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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated byChen et al. (CN 11174944).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a bifurcated thermocouple substrate (see figure), comprising:
a primary substrate (chassis 1) having a substrate aperture (apertures for locating plate 2 and thermocouples 3, 4) disposed therethrough (for two thermocouples goes through);
a secondary substrate (locating plate 2) disposed within the substrate (1) aperture; and
a thermocouple (3 or 4) disposed within a thermocouple aperture of the secondary substrate (locating plate 2) (see figure and Description page 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses a bifurcated thermocouple substrate of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the secondary substrate (locating plate 2) comprises a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the primary substrate (chassis 1) by at least 5%.
Chen does disclose wherein the thickness (height) of the secondary substrate (2) varies so different thermocouples are inserted to the same depth when in primary substrate (1) (see page 2), teaching the thickness (height) of the secondary substrate (2) is a result effective variable and therefore the height comparison to the primary substrate (1) is a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses a bifurcated thermocouple substrate of claim 1, wherein the thermocouple and the secondary substrate comprise a strain relief mechanism (see figure). Specifically, applicant points to bend (234) in thermocouple wire (see fig. 2). Chen clearly shows flexibility and bending of wires (see figure). The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). (See MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses a bifurcated thermocouple substrate of claim 1, wherein the secondary substrate has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the substrate aperture (see figure and pages 2 to 3). Although specifically not stated, the limitation is inherent as the secondary is inserted in the primary. See MPEP § 2112.
Chen does not disclose the difference in diameter is by about 1% to about 3%. As the fit determines the location of the thermocouples, the difference in diameter is a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Yamazaki et al. (US 2021/0116309).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses a bifurcated thermocouple substrate of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the thermocouple and the secondary substrate are calibrated such that an accuracy of the bifurcated thermocouple substrate is about +/-0.40C or less at 400C.
Calibration of thermocouples are known in the art (see MPEP 2144.03) as evidenced by Yamazaki (entire document). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to calibrate the thermocouple of Chen to assure accuracy of the measurement.
In regards to the limitation that the thermocouple is calibrated “such that” an accuracy of the bifurcated thermocouple substrate is +/_ 0,049 degree C or less at 400 C is a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen discloses a bifurcated thermocouple substrate of claim 6.
The limitation wherein the thermocouple and the secondary substrate are calibrated prior to being disposed within the substrate aperture is a product by process limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to be formed by the process recited. It is the examiner’s position that the prior art of modified Chen is able to be formed by the process recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the accumulative eliminations of claim 1 and 3. Specifically the prior art, Chen et al discloses the bifurcated thermocouple substrate of claim 1, and wherein the primary substrate and the secondary substrate comprise matching bonding apertures (see figure, and pages 1-4).
The prior art does not disclose wherein the bifurcated thermocouple is configured to bond the secondary substrate to the primary substrate using wire bonding.
Examiner’s note: As Chen specifically magnetic bonding that is removable and replaceable, (see Chen pages 1-4), there would be no reason to combine with a wire bond, or staple, etc., bond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721