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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "2" and "3" have both been used to designate the coil as seen in Figure 1. 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. 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.
The Examiner acknowledges that the intent here is the indicate a sensor and a coil, but the issue here is that these features are the same, as the sensor is the coil, and the coil is the sensor. While describing the coil as a sensor is reasonable, indicating the same coil component as two different features with two different numbers is not reasonable.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 cannot be readily understood due to the use of the various empty boxes. Almost the entirety of this figure relies upon empty boxes, including the temperature features recited in the claims. The figure should be sufficiently annotated such that a person of ordinary skill can readily identify the features of the figure. 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:
The specification refers to the claims on page 3 of the specification, but where claims should not be referred as they can change during examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 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 temperature-control device for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit” in claim 1, and “wherein by means of the temperature-control device one or more components arranged outside the circuit can be controlled in an open or closed-loop manner with regard to their temperature or temperature distribution” of Claim 10.
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.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “An integrated circuit for signal processing of a sensor, wherein the sensor is an inductively working sensor or an eddy current sensor and wherein the circuit has electronic components and is part of an oscillating circuit, comprising: a temperature-control device for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit” on lines 1-6 lacks proper written description.
Applicant claims “a temperature-control device for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit,” but the original disclose does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. Furthermore, the temperature control device is being interpreted as invoking 112(f), but where the original disclosure does not provide a sufficient explanation as to the manner in which this feature is implemented. The original disclosure provides not explanation as to what the temperature control 9 is or the manner in which it is implemented, but where such a part is critical to any ability to control temperature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the above temperature-control device was implemented or the manner in which it is able to control an open or closed loop as claimed.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the temperature measurement values recorded by means of the at least one temperature sensor are comparable with a specified target value for the temperature by means of an assessment device” on lines 2-4 lacks proper written description.
As best understood, it is a processing component of the integrated circuit (5) that would perform any comparison, but where no such component is recited in the claim. The components of the integrated circuit, as claimed, are not reasonably capable of or disclosed to perform any type of comparison. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description because applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any comparison can be made with the components specifically claimed as part of the integrated circuit. With regard to the assessment device that is claimed, applicant’s attention is directed towards the below 112(b) rejection regarding the difference between the assessment device (1) and the integrated circuit (5).
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “wherein by means of the temperature-control device one or more components arranged outside the circuit can be controlled in an open or closed-loop manner with regard to their temperature or temperature distribution” on lines 2-4 lacks proper written description.
The original disclose does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. Furthermore, the temperature control device is being interpreted as invoking 112(f), but where the original disclosure does not provide a sufficient explanation as to the manner in which this feature is implemented. The original disclosure provides not explanation as to what the temperature control 9 is or the manner in which it is implemented, but where such a part is critical to any ability to control temperature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the above temperature-control device was implemented or the manner in which it is able to control an open or closed loop as claimed.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “recorded temperature measurement values are compared to a specified target value for the temperature and wherein in the event of a deviation from the target value, the temperature or temperature distribution is controlled in an open or closed-loop manner towards the target value” on lines 3-6 lacks proper written description.
Applicant claims “the temperature or temperature distribution is controlled in an open or closed-loop manner towards the target value,” but the original disclose does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. Furthermore, the temperature control device is being interpreted as invoking 112(f), but where the original disclosure does not provide a sufficient explanation as to the manner in which this feature is implemented. The original disclosure provides not explanation as to what the temperature control 9 is or the manner in which it is implemented, but where such a part is critical to any ability to control temperature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the above temperature-control device was implemented or the manner in which it is able to control an open or closed loop as claimed.
As to Claims 2-12,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-12 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 phrase “An integrated circuit for signal processing of a sensor, wherein the sensor is an inductively working sensor or an eddy current sensor and wherein the circuit has electronic components and is part of an oscillating circuit, comprising: a temperature-control device for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit” on lines 1-6 is indefinite.
1) Claim 1 is expressly directed towards the integrated circuit and what it itself comprises, but this claim recites features that are not part of the circuit, making it unclear whether these features are or are not required in the claim.
Applicant initially recites “An integrated circuit for signal processing of a sensor,” thus distinguishing between the integrated circuit and sensor, and indicating that the intended use of the integrated circuit is to be used with the sensor. However, applicant then claims details about the sensor where applicant claims “wherein the sensor is an inductively working sensor or an eddy current sensor.” It is unclear whether the sensor and that it is an inductively working or eddy current sensor are or are not part of the claim, as the sensor is not part of the integrated circuit. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the intended use of the integrated circuit is to be used with an inductive or eddy current sensor, but where such a sensor is not required in the claim.
Applicant then claims “wherein the circuit has electronic components and is part of an oscillating circuit,” but where being “part of” an oscillating circuit does not mean that this oscillating circuit is part of the integrated circuit. The claim is expressly directed towards what the integrated circuit is, and not other features external or the integrated circuit. It is unclear how to treat this limitation, because the integrated circuit is only part of the oscillating circuit, but does not comprise or otherwise include the full oscillating circuit. It is unclear whether any features beyond what the integrated circuit itself comprises are required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the integrated circuit can be used as part of an oscillator circuit, but where the oscillator circuit is not required in the claim.
2) Applicant expressly and distinctly claims the oscillating circuit in the above phrase from the sensor, but where the oscillating circuit is not distinct from this sensor. The oscillating circuit is disclosed to be formed from the integrated circuit, the inductor, and the capacitor as seen in Figure 1. The inductor (2 or 3) has already been distinctly recited, and thus has been distinctly recited from the oscillating circuit when it is not distinct. It is therefore unclear how these feature are related, and it is unclear how they should be treated.
3) The difference between the inductively working sensor and the eddy current sensor is unclear. For both sensors, applicant points to the same coil (3) of the disclosure but claims two different types of sensors. An inductive sensor is broader than an eddy current sensor and includes eddy current sensors. Applicant is therefore distinctly recited a broad (genus) recitation from one of its narrower (species) version, making it unclear what the scope of these features are, and making their relationship and difference unclear.
4) It is unclear what applicant means by the phrase “a temperature-control device for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit.”
Applicant does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and in fact no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. It is therefore unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the use of a temperature control device to control a temperature of the circuit in some manner reasonably discloses the claim features.
Applicant claims “the open- or closed-loop controlling,” but where no such controlling was previously recited. It is therefore unclear what controlling this phrase is referencing.
The above temperature-control device is further indefinite because this phrase invokes 112(f), but where a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize any equivalent structures. The original disclosure is silent as to what the temperature control element 9 is, thus making it unclear what structures would and would not be equivalent to the temperature control element 9 which is part of any temperature control device of the disclosure.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the sensor has a complex resistance” on line 2 is indefinite. As explained in the above rejection, the sensor is not part of the integrated circuit, but where the claims are expressly directed towards what the integrated circuit itself comprises. It is therefore unclear how to treat the above feature, as it is further limiting a component that is not part of the integrated circuit. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the integrated circuit has an intended use of being used with the above type of sensor, and thus must be usable with this type of sensor, but where the sensor is not required in the claim.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “the at least one temperature sensor is arranged in the area of one or more of the electronic components or on one or more of the electronic components” on lines 2-3 is indefinite. No “area” was previously recited, and more than one area can reasonably be defined, and it is therefore unclear what area this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the temperature measurement values recorded by means of the at least one temperature sensor are comparable with a specified target value for the temperature by means of an assessment device” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) First, no temperature measurement values were previously recited to be recorded as claimed, and as there can be more than one set of values, it is unclear what values this phrase is referencing.
2) It is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what applicant means by the temperature sensor itself recording any values. A temperature sensor is not inherently capable of recording values, and instead is only reasonably capable of outputting sensed temperature. The temperature sensor itself is not disclosed to have any recording capability, and it is therefore unclear what applicant means by this phrase. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the sensor is outputting sensed temperature values.
3) It is unclear what the assessment device is in light of the disclosure and how it relates to the integrated circuit, and it is unclear whether this feature is required in the claim. The assessment device is disclosed to be element (1) in Figure 3, but element (1) includes both the integrated circuit (5), capacitor (4), and coil/sensor (2,3). The claims, however, are directed towards the integrated circuit (5) and what it itself comprises. To that point, 1) the assessment device includes the integrated circuit and sensor already claimed, but where this device is being distinctly recited from these features when it is not distinct. The difference and relationship between this device and the already recited integrated circuit and sensor are therefore unclear. 2) It is unclear if anything more than the integrated circuit itself is required when applicant claims an assessment device, as the integrated circuit already includes all components except for the sensor as seen in Figure 3. As best understood, it is a component or components of the already recited integrated circuit that would perform an comparison. 3) To that point, no claim feature of the integrated circuit is reasonably capable of performing any comparison, and it is therefore unclear what component of the integrated circuit is required in the claim that would perform the claim feature.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “in order to set an operating point of the oscillating circuit, one or more of the electronic components are configured as one or more integrated or external capacities which can be connected to the oscillating circuit and disconnected from the oscillating circuit by means of a switching device” on lines 2-5 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what features are and are not required in the claim. Applicant claims that the “capacities,” presumably one or more capacitors, “can” be connected to the oscillator circuit by means of a switching device. It is unclear if the switching device is required that would allow the oscillator circuit be connected or disconnected, or if neither the switching device or oscillator circuit are required, and instead, as reasonably interpreted, the one or more capacities need to be part of the integrated circuit, but these capacities only need to be able to be connected to the oscillator circuit by way of a switching device should be one present or otherwise implemented. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the switching device and oscillating circuit are not required in the claim, and instead, as claimed, the capacities need only be able to be connected and disconnected to the oscillator circuit by way of a switching device, but where neither the oscillator circuit or switching device are required in the claim.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the switching device is at least one of: an individual switch for each capacity; integrated into the switching circuit; can be activated via a digital interface; and has a separate interface for each individual switch” on lines 2-5 is indefinite.
1) Applicant initially recites that the switching device “is” at least one of, but not all alternative features reasonable define the switching device. For example, reciting that the switching device is an individual switch for each capacity is reasonable, but reciting that the switching device “is” “has a separate interface for each individual switch” is not reasonable or clear. Furthermore, the switching device is not “a separate interface,” as reciting that it “has” such an interface is not reasonably an alternative option to the initially recited individual switch. Similarly, reciting that the switching device is “integrated into the switching circuit” is unclear because 1) no switching circuit was previously recited, making it unclear what switching circuit this phrase is referencing, and 2) the difference and relationship between the switching device and switching circuit are unclear. These features can both reasonably be the same thing from the disclosure, making it unclear what the difference and relationship is between these features. Furthermore, being integrated into a switching circuit is not reasonable an alternative to an individual switch or any of the other features, because an individual switch can also be integrated into a circuit. The same issue exists with the “can be activated via a digital interface,” as this this not reasonably an alternative defining what the switching device “is” as claimed. As such, it is unclear how the above phrase should be treated.
2) It is further unclear what limitations are and are not required in this claim. This claim further limits the switching device, but as best understood, this switching device was not positively recited in Claim 8 as the capacities need only be able to be connected to the oscillator circuit via a switching device, but neither of which are clearly positively recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this feature to not be positively recited, and instead to further limit the switching device that the integrated circuit “can” be used with as claimed.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “wherein by means of the temperature-control device one or more components arranged outside the circuit can be controlled in an open or closed-loop manner with regard to their temperature or temperature distribution” on lines 3-4 is indefinite.
It is unclear what applicant means by the phrase “a temperature-control device for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit.”
1) Applicant does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and in fact no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. It is therefore unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the use of a temperature control device to control a temperature of the circuit in some manner reasonably discloses the claim features.
2) Applicant claims “the open- or closed-loop controlling,” but where no such controlling was previously recited. It is therefore unclear what controlling this phrase is referencing.
3) The above temperature-control device is further indefinite because this phrase invokes 112(f), but where a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize any equivalent structures. The original disclosure is silent as to what the temperature control element 9 is, thus making it unclear what structures would and would not be equivalent to the temperature control element 9 which is part of any temperature control device of the disclosure.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “the component or components arranged outside the circuit are one or more external capacities for setting the operating point of the oscillating circuit” on lines 2-3 is indefinite. This phrase is further limiting components that were not positively recited in Claim 10, and which are not part of the integrated circuit. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are expressly directed towards what the integrated circuit (5) itself comprises, and because the above “external” components are not part of the integrated circuit, it is unclear whether these features are or are not required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, because these features are not part of the integrated circuit, they are being interpreted to not be positively recited or required, and instead the integrated circuit need only be usable with these components.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “recorded temperature measurement values are compared to a specified target value for the temperature and wherein in the event of a deviation from the target value, the temperature or temperature distribution is controlled in an open or closed-loop manner towards the target value” on lines 3-6 is indefinite.
1) Applicant does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and in fact no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. It is therefore unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the use of a temperature control device to control a temperature of the circuit in some manner reasonably discloses the claim features.
2) Claim 12 is a method claim, but no clear method steps are recited in the claim. Applicant uses the past tense “are compared” but where such a phrase does not recite nor require any active step of comparing. As such, it is unclear what method steps and active uses are being recited in this claim. The same issue exists with the “is controlled” recitation on the last line of the claim.
The phrase “A method for the open or closed-loop controlling of a temperature or of a temperature distribution in the circuit in at least one electronic component of the circuit with a circuit according to claim 1” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant initially recites “the open or closed-loop” but where no such loop was previously recited. It is unclear what loop this phrase is referencing. Furthermore, applicant does not disclose either an open or closed loop, as no loop is disclosed, and in fact no details of the manner in which the circuit elements are reasonably disclosed to set forth the meaning of the above phrase. It is therefore unclear how such a feature should be interpreted.
2) Applicant claims “a temperature or of a temperature distribution” as well as introducing the circuit from Claim 1, but where, in the combination, there are two distinctly recited “a temperature or of a temperature distribution” features. As best understood, both refer to the same feature, rendering this phrase indefinite as it is unclear what the difference and relationship is between these features.
3) The phrase “the circuit in at least one electronic component of the circuit” is indefinite, as no circuit was previously recited, and where the difference and relationship between this and the later recited “a circuit” is unclear. As best understood, these features are referring to the same circuit but are not reasonably related in the claim. Furthermore, applicant is distinctly recited the above at least one electronic component from the same feature recited in Claim 1, and thus incorporated into this claim. The difference and relationship between these features are unclear, as both are referring to the same feature but in a distinct manner.
As to Claims 2-12,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawson et al. (Dawson) (US 2014/0376586).
As to Claim 1,
Dawson discloses An integrated circuit (106) for signal processing of a sensor (202) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0016]), wherein the sensor is an inductively working sensor or an eddy current sensor and wherein the circuit has electronic components (note the various components in 104) and is part of an oscillating circuit (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0016] / note the sensor and oscillating circuit are not positively recited, and the integrated circuit of Dawson can be used with these components), comprising: a temperature-control device (204) for the open- or closed-loop controlling of a temperature and/or of a temperature distribution in the circuit and/or in at least one electronic component of the circuit (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0016]),[0019]).
As to Claim 2,
Dawson wherein the sensor has a complex resistance (Figure 2 / note the integrated circuit can be used with this type of sensor), (Paragraphs [0016]),[0019]).
As to Claim 3,
Dawson discloses the temperature-control device has at least one temperature sensor (206) (Figure 2).
As to Claim 4,
Dawson discloses the at least one temperature sensor is arranged in the area of one or more of the electronic components or on one or more of the electronic components (Figure 2).
As to Claim 5,
Dawson discloses the temperature measurement values recorded by means of the at least one temperature sensor are comparable with a specified target value for the temperature by means of an assessment device (Paragraph [0019] / note the control circuitry 212 performs a comparison to see if the temperature has reached a steady state).
As to Claim 6,
Dawson discloses the temperature-control device has at least at least one of: at least one heating element (204) and at least one cooling element (Figure 2).
As to Claim 7,
Dawson discloses the at least one heating element and/or the at least one cooling element are arranged in the area of one or more of the electronic components or on one or more of the electronic components (Figure 2).
As to Claim 8,
Dawson discloses wherein in order to set an operating point of the oscillating circuit, one or more of the electronic components are configured as one or more integrated or external capacities which can be connected to the oscillating circuit and disconnected from the oscillating circuit by means of a switching device (Paragraph [0016] / note that the sensor can be a capacitor as the sensor outputs a capacitance, and this device “can” be connected with the oscillating circuit by way of a switching device).
As to Claim 9,
Dawson discloses the switching device is at least one of: an individual switch for each capacity; integrated into the switching circuit; can be activated via a digital interface; and has a separate interface for each individual switch (Figure 2 / note this feature is not positive recited and the one or more capacitors are only required to be able to used with the switching device and oscillator circuit, and where the capacitor can be used with such a device as claimed).
As to Claim 10,
Dawson discloses, wherein by means of the temperature-control device one or more components arranged outside the circuit can be controlled in an open or closed-loop manner with regard to their temperature or temperature distribution (Figure 2 / note the temperature control device “can” be used to control external devices, and thus discloses the claim feature).
As to Claim 11,
Dawson discloses the component or components arranged outside the circuit are one or more external capacities -for setting the operating point of the oscillating circuit (Figure 2 / note that the temperature control device “can” be used the above components which are not positively recited, and thus discloses the claim features).
As to Claim 12,
Dawson discloses A method for the open or closed-loop controlling of a temperature or of a temperature distribution in the circuit in at least one electronic component of the circuit with a circuit according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1),wherein recorded temperature measurement values are compared to a specified target value (steady state) for the temperature and wherein in the event of a deviation from the target value, the temperature or temperature distribution is controlled in an open- or closed-loop manner towards the target value (Paragraph [0019] / note the control circuitry 212 performs a comparison to see if the temperature has reached a steady state, and when no deviation occurs, no control is required as this phrase is conditional).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2019/0094046 to Hasegawa et al. which discloses a proximity sensor with an resonant circuit used for sensing, and includes both internal and external temperature sensors for temperature compensation, and 2) US 2013/0193985 to Tillotson which discloses a sensor coil part of an oscillator that also includes temperature compensation by way of a temperature sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights