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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 2, 2023 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 8 has been cancelled; and claims 3-5 have been withdrawn previously. Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-10 are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-10 from the previous office action are essentially maintained and modified in response to the arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-2, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horisaka et al. (US20090242402A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horisaka teaches a sensor element (a sensor element 101 [para. 0015]); the limitation “for detecting NOx in a measurement-object gas” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Horisaka teaches the sensor element 101 for detecting nitrogen oxide (NOx) in a measurement gas [paras. 0008, 0015], and the prior art sensor element 101 is specifically configured for performing the intended use. The sensor element comprising:
a base part in an elongated plate shape (see Fig.1), including a plurality of oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layers stacked (a structure in which a first substrate layer 1, a second substrate layer 2, a third substrate layer 3, a first solid electrolyte layer 4, a spacer layer 5, and a second solid electrolyte layer 6 are integrally laminated in this order from a bottom seen in Fig.1, each of the layers being consisted of an oxygen ion conductive solid electrolyte [para. 0016]);
a measurement-object gas flow part (a part from the gas inlet 10 to the second internal space 40 in Fig.1 is the measurement-object gas flow part [para. 0018 ]) for introduction and flow of the measurement-object gas through a gas inlet (gas inlet 10 in Fig.1 [para. 0018]) formed in one end part in a longitudinal direction of the base part (see Fig.1);
an inner oxygen pump electrode (inside pump electrode 22 and auxiliary pump electrode 51 in Fig.1 [paras. 0025, 0033]. Notes that the specification of this instant application discloses that an inner oxygen pump electrode 90 includes a plurality of pump electrodes, such as an inner pimp electrode 22 and an auxiliary pump electrode 51, as shown in Figs. 2 and 6 [paras. 0095, 0103, 0113, 0138]. Furthermore, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and dependent claims are supposed to further limit claims they depend from. The limitation “the inner oxygen pump electrode comprises a plurality of electrodes” recited in claim 2 shows that Applicant intends for the scope of “an inner oxygen pump electrode” in claim 1, which appears singular, to encompass plural electrodes. Thus, Examiner interprets an inner oxygen pump electrode as plural pump electrodes in the same way as the specification) disposed on an inner surface of the measurement-object gas flow part (see Fig.1); and
a measurement electrode (measuring electrode 44 in Fig.1 [para. 0030]) disposed on the inner surface of the measurement-object gas flow part (see Fig.1), wherein
the inner oxygen pump electrode has a predetermined length (L) in the longitudinal direction (sum of the length of the inside pump electrode 22 and the length of the auxiliary pump electrode 51 in the longitudinal direction) and includes:
a region (A) (region of the inside pump electrode 22 in Fig.1) including an electrode end close to the gas inlet (the front end of the inside pump electrode 22 in Fig.1 close to the gas inlet 10) and having a predetermined length (LA) in the longitudinal direction (the length of the inside pump electrode 22), and
a region (B) (region of the auxiliary pump electrode 51 in Fig.1) including an electrode end far from the gas inlet (the front end of the auxiliary pump electrode 51 close to the third diffusion control part 30 in Fig.1) and having a predetermined length (LB) in the longitudinal direction (length of the auxiliary pump electrode 51 in Fig.1); and
the inner oxygen pump electrode comprises a metal material (platinum [Pt] as a main component and additive Au [paras. 0025, 0034, 0041]), the metal material including an activity reducing metal (Au [paras. 0041-0044]) that reduces catalytic activity of decomposing NOx (An addition of Au has an effect to reduce a catalyst activity to gaseous species other than oxygen in the inside pump electrode 22 and the auxiliary pump electrode 51 to suppress decomposition in the electrode [para. 0043]).
Horisaka is silent to: (1) a content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) is higher than a content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (B); (2) a ratio (LA/L) of the length (LA) in the longitudinal direction of the region (A) of the inner oxygen pump electrode to the length (L) in the longitudinal direction of the inner oxygen pump electrode is 15% to 90%; and (3) the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) is 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight.
Horisaka further explicitly teaches wherein the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 is not necessarily same as the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51, but may be different within the range determined as described above [para. 0048].
Given the teachings of Horisaka regarding the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 may be different from the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51, there are only two solutions: the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 is higher than the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51, or the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 is lower than the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51. Therefore, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try by choosing from the above two identified solutions, which would lead to the first solution with the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 being higher than the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Modified Horisaka is still silent to: (2) a ratio (LA/L) of the length (LA) in the longitudinal direction of the region (A) of the inner oxygen pump electrode to the length (L) in the longitudinal direction of the inner oxygen pump electrode is 15% to 90%; and (3) the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) is 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight.
Fig.1 in Horisaka does suggest that the length of the inside pump electrode 22, LA, is larger than that of the auxiliary pump electrode 51, LB, in the longitudinal direction. Thus, L/LA=(LA+LB)/LA=1+LB/LA < 1+1=2, and accordingly LA/L >1/2=50%. Thus, Fig.1 in Horisaka suggests the ratio LA/L is larger than 50%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 15% to 90%.
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized a ratio of LA/L within the disclosed range of larger than 50%, as taught by Horisaka, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Horisaka teaches the range to be suitable for the inner oxygen pump electrode. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)].
Modified Horisaka is still silent to: (3) the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) is 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight.
Horisaka does teach as shown in Fig. 2, the additive amount of Au in the inside pump electrode 22 and the auxiliary pump electrode 51 correlates with the offset current Ip2 ofs. While the offset current Ip2ofs has an almost constant value with the additive amount of less than or equal to nearly 1%, the offset current Ip2ofs rapidly increases with the additive amount of greater than or equal to 1% [para. 0042]. Thus, Horisaka suggests to have the content of Au in the inside pump electrode 22 to be less than or equal to nearly 1%. Even nearly 1% does not include 1%, but it is still very close to 1%.
It would have been obvious to have utilized an inner oxygen pump electrode having an Au content within the disclosed range of less than or equal to nearly 1%, as taught by Horisaka. Nearly 1% is very close to 1%. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
In the alternative, the limitation “the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) is 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight” is further rejected based on result effective variable as outlined below.
Horisaka further teaches that the additive amount of Au in the inside pump electrode 22 and the auxiliary pump electrode 51 correlates with the offset current Ip2ofs, as shown in Fig.2. While the offset current Ip2ofs has an almost constant value with the additive amount of less than or equal to nearly 1%, the offset current Ip2ofs rapidly increases with the additive amount of greater than or equal to 1% [para. 0042]. The excessive addition of Au also reduces a catalyst activity to oxygen, so that the main pumping cell 21 and the auxiliary pumping cell 50 in which the inside pump electrode 22 and the auxiliary pump electrode 51 are provided, respectively, cannot pump out enough oxygen from the first and second internal space to obtain the targeted oxygen partial pressure [para. 0043]. Horisaka therefore teaches wherein the content of Au in the inside pump electrode is a result effective variable since it affects the offset current, catalyst activity to oxygen, and oxygen partial pressure in the first internal space of the gas sensor.
As the offset current, catalyst activity to oxygen, and oxygen partial pressure in the first internal space of the gas sensor are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the content of Au in the inside pump electrode (which is the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region [A]), the precise content of the activity reducing metal (the content of Au) in the metal material in the region (A) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) being 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) being 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight in Horisaka to obtain the desired offset current, catalyst activity to oxygen, and oxygen partial pressure in the first internal space of the gas sensor. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 2, Horisaka teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, wherein
the inner oxygen pump electrode comprises a plurality of electrodes (inside pump electrode 22 and auxiliary pump electrode 51 in Fig.1) disposed on the inner surface of the measurement-object gas flow part, and
the length (L) in the longitudinal direction of the inner oxygen pump electrode is a sum of respective lengths in the longitudinal direction of the plurality of electrodes (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the length L in the longitudinal direction of the inner oxygen pump electrode is the sum of respective lengths in the longitudinal direction of the inside pump electrode 22 and auxiliary pump electrode 51).
Regarding claim 6, Horisaka teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein the ratio (LA/L) of the length (LA) in the longitudinal direction of the region (A) of the inner oxygen pump electrode to the length (L) in the longitudinal direction of the inner oxygen pump electrode is 30% to 70%.
However, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Fig.1 suggests that the ratio (LA/L) is above 50%, overlapping with the claimed range of 30% to 70%.
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized a ratio of LA/L within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Horisaka teaches the range to be suitable for the inner oxygen pump electrode. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)]).
Regarding claim 7, Horisaka teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, wherein the activity reducing metal comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of gold and silver (gold [paras. 0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Horisaka teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, provide that the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (B) is lower than the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Horisaka teaches the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (B) is lower than the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A)).
Horisaka is silent to wherein the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (B) of the inner oxygen pump electrode is 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight.
Horisaka does teach as shown in Fig.2, the additive amount of Au in the inside pump electrode 22 and the auxiliary pump electrode 51 correlates with the offset current Ip2 ofs. While the offset current Ip2 ofs has an almost constant value with the additive amount of less than or equal to nearly 1% [para. 0042]. Gold of greater than or equal to 0.01 wt % and less than or equal to 0.95 wt % is added to the inner oxygen pump electrode, and thereby, even if some fluctuation is generated in the offset current Ip2ofs, the NOx concentration can be accurately measured substantially without having any problems [para. 0044]; the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 is not necessarily same as the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51, but may be different within the range determined as described above [para. 0048]. Thus, the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (B) of the inner oxygen pump electrode is also greater than or equal to 0.01 wt % and less than or equal to 0.95 wt%, or less than or equal to nearly 1%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight.
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized a content of Au in the metal material in the region B within the disclosed range (i.e., greater than or equal to 0.01 wt % and less than or equal to 0.95 wt% or less than or equal to nearly 1%), including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range. Doing so, the NOx concentration would be accurately measured substantially without having any problems [para. 0044]. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 10, Horisaka teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein a ratio (CA/CB) of the content (CA) of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) to the content (CB) of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (B) of the inner oxygen pump electrode is not less than 1.5 and not more than 20.0.
Given the teachings of Horisaka regarding the contents of Au (i.e., additive amounts of Au) in the inside pump electrode and the auxiliary pump electrode being a result effective variable, and the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 may be different from the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51 as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, as the catalyst activity and measurement accuracy are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contents of Au (i.e., additive amounts of Au) in the inside pump electrode and the auxiliary pump electrode, the precise contents of Au in the inside pump electrode located in the region A (CA) and in the auxiliary pump electrode located in the region B (CB), and the ratio of CA/CB would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of CA/CB cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contents of Au in the inside pump electrode located in the region A and in the auxiliary pump electrode located in the region B in Horisaka to obtain the desired contents of Au in the inside pump electrode located in the region A and in the auxiliary pump electrode located in the region B, and accordingly obtain the desired ratio of CA/CB, in order to obtain the desired reduction of the catalyst activity such that the NOx concentration can be accurately measured substantially without having any problems, as taught by Horisaka. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In the alternative, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Horisaka teaches wherein the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region A, CA, is higher than the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region B, CB, thus one has CA > CB, leading to CA/CB >1, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5[Symbol font/0xA3]CA/CB [Symbol font/0xA3]20.0. It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized a ratio of CA/CB within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since Horisaka teaches it is suitable to have the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region A being different from the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region B (i.e., the additive amount of gold in the inside pump electrode 22 is not necessarily same as the additive amount of gold in the auxiliary pump electrode 51, but may be different within the range determined as described above [para. 0048]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 6-10, filed 8/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues at pages 7-10 that a prima facie case of obviousness is not established by the reference because Horisaka does teach away from the claimed range that includes 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight. Horisaka discloses that "the offset current Ip2ofs rapidly increases with the additive amount of greater than or equal to 1%", which is caused because of an excessive addition of Au, namely, an Au additive amount of greater than or equal to 1%, and this reduces a catalyst activity to oxygen, so that the main pumping cell 21 and the auxiliary pumping cell 50 cannot pump out enough oxygen from the first and second internal spaces.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. In the modified rejection for claim 1 above, the limitation of “the content of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) is 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight” is rejected by (A) a prima facie case of obviousness since nearly 1% is close to 1% and (B) result effective variable. As applicant points out that the Au additive affects offset current, catalyst activity to oxygen, and oxygen partial pressure in the first internal space, thus the Au content in the inside pump electrode is a result effective variable.
As applicant points out that this instant case is different from the Titanium Metals wherein the claimed amount falls directly within the established prior art range. In this instant case, however the disclosed nearly 1% is close to the claimed 1%. Note that Applicant has not established criticality of the lower end point of 1%. For example, the instant specification discloses: wherein a content rate of the activity reducing metal in the metal material in the region (A) of the inner oxygen pump electrode is 0.5% by weight to 2.0% by weight [para. 0044 in PGPub]; when gold (Au) is added as the activity reducing metal to platinum (Pt) which is the main component, the content rate (concentration) of Au in the region (A) containing much Au may be not less than 0.5% by weight and not more than 2.0% by weight, relative to the total amount of the metal material. Preferably, the content rate may be not less than 0.7% by weight and not more than 2.0% by weight [para. 0189 in PGPub]. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Furthermore, since the Au content of the inside pump electrode is a result effective variable, without showing unexpected results, the claimed Au content in the inside pump electrode being 1.0% by weight to 2.0% by weight cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Au content in the inside pump electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795