DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on March 5, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2013/0068616) in view of Rabbett (US 2003/0145644), and further in view of Biaggi-Labiosa (US 10,294,099).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a carbon monoxide transducer (¶1: an electrochemical gas sensor; Fig. 13-14; ¶45: CO sensitivity), comprising:
a main housing (Fig. 1; ¶31: a bottomed cylindrical container 3);
a lower support plate arranged in the main housing (Fig. 1; ¶31: the bottom plate 4), wherein the lower support plate divides the main housing into a water chamber containing water below the lower support plate (Fig. 1; ¶31: a lower part of the container 3 that is below the waist 6 constitutes a water reservoir 7 in which water 8 is closed) and a reaction chamber above the lower support plate (Fig. 1; ¶32: an upper part of the container 3 that is above the bottom plate 4 is preferred to as a side portion 10);
a multilayer film assembly arranged in the reaction chamber on the lower support plate (Fig. 1; ¶32: gas sensor main body 14); and
a cover assembly (Fig. 6; ¶32: a metal cover 18) on the multilayer film assembly, wherein the cover assembly comprises a top cover (Fig. 6; ¶37: an upper metal member 34 and a flange portion 35), an upper support plate (Fig. 6: the lower metal member 32, the flange portion 33, and the protrusion 40), a filter body (Fig. 6; ¶37: a filter member 38) between the top cover and the upper support plate, and a sealing ring (Fig. 1; ¶32: gasket 12) wrapped around an outer periphery of the top cover and the upper support plate;
wherein, a curling portion is formed at the top of the main housing (Fig. 1: indicating the waist 6 defining a curling portion at the top of the container 3) that compresses the sealing ring of the cover assembly and the multilayer film assembly towards the lower support plate (Fig. 7; ¶38: clamping is performed by pressing and deforming the side portion 10 with a conical surface 44);
wherein the multilayer film assembly (Fig. 1; ¶32: a gas sensor main body 14) comprises: a first insulating diffusion layer (¶36: a porous carbon fiber sheet or the like between the sensing electrode 29 and the diffusion control plate 16; thus the porous carbon fiber is on the bottom plate 4) on the lower support plate, a reaction film on the first insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 5; ¶36: a separator 28, that is part of the gas sensor main body 14, in the form of a film), a ring washer on the reaction film (Fig. 1, 4; ¶35: the bottom portion 25), and a second insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 5; ¶36: a diffusion control plate 16), wherein the second insulating diffusion layer is located in a center hole of the ring washer (Fig. 1: indicating the diffusion control plate 16 within a center hole of the bottom portion 25; Fig. 4: circular opening 24), and an outer diameter of the ring washer is close to an inner diameter of the reaction chamber (Fig. 1: indicating the outer diameter of the bottom portion 25 close to the inner diameter of the side portion 10);
wherein the upper support plate abuts against the second insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 1: indicating the lower metal member 32 abuts the diffusion control plate 16), and an outer edge of the ring washer is pressed down to abut against the lower support plate (Fig. 1: indicating the ring-shaped bottom portion 25 abuts against the bottom plate 4).
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the bottom of the sealing ring abuts against the ring washer.
However, Rabbett teaches gasket 20 that is ring-shaped inside the can 14 and abuts against a ring washer 24 to form a similar shape of the gasket 12 of Inoue (Rabbett, Fig. 1: gasket 20 and washer 24; Inoue, Fig. 1: gasket 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue by substituting its gasket (Inoue, Fig. 1: gasket 12; Fig. 4: bottom portion 25 and upper portion 26) with a gasket that abuts against the ring washer (Rabbett, Fig. 1: gasket 20 and washer 24) as taught by Rabbett because they both components would provide the same function and the substitution would not generate any surprising or unpredictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Inoue discloses a porous carbon fiber sheet or the like between the sensing electrode 29 and the diffusion control plate 16 (¶36; read as the first insulating diffusion layer that must be on the lower support plate 4). Inoue fails to teach wherein the first insulating diffusion layer is in contact with the lower support plate.
However, Rabbett teaches a sensor 10 (Fig. 1) including stacked layers, a top disk 16, a gasket 20, a diffusion layer 22, two plastic washers 24, 26, and an electrode assembly 28, a hydrophobic layer 36, and a bottom disk 38, above a water reservoir 42 (Fig. 1; ¶36). Thus, Rabbett teaches a multilayer film assembly comprising a first insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 1: hydrophobic layer 36) on the lower support plate (Fig. 1: bottom disk 38), a reaction film (¶41: an ion exchange membrane 34, e.g., Nafion) on the first insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 1), a ring washer on the reaction film (Fig. 1: washer 26), and a second insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 1: diffusion layer 22). Here, the first insulating diffusion layer is in contact with the lower support plate (Fig. 1: hydrophobic layer 36 and bottom disk 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue by arranging the first hydrophobic layer in contact with the lower support plate as taught by Rabbett because such an arrangement would be a design choice and yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Inoue does not disclose wherein … the reaction film is in contact with the first insulating diffusion layer or the ring washer is in contact with the reaction film.
However, Biaggi-Labiosa teaches chemical sensors for carbon monoxide (CO) (Fig. 1; col. 1, ln. 21, 28-29) including electrodes 132, 134 (Fig. 1; col. 4, ln. 25) using a detector for changes in the sensor, such as electrical changes in resistance or conductance between electrode pads 142, 144 (Fig. 1; col. 4, ln. 31-34). Thus, Biaggi-Labiosa teaches two electrodes sheets (Fig. 1: electrode pads 142, 144) on the top and bottom of the microsensor 100, each of which are connected to one electrode 132, 134, respectively (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue and Rabbet by substituting the two electrodes in the electrode assembly with those attached to the top cover and the bottom of the main housing respectively as suggested by Biaggi-Labiosa because the two electrodes sheets that are electrically connected to its respective electrode would provide connections for the detection in the electrical changes representative of the gas concentration. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, after the substitution, the combined Inoue, Rabbett, and Biaggi-Labiosa would necessarily result in the reaction film (Biaggi-Labiosa, Fig. 1: hydrophobic layer 34) is in contact with the first insulating diffusion layer (Fig. 1: Nafion 36) and the ring washer (Fig. 1: washer 26) is in contact with the reaction film (Fig. 1: hydrophobic layer 34) without electrodes 30 and 32.
The preamble “carbon monoxide” for the recited transducer is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02(II). The apparatus as taught by Inoue is identical to the presently claimed structure and would therefore would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches wherein the sealing ring is made of natural rubber (¶35: the gasket 12 may be natural rubber).
The designation “wherein … the curling portion is arranged to compress the sealing ring and the multilayer film assembly, so that a total thickness of the sealing ring and the multilayer film assembly is compressed by 20% to 40%” is product-by-process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I). Here, Inoue teaches the gasket 12 is placed on the bottom plate 4, the gas sensor body 14 and the diffusion control plate 16 are placed in the opening of the gasket 12, and the cover 18 is placed so as to cover the diffusion control plate, so that the order of placing these constituent elements can be set as appropriate (¶38). Further, clamping is performed by pressing and deforming the side portion 10 with a conical surface 44 (Fig. 7; ¶38). Thus, there is no apparent difference between the claimed transducer and the sensor of the prior art as taught by Inoue.
Regarding claim 3, the designation “wherein the curling portion is arranged to compress the sealing ring and the multilayer film assembly, so that the total thickness of the sealing ring and the multilayer film assembly is compressed by 25% to 35%” is product-by-process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I). Here, Inoue teaches the gasket 12 is placed on the bottom plate 4, the gas sensor body 14 and the diffusion control plate 16 are placed in the opening of the gasket 12, and the cover 18 is placed so as to cover the diffusion control plate, so that the order of placing these constituent elements can be set as appropriate (¶38). Further, clamping is performed by pressing and deforming the side portion 10 with a conical surface 44 (Fig. 7; ¶38). Thus, there is no apparent difference between the claimed transducer and the sensor of the prior art as taught by Inoue.
Regarding claim 4, the designation “wherein the total thickness of the multilayer film assembly is compressed by at least 40%” is product-by-process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I). Here, Inoue teaches the gasket 12 is placed on the bottom plate 4, the gas sensor body 14 and the diffusion control plate 16 are placed in the opening of the gasket 12, and the cover 18 is placed so as to cover the diffusion control plate, so that the order of placing these constituent elements can be set as appropriate (¶38). Further, clamping is performed by pressing and deforming the side portion 10 with a conical surface 44 (Fig. 7; ¶38). Thus, there is no apparent difference between the claimed transducer and the sensor of the prior art as taught by Inoue.
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches wherein an inner side of the main housing has a shoulder, the lower support plate is arranged on the shoulder of the main housing (Fig. 1: indicating the waist 6 providing a should on the top to support the bottom plate 4 inside the container 3), and the lower support plate and the main housing are made of conductive materials (¶31: the bottomed cylindrical container 3 made of metal; a bottom plate 4 is made of a metal disc) and are connected to each other (Fig. 1: indicating the bottom plate 4 and the container 3 are connected).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue, Rabbett, and Biaggi-Labiosa disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Inoue further discloses electrode sheets (Fig. 5; ¶36: a sensing electrode 29 and a counter electrode 30 on the top and bottom surfaces of the separator 28), and the counter electrode 30 is electrically connected to the container 3 via the bottom plate 4 (¶36). Since the counter electrode 30 is electrically connected to the container 3, it would be electrically connected to the bottom of the container 3. Further, since Inoue also discloses the sensing electrode 29 would be electrically connected to parts of 16, 40, 18 (Fig. 1, 5), which are all metal parts, and thus electrically connected to the top cover.
Inoue and Rabbett do not explicitly disclose the electrode sheets are attached to the top cover and the bottom of the main housing respectively.
However, Biaggi-Labiosa teaches chemical sensors for carbon monoxide (CO) (Fig. 1; col. 1, ln. 21, 28-29) including electrodes 132, 134 (Fig. 1; col. 4, ln. 25) using a detector for changes in the sensor, such as electrical changes in resistance or conductance between electrode pads 142, 144 (Fig. 1; col. 4, ln. 31-34). Thus, Biaggi-Labiosa teaches two electrodes sheets (Fig. 1: electrode pads 142, 144) on the top and bottom of the microsensor 100, each of which are connected to one electrode 132, 134, respectively (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue and Rabbett by incorporating two electrodes sheets attached to the top cover and the bottom of the main housing respectively as suggested by Biaggi-Labiosa because the two electrodes sheets that are electrically connected to its respective electrode would provide connections for the detection in the electrical changes representative of the gas concentration. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Rabbett and Biaggi-Labiosa, and further in view of Inoue-1 (JP 2004/226346 using a machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue, Rabbett, and Biaggi-Labiosa disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Inoue further discloses wherein the top cover (Fig. 6; ¶37: the upper metal plate 34 and the flange portion 35) comprises a middle protruding portion (Fig. 6; ¶37: the upper metal member 34) and a plane portion at the outside of the middle protruding portion (Fig. 6; ¶37: the flange portion 35), the plane portion of the top cover abuts against the upper support plate (Fig. 6: indicating the flange portion 35 abuts the flange portion 33 of the upper support plate), and the outer periphery is wrapped by the sealing ring (Fig. 1; ¶37: the protrusion 40 is brought into hermetic contact with the inner surface of the protrusion 26 of the L-shaped member of the gasket 12 by clamping), and wherein the top cover and the upper support plate are made of conductive materials (Fig. 1, 6; ¶32: a metal cover 18) and are connected to each other (¶37: the flange portions 33 and 35 are welded to each other), the filter body is located in a chamber defined by the protruding portion of the top cover (Fig. 6: indicating the filter member 38 inside the protruding portion 34 of the top cover), the filter body is an activated carbon bag (Fig. 6; ¶37: a filter member 38 such as activated carbon), and a gasket is further arranged between the filter body and the upper support plate (Fig. 6; ¶37: retaining sheet 39).
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the upper support plate (Fig. 6: the lower metal member 32, the flange portion 33, and the protrusion 40) is formed as a flat plate.
However, Inoue-1 teaches a CO sensor (¶15) comprising a sensor main body, which includes an MEA 10, a diffusion control plate 12, a sealing body 14, and a metal washer 28 (Fig. 1; ¶17). Sealing member 14 includes a metal cap 16 and a metal bottom plate 18 containing the filter material 20 (Fig. 1; ¶18). Thus, Inoue-1 teaches a support plate (Fig. 1: the metal bottom plate 18) is formed as a flat plate supporting the filter material 20 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue by substituting the supper support plate of Inoue (Inoue, Fig. 6: 32, 33 and 40) with the one formed as a flat plate (Inoue-1, Fig. 1: 18) because the flat plate is sufficient to provide the same function, i.e., supporting the filter member in a gas sensor, and well-known in the prior art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Rabbett and Biaggi-Labiosa, and further in view of Ono (US 2006/0065526).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue, Rabbett, and Biaggi-Labiosa disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Inoue does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the water chamber is less than 15mm and a height of the water chamber is less than 30mm.
However, Ono teaches a gas sensor element part was mounted on a bottom part within a cylindrical housing, with an inner diameter of 10 mm and a height of 15 mm (¶55), both of which lie inside the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue, Rabbett, and Biaggi-Labiosa by adjusting the diameter and the height of the water chamber within the claimed ranges because they are suitable size for the cylindrical housing of a gas sensor. 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.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant arguments (Response, pp. 5-6) principally attack the references individually and, therefore, do not address adequately the rejection the Examiner presents in the record. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”), 425 (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
Applicant argues Inoue fails to disclose the claimed ring washer, and its gasket with an L-shaped cross-section, and the separation of the L-shaped gasket to two abutting components is based on a hindsight reconstruction (p. 6, para. 4). This is unpersuasive because two abutting components, i.e., one gasket and one washer (Rabbett, Fig. 1: gasket 20 and washer 24), are together forming a L-shaped component, which is the same as the gasket 12 of Inoue (Fig. 1) in structure and function. Thus, it is obvious to one of skilled in the art to adopting either option as taught by Inoue or Rabbett to arrive the claimed subject matter. Here, the substitution of one L-shaped element for two abutting elements forming a L-shaped unit would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Applicant argues the Examiner’s reliance on design choice is improper because the claimed configuration provides improved sealing, mechanical stability, and sensor performance (pp. 6-7: bridging para.). This argument is unpersuasive. The recited structural features are either disclosed by Inoue or Rabbett, and the combination of Inoue and Rabbett provides different design choices, i.e., choosing either way taught by Inoue or Rabbett. In response to Applicant’s argument that the recited configuration would provide improved sealing, mechanical stability, and sensor performance, Examiner notes that using one L-shaped element instead of two abutting elements forming a L-shaped unit would have better sealing, mechanical stability, and thus sensor performance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795