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 .
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.
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 07/19/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 07/19/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “AC signal” while not stating anywhere in the claim what “AC” stands for; Claim 3 recites the limitation “D/A converter” while not stating what “D/A” stands for. Please state in the claims what the terms “AC” and “D/A” stand for respectively, regardless of how obvious they may seem. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…a waveform output unit configured to supply an AC signal to a measurement target…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a waveform output unit configured to supply an AC signal to a measurement target …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “waveform output unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a waveform output unit configured to supply an AC signal to a measurement target …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a waveform output unit configured to supply an AC signal to a measurement target …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…execute electrical conductivity calculation processing for calculating the electrical conductivity based on a result of the multiplication processing.” in line 16 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “multiplication processing for multiplying the detected wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to different “multiplication processing”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the multiplication processing for multiplying the detected wave”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “…and the reference wave is a square wave.” in line 2 of Claim 2. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “reference wave for detecting electrical conductivity” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to a different “reference wave”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the reference wave for detecting electrical conductivity”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “…wherein the controller is configured to transmit the data obtained by adding data of the dummy peak to the sine wave data…” in lines 5-6 of Claim 3. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “dummy peak superimposed on the input wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to a different “dummy peak”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the dummy peak superimposed on the input wave”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “…detect the phase difference based on a delay amount from the dummy peak of the AC signal …” in lines 3-4 of Claim 4. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “dummy peak superimposed on the input wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to a different “dummy peak”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the dummy peak superimposed on the input wave”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…the sine wave by integrating the result of the multiplication processing and convert…” in lines 3-4 of Claim 5. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “multiplication processing for multiplying the detected wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to different “multiplication processing”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the multiplication processing for multiplying the detected wave”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…wherein a height of the dummy peak is 5%…” in line 2 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “dummy peak superimposed on the input wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to a different “dummy peak”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the dummy peak superimposed on the input wave”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “…wherein a height of the dummy peak is 10%…” in line 2 of Claim 7. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “dummy peak superimposed on the input wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to a different “dummy peak”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the dummy peak superimposed on the input wave”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “…wherein a width of the dummy peak is shorter…” in line 2 of Claim 8. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “dummy peak superimposed on the input wave” disclosed earlier in Claim 1; or if it refers to a different “dummy peak”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “the dummy peak superimposed on the input wave”.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit rejected Claim 1.
Please make the proper corrections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…wherein the controller is configured to cause the waveform output unit to generate a waveform with a dummy peak superimposed on an input wave as the AC signal and execute phase difference detection processing for detecting a phase difference between the detected wave and the AC signal acquired correspondingly, and wherein the controller is configured to cause the waveform output unit to generate a waveform with no dummy peak superimposed on the input wave as the AC signal, execute processing for correcting the phase difference with respect to the reference wave, and execute electrical conductivity calculation processing for calculating the electrical conductivity based on a result of the multiplication processing.”
Claims 2-9 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McBrady et al. US 2012/0024043 - Thermal conductivity detectors and methods of operating thermal conductivity detectors are described herein.
Gellert et al. US 2016/0341681 - A thermal conductivity detector for a gas chromatograph includes a heatable resistive detector element configured to be physically arranged in a flow of analytes eluting from a chromatography column and electrically arranged together with resistors in separate arms of a measuring bridge.
Schmidt et al. US 2015/0292960 - A thermal conductivity detector includes a switch controllable to short-circuit the input of an amplifier to improve the thermal conductivity detector for use in gas chromatography without the need of an additional reference cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858