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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
Claim Objections
While applicant has renumbered the claims due to there initially being two claims numbered 5, the dependencies referred to in renumbered claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 18 have not been renumbered.
For examination purposes claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 18 are interpreted as being dependent on the revised claim numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (“Metallic spintronic thin film as a hydrogen sensor,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 142405 (2013)).
Chang et al. teaches a hydrogen sensor that comprises a substrate having a bi-layer of one of NiFe(5)/Pd(10), NiFe(30)/Pd(10), Co(5)/Pd(10), and Co(40)/Pd(20), where the numbers in parenthesis are thickness in nanometers. (page 142405-2, first full paragraph) The overall bi-layer is interpreted as being a composite sensing layer.
The thickness of the magnetic material layer to the thickness of the palladium layer taught by Chang et al. encompasses the molar ratio range of the magnetic material and the hydride-forming material recited in claim 1 and the overall thickness of the composite sensing layer.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Chang et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Chang et al. anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Chang et al. anticipates claim 1 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, Chang et al teaches palladium.
Therefore, Chang et al. anticipates claim 2.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Chang et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the magnetic material comprises cobalt, iron, nickel, gadolinium, or any combination thereof.
As noted above, Chang et al. teaches that the magnetic material can comprise cobalt, iron and nickel.
Therefore, Chang et al. anticipates claim 3.
2. Claims 1-3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lueng 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).
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). Such CoPd alloy films are interpreted as being composite sensing layers.
Lueng et al. teaches forming CoPd alloy films on silicon substrates. (page 7717 “Materials and Methods”)
Lueng et al. teaches alloys that include Co to Pd in ratios of 0.65:0.35; 0.39:0.61; 0.24:0.76; and 0.14:0.96 which encompasses a molar ratio od from about 1:1 to 1:6. (page 7717 “Materials and Methods”)
Lueng et al. teaches a thickness of the CoPd alloy film of 14 nm. (page 7717 “Materials and Methods”)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Lueng et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that hydride-forming material comprises palladium, platinum, magnesium, titanium, vanadium, or any combination thereof.
As noted above, Lueng et al. teaches palladium.
Therefore, Lueng et al. anticipates claim 2.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that magnetic material comprises cobalt, iron, nickel, gadolinium, or any combination thereof.
As noted above, Lueng et al. teaches cobalt.
Therefore, Lueng et al. anticipates claim 3.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites a noble metal.
As noted above, Lueng et al. teaches palladium
Therefore, Lueng et al. anticipates claim 9.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 9 from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the noble metal is a component of the composite.
As noted above, Lueng et al, teaches that palladium is a component of the CoPd alloy film (composite sensing layer).
Therefore, Lueng et al. anticipates claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
3. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lueng et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the sensing layer forms a continuous coating on about 5% or more of the surface of the substrate.
Jueng et al does not specifically 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 provide the sensing layer as a continuous coating on about 5% or more of the surface of the substrate as a suitable amount to sense hydrogen gas.
Therefore, Jueng et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the surface is non-planar.
Leung et al. does not teach that the surface of the substrate is non-planar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lueng et al. to use a substrate with a non-planar surface 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, Leung et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the substrate comprising a particle.
Leung et al. does not teach that the substrate comprises a particle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lueng et al. to use a substrate in the form of a particle 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, Leung et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Lueng et al. renders claim 12 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the hydrogen sensor comprising an array of the particles.
Lueng et al. 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 Lueng 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, Leung et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Lueng et al. anticipates claim 1 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the hydrogen sensor comprising 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.
Leung et al. does not teach a stacked arrangement of the hydrogen sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of the gas sensors of Leung et al. in any arrangement, including a stacked arrangement for purposes of sensing hydrogen gas.
Note, duplication and arrangements of parts are obvious unless a new an unexpected result is produced. (MPEP 2122.04(VI)(B)(C)).
Therefore, Leung et al, renders claim 15 obvious.
4. Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leung et al.
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, 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). Such CoPd alloy films are interpreted as being composite sensing layers.
Lueng et al. teaches forming CoPd alloy films on silicon substrates. (page 7717 “Materials and Methods”)
Lueng et al. teaches alloys that include Co to Pd in ratios of 0.65:0.35; 0.39:0.61; 0.24:0.76; and 0.14:0.96 which encompasses a molar ratio od from about 1:1 to 1:6. (page 7717 “Materials and Methods”)
Lueng et al. teaches a thickness of the CoPd alloy film of 14 nm. (page 7717 “Materials and Methods”)
Further, Lueng et al. 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.
Accordingly, Leung et al. anticipates claim 16.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above 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, Leung et al. anticipates claim 17
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above 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 Leung et al. inherently requires an analyzer.
Therefore, Leung et al. anticipates claim 18.
5. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. as applied to claim 5 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 Leung 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.
Leung 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 Leung 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, Leung et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Leung 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 Leung et al. in view of Chongjun et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leung 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 the sensing layer while providing a protection of the sensing layer.
Therefore, Leung et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Leung 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, Leung et al. in view of Chongjun et al. renders claim 8 obvious
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Wikipedia “Palladium hydride.”
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Leung et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites a layer adjacent the sensing layer, the adjacent layer comprising the noble metal.
Leung et al. does not teach a layer adjacent the sensing layer, the adjacent layer comprising the noble metal.
Wikipedia teaches that palladium is known to soak up hydrogen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leung et al. to include a layer of palladium adjacent the sensor layer for purposes of absorbing hydrogen from the ambient environment.
Therefore, Leung et al. in view of Wikipedia renders claim 11 obvious.
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Leung 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,” Nano Energy Volume 71, May 2020, 104558) (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Leung et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the substrate comprising a nano-hole array.
Leung et al. does not teach that the substrate comprising a nano-hole array.
Luong et al. teaches providing nano-holes in plasmonic hydrogen sensors that support both SPP and LSPR modes and increase sensitivity. (page 2, left-hand column, last full paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leung et al. to provide the substrate with a nano-hole array as taught by Luong et al. for purposes of increasing the sensitivity of the hydrogen sensor.
Therefore, Leung et al. in view of Luong et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
Conclusion
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