DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennebeuf et al. (US 2021/0181038) in view of Wang et al. (CN 107490326 A) (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Mennebeuf bn teaches a device (2) for measuring a temperature of a fluid flowing over an outer wall (12) of an object comprising an optical fiber (14) and a flexible jacket (18) surrounding the optical fiber (14) (see Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0037-0038), the optical fiber (14) extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the measuring device (2) comprises an elongate insulating part (24) (see paragraph 0052) having at least two opposite faces (see Figure 3), an inner face (inner face in contact with envelope (18)) and an outer face (outer face in contact with surface (10) of the wall (12)) (see paragraphs 0042-0043 and Fig. 3), and wherein the jacket (18) surrounds the insulating part (24), apart from the outer face (outer face in contact with surface (10) of the wall (12)) (see Figure 3), and keeps the inner face (inner face in contact with envelope (18)) of the insulating part (24) facing the optical fiber (14) over at least a part of its length along the longitudinal axis (see Figures 3-4).
However, Mennebeuf does not explicitly teach the insulating part comprising cork, and the inner face of the insulating part having a transverse dimension greater at least than a diameter of the fiber.
Wang teaches the insulating part (2) comprising cork (see Abstract), and the inner face of the insulating part (2) having a transverse dimension greater at least than a diameter of the fiber (4) (see Fig. 2).
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 insulation as taught by Mennebeuf with cork, and the inner face of the insulating part having a transverse dimension greater at least than a diameter of the fiber as taught by Wang. One would be motivated to make this combination because a cork insulating layer provides high heat-insulation fire-retardant property, which is a very good high-speed aircraft outer layer heat insulating material and improves system safety.
Regarding claim 7, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the insulating part is a sheet of natural “the cork 2 is rectangle soft wood…”; see Wang, page 4, line 36)
Regarding claim 9, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang teaches a structure having a wall (12) comprising the measuring device (2) according to claim 1 (see Mennebeuf; Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang teaches an aircraft comprising the structure according to claim 9 (see Mennebeuf; Figures 1-3).
Claims 2-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennebeuf in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hasegawa et al. (JP 2008016564 A) (hereinafter Hasegawa).
Regarding claim 2, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang does not explicitly teach the inner and outer faces of the insulating part are coated at least partially with a layer, respectively, of silicone elastomer, the insulating part then being an insulating part with seals.
Hasegawa teaches wherein the inner and outer faces of the insulating part (4) are coated at least partially with a layer, respectively, of silicone elastomer (10), the insulating part then being an insulating part (4) with seals (see Figure 1 and page 3, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the inner and outer faces of the insulating part as taught by the prior combination at least partially with a layer, respectively, of silicone elastomer, the insulating part then being an insulating part with seals as taught by Hasegawa. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a strong and secure adhesive bonding between the device and the outer wall of the object.
Regarding claim 3, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang and Hasegawa teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the fiber is coated with a sheath to be a sheathed fiber (“The fiber 14 covered with the sheath 16 will be referred to in the remainder of the description as the sheathed fiber 17; see Mennebeuf, paragraph 0038), the jacket (18) surrounding the sheathed fiber (17) and the insulating part (24) with seals, apart from the outer face coated at least partially with silicone elastomer (see Mennebeuf, Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang and Hasegawa teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the sheathed fiber (17) is in contact with the insulating part with seals over an entire length of the insulating part with seals (see Mennebeuf, Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang and Hasegawa teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches a thickness of the jacket (18) between the two faces at the sheathed fiber (17) corresponds substantially to a diameter of the sheathed fiber (17), or is even slightly greater (see Mennebeuf, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang and Hasegawa teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches the jacket (18) has a trapezoidal section, the jacket (18), the insulating part with seals and the sheathed fiber (17) having a form that is symmetrical with respect to a plane passing through the longitudinal axis, the sheathed fiber (17) being positioned on the insulating part (24) with seals at the plane (see Mennebeuf, Figure 3).
Claim 5 in rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennebeuf in view of Wang and Hasegawa as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Dupe et al. (US 2017/0079152).
Regarding claim 5, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang and Hasegawa teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches the insulating part with seals (see Hasegawa, Figure 1 and page 3, lines 30-35).
However, Mennebeuf as modified by Wang and Hasegawa does not explicitly teach wherein the jacket has a polyhedral form with six faces comprising at least two flat parallel faces, including one with an open cavity of a form complementing the insulating part with seals.
Dupe teaches the jacket (5) has a polyhedral form with six faces comprising at least two flat parallel faces (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029-0033), including one with an open cavity of a form complementing the insulating part (“the circuit 10 comprises a number of printed circuit layers separated by insulating layers”, see paragraph 0058).
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 jacket as taught by the prior combination with a polyhedral form with six faces comprising at least two flat parallel faces, including one with an open cavity of a form complementing the insulating part with seals as taught by Dupe. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to follow the contours of the object/aircraft and to provide a less bulky system, a limitation of the points of rigidity in a curved zone because of its small surface area for increased longevity.
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