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 .
Summary
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are rejected herein. This is a Final Action as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 22 Dec 2025.
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) 1-3 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiuni ZHAO, Zaihua Duan, Zhen Yuan, Xian Li, Si Wang, Bohao Liu, Yajie Zhang, Yadong Jiang, Huiling Tai. High performance ethylene sensor based on palladium-loaded tin oxide: Application in fruit quality detection[J]. Chin. Chem. Lett., 2020, 31(8): 2045-2049 in view of BIAGGI-LABIOSA (US 10294099). Please note that a copy of ZHAO was attached to the office action dated 29 Sep 2025. All references to text in ZHAO are to that version.
Regarding claim 1: ZHAO discloses: A gas detection method (abstract), comprising: heating at least one semiconductor sensor (abstract) that includes an adsorption layer formed of a metal oxide including a metal oxide material (tin oxide in abstract); measuring a resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present (FIG. 2a shows ethylene detection by the sensor); determining, where the measured resistance value in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C is higher than in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a shows that the resistance is higher at 250 degrees C than at 300 degrees C) with reference to the resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present, that the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance (ethylene) emitted from a plant or an animal (abstract).
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different metal oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claim 2: ZHAO discloses: the air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present is dry air (Para. 74 of the instant application states that “dry air atmosphere here represents an air atmosphere in which the humidity is controlled at an arbitrary value.” Page 2 lines 26-35 of ZHAO state that the relative humidity is controlled to 51.9%.).
Regarding claim 3: ZHAO discloses: the at least one semiconductor sensor is a plurality of semiconductor sensors (The output of two sensors is shown in FIG. 2a.), heating each of the plurality of semiconductor sensors to different heating temperatures (The data points in FIG. 2a show several different temperatures for each sensor.), and measuring a resistance value of each of the plurality of semiconductor sensors (Each point on the graph in FIG. 2a is a different measurement of resistance at a different temperature.).
Regarding claim 8: ZHAO discloses: A gas detection method, comprising: heating a semiconductor sensor (abstract; FIG. 2a) that includes an adsorption layer formed of a metal oxide (tin oxide; abstract); measuring a resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present (abstract); determining, where sensitivity that is a ratio of a resistance value the semiconductor sensor in the air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present (abstract) to the measured resistance value in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C than one in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a), that the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance emitted from a plant or an animal (abstract).
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claim 9: ZHAO discloses: An information processing apparatus (page 2 lines 26-35), comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires a resistance value of a metal oxide semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present (page 2 lines 26-35); and a determination unit that determines, where the acquired resistance value in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C is less than in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a shows that the resistance is higher at 250 degrees C than at 300 degrees C) with reference to the resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present, that the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance emitted from a plant or an animal (This is the pattern shown in FIG. 2a. ZHAO does not explicitly specify some kind of “determination unit” that processes the data to determine if the hydrocarbon gas is present. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that basic data processing of comparing values to make a determination is known and would be obvious for one skilled in the art to do for sake of saving time.). This Official Notice, first taken in the office action dated 29 Sep 2025 has not been timely traversed by the Applicant and is therefore considered Applicant-Admitted Prior Art.
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claim 10: ZHAO discloses: An information processing apparatus (page 2 lines 26-35), comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires a resistance value of a metal oxide semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present; and a determination unit that determines, where sensitivity that is a ratio of a resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in the air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present to the acquired resistance value is less than one in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C is less than in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a shows that the resistance is higher at 250 degrees C than at 300 degrees C. This is the pattern of the SnO2 line in FIG. 2a), that the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance emitted from a plant or an animal (ZHAO does not explicitly specify some kind of “determination unit” that processes the data to determine if the hydrocarbon gas is present. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that basic data processing of comparing values to make a determination is known and would be obvious for one skilled in the art to do for sake of saving time.). This Official Notice, first taken in the office action dated 29 Sep 2025 has not been timely traversed by the Applicant and is therefore considered Applicant-Admitted Prior Art.
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claims 11 and 12: ZHAO discloses: A method of diagnosing a plant (abstract), comprising, in an area in which one or more plants to be tested are grown: heating a semiconductor sensor that includes an adsorption layer formed of a metal oxide (tin oxide; abstract); measuring a resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present; determining, where sensitivity that is a ratio of a resistance value the semiconductor sensor in the air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present to the measured resistance value is less than one in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C is less than in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a shows that the resistance is higher at 250 degrees C than at 300 degrees C. This is the pattern of the SnO2 line in FIG. 2a), that the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance emitted from a plant or an animal (abstract); and diagnosing a state of the plants in the area on a basis of detection information of a hydrocarbon substance emitted from the plants (“indicator to measure fruit quality” in abstract).
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claim 13: ZHAO discloses: A plant diagnosing apparatus (abstract; page 2 lines 26-35), comprising, in an area in which one or more plants to be tested are grown: an acquisition unit that acquires a resistance value of a metal oxide semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present (abstract; page 2 lines 26-35); a determination unit that determines, where sensitivity that is a ratio of a resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in the air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present to the acquired resistance value is less than one in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C is less than in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a shows that the resistance is higher at 250 degrees C than at 300 degrees C) the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance emitted from plants (This is the pattern of the SnO2 line in FIG. 2a. ZHAO does not explicitly specify some kind of “determination unit” that processes the data to determine if the hydrocarbon gas is present. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that basic data processing of comparing values to make a determination is known and would be obvious for one skilled in the art to do for sake of saving time. This Official Notice, first taken in the office action dated 29 Sep 2025 has not been timely traversed by the Applicant and is therefore considered Applicant-Admitted Prior Art.); and a diagnosis unit that diagnoses a state of the plants in the area on a basis of detection information of a hydrocarbon substance emitted from the plants obtained by the determination unit (Again, this is simply the computer matching data to a lookup table to diagnose the state of the plant which is a basic data processing function which would be obvious to the skilled artisan for the purposes of automation.).
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claim 14: ZHAO discloses: A plant diagnosing apparatus (abstract; page 2 lines 26-35), comprising, in an area in which one or more plants to be tested are grown; an acquisition unit that acquires a resistance value of a metal oxide semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which a reducing gas is present (abstract; page 2 lines 26-35); a determination unit that determines, where the acquired resistance value is high in a first temperature range from 220 degrees C to 250 degrees C is less than in a second temperature range from 290 degrees C to 380 degrees C (FIG. 2a shows that the resistance is higher at 250 degrees C than at 300 degrees C) with reference to the resistance value of the semiconductor sensor in an air atmosphere in which the reducing gas is not present, that the reducing gas contains a hydrocarbon substance emitted from a plant or an animal (This is the pattern of the Pd-loaded SnO2 line in FIG. 2a. ZHAO does not explicitly specify some kind of “determination unit” that processes the data to determine if the hydrocarbon gas is present. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that basic data processing of comparing values to make a determination is known and would be obvious for one skilled in the art to do for sake of saving time. This Official Notice, first taken in the office action dated 29 Sep 2025 has not been timely traversed by the Applicant and is therefore considered Applicant-Admitted Prior Art.); and a diagnosis unit that diagnoses a state of the plants in the area on a basis of detection information of a hydrocarbon substance emitted from the plants obtained by the determination unit (Again, this is simply the computer matching data to a lookup table to diagnose the state of the plant which is a basic data processing function which would be obvious to the skilled artisan for the purposes of automation.).
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, indium oxide, or zinc oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO and BIAGGI-LABIOSA in view of RINALDI et al. (US 2020/0116694).
Regarding claim 4: ZHAO does not disclose that the hydrocarbon being detected contains a C6 linear aliphatic compound.
RINALDI however does teach detecting hexanals, hexanols, and hexyl acetates (para. 26) in their VOC sensor (abstract) for diagnosing plants (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to detect these compounds as taught by RINALDI with the gas sensor of ZHAO because these compounds are released by plats when they are attacked by pests and disease (para. 26 of RINALDI). Therefore detecting these compounds can aid the user is diagnosing harm to plants.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO and BIAGGI-LABIOSA in view of PACZKOWSKI, S.; Datta, P.; Irion, H.; Paczkowska, M.; Habert, T.; Pelz, S.; Jaeger, D. Evaluation of Early Bark Beetle Infestation Localization by Drone-Based Monoterpene Detection. Forests 2021, 12, 228. https:/ /doi.org/10.3390/f12020228. Please note that a copy of PACZKOWSKI was included with the office action dated 29 Sep 2025. All references to text in PACZKOWSKI are to that version.
Regarding claim 5: ZHAO does not disclose detecting a hydrocarbon substance that has a molecular weight between 90 and 160.
PACZKOWSKI however does disclose detecting α-pinene (molecular weight = 136) from spruce trees (abstract) using a semiconductor gas sensor (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to detect α-pinene with the sensor of ZHAO in order to diagnose trees that have been infested with bark beetles.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO and BIAGGI-LABIOSA in view of DILLEY et al. (US 4,414,839).
Regarding claim 6: ZHAO discloses: the metal oxide is a body containing a metal oxide material (tin oxide; abstract) and a catalyst metal material (Pd; abstract).
ZHAO does not specify that the body is sintered.
DILLEY however does teach a semiconductor gas sensor (abstract) for detecting hydrocarbons (col. 8 lines 50-56), that can be used in plant evaluation (col. 2 lines 20-66), and is made by sintering (col. 5 lines 5-15).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a sintered body because they can more sensitive than previous technologies (col. 5 lines 5-15 of DILLEY). Please note that use of one of the other listed metal oxides is an obvious variation as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7: ZHAO discloses: the catalyst metal material includes iridium, an oxide thereof, palladium (abstract), an oxide thereof, rhenium, or an oxide thereof.
Regarding claims 15 and 17: ZHAO discloses: the catalyst metal material is palladium (abstract).
ZHAO does not specify that the body is sintered.
DILLEY however does teach a semiconductor gas sensor (abstract) for detecting hydrocarbons (col. 8 lines 50-56), that can be used in plant evaluation (col. 2 lines 20-66), and is made by sintering (col. 5 lines 5-15).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a sintered body because they can more sensitive than previous technologies (col. 5 lines 5-15 of DILLEY).
ZHAO discloses tin oxide instead of tungsten oxide, however ZHAO does disclose on page 2 lines 1-10 that zinc oxide and tungsten oxide have been used in similar gas sensors.
BIAGGI-LABIOSA however teaches that these types of sensors can use any of a number of metal oxides including tungsten, titanium, indium, zinc, and tin (col. 3 lines 30-44). Please note that BIAGGI-LABIOSA also teaches a palladium catalyst (col. 3 lines 30-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to try different metal oxides, especially depending on the target gas to be detected.
Regarding claims 16 and 18: ZHAO as modified by DILLEY teaches most aspects of the instant invention. However, ZHAO as modified by DILLEY does not explicitly teach the thickness of the adsorption layer being 30 microns or less. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the thickness of the adsorption layer would determine material costs as well as the mechanical strength of the adsorption layer.
The specific claimed thickness, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” thickness disclosed by ZHAO that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired strength, electrical resistance, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the thickness is used, as already suggested by ZHAO.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the thickness stated and since these thicknesses are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of ZHAO.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Amendment/Argument
The new drawings are acknowledged and the objections thereto are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous objections are acknowledged and said objections are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued that ZHAO does teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as currently amended. The Examiner agrees with this statement and BIAGGI-LABIOSA has been introduced to address the limitations of the metal oxide including a tungsten oxide, an indium oxide, or a zinc oxide.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896