DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on November 6, 2025. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s interpretation that they may be the same electrode or different electrodes (Response, p. 10, last para.).
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagaki (US 2020/0003726).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagaki teaches a gas sensor (Fig. 1: gas sensor 100; ¶29) for detecting a target gas to be measured in a measurement-object gas (¶¶9-10), the gas sensor comprising a sensor element (Fig. 1: sensor element 101; ¶29) and a control unit (Fig. 2: controller 90; ¶29) for controlling the sensor element, wherein
the sensor element comprises:
a base part in an elongated plate shape (Fig. 1: six layers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; ¶¶30-31); including an oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1; ¶30: solid electrolyte layer 6);
a measurement-object gas flow cavity (Fig. 1: a first internal space 20) formed from one end part in a longitudinal direction of the base part (Fig. 1: the left end of the base part);
an oxygen pump cell (Fig. 1: main pump cell 21; ¶39) including: an intracavity oxygen pump electrode disposed in the measurement-object gas flow cavity (Fig. 1: an inner pump electrode 22; ¶39); and an extracavity oxygen pump electrode (Fig. 1: an outer pump electrode 23; ¶39) disposed at a position different from the measurement-object gas flow cavity on the base part (Fig. 1) and corresponding to the intracavity oxygen pump electrode (¶42);
a reference gas chamber formed inside the base part (Fig. 1: the reference gas introduction space 43 and the air introduction layer 48; ¶36), and being separated from the measurement-object gas flow cavity (Fig. 1); and
a reference electrode disposed in the reference gas chamber (Fig. 1: reference electrode 42; ¶35), and
wherein the control unit (Fig. 2: controller device 90; ¶67: controller 90) includes:
a concentration detecting part configured for detecting an oxygen concentration in a measurement-object gas based on a current value of an oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell (Fig. 1; ¶71: the pump current Ip0 changes in accordance with the concentration of oxygen present in the measurement-object gas), and
a determining and correcting part configured for performing correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell when determining that an oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from an actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas (Fig. 5; ¶90: the CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration with a correction based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101).
Here, the designation “wherein the control unit includes: a concentration detecting part configured for detecting an oxygen concentration in a measurement-object gas based on a current value of an oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell, and a determining and correcting part configured for performing correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell when determining that an oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from an actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration based on the pump current Ip2 and a relationship formula representing a relationship between the pump current Ip2 and the concentration of NOx stored in the memory 96, and detect corrected specific gas concentration based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101 (¶90). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of detecting an oxygen concentration in a measurement-object gas based on a current value of an oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell, and performing correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell when determining that an oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from an actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas.
Regarding claim 2, the designation “wherein the determining and correcting part is configured to apply a predetermined voltage between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode to pump oxygen into the measurement-object gas flow cavity from the reference gas chamber, and determine that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas when a current value of a determination current flowing between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode is larger or smaller than a predetermined current threshold” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the pump current Ip1 is a control signal and input into the oxygen partial pressure detection sensor cell 80 for controlling the main pump, thereby controlling the electromotive force V0 (¶52). The CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration based on the pump current Ip2 and a relationship formula representing a relationship between the pump current Ip2 and the concentration of NOx stored in the memory 96, and detect corrected specific gas concentration based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101 (¶90). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of applying a predetermined voltage between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode to pump oxygen into the measurement-object gas flow cavity from the reference gas chamber, and determining that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas when a current value of a determination current flowing between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode is larger or smaller than a predetermined current threshold.
Regarding claim 3, the designation “wherein the determining and correcting part is configured to apply a predetermined voltage between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode to pump oxygen into the measurement-object gas flow cavity from the reference gas chamber, and determine that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas when a change rate parameter of a current value of a determination current flowing between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode is larger or smaller than a predetermined change rate threshold” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the pump current Ip1 is a control signal and input into the oxygen partial pressure detection sensor cell 80 for controlling the main pump, thereby controlling the electromotive force V0 (¶52). The CPU 92 of the controller 90 is in a state in which the CPU 92 is controlling the pump cells 15, 21, 41, and 50 and obtaining the voltages V0, V1, V2, and Vref from the sensor cells 80 and 83 (¶75). The CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration based on the pump current Ip2 and a relationship formula representing a relationship between the pump current Ip2 and the concentration of NOx stored in the memory 96, and detect corrected specific gas concentration based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101 (¶90). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of applying a predetermined voltage between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode to pump oxygen into the measurement-object gas flow cavity from the reference gas chamber, and determining that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas when a change rate parameter of a current value of a determination current flowing between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode is larger or smaller than a predetermined change rate threshold.
Regarding claim 4, the designation “wherein the determining and correcting part is configured to apply a predetermined current between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode to pump oxygen into the measurement-object gas flow cavity from the reference gas chamber, and determine that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas when a change rate parameter of a voltage value of a determination voltage generated between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode is larger or smaller than a predetermined change rate threshold” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the pump current Ip1 is a control signal and input into the oxygen partial pressure detection sensor cell 80 for controlling the main pump, thereby controlling the electromotive force V0 (¶52). The CPU 92 of the controller 90 is in a state in which the CPU 92 is controlling the pump cells 15, 21, 41, and 50 and obtaining the voltages V0, V1, V2, and Vref from the sensor cells 80 and 83 (¶75). The CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration based on the pump current Ip2 and a relationship formula representing a relationship between the pump current Ip2 and the concentration of NOx stored in the memory 96, and detect corrected specific gas concentration based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101 (¶90). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of applying a predetermined voltage between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode to pump oxygen into the measurement-object gas flow cavity from the reference gas chamber, and determining that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas when a change rate parameter of a current value of a determination current flowing between the reference electrode and the intracavity oxygen pump electrode is larger or smaller than a predetermined change rate threshold.
Regarding claim 5, the designation “wherein the determining and correcting part is configured to store, in advance, a correction value to the current value of the oxygen pump current, and perform the correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current using the correction value stored in advance when determining that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the CPU 92 detects the specific gas concentration based on the pump current Ip2 and relationship formula representing a relationship between the pump current Ip2 and the concentration of NOx stored in the memory 94 (¶90). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of storing, in advance, a correction value to the current value of the oxygen pump current, and performing the correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current using the correction value stored in advance when determining that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas.
Regarding claim 6, the designation “wherein the determining and correcting part is configured to perform the correction when the measurement-object gas is in a low oxygen concentration condition of 500 ppm or less” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the oxygen being oxygen derived from the specific gas, so that the oxygen concentration in the measurement chamber can reach a predetermined low concentration (¶11). The atmosphere may be a low-oxygen atmosphere having an oxygen concentration less than or equal to 0.1 vol % (¶68). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of performing the correction when the measurement-object gas is in a low oxygen concentration condition of 500 ppm or less.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the sensor element further comprises:
a NOx measurement pump cell (Fig. 1: measurement pump cell 41; ¶54) including: an intracavity measurement electrode (Fig. 1: the measurement electrode 44) disposed at a position farther from the one end part in the longitudinal direction of the base part than the intracavity oxygen pump electrode in the measurement-object gas flow part (Fig. 1); and an extracavity measurement electrode (Fig. 1: outer pump electrode 23; ¶38) disposed at a position different from the measurement-object gas flow cavity on the base part and corresponding to the intracavity measurement electrode (Fig. 1), and
the concentration detecting part is configured to detect a NOx concentration in the measurement-object gas based on a measurement pump current flowing through the NOx measurement pump cell (¶58: the amount of oxygen produced in a vicinity of the measurement electrode 44 is proportional to the concentration of nitrogen oxide present in the measurement-object gas; accordingly, the concentration of nitrogen oxide present in the measurement-object gas is calculated by using the pump current Ip2 of the measurement pump cell 41).
Regarding claim 8, the designation “wherein the concentration detecting part includes: an air-fuel ratio judging part configured for detecting the oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell and judging whether an air-fuel ratio in the measurement-object gas is a theoretical air-fuel ratio, rich or lean based on the oxygen concentration detected” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90). Nakagaki further discloses the oxygen concentration is expressed as a negative value where the air-fuel ratio of the measurement-object gas is lower than the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, i.e., the measurement-object gas is a rich atmosphere (¶68). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of functioning as an air-fuel ratio judging part for detecting the oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell and judging whether an air-fuel ratio in the measurement-object gas is a theoretical air-fuel ratio, rich or lean based on the oxygen concentration detected.
Regarding claim 9, the designation “wherein the concentration detecting part is configured to detect the NOx concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the measurement pump current flowing through the NOx measurement pump cell when the air-fuel ratio judging part judges that the air-fuel ratio in the measurement-object gas is lean, and the concentration detecting part is configured to detect an NH3 concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the measurement pump current flowing through the NOx measurement pump cell when the air-fuel ratio judging part judges that the air-fuel ratio in the measurement-object gas is rich” is deemed to be 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, Nakagaki teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed gas sensor, including a controller 90, composed of CPU 92 and memory 94 (¶67), which detects the specific gas concentration in a measurement-object gas, corrected based on the oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas (¶90).The specific gas concentration is the concentration of NOx or a non-oxide gas, such as ammonia (¶95). For ammonia, it may be converted into an oxide (e.g., in the case of ammonia, converted into NO), so that the converted gas is reduced in the internal space 61, oxygen is produced, and the CPU 92 can detect ammonia concentration by obtaining a detection value corresponding to the oxygen (¶95). The measurement of the concentration of ammonia is performed basically by using the same principle as that for the measurement of the concentration of NOx (¶95). Nakagaki further discloses the oxygen concentration is expressed as a negative value where the air-fuel ratio of the measurement-object gas is lower than the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, i.e., the measurement-object gas is a rich atmosphere (¶68). Thus, the controller of Nakagaki is capable of functioning as a concentration detecting part for detecting the NOx concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the measurement pump current flowing through the NOx measurement pump cell when the air-fuel ratio judging part judges that the air-fuel ratio in the measurement-object gas is lean, and detecting an NH3 concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the measurement pump current flowing through the NOx measurement pump cell when the air-fuel ratio judging part judges that the air-fuel ratio in the measurement-object gas is rich.
Regarding claim 10, Nakagaki teaches a control method of a gas sensor for detecting a target gas to be measured in a measurement-object gas (¶9: detects the specific gas concentration in the measurement-object gas based on the oxygen detection value in the measurement chamber, the oxygen being oxygen derived from the specific gas), the gas sensor comprising a sensor element (Fig. 1: sensor element 101; ¶29) and a control unit (Fig. 2: controller 90; ¶29) for controlling the sensor element, wherein
the sensor element comprises:
a base part in an elongated plate shape (Fig. 1: six layers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; ¶¶30-31), including an oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1; ¶30: solid electrolyte layer 6);
a measurement-object gas flow cavity (Fig. 1: a first internal space 20) formed from one end part in a longitudinal direction of the base part (Fig. 1: the left end of the base part);
an oxygen pump cell (Fig. 1: main pump cell 21; ¶39) including: an intracavity oxygen pump electrode (Fig. 1: an inner pump electrode 22; ¶39) disposed in the measurement-object gas flow cavity; and an extracavity oxygen pump electrode (Fig. 1: an outer pump electrode 23; ¶39) disposed at a position different from the measurement-object gas flow cavity on the base part (Fig. 1) and corresponding to the intracavity oxygen pump electrode (¶42);
a reference gas chamber formed inside the base part (Fig. 1: the reference gas introduction space 43 and the air introduction layer 48; ¶36), and being separated from the measurement-object gas flow cavity (Fig. 1); and
a reference electrode (Fig. 1: reference electrode 42; ¶35) disposed in the reference gas chamber, and
wherein the control unit (Fig. 2: controller device 90; ¶67: controller 90) includes:
a concentration detecting part configured for detecting an oxygen concentration in a measurement-object gas based on a current value of an oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell (Fig. 1; ¶71: the pump current Ip0 changes in accordance with the concentration of oxygen present in the measurement-object gas), and
a determining and correcting part configured for performing correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell when determining that an oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from an actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas (Fig. 5; ¶90: the CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration with a correction based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101), and the control method comprising:
a determining and correcting step of performing correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current flowing through the oxygen pump cell by the determining and correcting part when the determining and correcting part determines that an oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from an actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas (¶90: the CPU 92 may detect the specific gas concentration based on the pump current Ip2 and a relationship formula representing a relationship between the pump current Ip2 and the concentration of NOx stored in the memory 96, and detect corrected specific gas concentration corrected based on the oxygen concentration of a measurement-object gas that is outside of the sensor element 101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention determines whether or not the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part based on the current value of the oxygen pump current is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas; and performs the correction to the current value of the oxygen pump current when determining that the oxygen concentration detected by the concentration detecting part is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas (p. 12, para. 3). Applicant further argues Nakagaki disclosed that a specific gas concentration measurement accuracy is improved by the CPU 92 detecting the specific gas concentration with a correction based on the oxygen concentration (Nakagaki, ¶90), i.e., that the specific gas in Nakagaki is NOx but not an oxygen concentration (p. 14, para. 2). These arguments are unpersuasive. First, the limitations, “detecting” step that the concentration detecting part is configured for and the “performing correction” step that the determining and correcting part, are functional limitations in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114(II). These limitations do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus, and thus would not add patentable weight to the claimed invention. Second, Nakagaki does not only teach detecting the specific gas, such as NOx, in a measurement-object gas (Nakagaki, ¶3), but the specific gas concentration detection device obtains a detection value according to oxygen produced in the measurement chamber, wherein the oxygen being oxygen derived from the specific gas (¶9).
Applicant argues Nakagaki does not disclose or suggest determining whether or not the oxygen concentration detected by the CPU 92 is different from the actual oxygen concentration in the measurement-object gas (p. 15, last para.). This argument is unpersuasive because Nakagaki teaches the specific gas concentration is a concentration corrected based on an oxygen concentration of the measurement-object gas that is outside of the element body because where the actual specific gas concentration (real concentration) in a measurement-object gas is uniform, the detection value may change, and thus the specific gas concentration measured based on the detection value also changes (¶14). Thus, to improve specific gas concentration measurement accuracy, an oxygen-concentration-based correction is performed (¶14), which indicates that the improved method is required due to an inaccuracy between the uncorrected specific gas concentration measurement from the actual specific gas concentration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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