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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/08/2023 and 07/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 1 without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
The Examiner does not agree with Applicant that Species 1 pertains to claims 1-16. The Examiner believes species 1 pertains to claims 1-3 and 5-18. Claim 4 does not pertain to species 1 because species 1 includes the limitation, “includes a second extension region and a third extension region, the second extension region is continuous with the second film region, the second extension region extends along the base layer, the third extension region is continuous with the third film region”. Species 1 cannot have second and third extension regions continuous with second and third film regions as can be seen in the following annotated figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claim 4 cannot pertain to species 1. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that claim 19 does not pertain to species 1. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are examined.
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, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ono et al US 20050258051 A1. Ono et al will be referenced to as Ono henceforth.
Regarding Claim 1,
Ono teaches:
“A sensor (FIG. 3) comprising:
a structure including a base layer (thin-film insulating layer 14, [0065]), a first film (hydrogen permeable protective film 17 ), and a first layer (hydrogen absorber 13, [0054], [0063-0064]), the first film including at least one selected from a group consisting of silicon and aluminum , and oxygen ([0035], claim 11: the hydrogen permeable protective film 17, may be made of silicon oxide. Silicon oxide contains oxygen.), at least one of a volume of the first layer or an electrical resistance of the first layer being configured to change according to a detection target around the structure ([0016]: The absorption of hydrogen into the hydrogen absorber causes a measured change in resistance.), the first film including a first film region (annotated FIGs. 3-4), a second film region (annotated FIGs. 3-4), and a third film region (annotated FIGs. 3-4), the first layer being between the base layer and the first film region in a first direction from the base layer to the first film region (FIG. 3: The first direction is vertical.), and the first layer being between the second film region and the third film region in a second direction crossing the first direction (FIG. 3: the second direction is horizontal.).”
PNG
media_image2.png
348
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 3 #1
PNG
media_image3.png
610
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 4 #1
Regarding Claim 2,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 1, wherein the film region is continuous with the second film region and the third film region (FIG. 3).”
Regarding Claim 3,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 1, wherein the second film region and the third film region are in contact with the base layer (FIG. 3: The second film region and the third film region are in direct contact with 14.).”
Regarding Claim 5,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first film includes a fourth film region (annotated FIGs. 3-4) and a fifth film region (annotated FIGs. 3-4), and the first layer is between the fourth film region and the fifth film region in a third direction crossing a plane including the first direction and the second direction (annotated FIGs. 3-4: The third direction is vertical in FIG. 4. The third direction intersects a plane made from the second and first directions. The plane extends into and out of the page in FIG. 4 as well as horizontally in FIG. 4.).”
Regarding Claim 6,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 5, wherein the first film region is continuous with the fourth film region and the fifth film region (annotated FIGs. 3-4). ”
Regarding Claim 7,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 5, wherein the fourth film region and the fifth film region are in contact with the base layer (FIGs 3-4: The fourth and fifth film regions are in direct contact with the base layer.).”
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.
Claims 8-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al US 20190162694 A1. Hayashi et al will be referenced to as Hayashi henceforth.
Regarding Claim 8,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 5,”
Ono doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the first film further includes a fourth extension region and a fifth extension region, the fourth extension region is continuous with the fourth film region, the fourth extension region extends along the base layer, the fifth extension region is continuous with the fifth film region, and the fifth extension region extends along the base layer.”
However, Hayashi teaches:
“wherein the first film further includes a fourth extension region (Hayashi: [0023], annotated FIG. 1 #1: one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize cap layer 24 as a first film.) and a fifth extension region (Hayashi: annotated FIG. 1 #1), the fourth extension region is continuous with the fourth film region (Hayashi: annotated FIG. 1 #1), the fourth extension region extends along the base layer (Hayashi: [0029], annotated FIG. 1 #1: 21 is the base layer.), the fifth extension region is continuous with the fifth film region (Hayashi: annotated FIG. 1 #1), and the fifth extension region extends along the base layer (Hayashi: annotated FIG. 1 #1).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ono is modifiable in view of Hayashi.
This is because Ono teaches a hydrogen sensing element comprising a hydrogen absorbing layer and first film covering the hydrogen absorbing layer. Ono doesn’t substantively teach a first film with extensions to a fourth film region and a fifth film region. Hayashi teaches a hydrogen absorbing layer and first film covering the hydrogen absorbing layer. Hayashi further teaches a first film with extensions to a fourth film region and a fifth film region. Because both Ono and Hayashi have a hydrogen absorbing layer and first film covering the hydrogen absorbing layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to substitute the first film of Ono for the first film of Hayashi for the predictable result of a hydrogen sensing element.
.
PNG
media_image4.png
369
703
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 1 #1
Regarding Claim 9,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 1,”
Ono doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the first layer includes Pd, Cu, and Si. ”
However, Hayashi teaches:
“wherein the first layer includes Pd, Cu, and Si (Hayashi: sensitive layer, [0036], FIG. 10: The sensitive layer is amorphous PdCuSi. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of a hydrogen sensor, a sensitive layer is the same as a hydrogen absorber.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ono is modifiable in view of Hayashi.
This is because Hayashi teaches that an amorphous PdCuSi hydrogen absorption layer both has excellent hydrogen absorption and release characteristics without forming hydride at the timed of absorbing, and that hydrogen atoms may pass through this material at a high speed in PdCuSi and therefore PdCuSi has a high-speed response characteristic (Hayashi: [0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a high-speed response characteristic as beneficial because such a device can indicate changes in hydrogen concentration in smaller timeframes.
Regarding Claim 10,
Ono/Hayshi teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 9, wherein the first layer further includes at least one selected from a group consisting of Pt and Ti (Ono: [0054-0055]: Ti may also be used.).”
Regarding Claim 11,
Ono/Hayshi teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 9, wherein at least a part of the first layer is amorphous (Hayashi: sensitive layer, [0036], FIG. 10: The sensitive layer is amorphous PdCuSi.).”
Regarding Claim 12,
Ono/Hayshi teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 9, wherein the detection target includes hydrogen (Ono: [0002]: The invention detects hydrogen.).”
Claims 13 and 15-17,are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Akimoto et al US 20210318282 A1. Akimoto et al will be referenced to as Akimoto henceforth.
Regarding Claim 13,
Ono teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 1,”
Ono doesn’t substantially teach:
“further comprising:
a base;
a fixed electrode fixed to the base;
a support part fixed to the base; and
a movable electrode, the structure being supported by the support part, the movable electrode being supported by the structure, and a gap being provided between the fixed electrode and the movable electrode, and between the base and the structure.”
However, Akimoto teaches:
“, further comprising:
a base (Akimoto: base body 50s, [0060], FIG. 10);
a fixed electrode fixed to the base (Akimoto: fixed electrode 51a, [0057], FIG. 10);
a support part fixed to the base (Akimoto: holding member 51c, [0057], FI. 10); and
a movable electrode (Akimoto: movable electrode 51b, [0057], FIG. 10), the structure being supported by the support part (Akimoto: film 51f, [0057], FIG. 10: One of ordinary skill in the art would place the structure where the hydrogen absorber is located.), the movable electrode being supported by the structure (Akimoto: FIG. 10), and a gap being provided between the fixed electrode and the movable electrode (Akimoto: FIG. 10), and between the base and the structure (Akimoto: FIG. 10).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ono is modifiable in view of Akimoto.
This is because Akimoto teaches a hydrogen sensing element using a hydrogen absorbing layer comprising palladium. Akimoto doesn’t substantively teach a hydrogen a hydrogen sensing element comprising a first film. Ono teaches a hydrogen sensing element with a hydrogen absorbing layer comprising palladium. Ono further teaches a hydrogen sensing element comprising a first film . Because both Akimoto and Ono have a hydrogen sensing element using a hydrogen absorbing layer comprising palladium, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to substitute the hydrogen sensing element of Akimoto for the hydrogen sensing element of Ono for the predictable result of a hydrogen sensor.
Regarding Claim 15,
Ono/Akimoto teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 13, wherein capacitance between the fixed electrode and the movable electrode is configured to change according to the detection target (Akimoto: [0057]: The gas is detected by detecting the electrical capacitance between the movable electrode 51b and a fixed electrode 51a). ”
Regarding Claim 16,
Ono/Akimoto teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 15, further comprising:
a circuit part configured to detect a value corresponding to the capacitance (sensor circuit 11, [0030], [0057], [0062], FIG. 10: sensor circuit 11 senses a gas concentration by a change in electrical capacitance.).”
Regarding Claim 17,
Ono/Akimoto teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 1, further comprising:
a base (Akimoto: base body 50s, [0060], FIG. 10); and
a support part fixed to the base (Akimoto: holding member 51c, [0057], FI. 10), the support part supporting the structure (Akimoto: film 51f, [0057], FIG. 10: One of ordinary skill in the art would place the structure where the hydrogen absorber is located.), and a gap being provided between the base and the structure (Akimoto: FIG. 10).”
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono/Akimoto as applied to claims 13, 15-17 and 19 above, and further in view of Ikehashi US US 20190086377 A1. Ikehashi et al will be referenced to as Ikehasi henceforth.
Regarding Claim 14,
Ono/Akimoto teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 13,”
Ono/Akimoto doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the structure further includes a resistance member, and at least a part of the resistance member overlaps the first layer in the first direction.”
However, Ikehashi teaches:
“wherein the structure further includes a resistance member, and at least a part of the resistance member overlaps the first layer in the first direction (Ikehashi: heater 11, [0053], FIG. 1: 11 vertically overlaps the hydrogen occlusion layer 13. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a hydrogen occlusion layer is the same as a hydrogen absorber layer.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Ono/Akimoto is modifiable in view of Ikehashi.
This is because the heater of Ikehashi provides the benefit of maintaining a constant humidity in the hydrogen absorber layer by heating the hydrogen absorber layer. This provides the benefit of improved responsiveness and hysteresis of the sensor.
Regarding Claim 18,
Ono/Akimoto/Ikehashi teaches:
“The sensor according to claim 17, wherein the structure further includes a resistance member, and at least a part of the resistance member overlaps the first layer in the first direction (Ikehashi: heater 11, [0053], FIG. 1: 11 vertically overlaps the hydrogen occlusion layer 13. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a hydrogen occlusion layer is the same as a hydrogen absorber layer.). ”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE XAVIER RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ALEXANDRE X RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812