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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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(s) 1, 5–8, and 10–13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US Pub. # 20060219552) in view of Schumacher (US Pub. # 20050204822).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, Sasaki teaches, “A sensor (claim 7: channel for a fuel cell system; claim 13: fuel cell system) configured to determine a hydrogen concentration (see abstract and para. [0002]) in a channel (Fig. 1, 3; ref. # 9), of a fuel cell system (Fig. 1, ref. # 10), comprising: a sensor housing (Fig. 3–4, ref. # 1, including 21, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 39) having walls that extend into the channel and a base at a distal end of the walls; a measuring chamber (27) arranged in the sensor housing; and a measuring chamber channel (area from outside 27, including area where 29, 38b, 40, 41 allow gas to enter 27 from 9) that fluidically connects the measuring chamber (27) to an environment of the sensor (see para. [0055], discussing gas flow through 9 into 27), wherein the sensor (1) is configured to be mounted such that the measuring chamber (27) is located in the channel (see Fig. 1, 3, where 1 is mounted in 9, including 27), a diaphragm (41), connected to the sensor housing in a materially integral manner
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring a proper seal is maintained between the two surfaces of attachment, preventing unnecessary leakage of flowing fluids, and also for maintaining the desired pressure.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki teaches, “wherein the sensor comprises a flow-influencing geometry that influences a flow in the channel (see ref. # 1 and parts thereof in 9; being inside 9 and in the gas flow path “influences” flow).”
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki teaches, “wherein the measuring chamber channel (area from outside 27, including area where 29, 38b, 40, 41 allow gas to enter 27 from 9) is linear, angled, or a labyrinth (linear along walls of 1 inside these areas from flow path at 28/29 to area of 27).”
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki teaches, “wherein the measuring chamber channel, and/or a measuring chamber opening is intersected by an area centroid vector (see Fig. 1, 3, 4; ref. # 1, 27–29, 38b, 40, 41 are each intersected by an area centroid vector), and wherein the area centroid vector passes through an area centroid of a channel cross-section of the channel (see position of ref. # 1, 27–29, 38b, 40, 41 as shown in Fig. 3–4), wherein the channel cross-section is located in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the channel, and intersects the sensor, and that the area centroid vector intersects the plane at right angles (see previous figures and ref. # discussed above in combination with Fig. 2).”
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki teaches, “wherein the sensor (1) is arranged in such a way that a diaphragm (41) that is gas-permeable and fluid-impermeable (see para. [0055]) and configured to close the measuring chamber channel is at least partially opposed to a flow direction (41 is facing down, perpendicular to flow direction in 9, as shown in Fig. 1 and 3).”
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki teaches, “wherein the sensor (1) is attached to a channel wall (ref. # 25; see para. [0041]) of the channel (9).”
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki teaches, “wherein the sensor (1) extends from outside the channel into the channel through an opening in a channel wall (see 1 and parts thereof inside and outside of 9 as shown in Fig. 3).”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US Pub. # 20060219552) in view of Schumacher (US Pub. # 20050204822), and in further view of Oishi et al. (JP 2006343104), hereinafter referred to as Oishi.
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki in combination with Schumacher does not necessarily teach, “wherein the sensor is arranged in the channel such that the area centroid vector intersects a further plane, in which the diaphragm or the measuring chamber opening is arranged, at an angle of 70° to 110°.” However, Oishi teaches the deficiencies of Sasaki and Schumacher (see Fig. 3b, 4b, 5, 6; ref. # 72 in 71). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasaki and Schumacher’s invention to include wherein the sensor is arranged in the channel such that the area centroid vector intersects a further plane, in which the diaphragm or the measuring chamber opening is arranged, at an angle of 70° to 110°.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sasaki and Schumacher’s invention for at least the purpose of reducing the cross-sectional area of the sensing element, thus also reducing the flow resistance of the air/gas while suppressing the energy consumption of the air/gas supply, as taught by Oishi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially it is noted, the arguments (remarks page 3) directed to the “welding” of the diaphragm (claims 1, 7, and 13) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (using Schumacher) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in that argument.
Applicant's arguments (remarks pages 3–4) directed to the claimed, “the measuring chamber opening is arranged on a wall surface of the sensor housing at least partially opposed to a flow direction in the channel” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states, “… Sasaki discloses the opening 29 parallel to the flow direction. … A tip flange portion 128b made of ceramic is provided on the inner surface of the tube tip portion 126b in an integrated manner toward the inside thereof and an inner wall of the tip flange portion 128b is constituted to open as a gas introduction portion 127a, which is parallel to a flow direction not opposed to the flow direction. (Sasaki at paras. [0085]-[0086]).” The Office disagrees with applicant’s conclusions.
As shown in figures 1–4, there is a flow direction shown by arrows, through ref. # 9, that runs left to right looking at the page, and the opening faces an up/down direction, which is perpendicular to the direction of flow, which is interpreted as “at least partially opposed”. While an opening of a measuring channel exists that is parallel to the flow direction (up/down direction looking at the page), as shown by the flow direction arrows (in at least figure 1), the direction is opposed to the opening 29 (perpendicular to each other). In conclusion, and notably, “opposed to the flow direction” is a very broad limitation and is reasonably interpreted as crossing directions at any angle, or “conflicting”/“differing” in some capacity. Nonetheless, as described above, the perpendicular crossing of the opening and flow direction through 9 and 28/29 as taught by Sasaki, teaches the claimed language.
Applicant further argues, “With respect to claim 9, Applicant disagrees that Oishi teaches the sensor is arranged in the channel such that the area centroid vector intersects a further plane, in which the diaphragm or the measuring chamber opening is arranged, at an angle of 70° to 110°. The claims require that the measuring chamber opening is arranged on a wall surface of the sensor housing at least partially opposed to a flow direction in the channel of the fuel cell system at an angle of 70° to 110°. In contrast Oishi teaches the gas flow portion 70 is provided on the side back portion SB of the peripheral wall 34a of the element housing portion 34. Here, the "side back portion SB" refers to portions corresponding to the side surface and the rear surface when the portion directly exposed to the dilution gas is the front FF. Further, "providing the gas flow portion 70 in the side back portion SB" does not mean that the gas flow portion 70 is completely within the region of the side back portion SB, but more than half of the gas flow portion 70 should be within the region of the back portion SB. Thus, Oishi is not limited to 70° to 110° as expressly recited in the claim.” The Office disagrees with applicant’s conclusions.
As best seen in figures 5 (flow direction in pipe 6 is shown by arrows in pipe) and 6 (flow direction is into/out of the page), ref. # 72 (interpreted here as diaphragm, equivalent operation to applicant’s claimed invention) is arranged with opening 70 within an angle as claimed (can be measured with respect to an up/down direction along ref. # 6c or left/right direction along ref. # 37c, when looking at figure 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights