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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on March 2, 2026. Claims 12-29 are currently pending in the application. Claim 20 is withdrawn, and claims 12-19 and 21-29 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New objections to the claims are necessitated by the amendments.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 7-8, “in the receiving unit step” should read “in the receiving step” or “by the reception unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “the calibrating unit” should read “the calibration unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “frequency, information” should read “frequency, or information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 4-5, “the second gas sensor device” should read “the second gas sensor apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “the second gas sensor device” should read “the second gas sensor apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “the second gas sensor device” should read “the second gas sensor apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transmission unit” in claim 12 (the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit, a processor, a computer, or equivalents thereof, see para. [0207]-[0208], [0213]-[0214] of the instant US PGPub), "reception unit" in claims 12, 18, and 23-24 (the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit, a processor, a computer, or equivalents thereof, see para. [0207]-[0208], [0213]-[0214] of the instant US PGPub), "calibration unit" in claims 12, 16-19, and 24 (the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit, a processor, a central processing unit, a computer, or equivalents thereof, see para. [0043], [0207]-[0208], [0213]-[0214] of the instant US PGPub), "storage unit" in claims 13 and 21-24 (the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit, a processor, a computer, or equivalents thereof, see para. [0207]-[0208], [0213]-[0214] of the instant US PGPub), and "position information acquisition unit" in claim 17 (the corresponding structure in the instant specification includes a global positioning system, a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit, a processor, a computer, or equivalents thereof, see para. [0097], [0140], [0207]-[0208], [0213]-[0214] of the instant US PGPub).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-19 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New matter is shown in bold.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one of the reliability information and the reference calibration reliability is updatable based on a result of processing related to at least one of the first gas sensor apparatus, the calibration unit, and the second gas sensor” in the last three lines of the claim. The specification does not contain support for the reliability information being updatable based on a result of processing. The specification also does not contain support for updating based on a result of processing related to the calibration unit and the second gas sensor. In the remarks filed on March 2, 2026, Applicant pointed to original claim 2 and paragraphs [0053]-[0054] and [0073] of the specification as originally filed as having support for the above amendment. However, those sections only have support for updating the reference calibration reliability based on the calibration reliability of the first gas sensor apparatus (in other words, based on a result of processing related to the first gas sensor apparatus). There is no support in the disclosure for updating the reliability information, or updating the reference calibration reliability based on a result of processing related to the calibration unit and/or the second gas sensor. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action. Claims 13-19 and 21-29 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “repeating a step of the receiving, by the reception unit, the reliability information; and… wherein the storing includes selectively storing the received current calibration reliability in accordance with a result of comparison between the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit and the current calibration reliability received” in lines 2-7 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for repeating the step of receiving the reliability information. The specification also does not contain support for selectively storing the received current calibration reliability. In the remarks filed on March 2, 2026, Applicant pointed to Fig. 1 and paragraph [0071] of the specification as originally filed as having support for the above amendment. That paragraph discloses that the calibration reliability which is received by the reception unit may be stored in the storage unit, the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit may refer to the past calibration reliability, and that the calibration unit may compare the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit with the current calibration reliability which is received by the reception unit in order to determine whether to calibrate the concentration of the gas. There is no mention in this paragraph or the rest of the disclosure of repeating the step of receiving the reliability information, or selectively storing the received current calibration reliability in accordance with a result of comparison between the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit and the current calibration reliability received. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “repeating a step of the receiving, by the reception unit, the reliability information; and… wherein the calibrating includes selecting one of pieces of the received calibration reliability to be applied to the calibration by the calibrating unit” in lines 2-6 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for repeating the step of receiving the reliability information. The specification also does not contain support for selecting one of pieces of the received calibration reliability to be applied to the calibration. In the remarks filed on March 2, 2026, Applicant pointed to Fig. 1 and paragraph [0071] of the specification as originally filed as having support for the above amendment. That paragraph discloses that the calibration reliability which is received by the reception unit may be stored in the storage unit, the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit may refer to the past calibration reliability, that the calibration unit may compare the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit with the current calibration reliability which is received by the reception unit, and that when the current calibration reliability is higher than the calibration reliability which is stored in the storage unit, the calibration unit may calibrate the concentration of the gas based on the first calibration information. There is no mention in this paragraph or the rest of the disclosure of repeating the step of receiving the reliability information, or actively selecting one of pieces of the received calibration reliability to be applied to the calibration. The calibration reliability is used for comparison, not for calibrating. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “making the second gas sensor apparatus in a standby state when the calibration reliability received in the receiving or reliability of self-calibration of the second gas sensor device is equal to or lower than a predetermined second threshold” in lines 3-6 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for making the second gas sensor apparatus to be in a standby state. In the remarks filed on March 2, 2026, Applicant pointed to paragraph [0070] of the specification as originally filed as having support for the above amendment. That paragraph discloses that when the calibration reliability is equal to or lower than the second threshold, the second gas sensor apparatus may be in a standby state. Examiner interprets this to mean that the second gas sensor apparatus is in a standby state when the calibration reliability is equal to or lower than the second threshold. Thus, the disclosure does not have support for actively making the second gas sensor apparatus to be in a standby state when the calibration reliability received in the receiving or reliability of self-calibration of the second gas sensor device is equal to or lower than a predetermined second threshold. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
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 12-19 and 21-29 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one of the reliability information and the reference calibration reliability” in line 17 of the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation means: (i) at least one reliability information and at least one reference calibration reliability, or (ii) at least one of the reliability information or the reference calibration reliability (meaning the reliability information, the reference calibration reliability, or both). Claims 13-19 and 21-29 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one of the first gas sensor apparatus, the calibration unit, and the second gas sensor” in lines 18-19 of the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation means: (i) at least one first gas sensor apparatus, at least one calibration unit, and at least one second gas sensor, or (ii) at least one of the first gas sensor apparatus, the calibration unit, or the second gas sensor (meaning the first gas sensor apparatus, the calibration unit, the second gas sensor, or any combination thereof). Claims 13-19 and 21-29 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the receiving, by the reception unit, the reliability information; and storing, by a storage unit, the received calibration reliability, wherein the storing includes selectively storing the received current calibration reliability in accordance with a result of comparison between the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit and the current calibration reliability received in the receiving unit step” in lines 5-8 of the claim (emphasis added by the Examiner). It is unclear which of the italicized recitations refer to the same calibration reliability. The “received calibration reliability” is stored in the storage unit, so is it the same as the later recited “the calibration reliability stored in the storage unit” or “the current calibration reliability received in the receiving unit step”? Was one of them previously stored in the storage unit before the presently recited steps? The limitations are unclear.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights