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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,346,695 issued to Hirohata et al. (“Hirohata”) in view of DE 10 2008 049843 by Fischer et al. (“Fischer”) as listed in the IDS dated 9/26/2023.
As for claims 1 and 9, Hirohata discloses a motor vehicle (Figs. 1 and 3; col. 2, line 66 - col. 3, line 4) comprising:
an internal combustion engine (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 23-26);
an air mass sensor (311) for determining an air mass flow rate, the sensor comprising:
a housing (100) defining a chamber (space for holding 310);
sensor electronics (310) at least partially located in the chamber (space for holding (310);
a duct (150) passing an air mass flow through the housing (100) to be measured by the sensor electronics, the duct comprising a measuring channel (134, 152) with an inlet port (131) and an outlet port (133) and a bypass channel (151) branching form the measuring channel (see Fig. 3).
Hirohata does not disclose a compensation port, the compensation port connecting the duct of surroundings external to the housing.
However, Fischer discloses a compensation port (16), the compensation port (16) connecting a duct to surroundings external to a housing (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the air mass sensor of Hirohata to include a compensation port as disclosed by Fischer in order to reduce turbulence and to remove unwanted particles (Fischer: paragraph [0006]).
Hirohata as modified by Fischer discloses a compensation port (Fischer: 18) in a region of the inlet port (Hirohata: 131 and Fischer: 8) and of the bypass channel (Hirohata: 151 and Fischer: 6) branching from the measuring channel, and upstream (Fischer: see Fig. 1) of the sensor electronics (Hirohata: 310 and Fischer: 14), the compensation port (Fischer: 16) connecting the duct to surroundings external to the housing (Fischer: paragraph [0021]).
As for claim 2, Hirohata as modified by Fischer discloses that the compensation port (Fischer: 16) is formed between two parts (Hirohata: 160B and 402 in Fig. 7) of the housing (Hirohata: 100).
As for claim 3, Hirohata as modified by Fischer discloses that the compensation port (Fischer: 16) at least partially borders (Hirohata: at 160B) an adhesive (Hirohata: applied at 160B; col. 9, lines 23-29) connecting the two housing parts.
As for claim 8, Hirohata as modified by Fischer discloses that the compensation port has a polygonal shape, or the compensation port (Fischer: 16) has a circular or oval shape (Fischer: see Fig. 1).
As for claim 10, Hirohata as modified by Fischer discloses that the air mass sensor is arranged in an intake line of the internal combustion engine to measure an air mass flow within the intake line (Hirohata: see Fig. 1).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,346,695 issued to Hirohata et al. (“Hirohata”) in view of U.S. Patent 6,851,309 issued to Lenzing et al. (“Lenzing”).
As for claims 1 and 9, Hirohata discloses a motor vehicle (Figs. 1 and 3; col. 2, line 66 - col. 3, line 4) comprising:
an internal combustion engine (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 23-26);
an air mass sensor (311) for determining an air mass flow rate, the sensor comprising:
a housing (100) defining a chamber (space for holding 310);
sensor electronics (310) at least partially located in the chamber (space for holding (310);
a duct (150) passing an air mass flow through the housing (100) to be measured by the sensor electronics, the duct comprising a measuring channel (134, 151) with an inlet port (131) and an outlet port (133) and a bypass channel (151) branching from the measuring channel (see Fig. 3);
Hirohata does not disclose a compensation port in a region of the inlet port, the compensation port connecting the duct to surroundings external to the housing.
However, Lenzing discloses a compensation port (18) in a region of an inlet port (13), the compensation port (18) connecting a duct (20) to surroundings external to a housing (6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the air mass sensor of Hirohata to include a compensation port as disclosed by Lenzing in order to decrease pulsation so that air flow measurements will not be disturbed (Lenzing: col. 3, line 63 - col. 4, line 4).
Hirohata as modified by Lenzing does not explicitly disclose that the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) is arranged upstream of the branching as claimed.
However, Lenzing disclosed the need to include multiple compensation ports to decrease pulsation (col. 3, line 63 - col. 4, line 4). Lenzing disclosed that a compensation port 18 could be along a lower outer surface 21 of the housing 6 (col. 3, line 66 - col. 4, line 4), which corresponds to lower surface 125 of Hirohata that defines the bottom of first sub-passage groove 151 of Hirohata in Fig. 3. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a compensation port (18 of Lenzing) along lower surface 125 of Hirohata would be either upstream the branching, at the branching, or downstream the branching of Hirohata. Because, on the lower surface 125 of Hirohata, there are only three locations with respect to the branching at which to place the compensation port, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try to pursue the known potential solutions, including placing at least one compensation port 18 of Lenzing upstream the branching of Hirohata, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses a compensation port (Lenzing: 18) in a region (i.e. at 125 of Hirohata and 21 of Lenzing) of an inlet port (Hirohata: 131 and Lenzing: 13) and of the bypass channel (Hirohata: 151) branching from the measuring channel and upstream of the sensor electronics (i.e. at 125 of Hirohata), the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) connecting the duct (Hirohata: 150 and Lenzing: 20) to surroundings external to the housing (Hirohata: 100 and Lenzing: 6).
As for claim 2, Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses that the compensation port (Lensing: 18) is formed between two parts (Hirohata: 125 and 215 in Fig. 7) of the housing (Hirohata: 100).
As for claim 3, Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses that the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) at least partially borders (Hirohata: at 125, 165) an adhesive (Hirohata: applied at 165; col. 9, lines 23-29) connecting the two housing parts.
As for claim 4, Hirohata as modified by and Lenzing discloses that the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) is defined by an interrupted adhesive seam (because the port is on the lower surface 125 of Hirohata that is sealed by the adhesive) or interrupted adhesive bead.
As for claim 5, Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses a seal (Hirohata: adhesive; col. 9, lines 23-29) between the two housing parts (Hirohata: 125, 215),
wherein the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) at least partially borders (Hirohata: at 125, 165) the seal.
As for claim 6, Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses that the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) is defined by the seal (because the port is on the lower surface 125 of Hirohata that is sealed by the adhesive) or the seal is at least partially interrupted to form the compensation port.
As for claim 8, Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses that the compensation port has a polygonal shape, or the compensation port (Lenzing: 18) has a circular or oval shape (Lenzing: see Fig. 2).
As for claim 10, Hirohata as modified by Lenzing discloses that the air mass sensor is arranged in an intake line of the internal combustion engine to measure an air mass flow within the intake line (Hirohata: see Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
