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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-122167 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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 control unit” in claims 1-2, 5, and 9.
“an arithmetic unit” in claim 1 and 6-8.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michio et al. (JP 2019-15675 A) (hereinafter Michio) (cited in IDS dated 13 January 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Michio teaches a detection device [gas sensor] comprising a vibrator [quartz resonator 2] having a sensitive membrane [sensitive membrane]; a heater configured to heat the sensitive membrane [refresh mechanism 21; infrared light source 46 emits infrared light L and the center of the sensitive film 10 is heated by the infrared light L]; a detector configured to detect a detection value related to a resonance frequency of the vibrator [resonance frequency f]; and a control unit configured to cause the heater to start heating the sensitive membrane, acquire a first detection value detected by the detector in a state where the sensitive membrane is heated, and cause the heater to stop heating the sensitive membrane based on the first detection value and a first reference value [control unit 38 controls operation of refresh mechanism 21 on basis of acquired resistance value R and resonance frequency f; determines whether difference (f2-f1) is greater than reference frequency, refresh deemed to have ended, proceeds to S11 where control unit turns off auto refresh mode] (Pgs. 8-9, see Abstract, Figs. 11 and 16), and an arithmetic unit configured to acquire a second detection value related to a gas to be measured detected by the detector and calculate determination information about the gas based on the second detection value [processor 33; gas concentration m corresponding to a change in resonance frequency from the resonance frequency] (Pgs. 7-8, see Figs. 10-12).
Michio fails to teach wherein the arithmetic unit is configured to acquire the second detection value related to a gas to be measured detected by the detector after heating of the sensitive member is stopped. Michio additionally teaches wherein the detection process is followed by the refresh process in order to restore the surface state of the sensitive membrane to the initial state where gas concentration can be measured (Pgs. 4 and 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Michio such that the arithmetic unit is configured to acquire a gas detection value after the refresh cycle and calculate the concentration of the gas based on the gas detection value, in order to ensure that the gas concentration detection is performed on a sensitive membrane where no foreign substance is adsorbed.
Regarding claim 2, Michio as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition wherein the control unit causes the heater to stop heating the sensitive membrane when a difference between the first detection value and the first reference value greater than a threshold value [determines whether difference (f2-f1) is greater than reference frequency, refresh deemed to have ended, proceeds to S11 where control unit turns off auto refresh mode] (Pgs. 8-9, see Abstract, Figs. 11 and 16). Michio fails to teach wherein the heating is stopped when the difference becomes equal to or less than a threshold value. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Michio such to choose a baseline threshold comparison in order to be able to determine when the membrane has been refreshed.
Regarding claims 3-4, Michio as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the first reference value is an initial value or smaller than an initial value of a detection value related to the resonance frequency detected by the detector in the state where the sensitive membrane is heated. Michio teaches wherein the first reference value is a detection value related to the resonance frequency detected by the detector in the state when the sensitive membrane is being heated (Pg. 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Michio such that the reference value is a chosen value, such as equal to or smaller than an initial value of a detection value, in order to set a comparison threshold for determining when the refresh cycle is finished. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Michio as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein if the threshold is not met, the heating of the sensitive membrane continues in a loop, and that overheating the membrane negatively affects sensor sensitivity and structural stability (Pg. 11, see Fig. 11). Michio fails to teach wherein the control unit determines that there is an abnormality when the difference does not become equal to or less than the threshold value even after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the start of the sensitive membrane. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Michio such that the control unit determines that there is an abnormality when the difference does not become equal to or less than the threshold value even after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the start of the sensitive membrane, in order to prevent overheating of the sensitive membrane.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 10-2017-0024634) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 7, Michio as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the arithmetic unit acquires a second reference value related to a reference gas detected by the detector after heating of the sensitive membrane is stopped, and calculates the determination information based on the second detection value and the second reference value. Lee teaches a gas detection device configured to correct a sensor value based on a calibration and re-calibration reference value based on a reference gas (Pg. 1, see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Michio with Lee such that wherein the arithmetic unit acquires a second reference value related to a reference gas detected by the detector after heating of the sensitive membrane is stopped, and calculates the determination information based on the second detection value and the second reference value, in order to correct the determination information based on the calibration values.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mihara et al. (JP 2012-220454 A) (hereinafter Mihara) (cited in IDS dated 13 January 2025).
Regarding claims 8-9, Michio as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the vibrator is provided in a plurality, wherein the heater is provided in a plurality to heat sensitive membranes of the vibrators respectively, and wherein the arithmetic unit calculates the determination information based on the second detection value corresponding to each of the vibrators, wherein the control unit heats the sensitive membrane of at least one of the vibrators to a temperature different from that of the sensitive membrane of another vibrator. Mihara teaches a gas detection device comprising a plurality of vibrators and associated sensitive membranes and heaters, the sensitive membranes having different adsorption temperatures (Pgs. 2-4, see Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Michio with Mihara such that the vibrator is provided in a plurality, wherein the heater is provided in a plurality to heat sensitive membranes of the vibrators respectively, and wherein the arithmetic unit calculates the determination information based on the second detection value corresponding to each of the vibrators, wherein the control unit heats the sensitive membrane of at least one of the vibrators to a temperature different from that of the sensitive membrane of another vibrator, in order to better monitor gas adsorption conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the arithmetic unit corrects the second detection value based on the first detection value and the first reference value and calculates the determination information based on the second detection value that has been corrected, when the difference does not become equal to or less than the threshold value even after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since start of heating of the sensitive membrane, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claims 1-2, from which it depends upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 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 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 Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
