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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 25, “the amount of air” should read “an amount of the air”.
In line 28, “air” should read “the air”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “inputting air” should read “inputting the air”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, “delivery of air” should read “the inputting of the air”.
In line 8, “air delivered” should read “the air inputted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “delivery of air” should read “the inputting of the air”.
In line 5, “failure” should read “the failure”.
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: “signal processing apparatus” in claim 1 (there is no corresponding structure in the instant specification) and “air source” in claim 1 (there is no corresponding structure in the instant specification).
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 1-6 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “signal processing apparatus” and claims 1-6 recite the limitation “air source” which both invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, these means-plus-function limitations lack adequate written description. MPEP § 2181(IV).
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 1-6 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 limitations “signal processing apparatus” in claim 1 and “air source” in claims 1-6 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow speed" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the degree" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of the oxygen content detection system of independent claim 1, with particular attention to the limitations:
“the housing (251) being connected to the signal processing apparatus (249)…;
a mass flow valve (244), the mass flow valve (244) being disposed in the connection pathway (246), and configured to adjust the amount of air delivered to the cavity (252) of the housing (251) from the air source (135) according to the oxygen concentration signal; and
a first throttle valve (245), the first throttle valve (245) being disposed in the connection pathway (246), in order to adjust the flow speed of air in the connection pathway (246)” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Wang et al. (CN 104633698 A) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) and Matsuoka (US 2015/0316444 A1).
Wang teaches a heat-accumulating heating furnace residual oxygen content automatic control system comprising a PLC control module, a zirconia analyzer 7, a flow sensor 2, a gas valve 3, and an air valve 5 (Fig. 3, para. [0005]). Wang teaches that the PLC control module and the zirconia analyzer 7 are connected through a network (Fig. 3, para. [0005]). Wang fails to teach that the PLC control module is connected to the heating furnace itself, and therefore fails to teach “the housing (251) being connected to the signal processing apparatus (249)” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1. Wang also only teaches one air valve 5 and one flow sensor 2 in series, not two valves, and therefore fails to teach both “a mass flow valve (244), the mass flow valve (244) being disposed in the connection pathway (246), and configured to adjust the amount of air delivered to the cavity (252) of the housing (251) from the air source (135) according to the oxygen concentration signal; and a first throttle valve (245), the first throttle valve (245) being disposed in the connection pathway (246), in order to adjust the flow speed of air in the connection pathway (246)” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
Matsuoka teaches a sensor control system 101 composed of an oxygen sensor 110 for measuring the oxygen concentration of the intake atmosphere (Fig. 7, para. [0117]). Matsuoka teaches an oxygen sensor control section 112 disposed in the ECU 43 and including a detection section for detecting the output signal Ip from the oxygen sensor 110 and a computation section for performing correction processing for the output signal Ip (Fig. 7, para. [0119]). Matsuoka teaches that the oxygen sensor 110 is provided on an intake manifold 44 through which the intake atmosphere (a mixture of the atmosphere (air) taken into the engine 40 and exhaust gas recirculated by the EGR apparatus 50) flows (Fig. 7, para. [0057]). Matsuoka teaches that a throttle valve 45 for controlling the flow rate of the air is provided in an upstream region of the intake manifold 44 in which only the air flows (Fig. 7, para. [0057]). Matsuoka fails to teach that the oxygen sensor control section 112 is connected to the intake manifold 44 itself, and therefore fails to teach “the housing (251) being connected to the signal processing apparatus (249)” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1. Matsuoka also only teaches one throttle valve, not two valves, and therefore fails to teach both “a mass flow valve (244), the mass flow valve (244) being disposed in the connection pathway (246), and configured to adjust the amount of air delivered to the cavity (252) of the housing (251) from the air source (135) according to the oxygen concentration signal; and a first throttle valve (245), the first throttle valve (245) being disposed in the connection pathway (246), in order to adjust the flow speed of air in the connection pathway (246)” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
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