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 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.
Claim 3 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 3 is indefinite because “the comparison and output module” (ll. 1-2) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear if the element is intended to refer to the comparison and output module/evaluation circuit recited in claim 2 (ll. 2-3). Additionally, it appears “acoustic out” (l. 3) is intended to read - - acoustic output - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is indefinite because “the electronic system” (l. 4) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unknown whether the element is intended to refer to the comparison and output module/evaluation circuit recited in claim 2 (ll. 2-3).
Claim 9 is indefinite because “the pressure signals” (ll. 3-4) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear if intended to refer to the detected states recited in claim 1 (¶ 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 6,877,357 B2) in view of Steiner (US 10,935,565 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hermann et al. discloses a method for detecting a defect in a pressure sensor (S1, S2), wherein the sensor (S1, S2) includes at least two pressure detection membranes (pressure sensors S1 and S2 each include a micromechanical membrane; c. 1, ll. 28-31) whose electrostatic and/or electrodynamic state depends on the external pressure (an electrostatic and electrodynamic state of membranes of pressure sensors S1 and S2 depends on external pressure; c. 2, ll. 18-23), the method comprising the following steps: detecting an electrostatic and/or electrodynamic membrane state of each of the at least two pressure detection membranes (electrostatic and electrodynamic states of membranes of pressure sensors S1 and S2 are detected by measured values p0S1 and p0S2; c. 3, ll. 1-13); comparing the detected states and determining their difference (measured values p0S1 and p0S2 of pressure sensors S1 and S2 are compared which includes determining a difference; c. 3, ll. 9-13); comparing one or more state differences between each of the detected membrane states with a predetermined threshold value (the difference between measured values p0S1 and p0S2 is compared to a predefined amount; c. 3, ll. 15-17); outputting, when at least one of the state differences exceeds the predetermined threshold value, that at least one of the membranes is defective (when a difference between measured values p0S1 and p0S2 exceeds a predefined amount, then one of pressure sensors S1 and S2 is determined to be defective and a corresponding warning is output; c. 3, ll. 19-36).
Regarding claim 2, Hermann et al. discloses wherein the steps of comparing and outputting are performed by a comparison and output module/evaluation circuit of the pressure sensor (some processor or circuit is required to perform comparison of measured values p0S1 and p0S2 and output a warning; c. 3, ll. 9-13 and ll. 33-36).
Regarding claim 3, Hermann et al. discloses wherein the comparison and output module of the pressure sensor (S1, S2) is analog and/or digital and includes an electrical output element or an acoustic out element or visual output element (some processor or circuit of pressure sensors S1 and S2 must be analog or digital and include at least an electrical output to a passenger protection system of a vehicle; c. 1, ll. 54-61).
Regarding claim 6, Hermann et al. discloses wherein the threshold value (predefined amount) is determined based on manufacturing tolerance measured at the pressure detection membranes, or from production data of a manufacturer or user, when the electronic system is commissioned (a predefined amount used to determine a defect in pressures sensors S1 or S2 must be at least based on some predetermined manufacturing tolerance, and from some manufacturing data, when the pressure sensors were designed and/or tested; c. 3, ll. 15-23).
Regarding claim 8, Hermann et al. discloses wherein the pressure detection membranes have the same or different pressure measuring ranges (membranes of pressure sensors S1 and S2 have at least the same pressure measuring ranges; c. 3, ll. 15-17).
Regarding claim 9, Hermann et al. discloses wherein the steps of comparing and/or outputting are performed by a system that is connected to the pressure sensor (S1, S2) and that receives the pressure signals (p0S1, p0S2) or the result of the comparison step (some system connected to pressure sensors S1 and S2 compares and/or outputs measured values p0S1 and p0S2 to a passenger protection system of a vehicle; c. 3, ll. 15-23 and c. 1, ll. 54-61).
Regarding claim 10, Hermann et al. discloses a pressure sensor (S1, S2), comprising: at least two pressure detection membranes (pressure sensors S1 and S2 each include a micromechanical membrane; c. 1, ll. 28-31); wherein the sensor (S1, S2) is configured to: detect an electrostatic and/or electrodynamic membrane state of each of the at least two pressure detection membranes (electrostatic and electrodynamic states of membranes of pressure sensors S1 and S2 are detected by measured values p0S1 and p0S2; c. 3, ll. 1-13); compare the detected states and determine their difference (measured values p0S1 and p0S2 of pressure sensors S1 and S2 are compared which includes determining a difference; c. 3, ll. 9-13); compare one or more state differences between each of the detected membrane states with a predetermined threshold value (the difference between measured values p0S1 and p0S2 is compared to a predefined amount; c. 3, ll. 15-17); output, when at least one of the state differences exceeds the predetermined threshold value, that at least one of the membranes is defective (when a difference between measured values p0S1 and p0S2 exceeds a predefined amount, then one of pressure sensors S1 and S2 is determined to be defective and a corresponding warning is output; c. 3, ll. 19-36).
Although Hermann et al. discloses comparing pressure sensor measurements to determine if the membrane of a pressure sensor has damage such as scratches or tears (c. 1, ll. 30-34), Hermann et al. is silent on determining the membrane is contaminated.
However, Steiner teaches that contamination of a pressure membrane adversely affects pressure measurements (c. 2, ll. 18-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hermann et al. to use pressure measurements to determine contamination of the pressure sensor membrane as taught in Steiner to ensure accuracy and reliability of a pressure sensor in various environments (Steiner, c. 2, ll. 18-25).
Regarding claim 5, Hermann et al. discloses the invention set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Hermann et al. is silent on details of the contamination.
Steiner teaches that contamination of a pressure detection membrane is caused by liquid or particles (c. 2, ll. 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hermann et al. to consider contamination by liquid or particles as taught in Steiner to ensure accuracy and reliability of a pressure sensor in various environments (Steiner, c. 2, ll. 18-25).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 6,877,357 B2) in view of Steiner (US 10,935,565 B2), and further, in view of Ten Kate (US 9,664,584 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Hermann et al. in view of Steiner disclose the invention set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Hermann et al. in view of Steiner are silent on using an average of measured values.
However, determining an average of sensor values over time is well-known in the art of measuring and testing devices. Ten Kate teaches a pressure sensor (6) wherein detected membrane states are averaged over a period of time (pressure sensor 6 includes a membrane and pressure measurements are detected over time and averaged; c. 5, ll. 54-56 and c. 7, ll. 40-44), and a step of comparing is performed using average values of the membrane states (averaged pressure measurements are compared to a threshold; c. 5, ll. 54-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hermann et al. in view of Steiner with the average measurements of Ten Kate to ensure accurate sensor results by reducing the effect of outlying measurements.
Regarding claim 7, Hermann et al. in view of Steiner disclose the invention set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Hermann et al. in view of Steiner are silent on updating the threshold value.
Ten Kate teaches a pressure change threshold value is updated/recalibrated with a predefined frequency (pressure change threshold is periodically or intermittently adjusted based on the environmental air pressure; c. 2, ll. 29-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hermann et al. in view of Steiner with the updated threshold value of Ten Kate to ensure accurate sensor analysis by updating a sensor threshold value.
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