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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 17-32 are currently pending. Claims 1-16 have been canceled. Claims 17-32 have been added. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein multiple ones of the temperature sensor are supplied in a form of a composite structure of interconnected temperature sensors”, of claim 30, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Britton et al. (US 2015/0016487) (hereinafter Britton).
Regarding claim 17, Britton teaches a temperature sensor comprising:
an insulating polymer substrate (32) (see Fig. 2-3 and paragraphs 0048-0049);
at least two connection lines (26,28) (see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 0042-0049); and
at least one resistance sensor element (40) (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0051), wherein
the at least two connection lines (26, 28) are arranged on the insulating polymer substrate (32) (see Figs. 2-3), wherein the at least one resistance sensor element (40) is connected to the at least two connection lines (26, 28), and wherein the at least one resistance sensor element (40) and the at least two connection lines (26,28) are covered at least partially by a cover layer comprising a flexible polymer (encapsulated by polymer film) (see paragraphs 0048-0053).
Regarding claim 20, Britton further teaches wherein the at least two connection lines (26,28) are integrally connected (printed) to the insulating polymer substrate (32) (see paragraph 0042).
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 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Schafferhans et al. (US 2023/0358615) (hereinafter Schafferhans).
Regarding claim 18, Britton teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Britton does not explicitly teach the at least one resistance sensor element has a conductive metallic resistance structure that comprises platinum.
Schafferhans teaches the at least one resistance sensor element has a conductive metallic resistance structure that comprises platinum (see paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one resistance sensor element as taught by Britton with a conductive metallic resistance structure that comprises platinum as taught by Schafferhans. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a temperature sensor with a high temperature coefficient of resistance, high accuracy and can operate in a wide temperature range.
Regarding claim 21, Britton teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Britton does not explicitly teach the at least one resistance sensor element is realized in accordance with surface-mountable technology.
Schafferhans teaches the at least one resistance sensor element is realized in accordance with surface-mountable technology (see paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one resistance sensor element as taught by Britton to be realized in accordance with surface-mountable technology as taught by Schafferhans. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a temperature sensor that is small, cost-effective and with improved thermal response.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Li et al. (US 9860977) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 19, Britton teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Britton does not explicitly teach wherein the insulating polymer substrate has a dielectric strength of at least 100 KV/mm.
Li teaches wherein the insulating polymer substrate has a dielectric strength of at least 100 KV/mm (see col. 3, L. 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the insulating polymer substrate as taught by Britton with a substrate having a dielectric strength of at least 100 KV/mm as taught by Li. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a substrate with good electrical insulating properties as known in the art. I
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Mullen et al. (US 11280685) (hereinafter Mullen).
Regarding claim 22, Britton teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Britton does not explicitly wherein teach the temperature sensor has a thickness in a range between 10 µm-1500 µm.
Mullen teaches the temperature sensor has a thickness in a range between 10 µm-1500 µm (see col. 7, L. 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor as taught by Britton with a thickness in a range between 10 µm-1500 µm as taught by Mullen. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a miniaturized temperature sensor with a compact design as known in the art.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Schafferans in further view of Rose et al. (US 10530101)
Regarding claim 23, Britton teaches the temperature sensor according to claim 17.
However, Britton does not explicitly teach a plug-in connection element selected from a plug and a socket, wherein the plug-in connection element has at least one metallic conduction element for conducting an electric current, and wherein the temperature sensor is arranged on the surface of the metallic conduction element.
Schafferans teaches a plug-in connection element selected from a plug and a socket (see paragraph 0004), wherein the plug-in connection element has at least one conduction element for conducting an electric current (see paragraphs 0004-0005, 0027and 0030), and wherein the temperature sensor (100) is arranged on the surface of the conduction element (200) (see Figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor as taught by Britton with
However, Britton as modified by Schafferans does not explicitly teach the conduction element being metallic.
Rose teaches the conduction element being metallic (see col. 3, L. 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed modify to provide the conduction element as taught by the prior combination to be metallic as taught by Rose. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide excellent electrical conduction as known in the art.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 24-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Schafferans in view of Rose as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Shimizu et al. (US 2019/0036278)(hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 24, Britton in view of Schafferans and Rose teaches all the limitations of claim 23.
However, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one metallic conduction element has a depression and the temperature sensor is arranged in the depression.
Shimizu teaches the at least one conduction element has a depression and the temperature sensor (S) is arranged in the depression (see Fig. 4b and paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one metallic conduction element as taught by the prior combination with a depression and the temperature sensor being arranged in the depression as taught by Shimizu. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide easy mechanically affixation of the sensor to the metallic conduction element thereby allowing a good direct coupling to the conduction element to achieve a reliable sensing by the sensor.
Regarding claim 25, Britton in view of Schafferans and Rose and Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 24, and further teaches wherein the depression is a slot, into which a region of the temperature sensor (S) containing the at least one resistance sensor element is completely recessed (see Shimizu; Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 29, Britton in view of Schafferans and Rose teaches all the limitations of claim 23.
However, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature sensor is fixed on the at least one metallic conduction element by an integral, form- fitting or frictional connection.
Shimizu teaches wherein the temperature sensor (S) is fixed on the at least one metallic conduction element by a form-fitting connection (see Fig. 4b and paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the temperature sensor as taught by the prior combination with on the at least one metallic conduction element by a form-fitting connection as taught by Shimizu. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide easy mechanically affixation of the sensor to the metallic conduction element thereby allowing a good direct coupling to the conduction element to achieve a reliable sensing by the sensor.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Schafferans in view of Rose as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Daily et al. (US 2021/0333156) (hereinafter Daily).
Regarding claim 26, Britton in view of Schafferans and Rose teaches all the limitations of claim 23.
However, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose does not explicitly teach a circuit board, wherein the at least two connection lines of the temperature sensor contact the circuit board without use of wires or cables.
Daily teaches a circuit board (504), wherein the at least two connection lines of the temperature sensor (502) contact the circuit board (504) without use of wires or cables (“circuit traces, pads, vias, and the like”; see paragraph 0050).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature sensor as taught by the prior combination with a circuit board, wherein the at least two connection lines of the temperature sensor contact the circuit board without use of wires or cables as taught by Daily. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the temperature sensor with a secure connection that can withstand movement/vibrations to the circuit board.
Regarding claim 27, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose and Daily teaches all the limitations of claim 26, and further teaches wherein the at least two connection lines (“circuit traces, pads, vias, and the like”; see Daily, paragraph 0050) of the temperature sensor (502) contact the circuit board (504) by an integral (soldered), or by frictional connection (press-fit) (see Daily; paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 28, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose and Daily teaches all the limitations of claim 27, and further teaches wherein the integral connection is a soldered connection (see Daily; paragraph 0052).
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton in view of Schafferans in view of Rose as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Khoche (US 2019/0370624) (hereinafter Khoche).
Regarding claim 30, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose teaches all the limitations of claim 23, and further teaches an automated method for producing multiple ones of the plug-in connection element (see Rose; paragraph 0004 and 0014).
However, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose does not explicitly wherein multiple ones of the temperature sensor are supplied in a form of a composite structure of interconnected temperature sensors.
Khoche teaches multiple ones of the temperature sensor (94) are supplied in a form of a composite structure (100) of interconnected (mechanically) temperature sensors (94) (see Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0034-0036, 0042-0050 and 0056).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature sensor with multiple ones of the temperature sensor being supplied in a form of a composite structure of interconnected temperature sensors as taught by Khoche. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide an efficient and cost effective way to manufacture multiple temperature sensors.
Regarding claim 31, Britton as modified by Schafferans and Rose and Khoche teaches all the limitations of claim 30, and further teaches the multiple ones of the temperature sensor (94), which are part of the composite structure (100), are singulated prior to an installation in the multiple ones of the plug-in connection element (see Khoche; paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 32, Britton as modified by Schafferhans and Rose and Khoche teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches the singulated ones of the temperature sensor being supplied are arranged on the surface of the at least one metallic conduction element by an automated assembly (see Schafferhans; paragraph 0088).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights