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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/23/2022, 02/24/2025, and 06/18/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15: please amend “projects to the connector” to --projects [[to]]toward the connector --.
Claim 3, line 2: please amend “elongate shape” to –elongated shape--.
Claim 8, line 2: please amend “elongate shape” to –elongated shape--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US20200064305A1) in view of Murakami et al. (US20150355142A1).
Regarding claim 1, a gas sensor (Nakayama teaches a gas sensor 10 [see e.g., Fig. 1; Para. 0040 and 0003]), the limitation “that detects a specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas” is an intended use limitation. 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, Nakayama teaches the above gas sensor 10 as shown in Fig. 1 that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Nakayama teaches the gas sensor comprises a sensor element including a detection unit that detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas [claim 1, Paras. 0009-0013]. Nakayama further teaches gas sensors include a sensor element that detects the concentration of a particular gas, such as NOx, in the measurement-object gas, such as an automotive exhaust gas [Para. 0003]. Therefore, the gas sensor 10 is capable of performing and specifically configured to perform the intended use as outlined above), the gas sensor comprising:
a sensor element (Nakayama teaches a sensor element 20 [see e.g., Figs. 1-4 and Para. 0040]) including:
an element body having an oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes an element main body 60 having a multilayer body constituted by a plurality of oxygen ion-conducting solid-electrolyte layers composed of zirconia [see e.g., Figs. 1-4; Para. 0040 and 0049]),
a connector electrode disposed outside the element body (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes an upper connector electrode 71b disposed outside the element main body 60 [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0040, 0049, and 0053]),
a lead disposed outside the element body and electrically conductive to the connector electrode (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes an outer lead wire 75 disposed outside the element main body 60 and in conduction with the upper connector electrode 71 b [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0040, 0049, and 0053]), and
a protection layer that covers the lead (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes a first inner porous layer 83 [which includes rear end-side portion 83 b] that covers at least a part of the outer lead wire 75 [see e.g., Figs. 1-4; Para. 0040, 0049, 0085, and 0054-0055]. The first inner porous layer 83 corresponds to a protection layer, because Nakayama teaches the first inner porous layer 83 serves as a protection layer that protects the outer electrode 64 and the outer lead wire 75 from the components of the measurement-object gas, such as sulfuric acid, and suppresses the corrosion and the like of the outer electrode 64 and the outer lead wire 75 [Para. 0055]. The examiner notes that Nakayama discloses the inner porous layer 81 includes the first porous layer 83, and the porous layer 80 includes the inner porous layer 81 [Paras. 0054-0055], therefore the porous layer 80 includes first inner porous layer 83), wherein a thickness T1 of a portion covering the lead is 2 μm or more (Nakayama teaches the thickness of the first inner porous layer 83 [which includes the portion covering the outer lead wire 75 as it is the thickness of the entire layer] may be 5 μm or more and 40 μm or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058], falling within the claimed range of 2 μm or more),
Nakayama is silent to a porosity P1 is 20% or less, and
However, Nakayama teaches the porosity of the inner porous layer 81 which includes the first inner porous layer 83 [as outlined in the rejection above] may be 10% or more and 50% or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058 and see rejection above], which overlaps the claimed range of 20% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized a porosity within the disclosed range, as taught by Nakayama, 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 Nakayama specifically teaches the range to be suitable for the inner porous layer [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058 and see rejection above]. 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].
Modified Nakayama does not explicitly disclose a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less; and
However, Nakayama teaches the height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b is equivalent to the height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b + height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [see e.g., Fig. 3 of Nakayama]. Thus, the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [D1 = height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75].
Murakami discloses a gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas, e.g., NOx, in measurement object gas to be measured, such as automobile exhaust gas [see e.g., Para. 0004 and Abstract]. Murakami teaches the upper connector pad 91 b is electrically connected to the outer pump electrode 23 through the lead line 93 for the outer pump electrode, the lead line 93 being disposed on the upper surface of the outer blocking layer 67 at the upper surface side of the second solid electrolyte layer 6 [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1]. Murakami further teaches the thickness [height] of the lead line 93 for the outer pump electrode is 5 to 20 μm [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1].
Nakayama and Murakami are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas sensors for detecting the concentration of a specific gas, e.g., NOx, in measurement object gas to be measured [Para. 0003 of Nakayama and Para. 0004 of Murakami]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the outer lead wire of Nakayama to have a thickness of 5 to 20 μm, as taught by Murakami, since Murakami teaches this suitable thickness for the outer lead wire in a similar configuration in a similar gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas, e.g., NOx, in measurement object gas to be measured [Para. 0004, 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami]. Furthermore, the use of a known technique (i.e., a thickness of 5 to 20 μm for the lead, taught by Murakami) to improve similar devices in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 [I][C]).
Thus Modified Nakayama as outlined in the rejection above yields a height difference D1 of 5 to 20 μm, falling within the claimed range of 22 μm or less, because the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75].
PNG
media_image1.png
908
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a contact metal fitting (Nakayama teaches a connector 50 which includes a contact metal fitting as indicated in Annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama, the contact metal fitting including the two bold lines, positioned left and right of the electrodes 71 and 72, the contact metal fitting being made of metal as it is electrically connected to lead wires 55 [the lead wires 55 are in electrical conduction with electrodes 64 to 68 and a heater 69 disposed inside the sensor element 20 via the connector 50] [see annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above, Figs. 1-6 and Para. 0048]) including:
a conduction member that projects to the connector electrode and is in contact with and electrically conducted to the connector electrode (Nakayama teaches a conduction member as indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above that projects towards the upper connector electrode 71 and is contact with and electrically connected to the upper connector electrode 71, and Nakayama specifically discloses the connector 50 is in contact with upper connector electrodes 71 and electrically connected to the sensor element 20, and the lead wires 55 are in electrical conduction with electrodes 64 to 68 and a heater 69 disposed inside the sensor element 20 via the connector 50, which necessarily includes the conduction member [see annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above, Figs. 1-6 and Para. 0048]), and
a support member that projects toward the lead and is in contact with the protection layer (Nakayama teaches a support member as indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above that projects towards the outer lead wire 75 [see e.g., Fig. 3 which shows the outer lead wire 75 is on the same plane (bottom plane) as the upper connector electrode 71 and the support member projects toward the upper connector electrode 71 as shown in annotated fig. 1 and projects toward the bottom axis where the outer lead wire 75 is positioned]. The support member is in contact with the first inner porous layer 83b as indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above [the portion of the sensor element 20 that the support member is in contact with is necessarily the first inner porous layer 83b, because the first inner porous layer 83b is directly upstream of the upper connector electrode 71, and the first inner porous layer 83b is positioned between the upper connector electrode 71 and the water penetration reduction portion 90, as indicated in Figs. 2-6, thus the support member is in contact/touching the first inner porous layer 83b] [see annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above, Figs. 1-6 and Para. 0048-0049]).
Regarding claim 2, the gas sensor according to Claim 1, Modified Nakayama is silent to wherein the porosity P1 of the protection layer is 10% or less.
However, Nakayama teaches the porosity of the inner porous layer 81 which includes the first inner porous layer 83 [as outlined in the rejection above] may be 10% or more and 50% or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058 and see rejection above], which overlaps the claimed range of 10% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized a porosity within the disclosed range, as taught by Nakayama, 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 Nakayama specifically teaches the range to be suitable for the inner porous layer [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058 and see rejection above]. 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 3, the gas sensor according to Claim 1, wherein the element body has an elongate shape having a longitudinal direction (Nakayama teaches the element main body 60 has a long-length, rectangular cuboid shape [corresponding to an elongated shape] having a longitudinal direction which is front-to-rear direction [Para. 0049 and Figs. 1-6]),
the conduction member and the support member of the contact metal fitting are disposed in the longitudinal direction (Nakayama teaches the conduction member and the support member of the contact metal fitting of the connector 50 are disposed in the longitudinal direction which is front-to-rear direction as indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above [see annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above, Figs. 1-6 and Para. 0048-0049]), and
the protection layer has a length L of 2 mm or more in the longitudinal direction (Nakayama teaches the length L of the first and second water- penetration reduction portions 91 and 94 in the longitudinal direction is 5 mm or more [see e.g., Para. 0062 and Fig. 4]. Nakayama further teaches the length L = 5mm in the longitudinal direction [Para. 0103 and Fig. 9]. Figs. 4 and 9 both suggest that the length of the first inner porous layer 83b is much larger in the longitudinal direction than the length L of the first and second water- penetration reduction portions 91 and 94, where the length L is disclosed as 5 mm or more. Therefore, the length of the first inner porous layer 83b must be greater than 5 mm or more in the longitudinal direction, which falls within the claimed range of 2 mm or more [see e.g., Figs 4, 9 and Para. 0062, 0103])
Regarding claim 5, the gas sensor according to Claim 1, wherein the height difference D1 is 4 μm or more (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Modified Nakayama yields a height difference D1 of 5 to 20 μm, falling within the claimed range of 4 μm or more and 22 μm or less, because the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75] [see rejection of claim 1 above; Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami; Fig. 3 of Nakayama]).
Regarding claim 6, the gas sensor according to Claim 1, wherein the protection layer is ceramic containing particles of at least one selected from the group of alumina and zirconia (Nakayama teaches the porous layer 80 is composed of a ceramic porous body, such as an alumina porous body or a zirconia porous body [Paras. 0058 and 0093], thus containing ceramic containing particles of either alumina or zirconia. Furthermore, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Nakayama discloses the inner porous layer 81 includes the first porous layer 83, and the porous layer 80 includes the inner porous layer 81 [Paras. 0054-0055], therefore the porous layer 80 includes first inner porous layer 83. Thus, the inner porous layer 83/protection layer is ceramic containing particles of alumina or zirconia [see e.g., Paras. 0058, 0054-0055 and 0093).
Regarding claim 7, a sensor element (Nakayama teaches a sensor element 20 [see e.g., Figs. 1-4 and Para. 0040]), the limitation “for detecting a specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas” is an intended use limitation. 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, Nakayama teaches the above sensor element 20 as shown in Figs. 1-4 that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Nakayama teaches the sensor element includes a detection unit that detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas [claim 1, Paras. 0009-0013, 0049]. Nakayama further teaches gas sensors include a sensor element that detects the concentration of a particular gas, such as NOx, in the measurement-object gas, such as an automotive exhaust gas [Para. 0003]. Therefore, the sensor element 20 is capable of performing and specifically configured to perform the intended use as outlined above), the sensor element comprising:
an element body having an oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes an element main body 60 having a multilayer body constituted by a plurality of oxygen ion-conducting solid-electrolyte layers composed of zirconia [see e.g., Figs. 1-4; Para. 0040 and 0049]);
a connector electrode disposed outside the element body (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes an upper connector electrode 71b disposed outside the element main body 60 [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0040, 0049, and 0053]);
a lead disposed outside the element body and electrically conductive to the connector electrode (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes an outer lead wire 75 disposed outside the element main body 60 and in conduction with the upper connector electrode 71 b [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0040, 0049, and 0053]); and
a protection layer that covers the lead (Nakayama teaches the sensor element 20 includes a first inner porous layer 83 [which includes rear end-side portion 83 b] that covers at least a part of the outer lead wire 75 [see e.g., Figs. 1-4; Para. 0040, 0049, 0085, and 0054-0055]. The first inner porous layer 83 corresponds to a protection layer, because Nakayama teaches the first inner porous layer 83 serves as a protection layer that protects the outer electrode 64 and the outer lead wire 75 from the components of the measurement-object gas, such as sulfuric acid, and suppresses the corrosion and the like of the outer electrode 64 and the outer lead wire 75 [Para. 0055]. The examiner notes that Nakayama discloses the inner porous layer 81 includes the first porous layer 83, and the porous layer 80 includes the inner porous layer 81 [Paras. 0054-0055], therefore the porous layer 80 includes first inner porous layer 83), wherein a thickness T1 of a portion covering the lead is 2 μm or more (Nakayama teaches the thickness of the first inner porous layer 83 [which includes the portion covering the outer lead wire 75 as it is the thickness of the entire layer] may be 5 μm or more and 40 μm or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058], falling within the claimed range of 2 μm or more),
Nakayama is silent to a porosity P1 is 20% or less, and
However, Nakayama teaches the porosity of the inner porous layer 81 which includes the first inner porous layer 83 [as outlined in the rejection above] may be 10% or more and 50% or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058 and see rejection above], which overlaps the claimed range of 20% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized a porosity within the disclosed range, as taught by Nakayama, 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 Nakayama specifically teaches the range to be suitable for the inner porous layer [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055 and 0058 and see rejection above]. 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].
Modified Nakayama does not explicitly disclose a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less.
However, Nakayama teaches the height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b is equivalent to the height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b + height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [see e.g., Fig. 3 of Nakayama]. Thus, the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [D1 = height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75].
Murakami discloses a gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas, e.g., NOx, in measurement object gas to be measured, such as automobile exhaust gas [see e.g., Para. 0004 and Abstract]. Murakami teaches the upper connector pad 91 b is electrically connected to the outer pump electrode 23 through the lead line 93 for the outer pump electrode, the lead line 93 being disposed on the upper surface of the outer blocking layer 67 at the upper surface side of the second solid electrolyte layer 6 [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1]. Murakami further teaches the thickness [height] of the lead line 93 for the outer pump electrode is 5 to 20 μm [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1].
Nakayama and Murakami are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas sensors for detecting the concentration of a specific gas, e.g., NOx, in measurement object gas to be measured [Para. 0003 of Nakayama and Para. 0004 of Murakami]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the outer lead wire of Nakayama to have a thickness of 5 to 20 μm, as taught by Murakami, since Murakami teaches this suitable thickness for the outer lead wire in a similar configuration in a similar gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas, e.g., NOx, in measurement object gas to be measured [Para. 0004, 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami]. Furthermore, the use of a known technique (i.e., a thickness of 5 to 20 μm for the lead, taught by Murakami) to improve similar devices in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 [I][C]).
Thus, Modified Nakayama as outlined in the rejection above yields a height difference D1 of 5 to 20 μm, falling within the claimed range of 22 μm or less, because the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75].
Regarding claim 8, the gas sensor according to Claim 2, wherein the element body has an elongate shape having a longitudinal direction (Nakayama teaches the element main body 60 has a long-length, rectangular cuboid shape [corresponding to an elongated shape] having a longitudinal direction which is front-to-rear direction [Para. 0049 and Figs. 1-6]),
the conduction member and the support member of the contact metal fitting are disposed in the longitudinal direction (Nakayama teaches the conduction member and the support member of the contact metal fitting of the connector 50 are disposed in the longitudinal direction which is front-to-rear direction as indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above [see annotated Fig. 1 of Nakayama above, Figs. 1-6 and Para. 0048-0049]), and
the protection layer has a length L of 2 mm or more in the longitudinal direction (Nakayama teaches the length L of the first and second water- penetration reduction portions 91 and 94 in the longitudinal direction is 5 mm or more [see e.g., Para. 0062 and Fig. 4]. Nakayama further teaches the length L = 5mm in the longitudinal direction [Para. 0103 and Fig. 9]. Figs. 4 and 9 both suggest that the length of the first inner porous layer 83b is much larger in the longitudinal direction than the length L of the first and second water- penetration reduction portions 91 and 94, where the length L is disclosed as 5 mm or more. Therefore, the length of the first inner porous layer 83b must be greater than 5 mm or more in the longitudinal direction, which falls within the claimed range of 2 mm or more [see e.g., Figs 4, 9 and Para. 0062, 0103]).
Regarding claim 11, the gas sensor according to Claim 2, wherein the height difference D1 is 4 μm or more (As outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, Modified Nakayama yields a height difference D1 of 5 to 20 μm, falling within the claimed range of 4 μm or more and 22 μm or less, because the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75] [see rejection of claims 1 and 2 above; Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami; Fig. 3 of Nakayama]).
Regarding claim 12, the gas sensor according to Claim 3, wherein the height difference D1 is 4 μm or more (As outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above, Modified Nakayama yields a height difference D1 of 5 to 20 μm, falling within the claimed range of 4 μm or more and 22 μm or less, because the height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode corresponds to the height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75 [height/thickness of upper connector electrode 71b - height/thickness of the first inner porous layer 83b = height/thickness of the outer lead wire 75] [see rejection of claims 1 and 3 above; Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami; Fig. 3 of Nakayama]).
Claim(s) 4, 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Murakami as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US20120217160A1).
Regarding claim 4, the gas sensor according to Claim 1, Modified Nakayama does not explicitly disclose wherein a height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds 0 μm.
Hayashi discloses a gas sensor element for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement such as in exhaust gas [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004]. Hayashi teaches a pair of electrodes 132, and 138 with a pair of third and fourth leads 133 and 139 connected to the third and fourth electrodes 132 and 138, the pumping cell 130 performing oxygen pumping action to pump oxygen into or out of the chamber by the control of a current flow between the third and fourth electrodes 132 and 138 [Para. 0044 and Fig. 2]. The first to fourth electrodes 112, 118, 132 and 138 are generically called “sensor electrodes 204”; and the first to fourth leads 113, 119, 133 and 139 are generically called “sensor leads 205” [Para. 0062]. Hayashi further teaches in the first embodiment, the sensor lead 205 is smaller in thickness than the sensor electrode 204. On the other hand, the sensor lead 205 a and the sensor electrode 204 a are the same in thickness in the second embodiment. The thickness relationship of the sensor electrode 204, 204 a and the sensor lead 205, 205 a is not however limited to the above and can be set as appropriate [Para. 0090]. As there are only 3 solutions: A) the sensor lead is smaller in thickness than the sensor electrode, B) the sensor lead is the same in thickness as the sensor electrode [A and B are both taught in the first and second embodiment] and C) the sensor lead is greater in thickness than the sensor electrode [Hayashi teaches it can be C as Hayashi specifically discloses the configuration is not limited to the above and can be set as appropriate]. Therefore, Hayashi teaches the sensor electrode 138/204 [corresponding to a connector electrode] is smaller in thickness than the sensor lead [corresponding to a lead] [see e.g., Para. 0090, 0044, 0062; Fig. 2-3 and 5]. Thus, Hayashi teaches the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height [thickness] of the connector/sensor electrode from a height [thickness] of the lead exceeds/is greater than 0 μm [the thickness of the lead – the thickness of the connector/sensor electrode > 0 μm since the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller than the thickness of the sensor lead as outlined above].
Modified Nakayama and Hayashi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas sensors for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004 of Hayashi; Para. 0003 of Nakayama; Para. 0004 of Murakami]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the connector electrode of Modified Nakayama to be smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire, as taught by Hayashi, since Hayashi teaches this suitable alternative configuration in a similar gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement such as in exhaust gas [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004, 0090, 0044, 0062; Fig. 2-3 and 5 of Hayashi]. Furthermore, the use of a known technique (i.e., the sensor electrode 138/204 [corresponding to a connector electrode] being smaller in thickness than the sensor lead [corresponding to a lead], taught by Hayashi) to improve similar devices in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 [I][C]).
Furthermore, in the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead, there are only three finite solutions: 1) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead equals (=) 0 μm, 2) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead is less than (<) 0 μm, and 3) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds (>) 0 μm. 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 claimed invention to try by choosing from the above finite number of identified solutions, which would lead to a height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds 0 μm, especially given the teachings of Hayashi regarding the relationship between the sensor lead’s thickness relative to the thickness of the sensor electrode [the sensor lead may be smaller or the same in thickness as the sensor electrode, however, the thickness relationship is not limited to the above and can be set as appropriate] [see rejection above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP§ 2143[I][E]).
Regarding the limitation “a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less” of claim 1, Nakayama teaches the thickness of the first inner porous layer 83 may be 5 μm or more and 40 μm or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055, 0058, 0093 of Nakayama and rejection of claim 1 above]. Modified Nakayama teaches the thickness [height] of the outer lead wire is 5 to 20 μm [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami and rejection of claim 1 above] and the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire [see rejection above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. The height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode would be, for example, 20 μm [thickness of inner porous layer] + 15 μm [thickness of the outer lead wire] – 14 μm [thickness of the connector electrode which is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire] = 21 μm [20 + 15 = 35 – 14 = 21 μm], which falls within the claimed range of 22 μm or less. The above example is provided for illustrative purposes, but a large range of values can be deduced from the ranges above that would yield a height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized the thicknesses of the inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector electrode, within the disclosed ranges of Nakayama and Modified Nakayama and obtain a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught ranges to be suitable given that Nakayama and Modified Nakayama as outlined in the rejections above specifically teaches the ranges to be suitable for inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector 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].
Regarding claim 9, the gas sensor according to Claim 2, Modified Nakayama does not explicitly disclose wherein a height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds 0 μm.
Hayashi discloses a gas sensor element for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement such as in exhaust gas [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004]. Hayashi teaches a pair of electrodes 132, and 138 with a pair of third and fourth leads 133 and 139 connected to the third and fourth electrodes 132 and 138, the pumping cell 130 performing oxygen pumping action to pump oxygen into or out of the chamber by the control of a current flow between the third and fourth electrodes 132 and 138 [Para. 0044 and Fig. 2]. The first to fourth electrodes 112, 118, 132 and 138 are generically called “sensor electrodes 204”; and the first to fourth leads 113, 119, 133 and 139 are generically called “sensor leads 205” [Para. 0062]. Hayashi further teaches in the first embodiment, the sensor lead 205 is smaller in thickness than the sensor electrode 204. On the other hand, the sensor lead 205 a and the sensor electrode 204 a are the same in thickness in the second embodiment. The thickness relationship of the sensor electrode 204, 204 a and the sensor lead 205, 205 a is not however limited to the above and can be set as appropriate [Para. 0090]. As there are only 3 solutions: A) the sensor lead is smaller in thickness than the sensor electrode, B) the sensor lead is the same in thickness as the sensor electrode [A and B are both taught in the first and second embodiment] and C) the sensor lead is greater in thickness than the sensor electrode [Hayashi teaches it can be C as Hayashi specifically discloses the configuration is not limited to the above and can be set as appropriate]. Therefore, Hayashi teaches the sensor electrode 138/204 [corresponding to a connector electrode] is smaller in thickness than the sensor lead [corresponding to a lead] [see e.g., Para. 0090, 0044, 0062; Fig. 2-3 and 5]. Thus, Hayashi teaches the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height [thickness] of the connector/sensor electrode from a height [thickness] of the lead exceeds/is greater than 0 μm [the thickness of the lead – the thickness of the connector/sensor electrode > 0 μm since the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller than the thickness of the sensor lead as outlined above].
Modified Nakayama and Hayashi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas sensors for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004 of Hayashi; Para. 0003 of Nakayama; Para. 0004 of Murakami]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the connector electrode of Modified Nakayama to be smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire, as taught by Hayashi, since Hayashi teaches this suitable alternative configuration in a similar gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement such as in exhaust gas [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004, 0090, 0044, 0062; Fig. 2-3 and 5 of Hayashi]. Furthermore, the use of a known technique (i.e., the sensor electrode 138/204 [corresponding to a connector electrode] being smaller in thickness than the sensor lead [corresponding to a lead], taught by Hayashi) to improve similar devices in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 [I][C]).
Furthermore, in the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead, there are only three finite solutions: 1) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead equals (=) 0 μm, 2) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead is less than (<) 0 μm, and 3) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds (>) 0 μm. 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 claimed invention to try by choosing from the above finite number of identified solutions, which would lead to a height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds 0 μm, especially given the teachings of Hayashi regarding the relationship between the sensor lead’s thickness relative to the thickness of the sensor electrode [the sensor lead may be smaller or the same in thickness as the sensor electrode, however, the thickness relationship is not limited to the above and can be set as appropriate] [see rejection above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP§ 2143[I][E]).
Regarding the limitation “a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less” of claim 1, Nakayama teaches the thickness of the first inner porous layer 83 may be 5 μm or more and 40 μm or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055, 0058, 0093 of Nakayama and rejection of claim 1 above]. Modified Nakayama teaches the thickness [height] of the outer lead wire is 5 to 20 μm [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami and rejection of claim 1 above] and the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire [see rejection above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. The height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode would be, for example, 20 μm [thickness of inner porous layer] + 15 μm [thickness of the outer lead wire] – 14 μm [thickness of the connector electrode which is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire] = 21 μm [20 + 15 = 35 – 14 = 21 μm], which falls within the claimed range of 22 μm or less. The above example is provided for illustrative purposes, but a large range of values can be deduced from the ranges above that would yield a height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized the thicknesses of the inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector electrode, within the disclosed ranges of Nakayama and Modified Nakayama and obtain a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught ranges to be suitable given that Nakayama and Modified Nakayama as outlined in the rejections above specifically teaches the ranges to be suitable for inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector 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].
Regarding claim 10, the gas sensor according to Claim 3, Modified Nakayama does not explicitly disclose wherein a height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds 0 μm.
Hayashi discloses a gas sensor element for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement such as in exhaust gas [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004]. Hayashi teaches a pair of electrodes 132, and 138 with a pair of third and fourth leads 133 and 139 connected to the third and fourth electrodes 132 and 138, the pumping cell 130 performing oxygen pumping action to pump oxygen into or out of the chamber by the control of a current flow between the third and fourth electrodes 132 and 138 [Para. 0044 and Fig. 2]. The first to fourth electrodes 112, 118, 132 and 138 are generically called “sensor electrodes 204”; and the first to fourth leads 113, 119, 133 and 139 are generically called “sensor leads 205” [Para. 0062]. Hayashi further teaches in the first embodiment, the sensor lead 205 is smaller in thickness than the sensor electrode 204. On the other hand, the sensor lead 205 a and the sensor electrode 204 a are the same in thickness in the second embodiment. The thickness relationship of the sensor electrode 204, 204 a and the sensor lead 205, 205 a is not however limited to the above and can be set as appropriate [Para. 0090]. As there are only 3 solutions: A) the sensor lead is smaller in thickness than the sensor electrode, B) the sensor lead is the same in thickness as the sensor electrode [A and B are both taught in the first and second embodiment] and C) the sensor lead is greater in thickness than the sensor electrode [Hayashi teaches it can be C as Hayashi specifically discloses the configuration is not limited to the above and can be set as appropriate]. Therefore, Hayashi teaches the sensor electrode 138/204 [corresponding to a connector electrode] is smaller in thickness than the sensor lead [corresponding to a lead] [see e.g., Para. 0090, 0044, 0062; Fig. 2-3 and 5]. Thus, Hayashi teaches the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height [thickness] of the connector/sensor electrode from a height [thickness] of the lead exceeds/is greater than 0 μm [the thickness of the lead – the thickness of the connector/sensor electrode > 0 μm since the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller than the thickness of the sensor lead as outlined above].
Modified Nakayama and Hayashi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas sensors for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004 of Hayashi; Para. 0003 of Nakayama; Para. 0004 of Murakami]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the connector electrode of Modified Nakayama to be smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire, as taught by Hayashi, since Hayashi teaches this suitable alternative configuration in a similar gas sensor for detecting the concentration of a specific gas component in gas under measurement such as in exhaust gas [Abstract, claim 1, Paras. 0001-0004, 0090, 0044, 0062; Fig. 2-3 and 5 of Hayashi]. Furthermore, the use of a known technique (i.e., the sensor electrode 138/204 [corresponding to a connector electrode] being smaller in thickness than the sensor lead [corresponding to a lead], taught by Hayashi) to improve similar devices in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 [I][C]).
Furthermore, in the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead, there are only three finite solutions: 1) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead equals (=) 0 μm, 2) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead is less than (<) 0 μm, and 3) the height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds (>) 0 μm. 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 claimed invention to try by choosing from the above finite number of identified solutions, which would lead to a height difference D2 obtained by subtracting a height of the connector electrode from a height of the lead exceeds 0 μm, especially given the teachings of Hayashi regarding the relationship between the sensor lead’s thickness relative to the thickness of the sensor electrode [the sensor lead may be smaller or the same in thickness as the sensor electrode, however, the thickness relationship is not limited to the above and can be set as appropriate] [see rejection above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP§ 2143[I][E]).
Regarding the limitation “a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less” of claim 1, Nakayama teaches the thickness of the first inner porous layer 83 may be 5 μm or more and 40 μm or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055, 0058, 0093 of Nakayama and rejection of claim 1 above]. Modified Nakayama teaches the thickness [height] of the outer lead wire is 5 to 20 μm [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami and rejection of claim 1 above] and the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire [see rejection above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. The height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode would be, for example, 20 μm [thickness of inner porous layer] + 15 μm [thickness of the outer lead wire] – 14 μm [thickness of the connector electrode which is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire] = 21 μm [20 + 15 = 35 – 14 = 21 μm], which falls within the claimed range of 22 μm or less. The above example is provided for illustrative purposes, but a large range of values can be deduced from the ranges above that would yield a height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized the thicknesses of the inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector electrode, within the disclosed ranges of Nakayama and Modified Nakayama and obtain a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 22 μm or less, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught ranges to be suitable given that Nakayama and Modified Nakayama as outlined in the rejections above specifically teaches the ranges to be suitable for inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector 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].
Regarding claim 13, the gas sensor according to Claim 4, wherein the height difference D1 is 4 μm or more (As outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above, Nakayama teaches the thickness of the first inner porous layer 83 may be 5 μm or more and 40 μm or less [see e.g., Figs. 2-4; Para. 0054-0055, 0058, 0093 of Nakayama and rejection of claim 1 and 4 above]. Modified Nakayama teaches the thickness [height] of the outer lead wire is 5 to 20 μm [Para. 0090 and Fig. 1 of Murakami and rejection of claim 1 and 4 above] and the thickness of the connector electrode is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire [see rejection of claim 4 above and Para. 0090 of Hayashi]. The height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode would be, for example, 20 μm [thickness of inner porous layer] + 15 μm [thickness of the outer lead wire] – 14 μm [thickness of the connector electrode which is smaller in thickness than the outer lead wire] = 21 μm [20 + 15 = 35 – 14 = 21 μm], which falls within the claimed range of 4 μm or more and 22 μm or less. The above example is provided for illustrative purposes, but a large range of values can be deduced from the ranges above that would yield a height difference D1 of the protection layer relative to the connector electrode is 4 μm or more and 22 μm or less. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized the thicknesses of the inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector electrode, within the disclosed ranges of Nakayama and Modified Nakayama and obtain a height difference D1 relative to the connector electrode is 4 μm or more and 22 μm or less, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught ranges to be suitable given that Nakayama and Modified Nakayama as outlined in the rejections above specifically teaches the ranges to be suitable for inner porous layer, outer lead wire and connector 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakakibara et al. (US20140295715A1) teaches a contact fitting has a supporting portion capable of contacting a surface of a sensor element, and a conducting portion protruding in the same direction as the supporting portion and capable of contacting an electrode on the sensor element [Abstract and Figs. 1, 4, 6 and 8-9]. Okamoto et al. (US20190285571A1) teaches the lead portion for detection electrode 57 had a thickness of 15 μm [Para. 0052 and Fig. 1]. Nakayama et al. (US20200064301A1) teaches a gas sensor including a sensor element including an element main body having a side surface, a porous layer and a water-penetration reduction portion that cover at least a front end-side part of the side surface [Abstract and Figs. 1-4]. Yasuda et al. (US20100006433A1) discloses it is possible to increase a thickness of an astride portion m of the lead pattern 205 which extends over and across (astride) the end portion 212 of the insulating pattern 202, relative to the thickness in the conventional gas sensor; therefore, it is possible to suppress the generation of crack in the lead pattern 205 which extends over and across the end portion 212 of the insulating pattern 202, even when the lead pattern 205 is contracted during the drying and the baking [Para. 0041 and Fig. 3-4].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOMMER OSMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/S.Y.O./
Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights