; see figs. 1 and 3; see also fig. 2), and having an inner circumferential surface (at least surface of 110a).
Sekiguchi does not directly and specifically state regarding a window support part formed in a cylindrical shape and into which at least a part of the fiber probe is inserted; a protective window disposed on a tip end side of the fiber probe while being at least partially inserted into the window support part; and that the sleeve member is in contact with an outer circumferential surface of the protective window and an outer circumferential surface in contact with an inner circumferential surface of the window support part.
However, Uematsu teaches a surface temperature measuring apparatus (abstract) having a window support part formed in a cylindrical shape and into which at least a part of the fiber probe is inserted (housing 2 with at least sealing members 61-64; see figs. 1 and 2 showing this configuration) and a protective window (optical glass 3; see figs. 1 and 2) disposed on a tip end side of a fiber probe (the light receiving unit 11, optical fibers 12 -- [0071]; see fig. 1 showing such tip end side disposal) while being at least partially inserted into the window support part (see fig. 1 showing this configuration) and that a sleeve member (elongate cylindrical portion of housing 2 with sealing members 61-64 and stopper 81; see fig. 1) is contact with an outer circumferential surface of the protective window (see fig. 1 showing this configuration) and an outer circumferential surface in contact with an inner circumferential surface of the window support part (see fig. 1 showing that element 81 has an outer an outer circumferential surface in contact with an inner circumferential surface of 2 at the tip).
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 optical temperature sensor of Sekiguchi with the specific knowledge of using the tip end side window configuration for protection of Uematsu. This is because such protection by the window allows for a more robust probe in high-temperature environments such as resin melts (abstract of Sekiguchi) and steel processing (abstract of Uematsu). This is important in order to provide a robust and accurate sensor for production environments/applications.
Regarding claim 4, Sekiguchi and Uematsu lack direct and specific teaching that the window support part has a receiving portion that projects inward, the receiving portion is disposed between the fiber probe and the protective window, and the receiving portion has one surface in contact with the fiber probe and the other surface in contact with the protective window.
However, Uematsu does disclose a receiving portion for the window/glass which is arranged to fit and hold the window/glass in position (see fig. 1; see at least [0082] and [0070]).
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 fit and held glass window of Sekiguchi and Uematsu with any specifically design indicated configuration to hold the window robustly in place. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a set of contact surfaces to be one of several straightforward ways (contact surfaces; spring loading; friction fit) of holding the window in a design indicated position because it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements (both the claimed configuration and the disclosed configuration act to hold the window/glass and fiber sensor in position which is the design requirement) are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B).
Regarding claim 7, Sekiguchi and Uematsu lack direct and specific teaching that a calibration insertion hole is formed in the window support part, and a thermocouple is inserted into the calibration insertion hole.
However, Uematsu does disclose using a thermocouple in a calibration operation (see figs. 10 and 11 showing the apparatus and results of evaluating accuracy of surface temperature measurement using thermocouple 96 respectively; see [0104-106]) where the thermocouple is inside a heater element to be measured (see fig. 10).
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 accuracy evaluation with a thermocouple of Sekiguchi as modified by Uematsu with a calibration arrangement suited to a particular design such as here. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected calibrating / evaluating the accuracy of the temperature measurement with the thermocouple in the window support part to be one of several straightforward ways (placement in the DUT, placement near the tip, placement along a known thermal gradient) of placing the thermocouple adjacent the measurement site because calibrating / evaluating the accuracy of the temperature measurement is the design indicated goal.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 20210165161; hereinafter Sekiguchi) in view of Uematsu et al. (US 20150226610; hereinafter Uematsu) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Masuzawa (US 20190187402).
Regarding claim 2, Sekiguchi and Uematsu lack direct and specific teaching that a thermal expansion coefficient of the protective window is smaller than a thermal expansion coefficient of the window support part, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the sleeve member is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the protective window.
However, Masuzawa teaches a lens unit / window (at least 12 and 14 – lenses; see abstract) held by a sleeve (18 - barrel; see fig. 1) and window/lens support part(s) (see fig. 1, at least elements 20/22/24; lens holding ring / interval defining portion / holding portion respectively) with teaching regarding the importance of the relative thermal expansion coefficients of these elements ([0015-16]; [0051] and [0062] teaching regarding the importance of taking into account thermal expansion in a lens system).
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 optical glass / window of Sekiguchi and Uematsu with the specific knowledge of using the lens / window with thermal expansion coefficients designed and considered for the purpose of the window / lens of Masuzawa. This is because such thermal expansion will degrade optical performance in high temperature settings if not appropriately accounted for (see [0124] of Masuzawa). This is important in order to provide better transmission of the electromagnetic spectrum to the sensitive device in high temperature environments (see [0124] of Masuzawa).
Regarding claim 3, Sekiguchi lacks direct and specific teaching that the protective window is made of sapphire glass, and the sleeve member is made of Kovar.
However, Uematsu teaches sapphire for the window glass ([0086] “an optical glass that transmits near infrared light, such as sapphire glass”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the optical glass of Sekiguchi and Uematsu with the specific knowledge of using the sapphire optical glass of Uematsu. This is because sapphire is known for transmitting near infrared light. This is important in order to provide a window which is transparent in the electromagnetic spectrum which is being measured.
Sekiguchi, Uematsu and Masuzawa lack direct and specific teaching that the sleeve member is made of Kovar.
However, Uematsu does disclose that the components of the housing should be selected for heat-resistance (see at least [0040], [0073] and [0081]).
Official Notice is taken that Kovar is an iron–nickel–cobalt alloy (Fe–Ni–Co) designed for its matched thermal expansion to borosilicate glass, making it ideal for glass-to-metal seals and that Kovar can be used in glass-to-metal seals up to around 800 °C (for purpose of examination “Kovar” is being considered as a nickel–cobalt ferrous alloy with ~29% Ni; ~17% Co; ~0.2% Si; ~0.3% Mn; <0,01% C; Balance Fe – by weight. See 112(b) section above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use alloys having design indicated properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (here “Kovar” see 112(b) section above for interpretation of this trademark/tradename) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (please note that both Sekiguchi and Uematsu directed to high-temperature applications; see at least [0052] of Sekiguchi regarding measuring “molten resin” and at least abstract and [0081] of Uematsu regarding measuring steel during a cooling process requiring heat resistance) as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Sekiguchi, Uematsu and Masuzawa lack direct and specific teaching that the window support part has a receiving portion that projects inward, the receiving portion is disposed between the fiber probe and the protective window, and the receiving portion has one surface in contact with the fiber probe and the other surface in contact with the protective window.
However, Uematsu does disclose a receiving portion for the window/glass which is arranged to fit and hold the window/glass in position (see fig. 1; see at least [0082] and [0070]).
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 fit and held glass window of Sekiguchi and Uematsu with any specifically design indicated configuration to hold the window robustly in place. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a set of contact surfaces to be one of several straightforward ways (contact surfaces; spring loading; friction fit) of holding the window in a design indicated position because it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements (both the claimed configuration and the disclosed configuration act to hold the window/glass and fiber sensor in position which is the design requirement) are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B).
Regarding claim 6, Sekiguchi, Uematsu and Masuzawa lack direct and specific teaching that the window support part has a receiving portion that projects inward, the receiving portion is disposed between the fiber probe and the protective window, and the receiving portion has one surface in contact with the fiber probe and the other surface in contact with the protective window.
However, Uematsu does disclose a receiving portion for the window/glass which is arranged to fit and hold the window/glass in position (see fig. 1; see at least [0082] and [0070]).
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 fit and held glass window of Sekiguchi and Uematsu with any specifically design indicated configuration to hold the window robustly in place. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a set of contact surfaces to be one of several straightforward ways (contact surfaces; spring loading; friction fit) of holding the window in a design indicated position because it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements (both the claimed configuration and the disclosed configuration act to hold the window/glass and fiber sensor in position which is the design requirement) are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B).
Regarding claim 8, Sekiguchi, Uematsu and Masuzawa lack direct and specific teaching that a calibration insertion hole is formed in the window support part, and a thermocouple is inserted into the calibration insertion hole.
However, Uematsu does disclose using a thermocouple in a calibration operation (see figs. 10 and 11 showing the apparatus and results of evaluating accuracy of surface temperature measurement using thermocouple 96 respectively; see [0104-106]) where the thermocouple is inside a heater element to be measured (see fig. 10).
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 accuracy evaluation with a thermocouple of Sekiguchi as modified by Uematsu with a calibration arrangement suited to a particular design such as here. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected calibrating / evaluating the accuracy of the temperature measurement with the thermocouple in the window support part to be one of several straightforward ways (placement in the DUT, placement near the tip, placement along a known thermal gradient) of placing the thermocouple adjacent the measurement site because calibrating / evaluating the accuracy of the temperature measurement is the design indicated goal.
Regarding claim 9, Sekiguchi, Uematsu and Masuzawa lack direct and specific teaching that a calibration insertion hole is formed in the window support part, and a thermocouple is inserted into the calibration insertion hole.
However, Uematsu does disclose using a thermocouple in a calibration operation (see figs. 10 and 11 showing the apparatus and results of evaluating accuracy of surface temperature measurement using thermocouple 96 respectively; see [0104-106]) where the thermocouple is inside a heater element to be measured (see fig. 10).
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 accuracy evaluation with a thermocouple of Sekiguchi as modified by Uematsu with a calibration arrangement suited to a particular design such as here. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected calibrating / evaluating the accuracy of the temperature measurement with the thermocouple in the window support part to be one of several straightforward ways (placement in the DUT, placement near the tip, placement along a known thermal gradient) of placing the thermocouple adjacent the measurement site because calibrating / evaluating the accuracy of the temperature measurement is the design indicated goal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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