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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 4/29/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,201,046 issued to Kikawa et al. (“Kikawa”).
As for claims 1 and 9, Kikawa discloses a motor vehicle (col. 3, lines 18-21) comprising:
an internal combustion engine (col. 3, lines 18-21);
an air mass sensor for determining an air mass flow rate, the sensor comprising:
a housing (4, 5) defining a chamber (col. 3, lines 43-44);
sensor electronics at least partially located in the chamber (14 and col. 3, lines 43-44);
a duct (6) passing an air mass flow through the housing to be measured by the sensor electronics, the duct comprising an inlet port (7) and an outlet port (8); and
a compensation port (9) arranged upstream of the sensor electronics (see Fig. 1), the compensation port (9) connecting the duct (6) to surroundings external to the housing (see Figs. 1 and 2).
As for claim 2, Kikawa discloses that the compensation port (9) is formed between two parts (left portion of 4 in Fig. 1 and right portion of 4 in Fig. 1) of the housing.
As for claim 8, Kikawa discloses that the compensation port (9) has a polygonal shape (see Fig. 3), or the compensation port (9) has a circular or oval shape (col. 4, lines 29-32).
As for claim 10, Kikawa 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 (col. 3, lines 18-21).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,201,046 issued to Kikawa et al. (“Kikawa”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,346,695 issued to Hirohata et al. (“Hirohata”).
As for claim 3, Kikawa discloses the air mass sensor as claimed in claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Kikawa does not disclose an adhesive connecting the two housing parts.
However, Hirohata discloses an adhesive (applied at 160B, 166 and 167; col. 9, lines 23-29) connecting two housing parts (i.e. the circuit chamber and the duct).
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 Kikawa by including the adhesive as disclosed by Hirohata in order to reliably seal the boundary between the circuit chamber and the duct (Hirohata: col. 12, lines 43-48).
Kikawa as modified by Hirohata discloses that the compensation port (Kikawa: 9) at least partially borders an adhesive (Hirohata: col. 9, lines 23-29) connecting the two housing parts (i.e. the adhesive is applied at the portion between duct 6 of Kikawa and the chamber beneath 5 of Kikawa).
As for claim 4, Kikawa as modified by Hirohata discloses that the compensation port (Kikawa: 9) is defined by an interrupted adhesive seam or interrupted adhesive bead (Kikawa: see the space between 9 and 5 in Fig. 3).
As for claim 5, Kikawa as modified by Hirohata discloses a seal (Hirohata: adhesive; col. 9, lines 23-29) between the two housing parts (Kikawa: see the space between 9 and 5 in Fig. 3),
wherein the compensation port (Kikawa: 9) at least partially borders (Kikawa: see the space between 9 and 5 in Fig. 3) the seal.
As for claim 6, Kikawa as modified by Hirohata discloses that the compensation port (Kikawa: 9) is defined by the seal or the seal is at least partially interrupted to form the compensation port (Kikawa: see the space between 9 and 5 in Fig. 3)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights