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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's election of the invention of Group I, claims 1-5 and 10-12, and of Species A, the embodiments of FIGS. 3-7, without traverse. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
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 3, 4, 10, and 11 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:
a) claim 3 requires, “The gas sensor control device according to claim 1, further comprising a storage unit configured to . . . ., and store a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments, . . . .” This is an unusual use of the word pattens. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase “patterns of a linear expression” is or even what such a pattern may be. Applicant is requested to clarify how this phrase is to be interpreted and provide at least two examples such patterns. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer with regards to the use of the word “patterns” please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
b) claim 4 requires, “The gas sensor control device according to claim 1, further comprising a storage unit configured to . . . ., and store a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments, . . . .” This is an unusual use of the word “patterns”. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase “patterns of a linear expression” is or even what such a pattern may be. Applicant is requested to clarify how this phrase is to be interpreted and provide at least two examples such patterns. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer with regards to the use of the word “patterns” please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
c) claim 4 requires “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]” However, this claim earlier stores a plurality of pattens of a linear expression (“The gas sensor control device according to claim 1, further comprising a storage unit configured to . . . ., and store a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments, . . . .” ). It is not clear how to understand the limitation “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression, . . . .” in light of the stored plurality of patterns of a linear expression. An example of such a quadratic expression, particularly point out its basis on a linear expression, would be helpful.
d) claim 4 requires “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear how to understand this limitation. Quadratic equations are conventionally in the form ax2 + bx + c, with a (≠ 0), b, and c being constants and x being a variable, which for
claim 4 is time. What does it mean to store such a quadratic equation as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression?
e) claim 4 requires “. . . ., and the calculation unit calculates the concentration of the specific component on the basis of the current value and the quadratic expression defined with the cumulative operating time.[italicizing by the Examiner]” However, this claim earlier requires “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, . . . .” These two laminations do not seem to be consistent. What is the difference between “a time” and “the cumulative operating time”?
f) claim 10 requires, “The gas sensor control device according to claim 2, further comprising a storage unit configured to . . . ., and store a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments, . . . .” This is an unusual use of the word “patterns”. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase “patterns of a linear expression” is or even what such a pattern may be. Applicant is requested to clarify how this phrase is to be interpreted and provide at least two examples such patterns. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer with regards to the use of the word “patterns” please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
g) claim 11 requires, “The gas sensor control device according to claim 2, further comprising a storage unit configured to . . . ., and store a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments, . . . .” This is an unusual use of the word “patterns”. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase “patterns of a linear expression” is or even what such a pattern may be. Applicant is requested to clarify how this phrase is to be interpreted and provide at least two examples such patterns. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer with regards to the use of the word “patterns” please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
h) claim 11 requires “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]” However, this claim earlier stores a plurality of pattens of a linear expression (“The gas sensor control device according to claim 2, further comprising a storage unit configured to . . . ., and store a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments, . . . .” ). It is not clear how to understand the limitation “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression, . . . .” in light of the stored plurality of patterns of a linear expression. An example of such a quadratic expression, particularly point out its basis on a linear expression, would be helpful.
i) claim 11 requires “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear how to understand this limitation. Quadratic equations are conventionally in the form ax2 + bx + c, with a (≠ 0), b, and c being constants and x being a variable, which for
claim 11 is time. What does it mean to store such a quadratic equation as each of a gradient and an intercept of the linear expression?
j) claim 11 requires “. . . ., and the calculation unit calculates the concentration of the specific component on the basis of the current value and the quadratic expression defined with the cumulative operating time.[italicizing by the Examiner]” However, this claim earlier requires “wherein the storage unit stores a quadratic expression defined with a time as a variable, . . . .” These two laminations do not seem to be consistent. What is the difference between “a time” and “the cumulative operating time”?
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onogi et al. US 2014/0131200 A1 (hereafter “Onogi”) in view of Ante et al. US 2017/0356894 A1 (hereafter “Ante”) and Surnilla et al. 2016/0103095 A1 (hereafter “Surnilla”).
Addressing claim 1, Onogi discloses a gas sensor control device (NOx sensor control apparatus 10 in Onogi Figure 1 and paragraph [0054]; compare with 100 in Applicant’s Figure 1) for controlling a gas sensor (NOx sensor 100 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0054]) having therein a measurement chamber (150 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0063]) to which an external measurement target gas is introduced (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0063], noting the following, “A to-be-measured gas GM is introduced from the outside into the first measurement chamber 150 via a first diffusion resistor 151 disposed at the inlet (the left end in FIG. 1) of the first measurement chamber 150.”), the gas sensor including
a first pumping cell (110 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0067]) configured to perform pumping-out and pumping-in of oxygen with respect to the measurement target gas in the measurement chamber (Figure 1 and paragraph [0083]), and
a second pumping cell (130 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0070]) having a pair of electrodes (132 and 133 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0070]) disposed inside and outside the measurement chamber, respectively (Figure 1), and configured to output a current between the pair of electrodes in accordance with a concentration of a specific component in the measurement target gas that has been introduced into the measurement chamber and on which the pumping-out and the pumping-in of oxygen have been performed (paragraph [0079]), the gas sensor control device comprising
a calculation unit (as a first matter, note that Applicant’s specification paragraph [0085] in Applicant’s pre-grant published application (US 20240302321 A1) (hereafter Applicant’s PG-PUB”) states1, ‘The microprocessor 60 corresponds to an example of the “calculation unit” of the present invention.’ As such , the Examiner is construing microcomputer 60 in Onogi Figure 1 and paragraph [0060] as the claimed calculation unit. Note also the following in Onogi paragraph [0060], Programs stored in the ROM 63 or the like in advance are executed by the CPU.”“) configured to calculate the concentration of the specific component from a current value which is a magnitude of the current (see step S8 in Figure 3A and paragraphs [0086]-[0090], noting especially at the following at the end of paragraph [0089], “The microcomputer 60 performs this calculation by reading out of the ROM 63 an equation representing the relation between Ip2 and the NOx concentration within the to-be-measured gas.” ), wherein
when calculating the concentration of the specific component, the calculation unit performs correction on the basis of an index including a difference between an ideal value and the current value when the concentration of the specific component at a second reference time is a set concentration (this correction is implied by paragraph [0100] with the ideal current value being “the second pumping current IP2 in a state in which a gas for determination is used and the gas concentration is set to a known gas concentration, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]”).
However, Onogi does not also disclose “when calculating the concentration of the specific component, the calculation unit performs correction on the basis of . . . ., and a cumulative operating time which is a total operating time of the gas sensor from a third reference time.[italicizing by the Examiner]
Ante discloses a method for operating an oxygen sensor, computer program , and oxygen sensor. See the Ante title. The method of Ante compensates for oxygen sensor aging based on the operating time of the sensor. See the Abstract, Figure 2 ,noting “Compensation” and “Operating time”; paragraph [0008]; and claim 1, noting “. . . ., and changing the value of r responsive to the operating time of the sensor element. [italicizing by the Examiner]“
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the calculation unit of Onogi, when calculating the concentration of the specific component, perform correction also on the basis of a cumulative operating time which is a total operating time of the gas sensor from a third reference time as taught by Ante because
(1) both the sensor of Onogi and that of Ante are measuring the concentration of a specific component of an exhaust gas (see Onogi paragraphs [0056] and [0057} and Ante paragraphs [0001], [0021], and [0027]);
(2) both the sensor of Onogi and that of Ante are solid (zirconia) electrolyte gas sensors (see in Onogi Figure 1 and paragraphs [0063], [0065], and [0067], and in Ante see paragraph [0028]); and
(3) Ante discloses that the high temperatures typically employed when operating a zirconia-electrolyte gas sensor causes sensor aging (see Ante paragraph [0003]), As explained by Surnilla
PNG
media_image2.png
260
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 4, and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) in claim 2 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image3.png
298
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a)(i) the International Search Report for international application no. PCT/JP2022/023777 cites only “A” documents.
a)(ii) the Written Opinion for international application no. PCT/JP2022/023777 deems claims 1-9 of that application have both novelty and an inventive step.
a)(iii) while the gas sensor control device of Onogi as modified by Ante and Surnilla does have a concentration correction protocol for a pre-determined high current state (see Onogi paragraphs [0097]-[0125] and one for a pre-determined low current state (see Onogi paragraphs [0086]-[0096] (although the correction protocol described in these paragraphs are not explicitly said to be for pre-determined low current state, they are presumably so as these paragraphs [0097]-0125] are explicitly said to be for pre-determined high current state (See paragraph [0097])), the equations used to pre-determined low current state (equations (1)-(3) in Onogi paragraphs [0086] and [0087]) do not include a term for or based up an initial offset2.
b) in claim 3 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image4.png
438
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
390
730
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While the gas sensor control device of Onogi as modified by Ante and Surnilla does divide a concentration of the specific component corresponding to the current value into a plurality of predetermined concentration segments (see the discussion of the allowably of claim 2 above) and seems to allow for dividing the cumulative operating time into a plurality of predetermined time segments (see Ante paragraph [0012], last sentence), there is no storing of a plurality of patterns of a linear expression with the initial offset or the difference as a variable in association with at least one of the predetermined time segments as claimed and so no subsequent selection of one them.
c) in claim 4 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image6.png
572
740
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
154
736
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The discussion regarding the allowability of claim 3 above pertains to claim 4 also.
d) in claim 5 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image8.png
290
732
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The discussion regarding the allowability of claim 2 above pertains to claim 5 also.
e) claims 10-12 each depend from allowable claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM 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, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 The specification can be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 1999)("[W]ords in patent claims are given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning."); Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings."). "The Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ " Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also MPEP § 2111.01. Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the reference patent or application (as distinguished from an obvious variation of the subject matter disclosed in the reference patent or application). In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). The court in Vogel recognized "that it is most difficult, if not meaningless, to try to say what is or is not an obvious variation of a claim," but that one can judge whether or not the invention claimed in an application is an obvious variation of an embodiment disclosed in the patent or application which provides support for the claim. According to the court, one must first "determine how much of the patent disclosure pertains to the invention claimed in the patent" because only "[t]his portion of the specification supports the patent claims and may be considered." The court pointed out that "this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined." In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context. See Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 804 II.B.2(a).
2 See Applicant’s claim 1 for an explanation of the phrase “the initial offset”. Also, Applicant’s PG-PUB paragraph [0082] states, “The initial offset is an offset at the first reference time (e.g., the time at which the cumulative operating time is 0 hours).”
Prosecution Insights