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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on August 7, 2026. Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 4-7 are withdrawn. New claims 10-14 are dependent from withdrawn claims 1, 4, and 7 and thus are also withdrawn. Claims 2-3 and 15 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objections to the claims from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New objections to the claims are necessitated by the amendments.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the engine” should read “the internal combustion engine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kato et al. (US 2019/0376425 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches a sensor control unit for a gas sensor disposed in an exhaust pipe in an internal combustion engine of a vehicle (a NOx sensor control device 1 for a NOx sensor 10 disposed in an engine exhaust pipe in an internal combustion engine of a vehicle, Fig. 1, para. [0042], [0045], abstract), the gas sensor having a sensor cell provided with an exhaust gas electrode exposed to an exhaust gas, an atmosphere side electrode exposed to an atmospheric air and a solid electrolyte interposed therebetween on which the exhaust gas electrode and the atmosphere side electrode are disposed facing each other, and a heater that heats the sensor cell (the NOx sensor 10 comprises a Vs cell 120 provided with an electrode 122 exposed to exhaust gas, an electrode 123 exposed to an atmosphere in a reference oxygen chamber, and a solid electrolyte body 121 sandwiched therebetween on which the electrodes 122/123 are disposed facing each other, and a heater element 161 that heats the Vs cell 120, Fig. 1, para. [0046], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0065]), the sensor control unit comprising:
a heater control unit that controls the heater for heating the sensor cell (a heater drive circuit 57 and CPU 61 together correspond to a heater control unit that controls the heater element 161 for heating the Vs cell 120, Fig. 1, para. [0065]-[0066]), wherein
the heater control unit heats, during combustion operation of the internal combustion engine, the sensor cell to be at an operation control temperature, and heats, during a combustion stop period of the internal combustion engine, the sensor cell to be at an operation stop control temperature higher than the operation control temperature (the heater control unit heats, during operation of the internal combustion engine, the NOx sensor 10 to be at a first control temperature, and heats, at the time when the operation of the internal combustion engine stops, the NOx sensor 10 to be at a second control temperature that is higher than the first control temperature, Fig. 1, para. [0009], [0081], [0095], [0102]),
the heater control unit starts to heat the sensor cell, to be at the operation stop control temperature, immediately after stopping the combustion operation of the internal combustion engine (the heater control unit heats, at the time when the operation of the internal combustion engine stops, the NOx sensor 10 to be at the second control temperature, Fig. 1, para. [0009], [0079], [0081], [0095]), and
a difference between the operation control temperature and the operation stop control temperature exceeds 100 degrees Celsius (C) (the first control temperature may be 655°C and the second control temperature may be from 700°C to 1000°C, para. [0081]-[0082]). Generally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05(I). Therefore, Kato anticipates the claim since Kato teaches a range including 100°C, and the claimed range is also obvious over Kato since the claimed and disclosed ranges overlap in scope.
The limitation "the heater control unit is configured to produce cracks in a silicon oxide adhered to the atmosphere side electrode by heating the sensor cell to be at the operation stop control temperature" is an intended result (produce cracks in a silicon oxide adhered to the atmosphere side electrode) of a positively recited step (heating the sensor cell to be at the operation stop control temperature), and does not further limit the method or steps. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight and not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. In method claims, the intended result is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP § 2111.04. In this case, Kato teaches that the heater control unit heats, at the time when the operation of the internal combustion engine stops, the NOx sensor 10 to be at a second control temperature that is higher than the first control temperature in order to remove SOx adsorbed to the NOx sensor 10 since the NOx sensor 10 is heated at a higher temperature and recovered (Fig. 1, para. [0008]-[0010], [0081]), so Kato is expected to predictably yield the same intended result of producing cracks in a silicon oxide adhered to the atmosphere side electrode as claimed.
Furthermore, the limitation "produce cracks in a silicon oxide adhered to the atmosphere side electrode" is with respect to an article worked upon (silicon oxide) and not a positively recited element of the sensor control unit. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (silicon oxide) by a structure (sensor control unit) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches a sensor control unit for a gas sensor disposed in an exhaust pipe in an internal combustion engine of a vehicle (a NOx sensor control device 1 for a NOx sensor 10 disposed in an engine exhaust pipe in an internal combustion engine of a vehicle, Fig. 1, para. [0042], [0045], abstract), the gas sensor having a sensor cell provided with an exhaust gas electrode exposed to an exhaust gas, an atmosphere side electrode exposed to an atmospheric air and a solid electrolyte interposed therebetween on which the exhaust gas electrode and the atmosphere side electrode are disposed facing each other, and a heater that heats the sensor cell (the NOx sensor 10 comprises a Vs cell 120 provided with an electrode 122 exposed to exhaust gas, an electrode 123 exposed to an atmosphere in a reference oxygen chamber, and a solid electrolyte body 121 sandwiched therebetween on which the electrodes 122/123 are disposed facing each other, and a heater element 161 that heats the Vs cell 120, Fig. 1, para. [0046], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0065]), the sensor control unit comprising:
a heater control unit that controls the heater for heating the sensor cell (a heater drive circuit 57 and CPU 61 together correspond to a heater control unit that controls the heater element 161 for heating the Vs cell 120, Fig. 1, para. [0065]-[0066]), wherein
the heater control unit heats, during combustion operation of the internal combustion engine, the sensor cell to be at an operation control temperature, and heats, during a combustion stop period of the internal combustion engine, the sensor cell to be at an operation stop control temperature higher than the operation control temperature (the heater control unit heats, during operation of the internal combustion engine, the NOx sensor 10 to be at a first control temperature, and heats, at the time when the operation of the internal combustion engine stops, the NOx sensor 10 to be at a second control temperature that is higher than the first control temperature, Fig. 1, para. [0009], [0081], [0095], [0102]); and
the operation stop control temperature is set to be a temperature higher than a temperature at which a thermal stress produced on a boundary surface between the atmosphere side electrode and a silicon oxide adhered to the atmosphere side electrode is larger than a tensile stress inherent in the silicon oxide itself and lower than a temperature at which a crystal structure of the solid electrolyte changes (the second control temperature is higher than the first control temperature and may be from 700°C to 1000°C, para. [0081]-[0082]; the electrode 123 is made of Pt and the solid electrolyte body 121 is made of zirconia, Fig. 1, para. [0047], [0050]). As evidenced by Applicant's instant specification, when the atmosphere side electrode is formed of platinum, the operation stop control temperature (660°C to 950°C) may be set to be 60°C or more larger than the operation control temperature (600°C to 800°C) in order to have the thermal stress produced between the atmosphere side electrode and the silicon oxide poisoning film to exceed the tensile stress of silicon oxide (para. [0081]-[0082], [0091]-[0092] of the instant US PGPub). As evidenced by Applicant's instant specification, when the solid electrolyte is formed of zirconia, the temperature at which the crystal structure of zirconia constituting the solid electrolyte changes is in a range from 950°C to 1200°C (para. [0093]-[0094] of the instant US PGPub). Since Kato teaches the same materials and overlapping temperatures as those disclosed by Applicant's instant specification, then second control temperature of Kato (700°C to 1000°C) is higher than a temperature at which a thermal stress produced on a boundary surface between the platinum electrode 123 and silicon oxide adhered to the platinum electrode 123 is larger than a tensile stress inherent in the silicon oxide itself and lower than a temperature at which a crystal structure of the zirconia solid electrolyte body 121 changes, as evidenced by Applicant's instant specification.
Kato teaches wherein the heater control unit starts to heat the sensor cell, to be at the operation stop control temperature, immediately after stopping the combustion operation of the internal combustion engine (the heater control unit heats, at the time when the operation of the internal combustion engine stops, the NOx sensor 10 to be at the second control temperature, Fig. 1, para. [0009], [0079], [0081], [0095]), and
a difference between the operation control temperature and the operation stop control temperature exceeds 100 degrees Celsius (C) (the first control temperature may be 655°C and the second control temperature may be from 700°C to 1000°C, para. [0081]-[0082]). Generally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05(I). Therefore, Kato anticipates the claim since Kato teaches a range including 100°C, and the claimed range is also obvious over Kato since the claimed and disclosed ranges overlap in scope.
Furthermore, the limitation "a silicon oxide adhered to the atmosphere side electrode" is with respect to an article worked upon (silicon oxide) and not a positively recited element of the sensor control unit. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (silicon oxide) by a structure (sensor control unit) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 15, Kato teaches wherein the heater control unit heats the sensor cell to be at the operation stop control temperature every time when the engine is in a combustion stopped state excluding a combustion stop due to an idling stop (the heater control unit heats the NOx sensor 10 to be at the second control temperature every time when the operation of the internal combustion engine stops except for an automatic idle-stop, Figs. 1-2, para. [0009], [0079], [0081], [0086]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-3 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/SHIZHI QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights