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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakibara et al. US 2014/0295715 A1 (hereafter “Sakakibara”) in view of Onishi et al.
US 2020/0271618 A1 (hereafter “Onishi”) or in view of Enomoto et al.
US 2024/0162639 A1 (hereafter “Enomoto”).
Addressing claim 1, Sakakibara discloses a gas sensor (see the last two sentences of paragraph [0022], Figure 1, and paragraph [0034]) comprising:
a plate-shaped sensor element (20 in Figures 1 and 2, and paragraph [0036]) extending in an axial-line direction (see Figures 1 and 2) and having an electrode pad at a main surface on a rear end side thereof (the Examiner is any of construing electrodes 21a and 21b in Figures 4 and 5, and paragraph [0042] as this electrode pad);
a metal terminal extending in the axial-line direction1 and electrically connected to the electrode pad (the Examiner is construing any of contact fittings 71 in Figures 1 and 4, and paragraphs [0040] and [0041] as this metal terminal); and
a separator having a storage portion which penetrates in the axial-line direction (the Examiner is construing connector 50 in Figure 2 and paragraph [0039] as the claimed separator and is construing its internal space (unlabeled) into which the sensor element is inserted (see Figures 2 and 4 and compare with 50h in Applicant’s Figure 3) as the claimed storage space) and in which the rear end side of the sensor element and the metal terminal are stored, thus retaining the metal terminal (see Figures 2 and 4, and paragraphs [0041] and [0042]), wherein
the storage portion has a taper surface whose diameter expands toward a direction perpendicular to the main surface as approaching a rearward-facing surface of the separator (see annotated Figure 4 at the end of this claim rejection).
Sakakibara, though, does not disclose “. . . . , and along the axial-line direction, a rear end of the sensor element is located on an inner side of the taper surface.” However, to have this claim limitation met is prima facie obvious as a simple size (length) change (extending the sensor element length along the axial direction; see second annotated Sakakibara Figure 4 at the end of this claim rejection) with no material effect on the operation of the gas sensor. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The Examiner acknowledges that Applicant believes that this sensor element length change will be beneficial, namely by resulting in reduced or inhibited vibration of the metal terminal (71). See Applicant’s as-filed specification paragraph [0071]. As shown by Onishi, sensor elements with the same basic design as that of Sakakibara are typically very short, for example 67.5 mm long. See Onishi Figures 1 and 2, and paragraph [0093]. It is not readily apparent that lengthening the sensor element by a few millimeters would have any non-trivial effect of reducing or inhibiting vibration of the metal terminal. If Applicant could provide some comparative showing of non-trivial reduced vibration when the sensor element end extends as far into the separator as shown in Applicant’s Figure 3 compared to when the sensor element end extends into the separator as far as shown in Sakakibara Figure 4, the Examiner will reconsider this rejection.
Alternatively, Enomoto is analogous prior art to Sakakibara regarding the claim 1 limitation at issue because it concerns connector structures for a connector (separator) having a similar basic configuration to that of Sakakibara and that is to intended to receive an electrical connection tab of a circuit board similar in design to the insertion end of the sensor element of Sakakibara. See in Enomoto the title, Abstract, and Figure 2. Enomoto further discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
346
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, in light of Enomoto, to have in the gas sensor of Sakakibara, along the axial-line direction, a rear end of the sensor element be located on an inner side of the taper surface is prima facie obvious as routine optimization of a known result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
PNG
media_image2.png
382
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
396
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 2, as for the claim limitation “wherein the metal terminal has a contact portion electrically connected to the electrode pad, . . . .”, the Examiner is construing any of conducting portions 71c in Sakakibara Figure 4 and paragraph [0041] as this contact portion. As for the claim limitation “wherein the metal terminal has . . . . , and a body portion extending from a rear end side of the contact portion to the taper surface…”, it may be inferred from Sakakibara Figures 4 and 6.
Addressing claim 3, the additional limitation of this claim may be inferred from the second annotated Sakakibara Figure 4 at the end of the claim 1 rejection (compare with Applicant’s Figure 3).
Addressing claim 4, the additional limitation of this claim may be inferred from the second annotated Sakakibara Figure 4 at the end of the claim 1 rejection (compare with Applicant’s Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 The X-direction in Figures 1, 2, and 4.
Prosecution Insights