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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 May 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-15 were originally filed.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10, and 13-15 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-14 are currently amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS/ARGUMENTS
– 35 USC § 112(a/f) –
Claims 1-10 were interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f). As a preliminary matter, Examiner notes that claim 11, directed toward a method embodiment, was not indicated as invoking 35 USC § 112(f).
Re claim 1, Applicant “does not acquiesce to this interpretation…” and further argues that the claims have been amended “to avoid further allegations of interpretations under 35 USC § 112(f)”. However, Applicant does not point to any sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions, merely repeating the claim language. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive and claims 1-10 remain interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f).
– 35 USC § 112(b) –
Claims 1-15 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
As an initial matter re claim 11, Applicant repeats the misinterpretation of the previous Office Action that claims 11-15 are being interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f). Nowhere in the previous Office Action is this asserted.
Regardless, Applicant makes no attempt to rebut the merits of the rejections themselves, merely echoing the argument presented above with regard to 35 USC § 112(f). Accordingly, Applicant’s response is not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
– 35 USC § 101 –
Claims 1-15 were rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Re claim 1, Applicant (mis)states, “as agreed upon in the Examiner Interview, amended claim 1 reciting the additional element of ‘output a value associated with the gas pressure to regulate, based on the value associated with the gas pressure, evacuation of gas within the vacuum system’”. To the contrary, the Examiner explicitly stated that the newly amended feature, as similarly proposed during the Examiner Interview, did not overcome the rejection of record because merely outputting data constituted insignificant extra-solution activity and that the intended use this data did not impose meaningful limits upon the claim. In fact, the Examiner suggested an instruction to execute a regulate feature. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
– 35 USC § 102 –
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15 were rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by FERRAN.
Re claim 1, once again Applicant misstates that an apparent agreement was reached with regard to the “output” feature. As discussed above, the intended use “to regulate”, does not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
– 35 USC § 103 –
Claims 3-4 and 14 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAN/CARDINALE.
Claims 7 and 10 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAN/ON.
Re these claims, Applicant only generically argues their patentability. Accordingly, the Examiner is not persuaded and these claims remain rejected.
– Additional Remarks –
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section1.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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.
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 paragraph2:
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;
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
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: “microcontroller configured to… select… determine… and output…” in claim 1.
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:
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
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 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 1-15 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.
Re claim 1, Applicant’s claim limitation “microcontroller configured to determine” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however, the written description fails to particularly and distinctly 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. More Specifically, the claimed function is largely mathematical, necessarily including data value manipulations that are subjective (i.e., normalizing, transfer function, correction factor), thus providing infinite interpretations as to the manner in which this function may be accomplished. While Applicant does disclose a general algorithm for accomplishing said function (thus satisfying the §112(a) requirements), Applicant has not provided enough detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the limits of such function. 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:
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;
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
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:
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
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.
Re claims 2-10, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim 1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 2-10 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 1.
Re claims 11-15, Applicant recites limitations that suffer from the same or substantially the same deficiencies as discussed above with regard to claims 1-10. Accordingly, claims 11-15 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-10.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (89 FR 58128 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2024 GUIDANCE), the claim(s) appear to fall into one of the enumerated statutory categories and recites at least one judicial exception, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Re claim 1, Applicant recites the following limitations:
A vacuum gauge assembly for measuring gas pressure in a vacuum system, the assembly comprising:
a pressure sensing element;
an orientation sensor configured to determine an orientation of the pressure sensing element; and
a microcontroller configured to:
select, based on the orientation from the orientation sensor, a correction factor from a set of correction factors;
determine, based on the correction factor and data from the pressure sensing element, a gas pressure; and
output a value associated with the gas pressure to regulate, based on the value associated with the gas pressure, evacuation of gas within the vacuum system (emphasis added)
These steps are directed to a mathematical concept, such as determining a mathematical relationship or performing a mathematical calculation. The 2024 GUIDANCE expressly recognizes such mathematical relationships and calculations as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Step 2A, prong II, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the 2024 GUIDANCE identifies various considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Re claim 1, in addition to reciting the above-noted abstract idea(s), the judicial exception recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited, namely,
A vacuum gauge assembly for measuring gas pressure in a vacuum system, the assembly comprising:
a pressure sensing element;
an orientation sensor configured to determine an orientation of the pressure sensing element; and
a microcontroller configured to:
select, based on the orientation from the orientation sensor, a correction factor from a set of correction factors;
determine, based on the correction factor and data from the pressure sensing element, a gas pressure; and
output a value associated with the gas pressure to regulate, based on the value associated with the gas pressure, evacuation of gas within the vacuum system (emphasis added),
fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. More specifically here, the “pressure sensing element”, the “orientation sensor”, and the “microcontroller” are merely generic, well-known tools to accomplish the data inputs for the microcontroller to process. Furthermore, nothing in the claim reasonably indicates that anything other than these generic computer/electronic elements need to be used to carry out the abstract idea, thus only loosely tying the judicial exception to a technological field.
STEP 2B:
Step 2B of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Re claim 1, the additional limitation(s) recited above only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological field. Furthermore, these additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they again merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., obtaining pressure and orientation data as inputs for the microcontroller) while only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field (i.e., pressure gauage). Further still, this/these additional limitation(s) does/do not, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for at least these reasons.
Re claims 2-10, these claims do not cure the deficiencies noted above with regard to claim 1, from which they depend, as they merely add further mathematical processing steps and/or other extra-solution activity. Accordingly, they are rejected under the same or substantially similar analysis, as outlined above.
Re claims 11-15, Applicant recites language similar to claims 1-10, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-15 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 as failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferran et al., US20140222363, (“FERRAN”).
Re claim 1, FERRAN discloses
A vacuum gauge assembly for measuring gas pressure in a vacuum system [0008], the assembly comprising:
a pressure sensing element [0013];
an orientation sensor configured to determine an orientation of the pressure sensing element [0013]; and
a microcontroller configured to:
select, based on the orientation from the orientation sensor, a correction factor from a set of correction factors [0013];
determine, based on the correction factor and data from the pressure sensing element, a gas pressure [0013]; and
output a value associated with the gas pressure to regulate, based on the value associated with the gas pressure, evacuation of gas within the vacuum system [0055]
Re claim 2, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 1, as shown above. FERRAN further discloses,
wherein to select the correction factor, the microcontroller is configured to use data received from the orientation sensor to determine a correction to be applied to the data received from the pressure sensing element, the correction corresponding to the correction factor, and wherein to determine the gas pressure, the microcontroller is configured to apply the correction to the data received from the pressure sensing element [0013]
Re claim 5, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 2, as shown above. FERRAN further discloses,
wherein the correction factor is a first correction factor, wherein the first correction factor corresponds to a first orientation, and wherein a second correction factor from the set of correction factors corresponds to a second orientation [0013], and
wherein the orientation sensor is configured to determine if the pressure sensing element is in one of the first orientation or the second orientation [0059], and
wherein the microcontroller is configured to store the set of correction factors, and wherein to select the correction factor, the microcontroller is configured to select the correction factor based on the orientation sensor determining the pressure sensing element is in the first orientation [0059]
Re claim 6, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 5, as shown above. FERRAN further discloses,
wherein the first orientation corresponds to a vertical orientation of the pressure sensing element, and the second orientation corresponds to a horizontal orientation of the pressure sensing element or vice versa [0060-0062]
Re claim 8, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 5, as shown above. FERRAN further discloses,
wherein a third correction factor from the set of correction factors corresponds to a third orientation, and where in a fourth correction factor from the set of correction factors corresponds to a fourth orientation [0060-0062], and
wherein the orientation sensor is further configured to determine if the pressure sensing element is in one of the third or the fourth orientation [0060-0062]
Re claim 9, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 8, as shown above. FERRAN further discloses,
wherein the first orientation is a vertical orientation of the pressure sensing element and the second, third and fourth orientations are different horizontal orientations of the pressure sensing element [0060-0062]
Re claims 11-13, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 1-2 and 5, respectively. Accordingly, claims 11-13 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-2 and 5, respectively.
Re claim 15, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAN in view of Cardinale, US20110231117, (“CARDINALE”).
Re claim 3, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 2, as shown above.
FERRAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein to select the correction factor the microcontroller is configured to normalise the data received from the pressure sensing element and apply the correction in the form of a correction factor to the normalised data
However, CARDINALE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a vacuum gauge assembly comprising a microcontroller configured to normalise data received from sensor element and apply a correction in the form of a correction factor to the normalised data [0032]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FERRAN to include mathematical techniques of CARDINALE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide high accuracy to the vacuum gauge system (see CARDINALE [0093]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CARDINALE merely teaches that it is well-known to normalize data input values for a vacuum gauge system for determining pressure. Since both FERRAN and CARDINALE disclose similar vacuum gauge assembly systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 4, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 1, as shown above.
FERRAN further discloses wherein the microcontroller comprises a memory and a processor in electrical communication therewith, wherein the memory stores a lookup table of reference data and the correction factor [0064], [0068]
FERRAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the microcontroller instructs the processor to normalise the data received from the pressure sensing element before applying a transfer function and the correction factor thereto
However, CARDINALE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a vacuum gauge assembly comprising a microcontroller configured to instruct a processor to normalise the data received from the sensor element before applying a transfer function and the correction factor thereto [0032]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FERRAN to include mathematical techniques of CARDINALE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide high accuracy to the vacuum gauge system (see CARDINALE [0093]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CARDINALE merely teaches that it is well-known to normalize data input values for a vacuum gauge system for determining pressure using a correction factor and lookup table. Since both FERRAN and CARDINALE disclose similar vacuum gauge assembly systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAN in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE, (“ON”).
Re claim 7, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 1, as shown above.
FERRAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein each correction factor of the set of correction factors is an average of a plurality of correction factors determined for different orientations of the pressure sensing element based on one or more true pressure values
However, the Examiner takes ON that that utilizing the mathematical technique of calculating an average of data input values for use in a final value calculation was old and well-known at the time of filing of the instant invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FERRAN to include this mathematical technique, for reasons similar to the reasons set forth above with regard to CARDINALE’S use of the well-known mathematical technique of normalizing data values. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide high accuracy to the vacuum gauge system (see CARDINALE [0093]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ON merely teaches that it is well-known to an average value of a data input in a system for calculating a value based on that input value. Since both FERRAN and ON are embodied in similar vacuum gauge assembly systems (as is CARDINALE), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 10, FERRAN discloses the assembly of claim 1, as shown above.
FERRAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pressure sensing element is a heater element for a Pirani vacuum gauge
However, the Examiner takes ON that that Pirani type vacuum gauges with a heater element were old and well-known at the time of filing of the instant invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FERRAN to include this particular type of vacuum gauge. One would have been motivated to do so this is merely a design choice of a particular type of gauge with no particularly unique features requiring any further modification of the system. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ON merely teaches that Pirani gauges are well-known. Since both FERRAN and ON are embodied in similar vacuum gauge assembly systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)
2 MPEP § 2181, subsection I
Prosecution Insights