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 § 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 1-20 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.
The term “low thermal conductivity material” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low thermal conductivity material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1, therefore, the claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as to claim.
The term “low thermal conductivity potting” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high thermal conductivity potting” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high thermal conductivity potting” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “wherein the one or more sensing elements include a plurality of sensing elements”, and the claim also recites “in particular thin film elements, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing elements” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 8-10 depend on claim 7, therefore, the claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as to claim 7.
The term “low thermal conductivity ceramic” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low thermal conductivity ceramic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “low thermal conductivity material” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low thermal conductivity material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high thermal conductivity potting” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 13-19 depend on claim 1, therefore, the claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as to claim.
The term “low thermal conductivity potting” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high thermal conductivity potting” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “low thermal conductivity material” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low thermal conductivity material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high thermal conductivity potting” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high thermal conductivity potting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1, 2, 4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy et al. (US 2007/0195857) (hereinafter Krishnamurthy).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnamurthy teaches a sensor assembly (100) comprising: a body (7 and 9); and a probe assembly configured to be coupled to the body (7 and 9) (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0001), the probe assembly including a probe housing (2), one or more sensing elements (3) disposed in the probe housing (2), and a rod (5) at least partially disposed in the probe housing (2) between the one or more sensing elements (3) and the body (7 and 9) (see Figs 1-2 and paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0040), wherein the rod (5) is formed of a low thermal conductivity material (zirconium oxide) (see paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 2, Krishnamurthy further teaches the probe housing (2) is coupled to the body (7 and 9) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnamurthy further teaches the rod (5) is coupled to the body (7 and 9) and the probe housing (2) (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Krishnamurthy further teaches wherein the body (7 and 9) and the probe housing (2) are formed of stainless steel (see paragraphs 0028 and 0040).
Regarding claim 12, Krishnamurthy further teaches wherein the rod is formed of a low thermal conductivity ceramic (zirconium oxide) (see paragraph 0039).
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Mujumdar et al. (US 2012/0201269) (hereinafter Mujumdar).
Regarding claim 1, Mujumdar teaches a sensor assembly (40) comprising: a body (44) (see Fig. 4); and a probe assembly configured to be coupled to the body (44), the probe assembly including a probe housing (54), one or more sensing elements (56) disposed in the probe housing (54) (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0048), and a rod (52) at least partially disposed in the probe housing (54) between the one or more sensing elements (56) and the body (44) (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0053), wherein the rod (52) is formed of a low thermal conductivity material (polymer) (see paragraphs 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 5, Mujumdar teaches all the limitations of claim 4, and further teaches a first portion of the rod (52) is covered by the probe housing (54) and a second portion of the rod (52) is exposed (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 6, Mujumdar teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches including a high thermal conductivity potting (70) around the one or more sensing element (56) (see paragraphs 0068-0069).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Bradley et al. (US 2009/0110378) (hereinafter Bradley).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnamurthy teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
However, Krishnamurthy does not explicitly teach including a high thermal conductivity potting around the one or more sensing elements and a low thermal conductivity potting between the high thermal conductivity potting and the body in voids between the rod and the probe housing.
Bradley teaches including a high thermal conductivity potting (72) around the one or more sensing elements (70) and a low thermal conductivity potting (74) between the high thermal conductivity potting (72) and the body (58) in voids (66) between the rod (68) and the probe housing (62) (see Figures 2 and 4A and paragraphs 0025 and 0028).
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 sensor assembly as taught by Krishnamurthy by including a high thermal conductivity potting around the one or more sensing elements and a low thermal conductivity potting between the high thermal conductivity potting and the body in voids between the rod and the probe housings as taught by Bradley. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to improve temperature sensing by focusing the heat transfer toward temperature sensor.
Claims 7-9, 13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Rud et al. (US 2018/0094990) (hereinafter Rud)
Regarding claim 7, Krishnamurthy teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Krishnamurthy further teaches the sensor is a thin film element, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing element (see paragraph 0037).
However, Krishnamurthy does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more sensing elements include a plurality of sensing elements, in particular thin film elements, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing elements.
Rud teaches one or more sensing elements include a plurality of sensing elements (112, 114), in particular thin film elements, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing elements (see Fig. 1C, Abstract and paragraph 0015).
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 sensor assembly as taught by Krishnamurthy wherein the one or more sensing elements include a plurality of sensing elements, in particular thin film elements, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing elements as taught by Rud. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more robust temperature sensor configuration. Such a sensor configuration may provide an improved thermally conductive path, with more accurate temperature measurements over broader temperature ranges.
Regarding claim 8, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the rod (5) includes a plurality of bores extending along its length (bores occupied by signal wires 3a and lead wires 6; see Fig. 2), and wherein the sensing element (3) includes one or more wires (3a, 6) extending therefrom that extend into a respective one of the bores in the rod (5) (see Fig. 2).
However, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of sensing elements includes one or more wires.
Rud teaches each of the plurality of sensing elements (112, 114) includes one or more wires (116) (see Fig. 1C and paragraph 0015).
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 sensor assembly as taught by the prior combination each of the plurality of sensing elements includes one or more wires as taught by Rud to provide one or more wires extending therefrom that extend into a respective one of the bores in the rod. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more robust temperature sensor configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches including a plurality of lead wires (116), each lead wire (116) extending through a respective one of the plurality of bores and being coupled to a respective one of the wires of the sensing elements (112, 114) (see Rud, Fig. 1C and paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 13, Krishnamurthy teaches a sensor (100) assembly comprising: a body (7 and 9) (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0001); a probe assembly configured to be coupled to the body (7 and 9), the probe assembly including a probe housing (2), a sensing element (3) disposed in the probe housing (2), and a rod (5) at least partially disposed in the probe housing (2) between the sensing element (3) and the body (7 and 9); and a high thermal conductivity potting (4) around the plurality of sensing element (3) (see paragraph 0027), wherein the rod (5) is formed of a low thermal conductivity material (zirconium oxide) (see paragraph 0039).
However, Krishnamurthy does not explicitly teach the sensing element being a plurality of sensing elements.
Rud teaches one or more sensing elements include a plurality of sensing elements (112, 114), in particular thin film elements, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing elements (see Fig. 1C, Abstract and paragraph 0015).
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 sensing element as taught by Krishnamurthy with a plurality of sensing elements as taught by Rud. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more robust temperature sensor configuration. Such a sensor configuration may provide an improved thermally conductive path, with more accurate temperature measurements over broader temperature ranges.
Regarding claim 15, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and further teaches wherein the rod (5) is coupled to the body (7 and 9) and the probe housing (2) (see Krishnamurthy, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 13, Krishnamurthy further teaches wherein the rod (5) includes a plurality of bores extending along its length (bores occupied by signal wires 3a and lead wires 6; see Fig. 2), and wherein the sensing element (3) includes one or more wires (3a, 6) extending therefrom that extend into a respective one of the bores in the rod (5) (see Fig. 2).
However, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of sensing elements includes one or more wires.
Rud teaches each of the plurality of sensing elements (112, 114) includes one or more wires (116) (see Fig. 1C and paragraph 0015).
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 sensor assembly as taught by the prior combination each of the plurality of sensing elements includes one or more wires as taught by Rud to provide one or more wires extending therefrom that extend into a respective one of the bores in the rod. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more robust temperature sensor configuration.
Regarding claim 18, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches including a plurality of lead wires (116), each lead wire (116) extending through a respective one of the plurality of bores and being coupled to a respective one of the wires of the sensing elements (112, 114) (see Rud, Fig. 1C and paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 20, Krishnamurthy teaches a sensor assembly (100) comprising: a body (7 and 9); a probe assembly configured to be coupled to the body (7and 9) (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0001), the probe assembly including a probe housing (2), a sensing element (3) disposed in the probe housing (2), and a rod (5) at least partially disposed in the probe housing (2) between the sensing element (3) and the body (7 and 9); and a high thermal conductivity potting (4) around the sensing element (3) (see paragraph 0027), wherein the rod (5) is formed of a low thermal conductivity material (zirconium oxide) (see paragraph 0039), and wherein the probe housing (2) is coupled to the body (7 and 9).
However, Krishnamurthy does not explicitly teach the sensing element being a plurality of sensing elements.
Rud teaches the sensing element being a plurality of sensing elements (112, 114) (see Fig. 1C, Abstract and paragraph 0015).
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 sensor element as taught by Krishnamurthy with a plurality of sensing elements as taught by Rud. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more robust temperature sensor configuration. Such a sensor configuration may provide an improved thermally conductive path, with more accurate temperature measurements over broader temperature ranges.
9. Claim 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Rud as applied to claim 9 and 18 above, in further view of Boghun et al. (US 2011/0222583) (hereinafter Boghun).
Regarding claim 10, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
However, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud does not explicitly teach wherein the rod includes a window for each of the bores extending from an outer surface of the rod to the bore for coupling the wires of the sensing elements to the respective lead wires.
Boghun teaches the rod (4) includes a window (8) for each of the bores extending from an outer surface of the rod (4) to the bore for coupling the wires (2) of the sensing elements (sensor element) to the respective lead wires (3) (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0030-0032).
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 sensor assembly as taught by the prior combination wherein the rod includes a window for each of the bores extending from an outer surface of the rod to the bore as for coupling the wires of the sensing elements to the respective lead wires as taught by Boghun. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to facilitate electrical and mechanical connection of the coupling wires with the lead wires, for example, by means of laser beams passing through the windows.
Regarding claim 19, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 18.
However, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud does not explicitly teach wherein the rod includes a window for each of the bores extending from an outer surface of the rod to the bore for coupling the wires of the sensing elements to the respective lead wires.
Boghun teaches the rod (4) includes a window (8) for each of the bores extending from an outer surface of the rod (4) to the bore for coupling the wires (2) of the sensing elements (sensor element) to the respective lead wires (3) (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0030-0032).
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 sensor assembly as taught by the prior combination wherein the rod includes a window for each of the bores extending from an outer surface of the rod to the bore as for coupling the wires of the sensing elements to the respective lead wires as taught by Boghun. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to facilitate electrical and mechanical connection of the coupling wires with the lead wires, for example, by means of laser beams passing through the windows.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Rud as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Bradley.
Regarding claim 14, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and further teaches the probe housing (2) is coupled to the body (7 and 9) (see Krishnamurthy; Fig. 1)
However, Krishnamurthy as modified by Rud does not explicitly teach a low thermal conductivity potting is provided between the high thermal conductivity potting and the body in voids between the rod and the probe housing.
Bradley teaches including a low thermal conductivity potting (74) is provided between the high thermal conductivity potting (72) and the body (58) in voids (66) between the rod (68) and the probe housing (62) (see Figures 2 and 4A and paragraphs 0025 and 0028).
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 sensor assembly as taught by the prior combination with a low thermal conductivity potting is provided between the high thermal conductivity potting and the body in voids between the rod and the probe housing as taught by Bradley. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to improve temperature sensing by focusing the heat transfer toward temperature sensor.
Claim 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujumdar in view of Rud.
Regarding claim 13, Mujumdar teaches a sensor assembly (40) comprising: a body (44) (see Fig. 4); a probe assembly configured to be coupled to the body (44), the probe assembly including a probe housing (54), a sensing element (56) disposed in the probe housing (54), and a rod (52) at least partially disposed in the probe housing (54) between the sensing element (56) and the body (44) (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0053); and a high thermal conductivity potting (70) around the sensing element (56) (see paragraphs 0068-0069), wherein the rod (52) is formed of a low thermal conductivity material (polymer) (see paragraphs 0049-0050).
However, Mujumdar does not explicitly teach the sensing element being a plurality of sensing elements.
Rud teaches one or more sensing elements include a plurality of sensing elements (112, 114), in particular thin film elements, in particular resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing elements (see Fig. 1C, Abstract and paragraph 0015).
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 sensing element as taught by Mujumdar with a plurality of sensing elements as taught by Rud. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a more robust temperature sensor configuration. Such a sensor configuration may provide an improved thermally conductive path, with more accurate temperature measurements over broader temperature ranges.
Regarding claim 15, Mujumdar as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 13, Mujumdar further teaches wherein the rod (52) is coupled to the body (44) and the probe housing (54) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Mujumdar as modified by Rud teaches all the limitations of claim 15, Mujumdar further teaches wherein a first portion of the rod (52) is covered by the probe housing (54) and a second portion of the rod (52) is exposed (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0053).
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
