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 Group II, claims 17-21, drawn to a sensor for detecting a change in gas composition in the reply filed on October 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 2: “will react with a fuel” suggested to be “reacts with a fuel”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 17-21 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 9-10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of electrodes” in both places.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "gas composition" in line 11. It is suggested to be “the gas composition.”
Dependent claims 18-21 are rejected due to their dependencies on claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of electrodes.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the opening or openings" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the at least one opening.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested the first two “wherein” clauses to be “wherein the plurality of electrodes comprises at least two electrodes, wherein there is a gas flow path to each of the at least two electrodes.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of electrodes.”
First set of rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coignet (US 2008/0179199).
Regarding claim 17, Coignet teaches a sensor (Fig. 1; ¶27: a gas sensor 10) for detecting a change in gas composition (this limitation of the preamble is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and 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 sensor comprising a membrane:
a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (Fig. 1; ¶27: MEA) comprising a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 1; ¶27: the anode 12 and cathode 14 of the MEA) and a membrane electrolyte layer (¶27: MEA polymer electrolyte 16) disposed between the plurality of electrodes (Fig. 1),
a first substrate and a second substrate (Fig. 2A: 19, 20; ¶37: the first housing member 19 and the second housing member 20), wherein the MEA is disposed between a first substrate and a second substrate (Fig. 2A; ¶38: the MEA 18 is suitably dimensioned to fit between the first and second housing members),
wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate has at least one opening to provide a gas flow path therethrough to one of the electrodes (Fig. 2A; ¶36: An opening at a central location on each annular housing member 19, 20 serves as a gas channel).
The designation “wherein when there is a change in the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes an electrical characteristic indicative of the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes can be determined to generate an output to indicate the change in gas composition detected by the sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Coignet teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed sensor which can monitor the presence and concentration of any gas in the pipeline or in an environment or atmosphere (¶21) by measuring the open circuit voltage OCV between the anode and cathode of the MEA (¶38), and thus is capable of determining an electrical characteristic indicative of the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes, when there is a change in the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes, to generate an output to indicate the change in gas composition detected by the sensor.
Regarding claim 20, Coignet teaches wherein the sensor is configured for use as a sensor in a gas line (¶59: a sensor of this type can be placed at a suitable location proximate piping or equipment in which hydrogen or other gases are delivered and/or processed).
Regarding claim 21, Coignet teaches wherein the one of the electrodes will react with a fuel of a fuel source consumed by the fuel cell (¶28: due to the breakdown of hydrogen from the measured gas into protons and electrons through the membrane to the cathode side),
wherein the output will result in turning off the normal operation of the fuel cell when a gas leak is detected (¶31: a positive OCV measured by the sensor indicates the presence of hydrogen in the enclosure, such as a hydrogen leak from equipment and/or piping disposed within the enclosure; the OCV value is correlated with a hydrogen concentration in the enclosure and can be used to control the system, e.g., signaling a warning or a system shutdown).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coignet in view of Nadanami (US 2004/0026265).
Regarding claim 18, Coignet discloses all limitations of claim 17, but fails to teach wherein one of the first substrate and the second substrate has more openings than the other of the first substrate and the second substrate to provide more gas flow paths through that substrate to one of the electrodes than the other substrate, or wherein the opening or openings in one substrate are larger in dimension than the opening or openings in the other substrate to provide wider gas flow path(s) through that substrate to one of the electrodes.
However, Nadanami teaches a hydrogen gas sensor suitable for measuring the hydrogen concentration of a fuel gas used for fuel cells (¶3). The hydrogen gas sensor include a first electrode 3 and a second electrode 4 disposed on opposite surfaces of a proton-conductive layer 2 (Fig. 1; ¶53). The hydrogen gas sensor also include an upper support 1a and a lower support 1b sandwich the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 (Fig. 1; ¶53). The diffusion-rate limiting portion 6 located between the first electrode 3 and a measurement gas atmosphere and the second electrode 4 contacts the measurement gas atmosphere via an aperture 11 formed in the lower support 1b (Fig. 1; ¶53). The diffusion-rate limiting portion was formed of porous alumina ceramic (¶58). Since the diffusion-rate limiting portion 6 is porous and thus has more openings, compared to the aperture 11 only having one opening, it would provide more gas flow paths.
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 Coignet by adjusting the openings of one of the first substrate and the second substrate to provide more gas flow paths as taught by Nadanami because the diffusion-rate limiting portion preferably has a relatively high gas-diffusion resistance, so as to render the proton conducting performance excessive and have greater conduction rate of protons (¶15) for accurate measurement of hydrogen concentration without causing a great decrease in Sensor output (¶12). 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).
Regarding claim 19, Coignet discloses all limitations of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the MEA comprises at least two electrode (Fig. 1: anode 12 and cathode 13), wherein there is a gas flow to each of the electrode (Fig. 1; ¶26: the air inline 4 and the air outlet line 6)
Coignet fails to teach wherein one gas flow path is smaller or has a restricted gas flow compared to the other gas flow path.
However, Nadanami teaches a hydrogen gas sensor suitable for measuring the hydrogen concentration of a fuel gas used for fuel cells (¶3), including a first electrode 3 and a second electrode 4 disposed on opposite surfaces of a proton-conductive layer 2 (Fig. 1; ¶53). The hydrogen gas sensor also include an upper support 1a on which a diffusion-rate limiting portion 6 located and a lower support 1b in which an aperture 11 formed sandwich the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 (Fig. 1; ¶53). The diffusion-rate limiting portion was formed of porous alumina ceramic (¶58), and thus provided a restricted gas flow.
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 Coignet by restricting the gas flow to one of the electrodes as taught by Nadanami because the diffusion-rate limiting portion preferably has a relatively high gas-diffusion resistance, so as to render the proton conducting performance excessive and have greater conduction rate of protons (¶15) for accurate measurement of hydrogen concentration without causing a great decrease in Sensor output (¶12). 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).
Second set of rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadanami.
Regarding claim 17, Nadanami teaches a sensor (Fig. 1; ¶53: a hydrogen gas sensor) for detecting a change in gas composition (this limitation of the preamble is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and 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 sensor comprising a membrane:
a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (Fig. 1: 2, 3, 4) comprising a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 1; ¶53: the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4) and a membrane electrolyte layer (Fig. 1; ¶53: a proton-conductive layer 2; ¶6: gas-permeable, proton-conductive film) disposed between the plurality of electrodes (Fig. 1),
a first substrate and a second substrate (Fig. 1; ¶53: an upper support 1a and a lower support 1b), wherein the MEA is disposed between a first substrate and a second substrate (Fig. 1),
wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate has at least one opening to provide a gas flow path therethrough to one of the electrodes (Fig. 1; ¶53: a diffusion-rate limiting portion 6 formed in the upper support 1a and an aperture 11 formed in the lower support 1b).
The designation “wherein when there is a change in the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes an electrical characteristic indicative of the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes can be determined to generate an output to indicate the change in gas composition detected by the sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Nadanami teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed sensor which is a hydrogen gas sensor suitable for measuring the hydrogen concentration of a fuel gas used for fuel cells (¶3), and thus is capable of determining an electrical characteristic indicative of the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes, when there is a change in the gas composition of the gas at the one of the electrodes, to generate an output to indicate the change in gas composition detected by the sensor.
Regarding claim 18, Nadanami teaches wherein one of the first substrate and the second substrate has more openings than the other of the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 1; ¶58: the diffusion-rate limiting portion was formed of porous alumina ceramic; here, since the diffusion-rate limiting portion 6 is porous and thus has more openings, compared to the aperture 11 only having one opening) to provide more gas flow paths through that substrate to one of the electrodes than the other substrate (since the diffusion-rate limiting portion having more openings, it would provide more gas flow paths).
Regarding claim 19, Nadanami teaches wherein the MEA comprises at least two electrodes (Fig. 1: the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4), wherein there is a gas flow path to each of the electrodes (Fig. 1), and wherein one gas flow path has a restricted gas flow compared to the other gas flow path (Fig. 1; ¶53: since the diffusion-rate limiting portion 6 would have a restricted gas flow compare the one aperture 11 on the opposite substrate).
Regarding claim 20, Nadanami teaches wherein the sensor is configured for use as a sensor in a gas line (¶3: a hydrogen gas sensor suitable for measuring the hydrogen concentration of a fuel gas used for fuel cells).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadanami in view of Coignet.
Regarding claim 21, Nadanami discloses all limitations of claim 20, and further discloses wherein the one of the electrodes will react (claim 1: hydrogen introduced from the atmosphere via the diffusion-rate limiting portion undergoes dissociation, decomposition, or reaction to produce protons on the first electrode) with a fuel of a fuel source consumed by the fuel cell (¶3: a hydrogen gas sensor suitable for measuring the hydrogen concentration of a fuel gas used for fuel cells).
Nadanami fails to teach wherein the sensor is located inside a housing of the fuel cell.
However, Coignet teaches a gas sensor 10 (Fig. 1; ¶27) including a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) with an anode side 12 and a cathode side 14 disposed on opposite sides of a polymer electrolyte material 16 (Fig. 1; ¶27). The gas sensor may be provided within the enclosure 100 (Fig. 6C; ¶56). Thus, Coignet teaches wherein the sensor (Fig. 1, 6C: gas sensor 10) is located inside a housing of the fuel cell (Fig. 6C: enclosure 100; ¶21: an enclosure, e.g., a fuel cell).
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 Nadanami by incorporating the gas sensor within the enclosure, e.g., housing of the fuel cell, as taught by Coignet because the gas sensor would be able to detect hydrogen within the enclosure. 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).
Conclusion
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