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 claims 1-14 in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
The amendment accompanying the election is acknowledged. The application will be examined accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 18, 2023, September 26, 2023 and May 6, 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 10-11 of claim 1, the limitation “a gas sample” should be changed to “the gas sample”.
In the last line of page 18 of the claims (last line of the first page of claim 1), the limitation “to decide” should be changed to “decide”.
In the last clause of claim 1, the limitation, “the area to be monitored”, should be changed to “the spatial area”. The preamble of the claim establishes a specific nomenclature for the limitation.
In claim 10, the limitation “chronological” should be changed to “chronologically”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the last clause recites circular logic. Specifically, the last clause of the claim recites a condition that must be met (slope calculation sequence must be below a predefined threshold) for establishing “measured value at the reference time”. However, in order to determine whether the condition is met, the “measured value at the reference time” is required, which is the very metric the condition is supposed to establish.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the scope of the limitation “comprises” is indefinite. According to claim 1, the electrically conductive sensor and the oxidizer are recited as distinct elements. Consequently, it is unclear what the recitation “the oxidizer comprises the electrically conductive sensor” intends to convey.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey et al. (“Mackey”) (US 3,607,084) in view of Kamiya et al. (“Kamiya”) (US 4,421,720).
With respect to claim 1, Mackey discloses a gas detection device for monitoring a spatial area for a combustible target gas (see abstract), the gas detection device comprising (see Fig. 1):
a measuring chamber 12/22, wherein the gas detection device is configured such that a gas sample flows at least from time to time from the spatial area (area outside the device) into the measuring chamber (see arrow depicting flow of gas into chamber 12/22);
an electrically conductive sensor 32/56 (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the gas detection device is configured such that the electrically conductive sensor comes into contact with the gas sample in the measuring chamber (Fig. 1), the electrically conductive sensor having a detection variable (resistance, see abstract), which detection variable changes with decreasing concentration of the combustible target gas in the gas sample present in the measuring chamber (see abstract establishing correlation between quantity of gas to change in resistance);
an oxidizer (catalytic coating 36, see Fig. 2) configured to oxidize the combustible target gas that is contained in the gas sample in the measuring chamber (see abstract), wherein the gas detection device is configured such that the oxidizer oxidizes combustible target gas completely or at least partially during an oxidation time period (see abstract); and
a detection sensor 62 (galvanometer) (see Fig. 3 and lines 15-18, col. 4) configured to measure an indicator (voltage, see line 16, col. 4) for the detection variable of the electrically conductive sensor both at a detection time (beginning of oxidation) and at a reference time (end of oxidation) (see lines 25-29, col. 2 disclosing measuring change in resistance), wherein the oxidation time period begins at the detection time and ends at the reference time.
While it is evident that the detection device further comprises a signal-processing unit that converts the change in indicator into a value representing the concentration of the combustible gas (otherwise the device would have no practical purpose as the user of the device would not know what the change in indicator means), Mackey does not explicitly disclose the signal-processing analysis unit.
Kamiya discloses an analogous gas detection device (see abstract) that measures the concentration of a gas based on a change in resistance exhibited by a catalyst-coated sensor when the gas undergoes catalytic oxidation (see lines 15-29, col. 2). The device is further configured to calculate the gas concentration by converting the change in resistance to gas concentration (see lines 23-25, col. 2). In light of the disclosure of Kamiya, and given that Mackey does not explicitly disclose a means for converting the change in indicator to practically usable information (i.e. concentration of gas in units understandable by the user of the device), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device taught by Mackey with the claimed signal-processing unit. If the modification is made, then the signal-processing analysis unit would configured to:
calculate a difference between the indicator value measured at the reference time and the indicator value measured at the detection time for the detection variable (i.e. voltage drop), and
depending on the difference, decide whether a combustible target gas is present in the gas sample, and/or to determine a concentration of the combustible target gas in the gas sample.
Regarding the last clause of claim 1, the subject matter of the clause is directed to a natural phenomenon. Specifically, if combustible target gas is present in the spatial area, then it is evident that the combustible target gas would enter the measuring chamber and be present at the detection time in the measuring chamber. In addition, due to oxidative combustion occurring during the oxidation time period, it also evident that less combustible target gas would be present in the measuring chamber at the reference time than at the detection time.
With respect to claim 6, the oxidizer 36, by virtue of being coated onto the electrically conductive sensor 32 (see Fig. 2), is configured to be switched on and off depending on whether the sensor 32 is heated, specifically a switched-on state during the oxidation time period and a switched-off state outside of the oxidation time period.
With respect to claim 7, as discussed above, the device is configured to measure a change in resistance exhibited by the sensor from the detection time to the reference time (see rejection of claim 1). That means the gas detection device is configured to carry out at least one slope (change over time) calculation sequence, comprising the steps of:
measuring the indicator for the detection variable of the electrically conductive sensor at at least two chronologically different times (detection time and reference time) so as to provide at least two measured values within the oxidation time period; and
calculating a change over time of the detection variable (i.e. a slope).
Moreover, the reference time would correspond to the time at which the chronologically most recent measurement is made.
Regarding the rest of the limitations of the claim, they are indefinite, as discussed above. Consequently, they are not addressed.
With respect to claim 12, given that the oxidizer 36 is coated on the sensor 32 (see Fig. 1), the oxidizer switches on when electrical current flows through the electrically conductive sensor 32.
With respect to claim 13, the claim is indefinite, as discussed above. That said, because the oxidizer 36 is coated on heating element 34 of the sensor 32 (see Fig. 2), the oxidizer 36 can be deemed to “comprise” the electrically conductive sensor 32.
With respect to claim 14, the oxidizer 36 is configured as a pellistor and is provided as a coating around heating element 34 operating as the electrically conductive sensor 32 (see Fig. 2). The oxidizer comprises a ceramic (thorium oxide) jacketing 38 (see line 10, col. 3) around the heating element 34, wherein a catalytic admixture 39/40 is mixed into the ceramic jacketing for oxidizing the combustible target gas (see lines 11-20, col. 3 and Fig. 2).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Kamiya as applied to claims 1, 6, 7 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Hale et al. (“Hale”) (US 6,623,976 B1).
With respect to claim 8, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 6), the oxidizer 36 is configured to be switched on and off. That said, the oxidizer is in a switched-on state during the oxidation time period (i.e. when the gas is being oxidized due to the oxidizer 36 being heated). However, Mackey discloses that when the gas is introduced into the measuring chamber during an inlet time period, the oxidizer is already heated to its operational temperature (see lines 65-70, col. 3). Consequently, the device is not configured such that the oxidizer is in a “switched-off” state during the inlet time period.
Hale discloses an analogous combustible gas detection device wherein the device performs many measurement cycles, wherein each cycle comprises ignition of the combustible gas and subsequently measuring a change in resistance exhibited by a sensor caused by the ignition (see lines 45-55, col. 3 and lines 52-56, col. 8). According to Hale, performing multiple measurement cycles enables continuous monitoring of combustible gases (see lines 55-60, col. 3). In light of the disclosure of Hale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the modified Mackey device to perform multiple measurement cycles. If the modification is made, then the oxidizer would go through multiple “switched-on” and “switched-off” cycles during which the gas sample flows from the spatial area into the measuring chamber.
With respect to claim 9, if the Mackey device is modified to perform multiple measurement cycles so as to perform continuous monitoring, then the gas sample would flow from the spatial area into the measuring chamber during the oxidation time period.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Kamiya as applied to claims 1, 6, 7 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Gokhfeld (US 2004/0231399 A1).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Mackey and Kamiya does not disclose a device configured to control the influx of the gas sample into the measuring chamber during a specified time period, as recited in the claim.
Gokhfeld discloses an analogous device for detecting the concentration of combustible gas (see abstract), wherein the device comprises a passage 32 and a solenoid valve for controlling the flow of the combustible gas into a measuring chamber 16 during oxidation and measurement (see [0023]). The passage and the valve prevent diffusion of gas flow into the measuring chamber 16, thus facilitating proper calibration of sensor 12, and they prevent flashback in the measuring chamber 16 (see [0021]). In light of the disclosure of Gokhfeld, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided inlets 13 and 16 of the modified Mackey device with means (inlet dimensions and valve) for controlling the influx of gases into the device. If the modification is made, then the measuring chamber would be configured to be selectively operated in an open state and in a closed state, wherein the gas sample flows into the measuring chamber in the open state and the measuring chamber is fluid-tightly sealed against the spatial area in the closed state. In addition, it is evident that the gas detection device would be configured such that the measuring chamber is in the open state during an inlet time period that precedes the detection time (otherwise, there would be no combustible gas to measure), and the gas detection device would be configured such that the measuring chamber is in the closed state at the reference time (see [0023] of Gokhfeld disclosing that flow of sample gas is interrupted during measurement).
With respect to claim 11, the gas detection device would be configured such that the oxidizer is in a switched-on state during the inlet time period (see lines 65-70, col. 3 of Mackey disclosing that the sensor 32 is already at operating temperature when the combustible gas is introduced into the device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if they are rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed above, Mackey discloses a gas detection device for monitoring a spatial area for the presence of a combustible target gas. However, Mackey does not disclose that the device is configured to operate a heating element in a “switched-on” state while an oxidizer is operating in a “switched-off” state, as recited in claim 2-5. Because Mackey utilizes a conventional Wheatstone bridge in which a heating element is coated with an oxidizer (see Fig. 3), the heating element and the oxidizer switch “on” and “off” in conjunction. Consequently, there is no motivation to modify the device to arrive at the claimed inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 at 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796