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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Final Office Action based on application 17/599466 RCE response filed 12/17/2025.
Claims 1-4, 7-9 & 13-14, 16, 19 & 21-22 have been examined and fully considered.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 5-6, 15 & 17-18 & 20 are cancelled.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13-14, 16, 19 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by FIGARO in JP 2016-105122 (as cited with English translation on IDS dated 09/28/2021) in view of YOSHIOKA in US 20160341685 and further in view of HANAZONO in US 20100073886.
With respect to Claim 1, FIGARO teaches of a gas sensor, see paragraphs 0026, 0027,0031) and that the plurality of adsorbent particles used for the gas sensor are aggregated together to form a porous structure (there multiple structures which show as three-layer structures in Figure 9, are holes/pores in the structure between the plurality of three-layered structures) (See Figure 9 & paragraph 0007, 0027).
FIGARO teaches that the metal oxide B is densely (continuously) and firmly fixed (adhered) to the surface of the insulator particle in the form of layer (film). This is the “first coating layer,” as instantly claimed. The metal oxides can be Tin (SN) oxide, which is conductive (paragraph 0013). These metal oxide particles are the same material as each other (paragraphs 0020, 0023 and 0031 and fig. 8 & 9). FIGARO further teaches that another two layers coat the first coating layer, just comprising B particles. Metal oxides are “conductive,” particles as instantly claimed.
This layer coating the first coating layer includes metal oxide particles A & B (which are the same material, but a different size) and again--- A & B are conductive (paragraph 0008). This A & B layer is covered in organic material (everything adhering to the surface of the insulator) (paragraphs 0023 and 0031).
FIGARO shows the particles (B & A) which are metal oxide particles are coated in an organic substance (organic material) (paragraphs 0023 and 0031) adhering to the insulator particle in the shape of a film/thin layer (see Figure 9).
FIGARO further shows the particles (B & A) and organic substance (organic material) (paragraphs [0023] and [0031]) adhering to the insulator particle in the shape of a film/thin layer (see Figure 9). As the organic material is in all of the particles of A & B, it coats the first coating layer “continuously,” as claimed--- through broadest reasonable interpretation of “continuously.” FIGARO teaches that the device is a gas sensor, meaning that the substances used therein have a gas adsoptivity as claimed.
Further- though yes, in FIGARO there are two layers of conductive particles (the B layer in Figure 9 and the B & A layer in Figure 9), the instant claims do not preclude this—in case it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to but a continuous organic layer on one layer on a continuous conductive substrate or particles, YOSHIOKA is used to remedy this. Further, FIGARO does not teach of the organic material including polyethylene glycol nor does it teach that it specifically has a gas adsorptivity.
YOSHIOKA is used to remedy this. YOSHIOKA teaches of a sensor which is an electrically conductive gel, which contains electrically conductive particles (abstract). YOSHIOKA further teaches that the electrically conductive base particle can be constituted by an insulating material or that a portion of the electrically conductive base particle can be insulating and the other portion can be conductive (paragraph 0070).
YOSHIOKA further teaches of the gel surrounding the particle/particles (abstract), “an electrically conductive gel containing electrically conductive particles,” (paragraph 0009). YOSHIOKA further teaches that there is a polymer portion that constitutes the stimulus responsive gel and that the polymer is obtained by cross linking monomers which can be polyethylene glycol (paragraph 0152). This can be considered the claimed organic material that “continuously covers,” the plurality of conductive particles.
YOSHIOKA further teaches that the gel retains the solvent (retaining a solvent in gel state, reads on the claimed gas adsorbent being “free from solvent,”) and in that a favorable gel state can be maintained due to the use of the polymers (paragraph 0177). YOSHIOKA teaches that the gel has absorbing properties and that the gel is stimulus responsive--- which reads on “has a gas adsorptivity,” (paragraph 0042, 0141, 0235) through broadest reasonable interpretation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use polyethylene glycol as the organic material that continuously covers the particles as is done in YOSHIOKA in the method and sensor of FIGARO due to the advantage that polymers and polyethylene glycol specifically has in responding to certain types of stimulus (YOSHIOKA, paragraph 0147-0152).
In case it is unclear that FIGARO and YOSHIOKA teach of the claimed “having a gas adorptivity,” as instantly claimed, HANAZANO is used to remedy this.
HANAZANO teaches of a sensor board that is a gas sensor that has an insulating layer; electrodes on the insulating layer; and a conductive layer (abstract, See [1] in figure 2). HANZANO teaches that the sensor board has an insulating layer and forming a conductive layer by spraying a conductive component containing liquid onto the insulating layer, and that the conductive component containing liquid contains an organic solvent, a conductive particles, and a non-conductive substance (paragraphs 0010-0011).
HANAZANO teaches that the conductive particle and non-conductive substance swells according to the type or amount/concentration of a specific gas (paragraph 0063). Specifically, HANAZANO teaches that a non-conductive substance can be used with the conductive particles (like is done in FIGARO with the organic material) and that the non-conductive substance can be a polymer (HANAZANO, paragraph 0069).
HANAZANO further teaches that the conductive particles are carbon based (paragraph 0011, 0064, 0065).
HANAZANO even further teaches that there is a layer of conductive substance and a layer of non conductive substance, and that the is adsorption of gas (adsoptivity)(paragraph 0100, 0107, 0042, 0043, 0123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the materials with gas adsoptivity as is done in HANAZANO in the methods of FIGARO and YOSHIOKA due to the advantage this offers in allowing for swelling of the materials based on the type and or concentration or amount of gas (HANAZANO, paragraph 0107).
With respect to Claim 2, FIGARO teaches that the all the particles in different respective layers are the same or very similar sizes. FIGARO further teaches that the insulating particles (insulator) is much bigger than any of the particles in the conductive layers (A & B) (See Figure 9, paragraph 0020).
With respect to Claim 3, FIGARO teaches that the all the particles in different respective layers are the same or very similar sizes. FIGARO further teaches that the insulating particles (insulator) are three times or more the size of the any of the particles in the conductive layers (A & B) (See Figure 9, paragraph 0020).
With respect to Claim 4, FIGARO teaches that a diameter of a void created in the porous structure is larger than the mean particle size of the plurality of conductive particles (see Figure 9):
PNG
media_image1.png
658
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 13, FIGARO teaches of the limitations of Claim 2 as shown above teaches that a diameter of a void created in the porous structure is larger than the mean particle size of the plurality of conductive particles (see Figure 9)--- see annotated figure in Claim 4 rejection.
With respect to Claim 14- see Claim 13 rejection above. FIGARO further teaches that the all the particles in different respective layers are the same or very similar sizes. FIGARO further teaches that the insulating particles (insulator) are three times or more the size of the any of the particles in the conductive layers (A & B) (See Figure 9, paragraph 0020).
With respect to Claim 8-9, & 16, FIGARO teaches of the above, but does not teach of the claimed particle size. YOSHIOKA is used to remedy this and teaches of the particles having a size of 10 nm or more or 20 nm or more or a particle diameter/ size of 10 nm or more and 1000 nm or less (paragraph 0075, 0231). This reads on the claimed ranges of “10 nm to 30 nm,) and mean particle size (diameter) of “100 nm to 1500 nm.” It would have been obvious to use particles of this size as is done in YOSHIOKA in the method of FIGARO since it is advantageous to have particles under a certain size toa allow them to fit in gel and so detection of stimulus can be more favorably performed (YOSHIOKA, paragraphs 0074-0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Further- since FIGARO teaches of the general claimed proportion of the adsorbent parts. See MPEP 2144 &
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to Claim 21, FIGARO teaches of the above, but does not teach of the void being fully surrounded by the organic material.
YOSHIOKA is used to remedy this and teaches of the organic material as shown above for Claim 1. YOSHIKOKA further teaches that the electrically conductive particle or particle aggregates which can include insulation particles as shown above, may exist in the gel for the sensor (paragraph 0073, 0078, 0083). Figure 1 A and 1 B shows the gel, 12 surrounding the particles 121 and that the gas adsorbent (the whole gel structure contained in 12) is disposed on a substrate. The organic material/gel fully covers all particles, “except a portion that that contacts the substrate.” As none contact substrate, the organic material fully covers.
See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 22, FIGARO teaches of the above, but does not teach of the void being fully surrounded by the organic material.
YOSHIOKA is used to remedy this and teaches of the organic material as shown above for Claim 1. YOSHIKOKA further teaches that the electrically conductive particle or particle aggregates which can include insulation particles as shown above, may exist in the gel for the sensor (paragraph 0073, 0078, 0083).Figure 1 A and 1 B shows the gel, 12 surrounding the particles 121.
See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 7, FIGARO and YOSHIOKA teaches of the claimed invention as shown above. FIGARO and YOSHIOKA do not teach that the conductive particles include a carbon material.
HANAZANO is used to remedy this.
HANAZANO teaches of a sensor board that is a gas sensor that has an insulating layer; electrodes on the insulating layer; and a conductive layer (abstract, See [1] in figure 2). HANZANO teaches that the sensor board has an insulating layer and forming a conductive layer by spraying a conductive component containing liquid onto the insulating layer, and that the conductive component containing liquid contains an organic solvent, a conductive particles, and a non-conductive substance (paragraphs 0010-0011).
HANAZANO teaches that the conductive particle and non-conductive substance swells according to the type or amount/concentration of a specific gas (paragraph 0063). Specifically, HANAZANO teaches that a non-conductive substance can be used with the conductive particles (like is done in FIGARO with the organic material) and that the non-conductive substance can be a polymer (HANAZANO, paragraph 0069).
HANAZANO further teaches that the conductive particles are carbon based (paragraph 0011, 0064, 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the carbon-based conductive particles instead of the metal oxide particles of FIGARO and YOSHIOKA due to the known success of carbonaceous materials as conductors (HANAZANO, paragraphs 0063-0065).
With respect to Claim 19, see Claim 2 rejection above. FIGARO and YOSKIOKA teaches of the claimed invention as shown above. FIGARO and YOSKIOKA do not teach that the conductive particles include a carbon material.
HANAZANO is used to remedy this. See Claim 6 rejection for basic teachings of HANAZANO. HANAZANO further teaches that the conductive particles are carbon based (paragraph 0011, 0064, 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant effective filing date, to use the carbon-based conductive particles instead of the metal oxide particles of FIGARO and YOSKIOKA due to the known success of carbonaceous materials as conductors (HANAZANO, paragraphs 0063-0065).
Response to Arguments
Amendments dated 12/17/2025 have overcome the prior 112 (b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in overcoming the prior art.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach of the second coating layer being formed of an organic material, which has gas adsorbtivity and included polyethylene glycol and coats the first coating layer is not taught by the prior art. The examiner disagrees.
Applicant argues that the organic material taught by FIGARO would necessarily be removed during manufacturing. The examiner disagrees with this--- if this is the case, then why does the FIGARO reference not teach of it being removed? Applicant argues that the office has failed to provide any factual evidence as to why the organic material remains after the calcinating process. With respect to this--- the examiner notes that the applicant has not cited any factual evidence that it does not.
Applicant argues that since FIGARO is a gas sensor, then an organic material would block the gas sensing. Again--- it is not clear why applicant is arguing this, the applicant’s instant claims are drawn towards a gas sensor, and the outside of their coating is also organic material.
Therefore, the examiner disagrees with applicant.
Applicant further argues that there is no reason for combination of YOSHIOKA and FIGARO and HANAZONO. The examiner disagrees.
Applicant further argues that the operational principle of YOSHIOKA and FIGARO are different and therefore there is no reason to combine the references.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use polyethylene glycol as the organic material that continuously covers the particles as is done in YOSHIOKA in the method and sensor of FIGARO due to the advantage that polymers and polyethylene glycol specifically has in responding to certain types of stimulus (YOSHIOKA, paragraph 0147-0152).
Applicant further argues that FIGARO fails to disclose the organic material continuously covering the conductive particles. The examiner disagrees as shown in the above rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that you cannot incorporate FIGARO, YOSHIOKA and HANAZONO into each other, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, all claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758