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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 04/24/2026. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending. Claim 12 was canceled and claims 19-21 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite a single layer composite.
In paragraph [0085] applicant discloses “[t]he magnetic material can include any magnetic material or combination thereof that can be provided in a composite with the hydride-forming metal,” and that “[t]he hydride-forming metal can include, by way of example and without limitation, palladium, platinum, magnesium, titanium, vanadium, etc., as well as any alloy thereof.”
In Fig. 4D applicant discloses an embodiment in which the sensor that includes a composite sensing layer 55 and a plasmonic enhancement layer (e.g., a noble metal-containing layer) 56 in adjacent areas on a substrate. [0093].
Applicant further discloses that “[t]he sensing layer 15 includes a composite that incorporates a hydride-forming metal and a magnetic material.” [0088]
By definition “composite” is “made up of disparate or separate parts or elements” per dictionary.com (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/composite).
Based on applicant’s embodiment shown in Fig. 4D the claim limitation of a “single layer composite that includes a hydride-forming material and a magnetic material” is broadly interpreted as reading on separate areas of a magnetic material and separate areas of a noble metal-containing layer that do not overlap, but collectively form a single layer composite as shown in Fig. 4D.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable in view of Maksymov et al. (“Magneto-Electronic Hydrogen Gas Sensors: A Critical Review,” Chemosensors 2022, 10, 49 (cited by applicant)).
Maksymov et al. teaches that measuring ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) frequencies on Pd/Fe3O4 core-shell nanoparticlescan be used to sense hydrogen gas, due to the spin-pumping that occurs between the ferromagnetic metallic (FM) layer and the non-magnetic (NM) metal layer such as platinum (Pt) and palladium (Pd). (page 4, last paragraph and Sections 2.3; “Spin-pumping and interface Clearing;” and 2.4 “Inverse Spin Hall Effect” pages 7-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide multiple adjacent, non-overlapping layers of a ferromagnetic material and a noble metal on nanoparticles so as to provide multiple interfacial areas between the Ferromagnetic material and noble metal wherein the effects of hydrogen gas can be used to sense hydrogen gas as taught by Maksymov et al.
As for the limitations in claim 1 that the magnetic material and the hydride-forming material in a molar ratio of from about 1:1 to about 1:6, the sensing layer having a thickness of from about 1 nanometers to about 30 nanometers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable molar ratio between the ferromagnetic metallic (FM) layer and the non-magnetic (NM) metal layer and thickness of the ferromagnetic metallic (FM) layer and the non-magnetic (NM) metal layer, to detect a desired level of hydrogen gas, including a molar ratio of from about 1:1 to about 1:6, and a thickness of from about 1 nanometers to about 30 nanometers.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Maksymov et al. renders all the element of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the hydride-forming material comprises palladium, platinum, magnesium, titanium, vanadium, or any combination thereof.
As noted above, Maksymov teaches platinum and palladium.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the magnetic material comprises cobalt, iron, nickel, gadolinium, or any combination thereof.
As noted above, Maksymov et al. teaches a ferromagnetic material.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recite that the sensing layer forms a continuous coating on about 5% or more of the surface of the substrate.
Maksymov et al. does not teach that the sensing layer forms a continuous coating on about 5% or more of the surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable amount of surface area for a continuous coating of the ferromagnetic metallic layer and the non-magnetic metal layer to use to detect a desired level of hydrogen gas, including an area of about 5% or more of the substrate.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the surface is non-planar.
Maksymov et al, teaches nanoparticles which includes shapes that are other than planar.
Otherwise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Maksymov et al. to use nanoparticles with a non-planar shape as a matter of design choice, inasmuch as differences in shape are not patentable absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. (MPEP 2144.04.(IV)(B))
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites further comprising a noble metal.
As noted above Maksymov et al. teaches platinum and palladium.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the noble metal is a component of the composite.
As noted above, in Maksymov et al. the noble metal is a component of the composite.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that sensor further comprising a layer adjacent the sensing layer, the adjacent layer comprising the noble metal.
As noted above, Maksymov et al. includes noble metal layers adjacent the sensing layers.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the hydrogen sensor comprising an array of the particles.
Maksymov et al. teaches nanoparticles, but does not teach that the hydrogen sensor comprising an array of the particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maksymov et al. to provide the hydrogen sensor as an array of particles as a matter of design choice. Note, differences in shape are not patentable absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Therefore, Maksymov et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites a first layer comprising the substrate and the sensing layer on the surface of the substrate and further comprising one or more additional layers in stacked arrangement with the first layer, each of the one or more additional layers comprising additional substrates and a sensing layer on a surface of each of the additional substrates.
In Maksymov et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include one or more additional layers in stacked arrangement with the first layer, each of the one or more additional layers comprising additional substrates and a sensing layer on a surface of each of the additional substrates, for purposes of increasing the amount of nanoparticles and interface areas between the ferromagnetic material and noble metal on nanoparticles at which the effects of hydrogen gas can be used to sense hydrogen gas as taught by Maksymov et al.
2. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Maksymov et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN113533257 to Chongjun et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Maksymov et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites further comprising one or more additional layers on the surface of the substrate.
Maksymov et al. does not teach one or more additional layers on the surface of the substrate.
Chongjun et al. teaches a hydrogen sensor that is provided with a hydrogen selective permeation membrane of at least one of polymethyl methacrylate membrane and polytetrafluoroethylene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maksymov et al. to include a hydrogen selective permeation membrane of at least one of polymethyl methacrylate membrane and polytetrafluoroethylene on the surface of the substrate for allowing hydrogen to react the sensor while providing a protection of the sensing layer.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Maksymov et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that at least one of the one or more additional layers covering the sensing layer.
In Maksymov et al. in view of Chongjun et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maksymov et al. to include a hydrogen selective permeation membrane of at least one of polymethyl methacrylate membrane and polytetrafluoroethylene on the sensing layer for allowing hydrogen to react with the sensing layer while providing a protection of the sensing layer.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Maksymov et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 7 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the at least one layer comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene, a polymethyl-methacrylate, a polyimide, a polysulfone, a siloxane, or any combination thereof.
As noted above, Chongjun et al. teaches a hydrogen sensor that is provided with a hydrogen selective permeation membrane of at least one of polymethyl methacrylate membrane and polytetrafluoroethylene.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 8 obvious
3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Maksymov et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Luong et al. (“Bilayer plasmonic nano-lattices for tunable hydrogen sensing platform,” NanoEnergy71(2020) (cited by applicant).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Maksymov et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that substrate comprising a nano-hole array.
Maksymov et al. teaches hydrogen gas detection using plasmon resonances in metal nanostructures (paragraph bridging pages 18-19).
Maksymov et al. does not specifically teach a nano-hole array.
Luong et al. teaches several optical hydrogen sensing platforms based on the SPR concepts have been investigated and can be categorized by how the optical responses are induced by propagating surface plasmon polariton (SPP) such as in Pd nano-hole arrays. (page 2, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Maksymov et al to include a substrate that comprises a nano-hole array as taught by Luong et al for purposes of creating plasmon polariton for hydrogen detection.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. in view of Luong et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
4. Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Maksymov et al in view of Leung et al. (“Sensitivity of ferromagnetic resonance in PdCo alloyed films to hydrogen gas,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 44, Issue 14, 15 March 2019, Pages 7715-7724) (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, claim 16 recites a hydrogen sensing system comprising:
a hydrogen sensor comprising a substrate and a sensing layer on a surface of the substrate,
the sensing layer comprising a composite that includes a hydride-forming material and a magnetic material, the composite including the magnetic material and the hydride-forming material in a molar ratio of from about 1:1 to about 1:6, the sensing layer having a thickness of from about 1 nanometers to about 30 nanometers;
a source configured to contact the sensor with a probing energy beam;
a magnet, wherein the hydrogen sensor is retained within a magnetic field of the magnet; and
an analysis system configured to detect and analyze a resulting energy beam resulting from interaction of the hydrogen sensor and the probing energy beam.
As noted above, Maksymov et al. teaches that measuring ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) frequencies on Pd/Fe3O4 core-shell nanoparticlescan be used to hydrogen gas, due to the spin-pumping that occurs between the ferromagnetic metallic (FM) layer and the non-magnetic (NM) metal layer such as platinum (Pt) and palladium (Pd). (page 4, last paragraph and Sections 2.3 (Spin-pumping and interface Clearing,) and 2.4 (Inverse Spin Hall Effect) pages 7-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide multiple adjacent, non-overlapping layers of a ferromagnetic material and a noble metal on nanoparticles so as to provide multiple interfacial areas wherein the effects of hydrogen gas can be used to sense hydrogen gas as taught by Maksymov et al.
As for the limitations in claim 1 that the magnetic material and the hydride-forming material in a molar ratio of from about 1:1 to about 1:6, the sensing layer having a thickness of from about 1 nanometers to about 30 nanometers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable molar ratio between the ferromagnetic metallic (FM) layer and the non-magnetic (NM) metal layer and thickness of the ferromagnetic metallic (FM) layer and the non-magnetic (NM) metal layer, to detect a desired level of hydrogen gas, including a molar ratio of from about 1:1 to about 1:6, and a thickness of from about 1 nanometers to about 30 nanometers.
Maksymov et al. does not specifically teach: a source configured to contact the sensor with a probing energy beam; a magnet, wherein the hydrogen sensor is retained within a magnetic field of the magnet; and an analysis system configured to detect and analyze a resulting energy beam resulting from interaction of the hydrogen sensor and the probing energy beam.
Maksymov et al. teaches magneto-electronic hydrogen sensors, including those based on magneto-optical Kerr effect, anomalous Hall effect and Ferromagnetic Resonance (FMR) with a special focus on Ferromagnetic Resonance (FMR)-based devices. (Abstract)
Lueng et al. teaches that CoPd alloy thin films enabled measuring hydrogen gas concentration in a very broad range - from 0.05% to 100%. (Abstract) based on ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) response.
Lueng et al. further teaches ferromagnetic resonance detection (See Title) which requires a probing energy beam; a magnet, wherein the hydrogen sensor is retained within a magnetic field of the magnet; and an analysis system configured to detect and analyze a resulting energy beam resulting from interaction of the hydrogen sensor and the probing energy beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Maksymov et al to include a source configured to contact the sensor with a probing energy beam; a magnet, wherein the hydrogen sensor is retained within a magnetic field of the magnet; and an analysis system configured to detect and analyze a resulting energy beam resulting from interaction of the hydrogen sensor and the probing energy beam, as provided by Lueng et al. to detect hydrogen gas using ferromagnetic resonance.
Therefore, Maksymov et al, in view of Lueng et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Maksymov et al. in view of Leung et al. anticipates claim 16 from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites one or more optical modulation devices configured to interact with the probing energy beam or the resulting energy beam.
Leung et al. teaches field-modulated FMR. (page 7717 paragraph bridging left- and right-hand columns).
Therefore, Maksymov et al. in view of Leung et al. anticipates claim 17
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Maksymov et al. in view of Leung et al. anticipates claim 17 from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the one or more optical modulation devices comprising a polarizer, a phase sensitive photo-elastic modulator, a quarter wave-plate, an analyzer, or any combination thereof.
The FMR taught by Maksymov et al. and by Leung et al. inherently requires an analyzer.
Therefore, Maksymov et al. in view of Leung et al. anticipates claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Maksymov et al. and the examiner’s interpretation of the newly added claim limitation “single layer composite” noted above as necessitated by applicant’s claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights