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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, however the amended rejection below addresses the arguments with regard to the lookup table and the determination of the ambient pressure.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly directed towards the lookup table of Adam and whether or not it constitutes a profile of a plurality of pressure measurement values recorded by the pressure sensor. As detailed below, the lookup table of Adam is relied upon for a teaching of the constant in the correction value, while the pressure measurements from the sensor correspond to the variable of the correction value which is used in the correction (compensation) of the pressure reading as disclosed in paragraph 0022 of Adam.
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 and 3-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of “determining, at the microcontroller, a correction value” and “determining at the microcontroller, the ambient pressure.” It is not clear if the term “at” means that the correction value and pressure are determined in the proximity of the microcontroller or if the claim is the equivalent of determining with the microcontroller.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. US 2011/0094305 and Chen et al. US 2017/0343441.
Regarding claim 1, Adam discloses a method for determining an ambient pressure that prevails around a control unit, the control unit comprising a housing (fig. 1, paragraph 0027) having an opening (top opening) and a membrane M having a particular permeability and covering the opening (paragraph 0021), a pressure sensor S is arranged inside the housing. Adam further discloses recording a pressure measurement value with the pressure sensor, the pressure measurement being indicative of an internal pressure inside the housing and determining a correction value (compensation, paragraph 0022) in order to determine the ambient pressure on the exterior (the pressure sensor senses a pressure within the chamber which is then adjusted to compensate for pressure differences which yields the ambient, P_external pressure). The correction value comprises a constant (derived from a lookup table), and a variable which includes a pressure variation over time inside the housing determined by a profile of a plurality of pressure measurement values recorded by the pressure sensor over time (paragraph 0022 teaches the pressure sensor as recording a pressure over time in the form of a pressure rise over time is measured by the sensor). Adam does not explicitly teach the microcontroller arranged within the housing as claimed. Chen teaches a pressure sensing system in which a sensor and a microcontroller 130 is placed within a sensor 100 housing 140 for detecting a pressure therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Chen with those of Adam in order to provide a sensing system with the processing included within the housing and without the need for external components which would require additional communications.
Regarding claim 3, the constant of Adam would include properties of the membrane since pressure in the housing would be based on the membrane’s transmission of external pressure.
Regarding claim 5, Adam does not explicitly teach the second constant as including properties of the membrane, however fig. 2 discloses an embodiment which comprises a pressure compensation element DAE which would allow some pressure to pass through the membrane and adjusts for it accordingly as illustrated in fig. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have combined the teachings of the compensation element to provide compensation for any similar properties of the membrane which would require correction by incorporating a similar constant to ensure accurate measurements are being made.
Regarding claim 6, the system of Adam would be capable of determining the second constant in the claimed manner during any environmental changes due to movement or temperature changes that might occur during normal operation of the vehicle in which the unit is to be mounted since the steps to do so would not change.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims are directed towards mathematical calculations which require only routine and known steps to perform and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made in order to more accurately measure the pressure in the system.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, Chen and Karweek US 2021/0131900.
Regarding claim 9, Adam discloses a control unit 100 for determining an ambient pressure, comprising a housing (fig. 1, paragraph 0027) having an opening (top opening) and a membrane M having a permeability and covering the opening (paragraph 0021), a pressure sensor S is arranged inside the housing. Adam further discloses a method comprising recording a pressure measurement value with the pressure sensor, the pressure measurement indicative of an internal pressure inside the housing and determining a correction value (compensation, paragraph 0022) in order to determine the ambient pressure on the exterior (the pressure sensor senses a pressure within the chamber which is then adjusted to compensate for pressure differences which yields the ambient, P_external pressure). Compensation is performed using a correction value which comprises a constant (lookup table, paragraph 0022) and a variable which includes a pressure variation over time inside the housing determined by a profile of a plurality of pressure measurement values recorded by the pressure sensor over time (paragraph 0022 teaches the pressure sensor as recording a pressure over time in the form of a pressure rise over time is measured by the sensor). Adam does not explicitly disclose the method being performed by a microcontroller arranged inside the housing as claimed. Chen teaches a pressure sensing system in which a sensor and a microcontroller 130 is placed within a sensor 100 housing 140 for detecting a pressure therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Chen with those of Adam in order to provide a sensing system without the need for external components which would require additional communications. Additionally, the claim is directed towards a control unit and a method carried out by a microcontroller therein. Therefore, the claim is directed to a product by process and If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 11, in combination, the constant of Adam would involve properties of the membrane since pressure in the housing would be based on the membrane’s transmission of external pressure.
Regarding claim 13, Adam does not explicitly teach the second constant as including properties of the membrane, however fig. 2 discloses an embodiment which comprises a pressure compensation element DAE which would allow some pressure to pass through the membrane and adjusts for it accordingly as illustrated in fig. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have combined the teachings of the compensation element to provide compensation for any similar properties of the membrane which would require correction by incorporating a similar constant to ensure accurate measurements are being made.
Regarding claim 14, the system of Adam would be capable of determining the second constant in the claimed manner during any environmental changes due to movement or temperature changes that might occur during normal operation of the vehicle in which the unit is to be mounted since the steps to do so would not change.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the claims are directed towards mathematical calculations which require only routine and known steps to perform and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made in order to more accurately measure the pressure in the system.
Regarding claim 17, Adam discloses the control unit 100 as being in a vehicle as claimed (paragraph 0035).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, Chen and Karweek US 2021/0131900.
Regarding claim 4, Adam and Chen disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the temperature recoding means in the manner claimed. Karweek discloses in paragraph 0049 the addition of a temperature sensor which measures a temperature of the platform 3 which is inside the housing 21 and records a temperature measurement value which is characteristic of a temperature inside the housing. Karweek further discloses in paragraph 0049, the temperature dependance of the capacitance in the pressure sensor and correcting therefor. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the recorded temperature measurement in the housing over time to correct for pressure since the pressure changes are affected by an increase or decrease in temperature.
Regarding claim 12, Adam and Chen disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the temperature recoding means in the manner claimed. Karweek discloses in paragraph 0049 the addition of a temperature sensor which measures a temperature of the platform 3 which is inside the housing 21 and records a temperature measurement value which is characteristic of a temperature inside the housing. Karweek further discloses in paragraph 0049, the temperature dependance of the capacitance in the pressure sensor and correcting therefor. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the recorded temperature measurement in the housing over time to correct for pressure since the pressure changes are affected by an increase or decrease in temperature.
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 Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855