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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elects Group I, Claims 1-9, with traverse in the reply filed on 1/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “search and examination of the entire pending claim set will not place an undue burden on the Examiner”. The applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement clearly meets this requirement. In addition, many structural requirements between Group I and Group II do not overlap (such as a membrane/filter of claim 13 and a filter in a deflectable membrane in claim 16 in Group II not present in Group I). Although a search of these inventions may overlap, but the search of one invention does not include all the areas required for the others. A serious burden does exist, as different searches are required for each invention. Therefore, in order to ensure the quality of the search and examination, these inventions should be searched separately to account for their differences. Therefore, Claims 1-9 drawn to the elected Group I are examined, and claims 10-20 drawn to the unelected Group II are withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 3, please amend “and a flexible circuit” to “[[and]] or a flexible circuit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mass sensor”, which lacks antecedent basis. In addition, it is unclear if claim 3 depends on claim 2 which provides antecedent basis of the mass sensor. Thus, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed a method of using mass and force indicators in electrochemical gas sensor, the method comprising: “measuring a change in mass of an electrochemical gas sensor; and determining a status of the electrochemical gas sensor based on results of the measuring of the change in mass”. Determining a status of the electrochemical gas sensor based on results of the measuring of the change in mass is an abstract idea in the form of a mental step. The additional steps of “measuring a change in mass of an electrochemical cell of an electrochemical sensor” is known as evidenced by Rouhani (US 5,580,675, provided in IDS dated 01/30/2023) in the rejection of claim 1 below. Furthermore, the additional step is to gather data and is insignificant step. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 1 is directed to a method of using mass and force indicators, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method/process (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites: “determining a status of the electrochemical gas sensor based on results of the measuring of the change in mass” where “determining” is an abstract idea in the form of a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to “determining a status of the electrochemical gas sensor based on results of the measuring of the change in mass”, is not used into a practical application, and do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional step or steps in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites the additional step(s): “measuring a change in mass of an electrochemical gas sensor”, which is known to one of or new skill that only serves to collect/gather the data of change in mass of the electrochemical gas sensor, which is then used to perform the mental step of “determining” a status of the electrochemical gas sensor. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional step of data collecting, “measuring a change in mass of an electrochemical gas sensor”, does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 4-9, claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 4-9 depend on the independent claim 1, therefore, have the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “calculating a field gas concentration based on the electrolyte sensitivity factor”, which is using further mental steps/additional calculations, but the calculated field gas concentration is not further used in a practical application.
Claims 4-5 recites “calibration”, which is standard for industrial electrochemical gas sensors (see prior art of Honeywell [Diagnostic Tests for the Intelligent Gas Sensors, iSeries. iSeries Technical Notes; August 2021, pages 1-8]; calibration is described on pages 1-2 and also in general throughout Honeywell).
Claim 6 recites “calculating a response sensitivity factor of the electrochemical gas sensor”, “calculating an amount of an acid electrolyte in the electrochemical gas sensor”, and “determining the electrolyte sensitivity factor from the response sensitivity factor and the amount of acid in electrolyte”, in which “calculating” and “determining” are using further mental steps/additional calculations. In addition, the calculated electrolyte sensitivity factor is not further used in a practical application.
Claim 7 recites “executing field sensitivity corrections comprises periodically executing the field sensitivity corrections”, which is using further mental steps/additional calculations, but the calculated field sensitivity corrections are not further used in a practical application.
Claims 8-9 recite determining a change in mass, and issuing a warning of sensor failure based on either a change in mass (claim 8) or calculating of a field gas concentration (claim 9). “Determining whether the change in mass is within threshold limits” is a further mental step, and issuing a warning, such as for a faulty/drifting electrochemical gas sensor is standard in the industry (see Honeywell [Diagnostic Tests for the Intelligent Gas Sensors, iSeries. iSeries Technical Notes; August 2021, pages 1-8], where a warning can be issued in advance when a gas sensor needs replacing [last para. page 1]). Furthermore, “issuing a warning of sensor failure” does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is similar to alarm in Parker V. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05 (g).
In summary, dependent claims 4-9 do not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US 2003/0033848 A1) in view of Rouhani (US 5,580,675, provided in IDS dated 01/30/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Peng teaches a method of using indicators in electrochemical gas sensor management (a method for diagnosing an electrochemical gas sensor [title, abstract, para. 0004, 0043; Fig.1]), the method comprising:
measuring a change of an electrochemical gas sensor (sensor’s transient response is monitored by a potentiostat by varying gas flow water content [i.e., humidity] [para. 0045-0048]); and
determining a status based on the results of the measurement (functional status of gas sensor can be determined using this diagnostic method [para. 0053]).
In addition, Peng teaches electrochemical gas sensors typically use aqueous electrolyte, such as diluted sulfuric acid [para. 0020], and that as the humidity of the inlet gas is varied, the electrolyte gains and loses water (i.e., mass), causing a sharp change in the acidity of the working electrode [para. 0021].
Peng is silent on using mass and force indicators; measuring a change in mass; and determining a status based on results of the measuring of the change in mass.
Rouhani teaches mass and force indicators (load cells 25 and 26 measure mass/force that carry the total weight of electrode package 2 [col. 7 line 53 – col. 8 line 8]); measuring a change in mass (load cells 25 and 26 measure change in mass from the electrochemical reaction between electrodes and electrolyte [col. 6 lines 9-30; col. 7 line 53 – col. 8 line 8]); determining a status based on results of the measuring of the change in mass (amount of charge is determined by measured weight when battery is fully charged and when battery is functionally discharged to determine the life of battery [col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 16]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus of Peng to include mass and force indicators to measure a change in mass of an electrochemical sensor (corresponding to the electrochemical gas sensor of Peng), and determining a status of the electrochemical sensor based on the results of the measuring of the change in mass, as taught by Rouhani, as measuring the change in mass is an alternative method to determining the status of a electrochemical cell (Rouhani, [col. 2 lines 40-64]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Peng teaches the method according to claim 1.
Peng is silent on attaching a mass sensor to the electrochemical gas sensor; and mounting the electrochemical gas sensor with the mass sensor in a manner that engages the mass sensor.
Rouhani teaches attaching a mass sensor (load cells 25 and 26 can be attached to electrochemical cells [col. 7 lines 60 – col 8. lines 11; Figure 1]), and mounting the mass sensor in a manner that engages the mass sensor (weight measurement signals are sent from the load cells 25 and 26 in Figure 1 to measuring circuitry to produce readout signals on weight [col. 8 lines 8-19]. The mass sensors can be utilized to measure changes in electrolyte weight [col. 6 lines 9-30]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method and apparatus of modified Peng to include attaching a mass sensor to the electrochemical gas sensor, and mounting the electrochemical gas sensor with the mass sensor in a manner that engages the mass sensor, as taught by Rouhani, as attaching, mounting, and engaging the mass sensor would allow for measurement of changes in electrolyte weight (Rouhani, [col. 6 lines 9-30]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Peng teaches the method according to claim 1.
Peng is silent on the mass sensor comprises one or more of a strain gauge assembly, a piezo-electric element, an elastic element, and a flexible circuit with a built-in or internal strain gauge.
Rouhani teaches the mass sensor can be a strain gauge or piezo-electric element [col. 8 lines 1-4].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and apparatus of modified Peng by providing a mass sensor comprising a strain gauge or a piezo-electric element to measure a change in mass, as taught by Rouhani, as the mass sensors with piezo-electric elements are more suitable due to low price and higher sensitivity (Rouhani, [col. 8. lines 1-4]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00 CST.
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 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795