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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 May 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figures 1: Blank reference boxes “110”, “120”, “130” should also be labeled with their representative structure in order to more easily identify the structure quickly that is utilized in the invention without having to read through the specification.
For example, reference box (120), as shown in Figures , should also be labeled – Control Unit --. See 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) below.
1.83 Content of drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013, effective Dec. 18, 2013]
PLEASE NOTE THAT A REFERENCE NUMERAL IS NOT A LABEL.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “101” has been used to designate both a “sensor device”, as shown in Figures 1 and 2 and a “sensor device of a differing embodiment’, as shown in Figure 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0023], line 4: The first occurrence of reference numeral “103” should be corrected to read – 201 --.
Paragraph [0024], lines 1 and 4: Reference numeral “101” has been previously used to represent a different embodiment of the sensor device. Multiple embodiment of the sensor device should not be identified by the same reference numeral.
Paragraph [0024], line 2: The second occurrence of reference numeral “101” has been previously used to represent a different embodiment of the sensor device.
Paragraph [0025], line 1: Reference numeral “101” represents a sensor device of a different embodiment from the first sensor device represented by reference numeral 101.
Paragraph [0028], line 2: The article – an – or the term – one – should be inserted prior to the term “example.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the sensor device.
Re claim 1, claim line 3: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the opening.
Re claim 1, claim line 6: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the semicolon since the power supply is the penultimate limitation of the sensor device.
Re claim 1, claim line 14: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the semicolon since it appears from the indenting that the evaluation circuit is a structure of the control circuit and is the last limitation of the control circuit. Alternatively, the evaluation circuit would also be the last limitation of the broader sensor device.
Re claim 1, claim line 25: Should this limitation be indented less than it is as it appears that the evaluation circuit is within the control circuit rather than in the broader sensor device?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as currently written, appears to recite that a control circuit comprises an evaluation circuit (claim lines 7 and 15); however, the specification, paragraph [0022], lines 1-2, discloses that the sensor device comprises an evaluation unit, for example, an evaluation circuit. Figure 1 also appears to suggest that the evaluation unit (130) is separate from the control unit (120), with both structures located within the broader sensor device (100). Since the specification and drawing Figure 1 both suggest that the evaluation circuit is separate from the control circuit (contrary to the claim indentation), the Examiner argues that the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art was not relied to reject claims 1-20 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious the following:
Claims 1-19: Providing a sensor device, comprising a control circuit configured to: set a second voltage of the power supply unit and detect a second output signal of the sensor element while the second voltage is applied to the sensor element, wherein the second voltage is different from the first voltage; and an evaluation circuit, configured to determine the gas concentration based on the first output signal and the second output signal in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claim 20: Providing a method for determining a gas concentration comprising applying a second voltage to the sensor element, which is different from the first voltage; detecting a second output signal of the sensor element with the second voltage applied; and determining the gas concentration based on the first output signal and the second output signal in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art, DE 102020214581, discloses a sensor device comprising a sensor element (18) comprising a cavity (26) and a heatable membrane (20) arranged in the cavity; a power supply unit configured to apply a voltage to the membrane; and a control unit configured to apply first and second voltages to the membrane, wherein the second voltage is different than the first voltage. The reference does not however, determine the gas concentration based on the first and second output signals from the first and second voltages.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art disclose a gas concentration sensor that utilizes first and second applied voltages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 Sweeney can be reached at 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights