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 .
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.
Claim(s) 14-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Perkins et al. (US 7,290,439 B2) in view of Walte et al. (US 2005/0090018 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Perkins discloses a method for the detection of gas using a gas-selective membrane (30; fig. 1), a temperature device (40; fig. 2) that is designed to change the temperature of the membrane (heating element 40 changes a temperature of permeable member 30; c. 3, ll. 40-46), wherein the membrane (30) comprises a temperature dependent permeability for a gas to be detected (permeable member 30 has a temperature dependent permeability for helium; c. 3, ll. 36-43), and a detector (24) that is designed to detect a measurement signal on the basis of the amount of gas passing through the membrane (ion pump 24 detects a measurement signal proportional to an amount of helium that has passed through permeable member 30; c. 4, ll. 17-21), characterized by the following steps: changing the permeability of the membrane (30) for the gas to be detected by changing a temperature of the membrane (30) using the temperature device (heating element 40 changes a temperature of permeable member 30 and the helium permeability of permeable member 30 changes when heated; c. 3, ll. 43-52), acquiring at least one first measuring value using the detector (24) when the membrane (30) comprises a first permeability for the gas to be detected at a time at which the membrane temperature adopts a first temperature value (ion pump detects helium pressure at a time when membrane 30 is at a first temperature and has a first helium permeability; c. 3, ll. 43-45 and c. 4, ll. 22-26).
Regarding claims 25-27, Perkins et al. discloses wherein no pump is used to create a differential pressure between the pressures of the gas upstream of the membrane (30) and the gas downstream of the membrane (assembly 20 has zero pumping speed in chamber 10 and does not pump helium out of chamber 10; c. 4, ll. 26-33); wherein the method is used to detect a gas in a room of a building (chamber10 must be contained within some room of some building; c. 2, l. 67); wherein the detector (24) is a gas measuring device or a pressure measuring device (ion pump 24 measures pressure; c. 4, ll. 17-21).
Perkins et al. does not explicitly disclose the step of acquiring a second measuring value when the membrane adopts a second temperature and using the difference between measuring values to assess the presence of a gas. However, Perkins et al. teaches that the material of the membrane (30) has a helium permeability that varies with temperature (c. 3, ll. 35-37) such as that quartz has a relatively high helium permeability in a temperature range of 300 to 900 °C, and a low helium permeability at room temperature. Perkins et al. further teaches adjusting the temperature of the membrane (30) to control its permeability and sensitivity (c. 3, ll. 45-48) and also, measuring helium concentration more than once to determine a leak rate (c. 4, ll. 11-13).
Walte et al. teach a method for detection of gas wherein first and second sensor values (Signal vs. time; fig. 2) are detected at first and second membrane temperatures (Temp vs. time; fig. 2); calculating the difference between the two measuring values and using the difference to assess whether a gas to be detected is present (a difference between measuring values at higher and lower temperatures for signals 11 and 12 indicate whether gas compounds that are present are high, medium, or low volatility; ¶¶ [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. to take sensor measurements at different temperatures as taught by Walte et al. to provide a gas sensor that can detect leak rates of different gases based on their varying permeability through the membrane at different temperatures (Perkins et al., c. 3, ll. 49-54 and Walte et al., ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Perkins et al. disclose the invention as set forth above and further, wherein changing the temperature is effected by measuring and controlling the temperature (heating element 40 is monitored and controlled by controller 42 to control temperature of permeable member 30 within a helium window; c. 3, ll. 48-52).
Perkins et al. is silent on the temperature of the membrane changing at recurring intervals.
Walte et a. teach wherein the change of the membrane temperature is performed periodically such that the membrane temperature alternately adopts the two temperature values at periodically recurring intervals (membrane temperature alternately adopts two temperature values, 20 °C and 220 °C; fig. 2), the measuring values for the respective temperatures being acquired during at least two different intervals (sensor measurement values are acquired during at least two different temperature intervals; ¶ [0030] and fig. 2); temperature control being performed between two temperature values greater than zero (temperature is controlled to two temperature values, 20 °C and 220 °C, greater than zero; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. with the detector acquiring measurement signals at different temperatures as taught by Walte et al. to provide a gas sensor that can detect leak rates of different gases based on their varying permeability through the membrane at different temperatures (Perkins et al., c. 3, ll. 49-54 and Walte et al., ¶ [0031]). When modifying the apparatus of Perkins et al. with the alternating temperatures of Walte et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that when the membrane has a second temperature value, the membrane would have a second permeability for the gas to be detected, that is different from the first permeability.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Perkins et al. in view of Walte et al. disclose the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 15.
Perkins et al. in view of Walte et al. are silent on calculating the difference using the mean of sensor values.
However, determining an arithmetic mean is a well-known mathematical function used to characterize a dataset. Determining the mean of sensor values is also well-known in the art of measuring and testing devices and is the use of a known technique to yield predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. in view of Walte et al. to calculate the difference between sensor values using the arithmetic mean of either first or second measuring values, to minimize the effect of a single erroneous sensor signal.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Perkins et al. in view of Walte et al. disclose the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 14.
Although Perkins et al. in view of Walte et al. are silent on the particular difference between first and second temperature values, Walte et al. further teach that a temperature of the membrane affects passing of different gases having volatile or non-volatile compounds (¶ [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins in view of Walte et al. to select a difference between first and second temperature values, such as to between 2 and 10 degrees, or 3 and 6 degrees, so as to optimize the apparatus for the particular gas to be detected.
Regarding claims 19 and 22-24, Perkins et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the temperature device is a heater (40; c. 3, ll. 55-56), at least the first temperature value of the membrane temperature being higher than the temperature of the environment of the membrane (permeable membrane 30 is heated to achieve a desired level of permeability, e.g. 300-900 °C; c. 3, ll. 49-52); wherein prior to setting a new temperature value of the membrane (30) temperature, the heater is deactivated (heating element 40 would be turned off in between heating processes).
Perkins et al. is silent on the second temperature value being higher than ambient temperature.
Walte et al. teach the first temperature value and the second temperature value being each higher than the ambient temperature (for example, first and second temperature values are 20 °C and 220 °C; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. with the detector acquiring measurement signals at different temperatures as taught by Walte et al. to provide a gas sensor that can detect leak rates of different gases based on their varying permeability through the membrane at different temperatures (Perkins et al., c. 3, ll. 49-54 and Walte et al., ¶ [0031]).
Although Perkins et al. in view of Walte et al. are silent on measuring intervals being 2-5 seconds, Perkins et al. teaches heating the permeable membrane to increase permeability (c. 3, ll. 47-48), which would shorten a sensor response time, and taking more than one measurement (c. 4, ll. 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. in view of Walte to adjust the intervals between measurements, such as intervals of 2 to 5 seconds, so as to be optimized for the particular gas to be detected. Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. in view of Walte to adjust the intervals between first and second temperature values, such as from 5 to 15 seconds, so as to be optimized for the particular gas to be detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Perkins clearly teaches to first increase the membrane temperature such that “a helium window is open”,(col. 3, line 52), to thereby achieve an increased sensitivity, while avoiding a lower membrane temperature at which the helium window is closed (col. 3, line 35 to col. 4, line 33)” and that “[i]t is a decisive aspect of Perkins that the membrane temperature is not changed during the measurement…in order to maintain the helium window open.” Response, page 7. However, Perkins discloses that “the helium permeability of quartz varies with temperature” (c. 3, ll. 35-37) and at “elevated temperatures in the range of 300° C. to 900° C., quartz has a relatively high helium permeability” (c. 3, ll. 37-39). One of ordinary skill would have understood that by adjusting the membrane temperature to within this particular 600° C range, “a relatively high helium permeability” could be achieved, and not that merely a single degree of permeability would be constant for any and all selected temperatures within the entire range. In fact, Perkins further discloses that “temperature can be adjusted to control the permeability and therefore the sensitivity” (c. 3, ll. 47-48). It is also noted that Perkins explains the use of the term “window” by describing that permeable member 30 “acts as a trace gas window in the sense of allowing the trace gas to pass while blocking other gases, liquids, and particles” (c. 3, ll. 30-32).
Applicant further argues that “Walte only discusses how different temperatures of the membrane affect the measurement signal (paras [0030] and [0031]).” Response, page 7. However, Walte teaches that “the detector signal in the presence of medium volatile to not easily volatile compounds 12 clearly shows signal rises during the heating, since these compounds are now released and better pass through the membrane” (¶ [0031]). Additionally, Applicant notes the measurement signals shown in Figure 2 of Walte and argues that “Walte neither teaches nor suggests to calculate the difference between these curves or between to measuring values of one of the curves.” Response, page 7. However, Walte teaches that the temperature dependence of the measurement signal, which includes the differences in measurement signals during heating, is used to distinguish between the presence of easily volatile compounds 11 or medium volatile to not easily volatile compounds 12 (¶¶ [0030-0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Perkins et al. with the detector acquiring measurement signals at different temperatures as taught by Walte et al. to provide a gas sensor that can detect leak rates of different gases based on their varying permeability through the membrane at different temperatures (Perkins et al., c. 3, ll. 49-54 and Walte et al., ¶ [0031]). When modifying the apparatus of Perkins et al. with the alternating temperatures of Walte et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that when the membrane has a second temperature value, the membrane would have a second permeability, that is different from the first permeability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights