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
Claims 1-10 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 1, there is no explanation as to how the sensor signal is “directly cleaned” (line 3 from last) of the foreign signal component (as compared with being “changed” (line 4 from last)). There are no examples, no reference provides for cleaning, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 1, there is no explanation as to how the sensor signal is both (“and”, line 3 from last) changed and cleaned (“directly cleaned” (line 3 from last)). As both occur, there must be a control step/structure that somehow controls how both to take place, but none is provided for in the disclosure. There are no examples, no reference provides for any manner of control/coordination, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claims 1 and 10, each claim calls for an “ambient medium” 14 and “alternative medium” 44 and the drawings appear to support that. The “sensor component” 18 (which corresponds to the membrane 12) contacts both the ambient medium (per lines 5-7 of claim 1) and the alternative medium (per lines 15-16, claim 1), presumably at different times (i.e. separately) for separate measurements. Then, then the sensor signal (i.e. sensor signal being the measurement parameter of the “ambient medium”) that has a foreign signal component caused by the alternative medium “is compensated for depending on the detection of the alternative medium”. As such, it’s not expressed what algorithm is employed to provide for a meaningful value of “ambient medium”. (The manner of compensating is not provided) Consider that the “deflected” (line 6, claim 1) and “deflection” (line 6, claim 10) component corresponds to the membrane, which membrane relates to a measure of pressure; but the application lacks any algorithm (or manner, if you will) that would allow for obtaining a measure of ambient medium that is free of the influence of an alternative medium. The alternative medium source is 100% alternative, while the percentage of (foreign) alternative in the ambient medium is unknown/undefined. An algorithm is necessary to account for such. There will always be a difference in the 2 readings, even when the ambient medium is pure; however, one of ordinary skill cannot discern such from the 2 readings; so what is one of ordinary skill to do without a substantive algorithm? There are no examples, no reference provides for such in any manner, and not manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claims 1 and 10, Undersigned recognizes that the disclosure lists many other variables of an alternative medium (such as: mere presence of the alternative medium via dielectric capacitance, different substance, consistency, density, different physical properties, dielectric constant), and that claims 1 and 2 have that claimed “deflection” (claims 1,10) component (corresponding to a deflecting membrane) which relates to pressure. Still, the same difficulty exists, as disclosed manner of compensation does not provide an algorithm for how a compensated ambient medium may be determined based upon the reading of those 2 values. There are no examples, no reference provides for such in any manner, and no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 8, there is no explanation as to how the “electrical circuit” is changed. Paragraphs 38,42 (Publication) refer to adding/removing/switching at least one component, but what the component is, how such circuit is modified is not addressed. There are no examples, no reference provides for an actual component, manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 9, there is no explanation as to how compensation is carried out by way of a “control loop”. Paragraphs 41,42 (Publication) refers to a control loop but what the component is, what structure it might relate to is not addressed. There are no examples, no reference provides for an such, and no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 10, there is no explanation as to how the sensor signal is “directly cleaned” (line 2 from last) of the foreign signal component (as compared with being “changed” (line 3 from last). There are no examples, no reference provides for cleaning, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 10, there is no explanation as to how the sensor signal is both (“and”, line 3 from last) changed and cleaned (“directly cleaned” (line 2 from last)). As both occur, there must be a control step/structure that somehow controls how both take place, but none is provided for in the disclosure. There are no examples, no reference provides for any manner of control/coordination, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 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 claims 1,10, what does the portion micro mean in “microsensor”? Understand, the term micro means one millionth, but nothing more. There are no units (i.e. force, dimension, etc.) in the disclosure associated with “micro”; there is no disclosed numerical range related to micro. The term is broadly associated with value, but nothing in the disclosure provides a hit as to what such relates to. What is one of ordinary skill to recognize how “micro” limits the sensor in any manner? What is Applicant’s intent by employing micro in “microsensor”?
As to claim 5, the “foreign signal component” (line 2) is not “compensated” (line 3). This may be mere translational error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koenig 11,680,932 teach a sensor 1 that includes membrane, the sensor able to correct signals configured to detect different (and individual) gases in a mixture. However, the membrane is not “deflected depending on a measured variable” (claims 1,10).
Roobik et al 5607565 teach providing a sensor device 44 having sensor element to measure ambient medium 12 with a sensor component 44; detecting value of the sensor component; wherein a foreign signal component in that value is compensated for (also) depending on the detection of an alternative medium by a value from a second (i.e. different) measuring device 46 by way of analyzing unit 54 (somehow) subtracting the output value of sensor 46 from the output value of sensor 44. A single sensor does not account for all of the measuring, and the sensor does not employ a deflecting element that varies according to the level of measurements.
Fleischer et al 2004/0025568 teach (Para 20) the concept of a method of receiving a gas mixture, filtering out one of the two components of the mixture (to compensate for cross sensitivity of interfering component), and providing a measure of the remaining component. Such does not involve a sensor in the compensation/correction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights