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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “S03” and the content within such as Ttab, Tstab at Fig. 5 are not described in the specification/description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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.
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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a magnetic tunnel effect angle sensor TMR” (lines 11 – 12), “means of the magnetic tunnel effect angle sensor TMR” (in lines 15 – 16) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the residual supply time” in lines 1 - 2. Examiner suggests to change the aforementioned limitation to “a residual supply time”.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the gas present” in line 2. Examiner suggests to change the aforementioned limitation to “a gas present”.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the control element” in step b at line 11. Examiner suggests to change the aforementioned limitation to “the rotary control element”, which is in line with the terminology used in the claim (see lines 4, 14 of the instant claim 1).
As to Claim 5, the instant claim recites the limitation "the container" in line 3 and line 4. Examiner suggests to change “the container” in lines 3 and 4 to “the pressurized container”, which is in agreement with the terminology used in claim 1 (see line 2 of claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 4, 7 - 10 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.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “a plurality of angular positions” in line 9. It is vague/unclear as to what the aforementioned limitation is referring to. Is applicant’s intent to associate (i.e., “associating”, line 9) “a plurality of angular positions” (line 9) of the rotary control element (i.e., lines 4 – 7)? If so, the claim needs to specify as such. If not, the claim does also need to specify the element/structure of the angular position. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted the aforementioned limitation as a plurality of angular positions “of the rotary control element”.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation "the magnetic field" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the limit value” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. Does this “the limit value” (line 20) refer to “a limit intensity value” (line 17) or is this a different “limit value”?
Similarly, as to Claims 3 and 4, recite the limitation “the limit value” in line 3 of claim 3 and line 10 of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations resulting in unclear scope of the claim. Does this “the limit value” (line 3 of claim 3 and line 10 of claim 4) refer to “a limit intensity value” (line 17 of claim 1) or is this a different “limit value”?
As to Claim 7, the instant claim recites the word “preferably”. The word “preferably” suggests a preferred but not required feature thus rendering the claim indefinite. It is thus unclear whether the limitations following the word “preferably” are part of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 8, the instant claim recites the limitation "the calculation of the difference (DTR)" in lines 1 - 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. Note that the “calculating a difference (DTR)” is recited in claim 6 which the instant claim does not depend from.
As to Claim 9, the instant claim recites the limitation "the difference (DTR)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim.
As to Claim 10, the instant claim recites the limitation "the difference (DTR)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim.
Due to claim dependency, all dependent claims are also rejected (i.e., 2 – 10).
Conclusion
None of the prior art of record appears to read on the invention as claimed, and the subject matter of the claims appears to be allowable if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 can be overcome. However, upon applicant’s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner, a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record does not appear to teach “d. measuring an intensity of the magnetic field by means of the magnetic tunnel effect angle sensor TMR; e. defining a limit intensity value for the magnetic field; and f. displaying on the display device the residual time value in accordance with the selected flow only if the intensity of the magnetic field measured is less than the limit value” in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Nicolini Giancarlo (WO 2021/255702 A1) teaches a valve assembly for pressurized containers comprising a main structure, a rotary control element which is rotatably connected to the main structure and which is configured so as to allow a gas flow through the valve assembly in accordance with an angular position thereof about a main rotation axis, a detection device which includes an angular position sensor and a movable member. The angular position sensor is configured to detect the angular position of the movable member about an auxiliary rotation axis. The movable member is rotatably supported on the main structure and the angular position sensor is fixed to the main structure. The valve assembly further comprises a movement conversion mechanism which is configured so as to convert the movement of the rotary control element about the main axis into a corresponding rotational movement of the movable member about the auxiliary axis which is different with respect to the main rotation axis. Nicolini Giancarlo (WO 2021/255702 A1) does not however teach the limitations indicated above.
Fowler et al. (U.S. 9,816,642 B2) teaches a method and apparatus for controlling gas flow from cylinders comprising a valve integrated pressure regulator device that can be attached to the outlet of the gas cylinder and which can monitor the amount of gas in the cylinder.
Fowler et al. (U.S. 2014/0130875 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for controlling gas flow from cylinders. The electronic control generates the signal actuating an alarm when the amount of gas in the container reaches the threshold, so that the flow of gas from the gas container can be controlled by a user in an efficient and fast manner.
Lolia Romain et al. (EP 3405716 B1) teaches calculation of remaining usage time of a gas cylinder equipped with a pressure reducer, the method comprising the following steps: (a) measuring the pressure of the gas in the cylinder; (b) calculating the variation of pressure of the gas in the cylinder over time while gas is outputted; (c) calculating a remaining usage time Tr based on the measured pressure in the cylinder and the calculated variation of pressure; wherein step (c) takes into account characteristics of the pressure reducer relative to variations of its nominal flow rate along the decrease of its inlet pressure while emptying the cylinder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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 E. Martin 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights