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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Usui et al. (JPH04134259 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Usui et al. disclose an oxygen sensor device comprising a resistive oxygen gas sensor made of ceramic and having an oxygen gas detection member thin film 22 for detecting oxygen gas, wherein: the oxygen gas detection member contains, as a main component, a semiconductor material 22 having a composition A1Ba2Cu3O7-δ where A denotes one or more group III elements, such as SC, Y, La, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu (see claim 1 of translation in Usui). When x=0 in claim 1 the disclosed composition formula for the semiconductor material 22 satisfies the claimed formula RE(Ba2-x, REx)Cu3Oy (wherein, RE is a rare earth element, x is 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.2, and y is 6.0 ≤ y ≤ 7.5), because the group III elements are rare earth elements
Regarding claim 3, Usui et al. disclose a resistivity of the oxygen gas detection member being equal to or higher than 0.035 Ωcm (see Fig. 2, showing resistivity much higher than this value at different temperatures).
Regarding claim 6, Usui et al. disclose the sensor further including: a heater electrode 35 configured to heat the oxygen gas detection member 22 (see Fig. 1 and page 4 of translation, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Usui et al. disclose that the rare earth element is at least one element selected from lanthanum (La), neodymium (Nd), and samarium (Sm) (see claim 1 on page 2 of translation, A is Nd or Sm or La).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al. (JPH04134259 A) in view of Izu et al. (US 2006/0081473).
Regarding claim 5, Usui et al. do disclose that the oxygen gas detection member is formed as a film 22 having a predetermined thickness (see Fig. 1). Usui et al. do not disclose the film having a porous structure. Izu et al. teach a resistive oxygen gas sensor that is formed as a film 3 having a predetermined thickness and having a porous structure (see par. 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the film detection member to have a porous structure as taught by Izu et al. in the sensor device of Usui et al., because a porous structure provides more surface area for contact with the gas to be detected.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al. (JPH04134259 A) in view of Oishi et al. (US 2005/0284208).
Regarding claims 7-9, Usui et al. do not disclose a temperature compensation unit that is the same composition as the oxygen detection member and shielded from the oxygen gas. Oishi et al. disclose a gas sensor that with a gas detection member 31, wherein the sensor device further includes a temperature compensation unit 32 configured to compensate a temperature change in the gas detection member, wherein the temperature compensation unit 32 is composed of the same material and structure as the gas detection member but is shielded from the gas to be detected (see pars. 0062-0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed the teachings of Oishi et al., of including a temperature compensation unit that is composed to be the same as the gas detection member but shielded from the gas, because it would provide a means to eliminated errors in measurement due to temperature fluctuations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
With regard to claim 2, none of Usui et al. or the other prior art of record teach or suggest the composition of claim 1 where x satisfies 0.4 ≤ x ≤ 0.8.
With regard to claim 4, none of Usui et al. or the other prior art of record teach or suggest a value of m satisfies 3.8 ≤ m ≤ 6.0 in a relationship σ~PO21/m (σ is proportional to PO21/m) expressing that an electrical conductivity σ [S/m] of the oxygen gas detection member is proportional to (1/m)th power of an oxygen partial pressure PO2 [atmosphere].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that Okamoto et al. (US 2021/0041409) disclose an oxygen sensor element with rare earth elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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 M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855