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 1-10 in the reply filed on August 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claim 8, the Examiner notes that the gas is not a structural element of the sensor, but instead represents the material worked upon by the sensor (MPEP 2115).
For claim 9, the Examiner notes that the phrase “when the concentration of hydrogen in the air is between 1 and 4% is a conditional limitation that is not required to occur. As such, the claimed catalytic layer is not required to generate heat between 30 and 110°C. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will read any prior at device meeting the structural elements of claim 9 as being capable of generating heat in the claimed temperature range.
For claim 10, the phrase “wherein the color-changing sensor detects exposure of the target gas” is unclear as the Examiner is unable to determine if the claimed sensor is being exposed to the target gas, or if some other structure is exposed to the gas and the sensor is capable of detecting the exposure. The Examiner requests Applicant amend the claim to clearly recite whether the sensor is being exposed to the target gas.
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 1-10 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.
For claim 1, it is unclear if the metal particles are structural elements of the catalytic layer, or if the metal particles are elements of the porous support. Claim 1 recites the porous support “bounded to metal particles” without describing where the metal particles are located within the sensor. As such, it is unclear if the metal particles are elements of the catalytic layer or the porous support. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will read metal particles in the catalytic layer or the porous support as meeting the claim limitation. Claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
For claim 10, the phrase “wherein the color-changing sensor detects exposure of the target gas” is unclear as the Examiner is unable to determine if the claimed sensor is being exposed to the target gas, or if some other structure is exposed to the gas and the sensor is capable of detecting the exposure. The Examiner requests Applicant amend the claim to clearly recite whether the sensor is being exposed to the target gas.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., (US 2022/0276176) in view of Matsukura et al., (US 2019/0041353).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Seo et al., teach a hydrogen sensor comprising a substrate (paragraph 0026), a color change layer (paragraph 0028), a catalyst layer (paragraph 0030), and a protective layer (adhesive layer, paragraphs 0033-0035). Seo et al., do not teach a catalyst layer including a porous support bonded to metal particles.
Matsukura et al., teach a gas detector comprising a catalyst layer having a porous support (paragraphs 0101-0103) wherein the porous support can be formed from ceramic alumina (ceramic oxide, paragraph 0103). Matsukura et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a catalyst layer having a porous support as a means of suppressing deterioration of the output of the gas sensor (paragraph 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Seo et al., to utilize a catalyst layer having a porous support in order to suppress deterioration of the output of the gas sensor as taught by Matsukura et al.
Regarding claim 2, Seo et al., teach the catalyst layer made from platinum (paragraph 0030) which is a precious metal.
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner notes that the gas is not a structural element of the sensor, but instead represents the material worked upon by the sensor (MPEP 2115). However, Seo teaches hydrogen gas.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Examiner notes that the limitations of the claims are directed to the intended use of the device under conditions that are not required to occur. The sensor taught by the combination of Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., meets the structural limitations of the claims, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner recited in claims 9 and 10.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., (US 2022/0276176) in view of Matsukura et al., (US 2019/0041353) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al., (US 2014/0324004).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., do not teach a thermochromic coating comprising thermochromic particles including a dye and a developer, a binder, and a solvent.
Song teaches an aqueous medium sensitive coating comprising a thermochromic dye (paragraph 0021), a developer (paragraph 0038), a solvent (paragraphs 0019, 0038), and a binder (paragraphs 0019, 0038). Song teaches that it is advantageous to utilize a thermochromic dye as a means of providing a coating chemistry that is not limited by pH chemistry, and is not hindered by a short shelf life (paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., to utilize a thermochromic coating comprising a dye, developer, solvent, and binder in order to provide a coating chemistry that is not limited by pH chemistry, and is not hindered by a short shelf life as taught by Song.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., (US 2022/0276176) in view of Matsukura et al., (US 2019/0041353) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krauss (US 2010/0148222).
Regarding claim 6, Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., do not teach an adhesive layer having a porous structure.
Krauss teaches a gas sensor comprising a porous adhesive agent (Abstract, paragraphs 0009, 0014-0016). Krauss teaches that it is advantageous to utilize a porous adhesive agent as a means of permitting long term use of a sensor in difficult environments (paragraph 0009), and to provide deeper diffusion of a sensitive layer into the adhesive agent (paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., wherein a porous adhesive agent is utilized in order to provide long term use of a sensor in difficult environments and to provide deeper diffusion of a sensitive layer into the adhesive agent as taught by Krauss.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., (US 2022/0276176) in view of Matsukura et al., (US 2019/0041353) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levinson et al., (US 2023/0233193).
Regarding claim 7, Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., do not teach a sensor having a spacer.
Levinson et al., teach a collector for volatile organic compounds wherein the collector comprises a spacer between two collection layers (paragraph 0155). Levinson et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize a spacer as a means of preventing overlap between two collection layers (paragraph 0155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Seo et al., in view of Matsukura et al., to provide a spacer in order to prevent overlap between two layers as taught by Levinson et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights