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.
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: “calculation unit” and “determination unit” in claim 1; and “acquisition unit” in claims 4 and 5.
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 03/15/2024:
Calculation unit - Electronic control unit 60 functionally achieves a calculation unit (see paragraph section [0024])
Determination unit - Electronic control unit 60 functionally achieves a determination unit (see paragraph section [0024])
Acquisition unit - Electronic control unit 60 functionally achieves an acquisition unit (see paragraph section [0024])
In this case, the calculation unit, determination unit, and the acquisition unit will be interpreted as the electronic control unit. While each of the calculation unit, determination unit, and the acquisition unit themselves do not include any structural details, the calculation unit, determination unit, and the acquisition unit will be interpreted as performing the corresponding functions of the electronic control unit 60.
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 1-5 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 claim recites “a calculation unit” and “a determination unit” without disclosing any corresponding structures for performing the recited functions. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting the corresponding structure for performing the calculations and the determination, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01).
The claim recites “to calculate an amount of change in a pressure in the fuel tank and an amount of change in a temperature of a fuel in the fuel tank” without defining:
whether “an amount of change in a pressure in the fuel tank” refers to a change in pressure as measured from two different locations in the fuel tank during the same time period or as measured from the same location in the fuel tank over a period of time; and
whether “an amount of change in a temperature of fuel in the fuel tank” refers to a change in temperature as measured from two different location in the fuel tank during the same time period or as measured from the same location in the fuel tank over a period of time.
As a result, the claim is indefinite for failing to define whether the amount of changes in the pressure and the temperature are measured over a period of time or over two different locations. Accordingly, the claim does not define whether the leak is determined based on amounts of changes in temperature and pressure over time or across two different locations.
The claim recites “a pressure in the fuel tank” and “a temperature of a fuel in the fuel tank” without explaining whether the pressure and the temperature are received from sensors in the fuel tank, are selected from a database, or are calculated from other parameters. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting the corresponding structure for measuring or determining the pressure and the temperature measurements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01).
The phrase “to calculate an amount of change in a pressure in the fuel tank and an amount of change in a temperature of a fuel in the fuel tank while an ignition is turned off” is indefinite as mixing of statutory classes (see MPEP 2173.05(p)IT), when an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus are disclosed in a single claim. In this case, the step of “to calculate […] while an ignition is turned off” requires the ignition. By including such step in the apparatus claim, it is unclear whether an infringement of the claimed language would occur upon the structure existence of the apparatus or only during use of the apparatus. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the calculation unit is configured to calculate a difference between a maximum value of the pressure and a minimum value of the pressure while the ignition is turned off as the change amount of the pressure, and to calculate a difference between a maximum value of the temperature and a minimum value of the temperature while the ignition is turned off as the amount of change in the temperature” without disclosing a device or component for measuring or determining the maximum and minimum values of the pressure and the temperature. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting the corresponding structure for measuring or calculating the maximum and minimum values of the pressure and the temperature, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0186333) (hereafter Nishimura).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura teaches a leak diagnosis apparatus for performing leak diagnosis of a fuel tank mounted on a vehicle, comprising:
a calculation unit (i.e., ECU 54 performs calculations based on the signal data as well as data and programs stored in advance, and controls mechanisms) (see paragraph section [0065]) configured to calculate an amount of change in a pressure in the fuel tank and an amount of change in a temperature (i.e., the detection signals from the fuel sender gauge 14, the tank internal pressure sensor 42, the airflow meter 46, the coolant temperature sensor 48, the intake air temperature sensor 50, and the IGSW 52 and the like are received by an electronic control unit (hereinafter, simply referred to as "ECU") 54 that is formed around a microcomputer) (see paragraph section [0064]) of a fuel in the fuel tank (i.e., fuel stored in fuel tank 10) (see Fig. 1) while an ignition is turned off (i.e., IGSW 52 has been turned off) (see paragraph section [0072]); and
a determination unit configured to determine whether a leak in the fuel tank is absent or present (i.e., ECU 54 also executes a leak diagnostic routine) (see paragraph section [0065]),
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that the leak in the fuel tank is absent, when the amount of change in the pressure is larger than a pressure determination value (i.e., when the temperature of the fuel tank 10 increases, the pressure inside the fuel tank 10 increases in response to this temperature increase, and the fuel vapor pressure increases from the increase in the fuel temperature, so the tank internal pressure Pfg exhibits a relatively large increase. As described above, in the closed-off fuel tank 10, the tank internal pressure Pfg exhibits a relatively large change from a decrease and increase in temperature) (see paragraph section [0080]), and
the determination unit is configured to determine that the leak in the fuel tank is present, when the amount of change in the pressure is equal to or smaller than the pressure determination value and when the amount of change in the temperature is larger than a temperature determination value (i.e., when there is a leak in the fuel tank 10 that is supposed to be closed off, the leak acts to eliminate the pressure difference with respect to atmospheric pressure, even if the tank internal pressure Pfg wants to decrease or increase due to a temperature change such as that described above. Therefore, a large difference with respect to atmospheric pressure will not occur even if the temperature changes) (see paragraph section [0081]).
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura teaches that the calculation unit is configured to calculate a difference between a maximum value of the pressure and a minimum value of the pressure while the ignition is turned off as the change amount of the pressure, and to calculate a difference between a maximum value of the temperature and a minimum value of the temperature while the ignition is turned off as the amount of change in the temperature, and the temperature determination value is set based on a difference between a temperature of a saturated vapor of the fuel corresponding to the maximum value of the pressure and a temperature of the saturated vapor of the fuel corresponding to the minimum value of the pressure (i.e., the ECU 54 determines whether a precondition Ja for determining that the production of fuel vapor in the fuel tank 10 is stable) (see paragraph sections [0070]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura teaches that, when the amount of change in the pressure is equal to or smaller than the pressure determination value and when the amount of change in the temperature is equal to or smaller than the temperature determination value, the determination unit is configured not to determine whether the leak in the fuel tank is absent or present (i.e., If the counter Ca is equal to or less than the reference count value A (i.e., (Ca A) (i.e., NO in S120), the ECU 54 suspends the leak determination (S122) and exits the first closed system leak diagnostic routine) (see paragraph section [0088]), and
the calculation unit is configured to continue to calculate the amount of change in the pressure and the amount of change in the temperature (i.e., the ECU 54 turns on the first closed system leak execution flag (S114), and turns off the first closed system leak diagnostic execution flag (S116), and then exits the routine. As a result, the first closed system leak diagnostic routine (FIG. 2) effectively ends, and the diagnostic process of the second closed system leak diagnostic routine (FIG. 3) starts) (see paragraph sections [0074]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura teaches an acquisition unit configured to acquire the pressure and the temperature (i.e., the detection signals from the fuel sender gauge 14, the tank internal pressure sensor 42, the airflow meter 46, the coolant temperature sensor 48, the intake air temperature sensor 50, and the IGSW 52 and the like are received by an electronic control unit (hereinafter, simply referred to as "ECU") 54 that is formed around a microcomputer) (see paragraph section [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura teaches an acquisition unit configured to acquire the pressure and an outside air temperature (i.e., the detection signals from the fuel sender gauge 14, the tank internal pressure sensor 42, the airflow meter 46, the coolant temperature sensor 48, the intake air temperature sensor 50, and the IGSW 52 and the like are received by an electronic control unit (hereinafter, simply referred to as "ECU") 54 that is formed around a microcomputer) (see paragraph section [0064]), wherein the calculation unit is configured to estimate a plurality of change patterns of the temperature based on a change in the outside air temperature, to specify a change pattern in which a difference between a maximum value of the temperature and a minimum value of the temperature is smallest among the plurality of change patterns, and to calculate a difference between the maximum value of the temperature and the minimum value of the temperature in the specified change pattern as the amount of change in the temperature (i.e., the intake air temperature THA detected by the intake air temperature sensor 50 may be used instead of the coolant temperature THW. The coolant temperature THW and the intake air temperature THA may correspond to "a temperature that reflects a state of the internal combustion engine" of the invention. The coolant temperature THW and the intake air temperature THA may correspond to "a reference temperature" of the invention) (see paragraph section [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
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