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 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: GAS SENSOR USING IONIC LIQUID
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10: Change “a carbon black” to --carbon black--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by SCHNORR et al. (US 20170212104).
Regarding claim 1: SCHNORR discloses: A gas sensor (FIG. 2) comprising: a sensitive portion (203); and a plurality of electrodes (201, 202) arranged via the sensitive portion (FIG. 2), the sensitive portion including an ionic liquid (FIG. 2; abstract) and being configured to have electrical resistance that changes when the sensitive portion adsorbs a gas molecule (abstract).
Regarding claim 2: SCHNORR discloses: the sensitive portion includes conductive particles (FIG. 2; para. 7) and is made electrically conductive by the conductive particles (abstract).
Regarding claim 3: SCHNORR discloses: the ionic liquid includes a hydrophobic anion (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
Regarding claim 4: SCHNORR discloses: the hydrophobic anion includes an organic fluorine compound (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
Regarding claim 5: SCHNORR discloses: the organic fluorine compound has a trifluoromethyl group (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
Regarding claim 6: SCHNORR discloses: the ionic liquid includes a hydrogen bond acceptor anion (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
Regarding claim 7: SCHNORR discloses: a cation of the ionic liquid includes imidazolium (para. 9).
Regarding claim 10: SCHNORR discloses: the conductive particles are a carbon black (para. 8).
Regarding claim 13: SCHNORR discloses: the ionic liquid has electrical conductivity (imidazolium in para. 9).
Regarding claim 15: SCHNORR discloses: the ionic liquid includes an anion, the anion has a hydrogen bond acceptability parameter less than 0.3 (para. 9).
Regarding claim 16: SCHNORR discloses: the ionic liquid includes an anion, the anion has a hydrogen bond acceptability parameter equal to or greater than 0.3 and equal to or less 0.8 (para. 9).
Regarding claim 17: SCHNORR discloses: the ionic liquid includes a hydrophobic anion (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
Regarding claim 18: SCHNORR discloses: the hydrophobic anion includes an organic fluorine compound (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
Regarding claim 19: SCHNORR discloses: the organic fluorine compound has a trifluoromethyl group (bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) anions in para. 9).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNORR in view of ZENG et al. (20190079046).
Regarding claims 8 and 9: SCHNORR does not disclose a plurality of sensitive portions.
ZENG however does teach an array of sensitive portions (sensors E, F, G, H in FIG. 1C) including ionic liquids of mutually different types (para. 99), wherein the plurality of sensitive portions are arranged to form an array (FIG. 1C). ZENG also discloses that the plurality of sensitive portions are respectively configured as an ionic liquid including a hydrophobic anion and an ionic liquid including a hydrophilic anion (para. 79), thus meeting the limitations of claim 9.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use sensors with different materials because the sensors will respond differently to different gases. By taking measurements with many different sensors, the constituents of mixtures of gases can be determined (para. 75-76 of ZENG).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNORR in view of MATON et al. (US 20080312365).
Regarding claims 11 and 12: SCHNORR does not disclose oxide semiconductor particles as the conductive particles.
MATON however does teach oxide semiconductor particles (para. 129) including antimony tin oxide (para. 129) as a known conductive filler as well as teaching carbon black (para. 129).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use any known conductive fillers, such as those listed in MATON, for the known purpose of increasing the conductivity of a material. Absent any criticality, antimony tin oxide is only considered to be the “optimum” conductive filler particles disclosed by SCHNORR 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 conductivity, 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 particular conductive particle is used, as already suggested by SCHNORR.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the specified type of particle and since these conductive filler particles are in common use in similar devices in the art (see SCHNORR and MATON), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these particles in the device of SCHNORR.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed type of particle 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).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNORR.
Regarding claim 14: SCHNORR discloses a mass ratio in a range of 3:1 to 1:10, but does not explicitly specify the particular range of 2:1. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the amount of conductive particles would determine the conductivity of the overall matrix.
The specific claimed ratio, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” ratio disclosed by SCHNORR 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 conductivity, 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 ratio is used, as already suggested by SCHNORR.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the ratio stated and since these ratios 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 this value in the device of SCHNORR.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ratio 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CHEN et al. (US 20130153442) teaches an ionic liquid gas sensor similar to the present application.
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