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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on June 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 6-7, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Species I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on May 6, 2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 6-7 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “reference gas” should read “the reference gas”.
In line 3, “the sensor element includes, as the electrochemical cells,” should read “the electrochemical cell includes”.
In line 5, “a first surface” should read “the first surface”.
In line 6, “a second surface” should read “the second surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “the sensor element includes, as the electrochemical cells,” should read “the electrochemical cell includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “detection circuit unit” in claims 1 and 3 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes an analog circuit, a digital circuit, and equivalents thereof, see para. [0095]-[0096] of the instant US PGPub), “AC voltage application unit” in claim 1 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes an AC voltage generation unit, a sinusoidal wave generation unit, a waveform generation unit, and equivalents thereof, see para. [0049], [0072], [0075], [0097] of the instant US PGPub), “gas concentration detection unit” in claim 1 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes digital circuits such as microcomputers and equivalents thereof, see para. [0096] of the instant US PGPub), “cell temperature detection unit” in claim 1 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes digital circuits such as microcomputers and equivalents thereof, see para. [0096] of the instant US PGPub), “signal extraction unit” in claim 1 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes digital circuits such as microcomputers and equivalents thereof, see para. [0047], [0084], [0096] of the instant US PGPub), “synchronous detection unit” in claim 1 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes digital circuits such as microcomputers and equivalents thereof, see para. [0047], [0084], [0096] of the instant US PGPub), “filter unit” in claim 1 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes a low-pass filter and equivalents thereof, see para. [0086], [0088] of the instant US PGPub), “heater unit” in claim 4 (the corresponding structure in the specification includes a heater electrode embedded in a heater substrate layer and equivalents thereof, see para. [0064] of the instant US PGPub).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the detection circuit unit is provided in correspondence with one or more of the electrochemical cells” in lines 3-4 of the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation requires one detection circuit unit per electrochemical cell, or if the same one detection circuit unit is provided for all of the electrochemical cells. Claim 4 is rejected as dependent thereon.
The term “near” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a reference electrode” in line 9 of the claim. It is unclear whether “a reference electrode” in line 9 is the same as or different from the previously recited “a reference electrode” in lines 5-6 of claim 5.
The term “near” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 7 is rejected as dependent thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of the gas sensor of independent claim 1, with particular attention to the limitations:
“the cell temperature detection unit includes
a signal extraction unit including a subtraction processing unit configured to subtract the extracted DC signal component from the output signal provided by the electrochemical cell to extract the AC signal component, and
a synchronous detection unit configured to perform synchronous detection on the extracted AC signal component using the AC voltage signal, and
the synchronous detection unit includes a multiplication processing unit configured to multiply the extracted AC signal component by the applied AC voltage signal, and a filter unit configured to filter the signal after the multiplication to allow passage of components with frequencies lower than a frequency of the applied AC voltage signal” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Kitamura et al. (JP 2019086474 A) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on March 31, 2023), Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0094079 A1), and Mase et al. (US 4,505,802 A).
Kitamura teaches supplying a measurement AC to each sample to be measured, synchronously detecting a detection signal, and extracting a DC component of the signal to measure an AC impedance of the sample (para. [0019]-[0020]). Kitamura fails to teach detecting cell temperature, and fails to teach “the cell temperature detection unit includes a signal extraction unit including a subtraction processing unit configured to subtract the extracted DC signal component from the output signal provided by the electrochemical cell to extract the AC signal component, and a synchronous detection unit configured to perform synchronous detection on the extracted AC signal component using the AC voltage signal, and the synchronous detection unit includes a multiplication processing unit configured to multiply the extracted AC signal component by the applied AC voltage signal, and a filter unit configured to filter the signal after the multiplication to allow passage of components with frequencies lower than a frequency of the applied AC voltage signal” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
Suzuki teaches a gas concentration detection apparatus having a sensor element and an AC voltage source that applies an AC voltage to one of the outer terminals, and as a result a current which flows therethrough is made up of a DC current component and an AC current component (para. [0014]-[0015]). Suzuki teaches that the DC current component varies in accordance with the concentration of the specific constituent gas and the AC current component varies in accordance with the impedance of the sensor element (para. [0015]). Suzuki teaches a first detection signal output circuit for deriving a DC voltage signal component corresponding to the aforementioned DC current component, to thereby obtain a first measurement signal that varies in accordance with the constituent gas concentration (para. [0017]). Suzuki teaches a second detection signal output circuit for deriving an AC voltage signal component corresponding to the aforementioned AC current component, and thereby obtaining the second measurement signal varying in accordance with the sensor element impedance (para. [0017]). Suzuki fails to teach “the cell temperature detection unit includes a signal extraction unit including a subtraction processing unit configured to subtract the extracted DC signal component from the output signal provided by the electrochemical cell to extract the AC signal component, and a synchronous detection unit configured to perform synchronous detection on the extracted AC signal component using the AC voltage signal, and the synchronous detection unit includes a multiplication processing unit configured to multiply the extracted AC signal component by the applied AC voltage signal, and a filter unit configured to filter the signal after the multiplication to allow passage of components with frequencies lower than a frequency of the applied AC voltage signal” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
Mase teaches applying an AC voltage to the oxygen concentration detector and detecting the DC voltage corresponding to the oxygen concentration by excluding the AC voltage in the filter circuit (Figs. 15-16, col. 8, lns. 36-56). Mase fails to teach “the cell temperature detection unit includes a signal extraction unit including a subtraction processing unit configured to subtract the extracted DC signal component from the output signal provided by the electrochemical cell to extract the AC signal component, and a synchronous detection unit configured to perform synchronous detection on the extracted AC signal component using the AC voltage signal, and the synchronous detection unit includes a multiplication processing unit configured to multiply the extracted AC signal component by the applied AC voltage signal, and a filter unit configured to filter the signal after the multiplication to allow passage of components with frequencies lower than a frequency of the applied AC voltage signal” in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794