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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 06/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “it is clear that the reference does not actually determine the lifespan itself, only whether the end has been nearly reached or not”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that Ransdell teaches a remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A that predicts a remaining lifespan of the piezo actuator 41 based on detection results obtained by the leakage current detector 61 and the capacitance detector 65 (see Ransdell’s Column 6, line 55, to Column 7, line 8). The examiner respectfully submits that the currently amended independent claims disclose “a remaining life of the piezo element based on the driving information” (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41, and the diagnosis mechanism 6 that detects the leakage current and capacitance of the piezo actuator 41, and thereby diagnoses the state of the piezo actuator 41; and remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A predicts the remaining lifespan of the piezo valve 4 based on changes in the leakage current detected by the leakage current detector 61, or on changes in the capacitance detected by the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 6, lines 30-54; and Column 9, lines 4-44). The examiner respectfully submits that Ransdell teaches all the limitations of the currently amended claims.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, 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 paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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: a processor and a memory storing a program, a driving information acquisition unit, and a life calculation unit in claim 12.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation, all references are made to the written specification dated 03/06/2024:
a processor and memory storing a program – the specification does not appear to disclose a processor as recited in the claim.
a driving information acquisition unit – the control device 4 functions as a driving information acquisition unit 4d (see paragraph section [0045]), wherein the control device 4 is a computer (see paragraph section [0040])
a life calculation unit - the control device 4 functions a life calculation unit 4e (see paragraph section [0045]), wherein the control device 4 is a computer (see paragraph section [0040])
In this case, the driving information unit and the life calculation unit are functions of the control device 4 according to the diagnosis program. The driving information unit and the life calculation unit, as claimed and as disclosed in the specification, do not comprise corresponding structures for performing the recited functions, since they are just computer programs.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 current recitation of “a processor and memory storing a program, the program executable by the processor to implement the function” appears to disclose a product that does not have any physical or tangible form, such as a computer program per se, when claimed as a product without any structural recitation. The claim appears to disclose software as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium or physical embodiment (see MPEP 2106.03).
The claim recites “a processor”, “a driving information unit”, and “a life calculation unit” without disclosing any corresponding structures for performing the recited functions. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the device for acquiring driving information and the device for calculating a consumed life or a remaining life. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
The claim recites “a processor” and “a piezo element” without disclosing how these elements are coupled to each other or arranged relative to one another. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relative arrangement and/or coupling between the processor and the piezo element.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 11, the current recitation of “a processor executing a program stored in memory” appears to disclose a product that does not have any physical or tangible form, such as a computer program per se, when claimed as a product without any structural recitation. The claim appears to disclose software as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium or physical embodiment (see MPEP 2106.03).
The claim recites the method steps of “acquiring driving information” and “calculating” without disclosing any corresponding structures for performing the recited functions. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the device for acquiring driving information and the device for calculating a consumed life or a remaining life. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
The claim recites “a processor” and “a piezo element” without disclosing how these elements are coupled to each other or arranged relative to one another. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relative arrangement and/or coupling between the processor and the piezo element.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 12, the current recitation of “acquire driving information” and “calculate a consumed life” without disclosing any corresponding structures for performing the recited functions. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the device for acquiring driving information and the device for calculating a consumed life or a remaining life. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-10, 13-14 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed to a fluid control device. The claim does not further define or limit the structural details of the diagnosis device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to a vaporization system. The claim does not further define or limit the structural details of the diagnosis device of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ransdell et al. (Pat. No. US 11,608,910) (hereafter Ransdell)
Regarding claim 1, Ransdell teaches a piezo element diagnosis device for making a diagnosis of a piezo element incorporated in a piece of equipment (i.e., piezo valve 4) (see Fig. 2), the piezo element diagnosis device comprising:
a processor and memory storing a program (i.e., control board B is a computer provided with a CPU, memory, an A/D converter, a D/A converter, and various types of input/output devices, and various types of functions are able to be performed as a result of programs stored in the memory being executed enabling the computer to operate in collaboration with various types of devices) (see Fig. 2), the program executable by the processor to implement the functions of:
a driving information acquisition unit that acquires driving information of the piezo element (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41, and the diagnosis mechanism 6 that detects the leakage current and capacitance of the piezo actuator 41, and thereby diagnoses the state of the piezo actuator 41) (see Column 6, line 5, to column 7, line 8); and
a life calculation unit that calculates a consumed life or a remaining life of the piezo element based on the driving information (i.e., a remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A that predicts a remaining lifespan of the piezo actuator 41 based on detection results obtained by the leakage current detector 61 and the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 6, line 5, to column 7, line 8),
wherein the driving information includes at least one of a driving voltage of the piezo element or a temperature of the piezo element (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28).
Regarding claim 2, Ransdell teaches that the life calculation unit calculates the consumed life or the remaining life based on an expected life of the piezo element, the expected life being obtained in advance, as well as on the driving information (i.e., remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A predicts the remaining lifespan of the piezo valve 4 based on changes in the leakage current detected by the leakage current detector 61, or on changes in the capacitance detected by the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 9, lines 4-44).
Regarding claim 3, Ransdell teaches that the life calculation unit calculates the consumed life or the remaining life based on the expected life and at least one of the driving voltage of the piezo element (i.e., remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A predicts the remaining lifespan of the piezo valve 4 based on changes in the leakage current detected by the leakage current detector 61, or on changes in the capacitance detected by the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 9, lines 4-44) and the temperature of the piezo element.
Regarding claim 4, Ransdell teaches that the life calculation unit calculates a cumulative consumed life or the remaining life from when use of the piezo element is started (i.e., remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A predicts the remaining lifespan of the piezo valve 4 based on changes in the leakage current detected by the leakage current detector 61, or on changes in the capacitance detected by the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 9, lines 4-44), once in every time interval (i.e., based on timing commands set by a user) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28).
Regarding claim 5, Ransdell teaches that the life calculation unit calculates a unit consumed life that is the life consumed per unit time (i.e., remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A predicts the remaining lifespan of the piezo valve 4 based on changes in the leakage current detected by the leakage current detector 61, or on changes in the capacitance detected by the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 9, lines 4-44), once in every time interval (i.e., based on timing commands set by a user) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28).
Regarding claim 6, Ransdell teaches that the driving information acquisition unit acquires the driving information once in every sampling time period (i.e., based on timing commands set by a user) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28), and the life calculation unit calculates the consumed life or the remaining life by using a representative value of a plurality of pieces of the driving information (i.e., based on timing commands set by a user) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28).
Regarding claim 7, Ransdell teaches that the program is executable by the processor to further implement the functions of: a comparison unit that compares the consumed life or the remaining life calculated by the life calculation unit with a predetermined threshold; and an alarm output unit that outputs an alarm based on a result of a comparison performed by the comparison unit (i.e., it is also possible for the remaining lifespan prediction unit to be provided with a notification unit that, when the leakage current or capacitance either exceed or drop below particular threshold values, sends notification that the leakage current or capacitance has exceeded or dropped below a particular threshold value to an operator or to a host terminal) (see Column 9, lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 10, Ransdell teaches that the program is executable by the processor to further implement the functions of a life prediction unit that calculates a future consumed life or remaining life based on a change in the consumed life or the remaining life obtained by the life calculation unit (i.e., remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A predicts the remaining lifespan of the piezo valve 4 based on changes in the leakage current detected by the leakage current detector 61, or on changes in the capacitance detected by the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 9, lines 4-44).
Regarding claim 11, Ransdell teaches a piezo element diagnosis method for diagnosing a piezo element incorporated in a piece of equipment, the piezo element diagnosis method performed by a processor executing a program stored in memory (i.e., control board B is a computer provided with a CPU, memory, an A/D converter, a D/A converter, and various types of input/output devices, and various types of functions are able to be performed as a result of programs stored in the memory being executed enabling the computer to operate in collaboration with various types of devices) (see Fig. 2) and comprising:
acquiring driving information of the piezo element (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41, and the diagnosis mechanism 6 that detects the leakage current and capacitance of the piezo actuator 41, and thereby diagnoses the state of the piezo actuator 41) (see Column 6, line 5, to column 7, line 8); and
calculating a consumed life or a remaining life of the piezo element based on the driving information (i.e., a remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A that predicts a remaining lifespan of the piezo actuator 41 based on detection results obtained by the leakage current detector 61 and the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 6, line 5, to column 7, line 8),
wherein the driving information includes at least one of a driving voltage of the piezo element (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28) or a temperature of the piezo element.
Regarding claim 12, Ransdell teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a piezo element diagnosis program for diagnosing a piezo element incorporated in a piece of equipment, the program executable by a computer to cause the computer to
acquire driving information of the piezo element (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41, and the diagnosis mechanism 6 that detects the leakage current and capacitance of the piezo actuator 41, and thereby diagnoses the state of the piezo actuator 41) (see Column 6, line 5, to column 7, line 8); and
calculate a consumed life or a remaining life of the piezo element based on the driving information (i.e., a remaining lifespan prediction unit 6A that predicts a remaining lifespan of the piezo actuator 41 based on detection results obtained by the leakage current detector 61 and the capacitance detector 65) (see Column 6, line 5, to column 7, line 8),
wherein the driving information includes at least one of a driving voltage of the piezo element (i.e., the piezo valve 4 is further provided with the drive circuit 5 that outputs a drive voltage to the piezo actuator 41) (see Column 7, line 9, to Column 8, line 28) or a temperature of the piezo element.
Regarding claim 13, Ransdell teaches a fluid control device comprising: a piezo valve that uses a piezo element (i.e., piezo valve 4) (see Fig. 3) to drive a valve body (i.e., valve body 43) (see Fig. 3) with respect to a valve seat (i.e., valve seat 42) (see Fig,. 3); a valve control unit that controls a degree by which the piezo valve is opened (i.e., valve control unit 3 controls the valve opening of the piezo valve 4) (see Fig. 2); and the piezo element diagnosis device (i.e., diagnosis mechanism 6) (see Fig. 2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ransdell teaches a vaporization system comprising: a vaporizer unit that vaporizes a liquid raw material (i.e., process gas in atomic layer deposition process) (see Column 1, lines 10-30); a fluid control device that controls a flow rate of vapor resultant of vaporization of the vaporizer unit (i.e., fluid control device 100 is used to control a flow rate of a gas supplied to a chamber) (see Column 4, lines 36-42); and the piezo element diagnosis device (i.e., diagnosis mechanism 6) (see Fig. 2)according to claim 1
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights