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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 for claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant states that the prior art made of record does not teach the limitations of “wherein the porous matrix barrier comprises a coating disposed on and bound to a member matrix surface”. MPEP 2111 states “during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Bound is defined as: held in chemical or physical combination. As explained below in the 102 rejection of claim 1, Kong teaches when elements 5a-5c are placed in the gas sensor apparatus demonstrated in Figures 2a-2c, the coating 5a-5b will be bound to the upper surface of the member matrix surface 5a through the use of elements 2-3, 6 and 8; See Figures 1 and 2a-2c. Therefore, under BRI, the 102 rejection of claim 1 is deemed proper.
Regarding claim 8, the Applicant states that the prior art of Kong does not teach the limitation directed to “the porous matrix barrier is disposed between the gas sensor and the weather shield”. MPEP 2111 states “during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." As seen in the rejection of claim 8 below, a new claim interpretation has been made for claim 8 where the Examiner has taken the position of identifying the “weather shield” as element 3; therefore, Figures 2a-2c demonstrate the porous matrix barrier 5a-5c being disposed between the weather shield 3 and the gas sensor 1. For such reasons, Kong does teach the claim limitations of claim 8 and the 102 rejection of claim 8 is deemed proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (US 20130138384; hereinafter “Kong”; cited in the IDS filed on 02/12/2024; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches a gas detector device (Figures 1 and 2a-2c) comprising:
a porous matrix barrier (5a-5c; Figures 1 and 2a; [0090]) disposed between one or more gas sensors (1; Figures 1 and 2a-2c; [0108-0112]) and an environment exterior to the detector device (the porous matrix barrier 5a-5c is positioned between the gas sensor 1 and the external environment through the use of the housing 2; See Figures 1 and 2a-2c), wherein the porous matrix barrier (5a-5c) comprises a coating (5b and 5c; Figures 1 and 2a-2c; [0090]) disposed on and bound to a member matrix surface (coating 5b and 5c is disposed on member matrix surface 5a; furthermore, when elements 5a-5c are placed in the gas sensor apparatus demonstrated in Figure 2a, the coating 5a-5b will be bound to the upper surface of the member matrix surface 5a through the use of elements 2-3, 6 and 8; See Figures 1 and 2a-2c), the coating (5b and 5c) imparting at least one of hydrophobic or oleophobic characteristic to the member matrix surface ([0091-0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Kong teaches wherein the coating (5b and 5c) comprises an organo-fluorine group ([0189, 0191]) and is derived from a mixture of silane, a hydroxysilane, alkoxysilane, an organosilane, or a mixture thereof ([0189, 0191]), and a fluorosilane, an organofluorosilane, or a mixture thereof ([0189, 0191]).
Regarding claim 4, Kong teaches wherein the coating (5b and 5c) comprises an organo-fluorine group ([0189, 0191]),and is derived from a mixture of tetraethoxysilane, hexamethyldisilane, hexamethyldisilazane, hexamethyldisiloxane, or a mixture thereof ([0189, 0191]), and a fluorine containing gas ([0189, 0191]).
Regarding claim 7, Kong teaches wherein the gas sensor (1; Figures 1 and 2a-2c) includes an electrochemical sensor that includes a membrane electrode assembly ([0021, 0108-0110]).
Regarding claim 8, Kong teaches a weather shield (3; Figures 2a-2c); wherein the porous matrix barrier (5a-5c; Figures 1 and 2a-2c) is disposed between (Figures 2a-2c demonstrate the porous matrix barrier 5a-5c is disposed between the weather shield 3 and the gas sensor 1) the gas sensor (1) and the weather shield (3).
Regarding claim 10, Kong teaches wherein the porous matrix (5a-5c) has a thickness of 10 micrometers to 5000 micrometers (element 5c has a maximum thickness of 0.01mm, element 5b has a maximum thickness of 0.001mm and element 5a has a maximum thickness of 1mm; [0091, 0099, 0105]).
Regarding claim 16, Kong teaches wherein the gas sensor (1; Figures 1 and 2a-2c) includes an electrochemical sensor that includes a membrane electrode assembly ([0021, 0108-0110]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Dombrowski et al. (US 5,853,800; hereinafter “Dombrowski”; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, Kong teaches the coating (5B and 5C) comprising an organo-flourine group ([0189, 0191]).
Kong does not teach the organo-flourine group derived from a compound of formula 1:
CnF2n+1-(CH2)m-SiR1R2R3 Formula 1
Wherein,
R1 is a C1-C5 alkoxy or CnF2n+1-(CH2)m-Si(R2R3)-O-,
R2 and R3 are independently C1-C5 alkyl or C1-C5 alkoxy,
n is 1 to 12, and m is 1 to 6.
However, Dombrowski teaches that is known in the art to have coatings made of the formula 1 stated above (Column 2, Lines 35 – 50 and Column 4, Lines 24-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Dombrowski compound implemented as Kong’s coating in order to obtain a water resistant coating that is resistant to chemical and mechanical influences, and has resistance to scratching and elected temperatures (See Dombrowski Column 4, Lines 24-40).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Meyer (US 20190242841; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 9, Kong teaches the weather shield including a shield member but does not expressly teach the shield member having a surface coating that imparts at least one of hydrophobic or oleophobic characteristic.
However, Meyer teaches that is known in the art to have shield members ([0033-0036]) to have a surface coating ([0033-0036]) that imparts at least one of hydrophobic or oleophobic characteristic ([0033-0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Meyer’s surface coating attached to Kong’s shield member in order to increase the hydrophobic or oleophobic characteristics of the gas detector, assuring more protection to the sensor itself (See Meyer [0028, 0081]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kong and Meyer teaches the surface coating but does not expressly teach wherein the surface coating of the shield member comprises an organo-fluorine group and is derived from a mixture of silane, a hydroxysilane, an alkoxysilane, an organosilane, or a mixture thereof, and a fluorosilane, an organofluorosilane, or a mixture thereof.
However, Kong already teaches that is known in the art to use coatings of an organo-fluorine group and is derived from a mixture of silane, a hydroxysilane, an alkoxysilane, an organosilane, or a mixture thereof ([0189, 0191]), and a fluorosilane, an organofluorosilane, or a mixture thereof ([0189, 0191]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kong’s coating and associated material to be implemented as the material of Kong and Meyer’s surface coating in order to use the same hydrophobic or oleophobic material for the gas sensor rather than using different material, this increased manufacturing efficiency of the gas sensor device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong.
Regarding claim 11, Kong teaches the porous matrix having a thickness but does not expressly teach the thickness being greater than 5 millimeters.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify the thickness of the porous matrix, including having a thickness being greater than 5 millimeters, in order to increase the structural shielding of the gas sensor against external forces that might damage the gas sensor.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device and that the configuration of a claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant. The original disclosure of the instant application has failed to indicate any criticality when it comes the thickness of the porous barrier.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong and Meyer in further view of Dombrowski.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kong and Meyer teaches the surface coating of the shield member but does not expressly teach the coating being the organo-flourine group derived from a compound of formula 1:
CnF2n+1-(CH2)m-SiR1R2R3 Formula 1
Wherein,
R1 is a C1-C5 alkoxy or CnF2n+1-(CH2)m-Si(R2R3)-O-,
R2 and R3 are independently C1-C5 alkyl or C1-C5 alkoxy,
n is 1 to 12, and m is 1 to 6.
However, Dombrowski teaches that is known in the art to have coatings made of the formula 1 stated above (Column 2, Lines 35 – 50 and Column 4, Lines 24-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Dombrowski compound implemented as Kong and Meyer’s surface coating in order to obtain a water resistant coating that is resistant to chemical and mechanical influences, and has resistance to scratching and elected temperatures (See Dombrowski Column 4, Lines 24-40).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Schlichte et al. (US 8,632,666; hereinafter “Schlichte”; cited in the IDS filed on 05/01/2023; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 17, Kong teaches the gas sensor but does not expressly teach the gas sensor being a hot catalytic gas sensor element.
However, Schlichte teaches that is known in the art to use hot catalytic gas sensor element as gas sensors (Column 1, Lines 16-27; Column 4, Lines 7-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Schlichte’s hot catalytic gas sensor element as Kong’s gas sensor element since catalytic gas sensors are more stable and predictable in sensing combustible/flammable gases compared to semiconductor gases (See Schlichte Column 1, Lines 17-37).
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of BURGI et al. (EP 3798607; cited in the IDS filed on 05/01/2023; the foreign prior art has been provided to the Examiner by the applicant and the foreign prior art is already in English; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 18, Kong teaches the gas sensor but does not expressly teach the gas sensor being an optical sensor or a thermal conductivity sensor.
However, BURGI teaches that is known in the art to have optical sensors as gas sensors (Abstract; [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have BURGI’s optical sensor implemented as Kong’s gas sensor since optical sensors, such as BURGI’s photoacoustic gas sensor, has higher sensitivity, minimal drift over time and no chemical degradation of sensing element compared to semiconductor gas sensors.
Claim 2, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Mouradian et al. (US 7,588,726; hereinafter “Mouradian”).
Regarding claim 20, Kong teaches a gas detector device (Figures 1 and 2a-2c) comprising:
a porous matrix barrier (5a-5c; Figures 1 and 2a; [0090]) disposed between one or more gas sensors (1; Figures 1 and 2a-2c; [0108-0112]) and an environment exterior to the detector device (the porous matrix barrier 5a-5c is positioned between the gas sensor 1 and the external environment through the use of the housing 2; See Figures 1 and 2a-2c), wherein the porous matrix barrier (5a-5c) comprises a coating (5b and 5c; Figures 1 and 2a-2c; [0090]) disposed on a member matrix surface (5a; Figures 1 and 2a-2c), the coating (5b and 5c) imparting at least one of hydrophobic or oleophobic characteristic to the member matrix surface ([0091-0094]); wherein the porous matrix barrier (5a-5c) is a metal screen ([0097-0098]).
Kong teaches the porous matrix barrier being a metal screen but does not teach the porous matrix barrier made from sintered metal.
However, Mouradian teaches that is known in the art to have barriers made of sintered metal (Column 12, Lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mouradian’s sintered metal implemented as the material of Kong’s metal screen for the porous matrix barrier since it known that sintered metal provides improved strength and wear resistance compared to metal base material.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kong and Mouradian teaches wherein the porous matrix barrier (metal screen of 5a-5c: Kong) is sintered metal (Column 12, Lines 58-67: Mouradian).
Regarding claim 6, the claim subject matter references and further defines subject matter in the independent/parent claim 20 that is not required due to the use of the alternative claim language “or” and it is therefore taught by the combination of Kong and Mouradian.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for allowance of claims 12-13 have been addressed in the Non-Final rejection mailed on 02/25/2026.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In claim 19, the specific limitations of "wherein the coating is covalently bound to the member matrix surface by siloxane linkages" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
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 ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights