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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/11/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 4 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 2 recites the limitation “an interface void G2 between the reference lead portion and each of other members that are respectively in contact with both surfaces of the reference lead portion” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what structure “other members” is referring to, and it is unclear which two of the four surfaces of the reference lead portion cross-section is considered as “both surfaces of the reference lead portion.” Claim 4 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 14.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 20140042025 A1) in view of Harada et al. (US 20220011257 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Furuta teaches a sensor element (sensor element 207 in Figs. 6-8 [0169]) comprising:
a detection electrode configured to come into contact with a measurement target gas (sensing electrode 331 in Fig. 8 [Abstract, 0183]), and a reference electrode configured to come into contact with a reference gas (reference electrode 339 in Fig. 8 functions as an oxygen reference electrode [Abstract, 0185]); and
one pair of lead portions respectively connected to the detection electrode and the reference electrode (sensing electrode lead 335 and reference electrode lead 341 in Fig. 8 [0183, 0185]), wherein
out of the one pair of lead portions, a reference lead portion that is connected to the reference electrode (reference electrode lead 341 in Fig. 8) is configured to include noble metal particles of one type or more selected from the group of Pt, Pd, and Au (the reference electrode lead contains a noble metal such as Pt, Pd, Pt-Pd, or Pt-Au [0043, 0047]), ceramic particles having an equivalent circle diameter larger than that of the noble metal particles (the reference electrode lead contains ceramic particles with a grain size greater than the noble metal particles [0024, 0043]), and a void (voids are formed in the reference electrode lead [0024]).
The limitation “the sensor element being configured to measure a target component in the measurement target gas by the detection electrode and the reference electrode” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (MPEP 2114(II)). A functional recitation of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Furuta teaches a sensor element that is configured to perform the functional limitations above (the sensor element measures a target component in gas using the sensing and reference electrodes [0002, 0019]).
Furuta further teaches that the particle size of the ceramic particles affects the contact area between the reference electrode lead and a substrate the lead is adhered to [0052].
Furuta is silent to the limitation wherein, when a cross section that crosses, in a longitudinal direction of, the reference lead portion is viewed, a relationship of a lead portion film thickness t < (a maximum particle size M of the ceramic particles ×3) < a lead portion width W is satisfied.
Harada teaches a sensor element (sensor element 2 in Figs. 1-6 [0042]) comprising: a detection electrode (sensor electrode 312 in Fig. 2 [0049]), and a reference electrode (reference electrode 314 in Fig. 2 [0049]); and one pair of lead portions respectively connected to the detection electrode and the reference electrode (sensor electrode lead portion 312X in Fig. 5 and reference electrode lead portion 314Y in Fig. 6 [0057, 0059]), and a reference lead portion that is connected to the reference electrode (reference electrode lead portion 314Y in Fig. 6). Harada further teaches that the width and thickness of the referent electrode lead portion, when viewing a cross-section in the longitudinal direction (direction L in Fig. 6), affects the area of the lead cross-section, and thus affects the intake of oxygen in the reference gas into the electrode lead [0062-0063].
As the intake of oxygen into the electrode lead is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the width and thickness of the reference electrode lead portion, the precise thickness and width of the reference electrode lead portion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As the contact area between the reference electrode lead and the substrate the lead is adhered to is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the particle size of the ceramic particles in the reference electrode lead portion, the precise particle size of the ceramic particles would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed particles size of the ceramic particles cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width and thickness of the reference electrode lead portion as well as the particle size of the ceramic particles in Furuta to satisfy the claimed relationship [a lead portion film thickness < (a maximum particle size M of the ceramic particles ×3) < a lead portion width] in order to obtain the desired oxygen intake and contact area of the reference electrode lead, as taught by Harada (para. [0062-0063]) and Furuta (para. [0052]). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Regarding claim 2, modified Furuta teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, and Furuta further teaches wherein in the cross section, the void includes an internal void G1 in the reference lead portion (voids are formed within the reference electrode lead [0022, 0024]) and an interface void G2 between the reference lead portion and each of other members that are respectively in contact with both surfaces of the reference lead portion (given that the contact area of the reference electrode lead with a substrate changes with ceramic particle size [0052], there exists interface voids between the reference electrode lead and the substrates the lead contacts). Furuta further teaches that the total area of internal voids G1 affects the gas permeability of the reference electrode lead (the number of voids affects the gas permeability of the reference electrode lead [0015, 0022, 0024]).
Modified Furuta is silent to the limitation wherein an area of G1 accounts for not higher than 10% relative to a total area of G1 and G2.
As the gas permeability of the reference electrode lead is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the area of internal voids G1, the precise area of G1 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed area of G1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the area of G1 in modified Furuta to be not higher than 10% relative to a total area of G1 and G2 in order to obtain the desired gas permeability of the reference electrode lead, as taught by Furuta (para. [0015, 0022, 0024]). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Regarding claim 3, modified Furuta teaches the sensor element according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), and Furuta further teaches a gas sensor (air-fuel ratio sensor 201 in Fig. 6 [0159]) comprising: the sensor element (sensor element 207 in Fig. 6); and a metal shell holding the sensor element (metallic shell 209 holds sensor element 207 in Fig. 6 [0160-0163]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Furuta teaches the sensor element according to claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above), and Furuta further teaches a gas sensor (air-fuel ratio sensor 201 in Fig. 6 [0159]) comprising: the sensor element (sensor element 207 in Fig. 6); and a metal shell holding the sensor element (metallic shell 209 holds sensor element 207 in Fig. 6 [0160-0163]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE Y TSENG whose telephone number is (703)756-5542. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9-6 PT.
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.
/K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795