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 Arguments
102 Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth 102 Rejection has been overcome.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
a direction determination unit
an increase/decrease determination
a correction factor storage unit
a correction factor selection unit
and a signal correction unit found in claims 1 and 8 with corresponding structure found in [0059-0064].
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hocken et al. (7,177,770) in view of Bonne (6,019,505).
With respect to claim 1, Hocken et al. teaches a physical quantity detection device comprising: a thermal flow sensor (1) that is configured to detect a forward flow and a reverse flow of air (as the meter 1 includes a processor that is capable of sensing forwards and reverse flow directions; Col. 2 lines 64-67); and a signal processing device (as read in the abstract); 32 that processes a detection signal of the thermal flow sensor (1), wherein the signal processing device (as disclosed in the abstract) includes: a direction determination unit (i.e. a signal conditioning algorithm; Col. 5 lines38-61) that determines the forward flow or the reverse flow of the air based on the detection signal (as the processor determines flow direction based on the signals); an increase/decrease determination unit that determines an increase or decrease in flow rate of the air based on the detection signal (as Hocken teaches the signal processor 32 have algorithmic functions that determines a magnitude of the mass of air flowing by the sensor; Col. 2 lines 60-64); a correction factor storage unit (i.e. memory; Col. 5 lines 18-33) that stores a first factor, a second factor, a third factor, and a fourth factor used for correction of the detection signal (as Hocken teaches in Col. 5 lines 38-61 and Col. 6 lines 3-29, four correction factors and a block in the control logic with respect to looking up the correction factor in the storage of the processor); a correction factor selection unit (i.e. a portion of the control logic that selects the correction factor based on a determined flow mode) that selects, as a correction factor, the first factor, the second factor, the third factor, or the fourth factor based on determination results of the direction determination unit and the increase/decrease determination unit (as the control logic is Hocken teaches selecting a correction factor based on the determination of direction and magnitude; Col. 5 lines 38-61); and a signal correction unit (i.e. a portion of the control logic found on the processor 32) that corrects the detection signal by using the correction factor (as selected based on the determined direction and mode), and the correction factor selection unit (as taught in Hocken) selects the first factor in a case of the forward flow and the increase in flow rate, selects the second factor in a case of the reverse flow and the increase in flow rate, selects the third factor in a case of the forward flow and the decrease in flow rate, and selects the fourth factor in a case of the reverse flow and the decrease in flow rate (as Hocken teaches “[t[he air flow correction factor, indicative of mass of air flowing away from the intake manifold, is selected in Lookup Correction Factor (block 100), based upon the input flow average, the AC Minimum peak value, the AC maximum peak value, the reverse minimum peak value, the reverse maximum peak value, when the reverse flow active flag, the pulse flow active flag, or the onset flow active flag is set” which will select each corrective factor based on the sensed directions and magnitudes).
Hocken et al. remains silent regarding the thermal flow sensor includes two temperature sensing wires meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in a direction orthogonal to the flow direction of the air and arranged at an interval in the flow direction of the air, and a heating wire meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in the direction orthogonal to the flow direction of the air and disposed between the two temperature sensing wires.
Bonne teaches a similar thermal sensor in Fig. 2 that includes two temperature sensing wires (22 and 24) meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in a direction orthogonal to a flow direction of the air (as depicted in Fig. 2) and arranged at an interval in the flow direction of the air (as seen in Fig. 2 which depicts how the two sets of wires of 22 and 24 meander in such a way as to reciprocate in the direction orthogonal to the air flow arrow), and a heating wire (26) meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in the direction orthogonal to the flow direction (air flow arrow; Fig 2) of the air and disposed between the two temperature sensing wires (22 and 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute the sensor of Hocken et al. with the one taught in Bonne to achieve the predictable result of sensing physical properties of a flowing fluid. Further, such a modification provides an improved, fast-reacting sensor, Col. 4 lines 59-62, thereby improving the overall detection capabilities of Hocken.
With respect to claim 4, Hocken et al. teaches the physical quantity detection device wherein at least one of the first factor, the second factor, the third factor, and the fourth factor is determined according to the flow rate of the air based on the detection signal (as Hocken teaches a correction factor being selected based on both magnitude and direction of flow rate; Col. 2 lines 60-67).
With respect to claim 5, Hocken et al. teaches the physical quantity detection device wherein the direction determination unit (as taught by Hocken) stores a determination reference value based on a value of the detection signal when a true flow rate of the air during pulsation of the air in which a flow of the air is alternately switched between the forward flow and the reverse flow becomes 0 (as Hocken teaches using electrical potentials at Nodes 2 and 3 as input to a differential operational amplifier 26, which drives a FET transistor 30 to control electrical potential, essentially maintaining a specific operating bridge balance as a reference to measure flow; Col. 4 lines 26-41), and determines the forward flow or the reverse flow based on the detection signal and the determination reference value (as Hocken teaches the output at Node 5 being based on the reference conditions determined using nodes 2 and 3 to measure air mass and its respective direction).
With respect to claim 6, Hocken et al. teaches the physical quantity detection device wherein the determination reference value is determined according to the flow rate of the air based on the detection signal (as Hocken et al. teaches using the detection signal; Col. 4 lines 26-41).
With respect to claim 7, Hocken et al. teaches the physical quantity detection device wherein the signal processing device includes a memory (as indirectly taught in Col. 6 lines 30-52) that stores a previous value (as data from a previous execution cycle is saved) and a latest value of the detection signal (i.e. the measured signal; Col. 6 lines 30-52), and the signal correction unit (i.e. the portion of the processor that) corrects the latest value by using a differential value of the detection signal based on a difference between the previous value and the latest value (as Hocken et al. teaches “(block 44) comprises calculating a difference between measured input flow signal from immediately previous execution cycle and the currently measured input flow signal” in Col. 6 lines 30-52).
With respect to claim 8, Hocken et al. teaches a signal processing device (Fig. 2) that processes a detection signal of a thermal flow sensor (1) configured to detect a forward flow and a reverse flow of air (Col. 2 lines 64-67), the signal processing device (Fig. 2) comprising: a direction determination unit (i.e. a signal conditioning algorithm; Col. 5 lines38-61) that determines the forward flow or the reverse flow of the air based on the detection signal (as the processor determines flow direction based on the signals); an increase/decrease determination unit that determines an increase or decrease in flow rate of the air based on the detection signal (as Hocken teaches the signal processor 32 have algorithmic functions that determines a magnitude of the mass of air flowing by the sensor; Col. 2 lines 60-64); a correction factor storage unit (i.e. memory; Col. 5 lines 18-33) that stores a first factor, a second factor, a third factor, and a fourth factor used for correction of the detection signal (as Hocken teaches in Col. 5 lines 38-61 and Col. 6 lines 3-29, four correction factors and a block in the control logic with respect to looking up the correction factor in the storage of the processor); a correction factor selection unit (i.e. a portion of the control logic that selects the correction factor based on a determined flow mode) that selects, as a correction factor, the first factor, the second factor, the third factor, or the fourth factor based on determination results of the direction determination unit and the increase/decrease determination unit (as the control logic is Hocken teaches selecting a correction factor based on the determination of direction and magnitude; Col. 5 lines 38-61); and a signal correction unit (i.e. a portion of the control logic found on the processor 32) that corrects the detection signal by using the correction factor (as selected based on the determined direction and mode), and the correction factor selection unit (as taught in Hocken) selects the first factor in a case of the forward flow and the increase in flow rate, selects the second factor in a case of the reverse flow and the increase in flow rate, selects the third factor in a case of the forward flow and the decrease in flow rate, and selects the fourth factor in a case of the reverse flow and the decrease in flow rate (as Hocken teaches “[t[he air flow correction factor, indicative of mass of air flowing away from the intake manifold, is selected in Lookup Correction Factor (block 100), based upon the input flow average, the AC Minimum peak value, the AC maximum peak value, the reverse minimum peak value, the reverse maximum peak value, when the reverse flow active flag, the pulse flow active flag, or the onset flow active flag is set” which will select each corrective factor based on the sensed directions and magnitudes).
Hocken et al. remains silent regarding the thermal flow sensor includes two temperature sensing wires meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in a direction orthogonal to the flow direction of the air and arranged at an interval in the flow direction of the air, and a heating wire meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in the direction orthogonal to the flow direction of the air and disposed between the two temperature sensing wires.
Bonne teaches a similar thermal sensor in Fig. 2 that includes two temperature sensing wires (22 and 24) meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in a direction orthogonal to a flow direction of the air (as depicted in Fig. 2) and arranged at an interval in the flow direction of the air (as seen in Fig. 2 which depicts how the two sets of wires of 22 and 24 meander in such a way as to reciprocate in the direction orthogonal to the air flow arrow), and a heating wire (26) meandering in such a way as to reciprocate in the direction orthogonal to the flow direction (air flow arrow; Fig 2) of the air and disposed between the two temperature sensing wires (22 and 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute the sensor of Hocken et al. with the one taught in Bonne to achieve the predictable result of sensing physical properties of a flowing fluid. Further, such a modification provides an improved, fast-reacting sensor, Col. 4 lines 59-62, thereby improving the overall detection capabilities of Hocken.
The method steps of claim 9 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 8.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hocken et al. (7,177,770) in view of Bonne (6,019,505), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Asano et al. (2015/0377676).
With respect to claim 2, Hocken et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection but remains silent regarding the physical quantity detection device further comprising a sub-passage in which the thermal flow sensor is disposed, wherein the sub-passage includes an inlet for taking in the forward flow of the air from a main passage in which the physical quantity detection device is installed, an outlet for discharging the air taken in from the inlet to the main passage, an inlet-side passage between the inlet and the thermal flow sensor, and an outlet-side passage between the thermal flow sensor and the outlet, and the inlet-side passage and the outlet-side passage have different shapes.
Asano et al. teaches a similar detection device (depicted below) that includes a sub-passage (as defined below to include the labeled elements) in which a flow sensor (2) is disposed, wherein the sub-passage (as labeled below) includes an inlet (as defined below) for taking in a forward flow of the air from a main passage (as defined below) in which a physical quantity detection device (4) is installed, an outlet (as defined below) for discharging the air taken in from the inlet to the main passage (as shown below), an inlet-side passage (defined below) between the inlet and the thermal flow sensor (2; as seen below), and an outlet-side passage (defined below) between the thermal flow sensor (2) and the outlet (as defined below), and the inlet-side passage and the outlet-side passage have different shapes (as the shapes of each inlet and outlet have different shapes relative to one another, as one has clockwise curve while the other has a counter-clock wise direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the structure of the sensor taught in Hocken et al. to include the sub-passage and its components, as taught in Asano et al. because Asano et al. teaches such structure allows for high measurement precision, [0013]; thereby improving the overall accuracy of Hocken.
[AltContent: textbox (Sub-passage: inlet-side passage)][AltContent: textbox (Sub-passage: outlet-side passage)][AltContent: textbox (Sub-passage: inlet-side passage)][AltContent: textbox (Main passage)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sub-passage: inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
476
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zigovszki et al. (2016/0084692) which teaches flow measurements and using a correcting factor.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights