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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because “elctronic” (l. 1) should be amended to read - - electronic - - and “barametric” (l. 1) should be amended to read - - barometric - -. 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 18 and 19 is 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 18 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the language “is collected when the electronic system, and/or (iii) is put into operation and/or is continuously recalibrated” (ll. 2-3).
Claim 19 is indefinite because of its dependence from claim 18, and additionally, it is not known what is meant by the language “eliminated by other measures” (l. 3). Applicant’s specification merely repeats this language (Published Application, ¶¶ [0019, 0036]) but does not define “other measures.”
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.
Claim(s) 11-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US 8,770,035 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada et al. discloses a method for detecting contamination of a measuring device (400; fig. 5) by a fluid and/or particles for an electronic system, comprising the following steps: generating mechanical stimulus for accelerating the measuring device (an AC voltage is applied to piezoelectric element 414 to generate vibrations for accelerating pressure sensor 400; c. 14, ll. 64-67); determining a signal response of the measuring device (400) in response to the mechanical stimulus (an output waveform of pressure sensor 400 is detected; c. 14, l. 67 – c. 15, l. 4); and comparing the signal response with a predetermined reference response with respect to the stimulus (self-diagnosis of pressure sensor 400 is performed by comparing the output waveform of pressure sensor 400 and some prescribed waveform range; c. 14, ll. 37-42 and c. 14, l. 67 – c. 15, l. 4), wherein possible contamination of the measuring device (400) causes a deviation of the signal response from the reference response (contamination of pressure sensor 400 would cause a deviation of the output waveform of pressure sensor 400 from an expected output).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the electronic sensor (400) is a barometric pressure sensor (pressure sensor 400 may be a barometric pressure sensor; c. 28, ll. 31-33) for a consumer electronics device (semiconductor pressure sensors are used in consumer equipment; c. 1, ll. 20-24) having a vibration mechanism (414).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the stimulus is generated by a vibration mechanism (414) of the electronic system (the stimulus is generated by piezoelectric element 414 of the system; c. 14, ll. 64-67).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the stimulus is generated specifically for carrying out the method or during use of the vibration mechanism in another application (piezoelectric element 414 is vibrated at least for carrying out a self-diagnosis method; c. 14, ll. 64-67).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the signal response (output waveform) is compared based on signal parameters including a frequency-dependent amplitude and/or a root mean square and/or a frequency response and/or a pressure accuracy in comparison with a non-stimulated signal (the output waveform of pressure sensor 400 is based on at least a frequency response of an AC voltage applied to piezoelectric element 400 and a determination of pressure accuracy of the output waveform (c. 14, ll. 37-42 and c. 14, l. 67 – c. 15, l. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the stimulus has a constant form or a variation of stimulus parameters including a variation of a frequency and/or an amplitude (an AC voltage applied to piezoelectric element 414 has a variation of amplitude; c. 14, ll. 64-67).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the predetermined reference response: (i) originates from production data of a manufacturer or user, and/or (ii) is collected when the electronic system, and/or (iii) is put into operation and/or is continuously recalibrated (a prescribed range of a diagnostic reference output waveform that is not faulty must be originated at least from production data of the manufacturer and is collected by the system; c. 14, ll. 42-46).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada et al. discloses electronic system, comprising: a measuring device (400; fig. 5); and a vibration mechanism (414) for generating a mechanical stimulus for accelerating the measuring device (an AC voltage is applied to piezoelectric element 414 to generate vibrations for accelerating pressure sensor 400; c. 14, ll. 64-67); wherein the electronic system is configured to: generate the mechanical stimulus for accelerating the measuring device (an AC voltage is applied to piezoelectric element 414 to generate vibrations for accelerating pressure sensor 400; c. 14, ll. 64-67), determine a signal response of the measuring device (400) in response to the mechanical stimulus (an output waveform of pressure sensor 400 is detected; c. 14, l. 67 – c. 15, l. 4), and compare the signal response with a predetermined reference response with respect to the stimulus (self-diagnosis of pressure sensor 400 is performed by comparing the output waveform of pressure sensor 400 and some prescribed waveform range; c. 14, ll. 37-42 and c. 14, l. 67 – c. 15, l. 4), wherein possible contamination of the measuring device causes a deviation of the signal response from the reference response (contamination of pressure sensor 400 would cause a deviation of the output waveform of pressure sensor 400 from an expected output).
Regarding claim 21, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the measuring device is a barometric pressure sensor (pressure sensor 400 may be a barometric pressure sensor; c. 28, ll. 31-33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 8,770,035 B2) in view of Steiner (US 10,935,565 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 11.
Yamada et al. is silent on providing an acceleration sensor for verification.
Steiner teaches determining contamination of a pressure sensor (104) by utilizing an acceleration sensor (102) to verify a measurement signal (steps 610 and 620; fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yamada et al. with the acceleration sensor verification of Steiner to provide accurate detection of contamination of a pressure sensor (Steiner, c. 1, ll. 20-28).
Regarding claim 19, Yamada et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 11 and 18.
Yamada et al. is silent recalibrating the sensor response over time.
Steiner teaches a pressure sensor response is corrected according to a temperature (c. 4, ll. 23-41), and is therefore, continuously recalibrated when a change over time: (i) is expected or detected, and (ii) is not eliminated by other measures (a pressure sensor response is continuously recalibrated when a change over time is at least detected based on a change in temperature and is not eliminated by other measures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yamada et al. with the continuous recalibration as taught in Steiner to ensure a reliable determination of contamination of the pressure sensor (Steiner, c. 4, ll. 35-41).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights