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 statement (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6-7 recite “The hydrogen impurity testing system according to claim 4 or 5, the system controller, wherein when controlling”. Appropriate grammatic correction such as “wherein the system controller, when controlling” is required.
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 -11 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the heater unit comprises” in Line 10 and proceeds to recite the semiconductor substrate, metal oxide etc. However, the specification and the detailed embodiments place that structure in the sensor unit not the heater unit. Clarification is required.
Claims 8-9 introduce “a polymer electrolyte fuel cell” but later recite “performs a refresh of a fuel cell that desorbs the toxic impurities adsorbed on the polymer electrolyte fuel cell” it is unclear whether the refreshed fuel cell is the previously introduced PEFC or one fuel cell performs an operation that desorbs impurities from another PEFC. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and since claims 2-11 ultimately depend from claim 1 they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasago et al. (US 20180120253 A1), hereinafter "Sasago" in view of Bao et al. (US 5985673 A), hereinafter "Bao" and Gardner et al. (Identification of H2S Impurity in Hydrogen Using Temperature Modulated Metal Oxide Resistive Sensors with a Novel Signal Processing Technique, Sensor Letters, VOL.1,NO.4,AUGUST2017), hereinafter "Gardner". Sasago, Bao and Gardner are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely gas sensing equipment.
In regard to Claims 1-2, Sasago et al. discloses a gas testing system comprising a sensor unit installed in a chosen atmosphere and capable of detecting target species such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide , a heater unit capable of heating the sensor unit using a temperature increase by Joule heat generated by applying a voltage to make an electric current flow and a system controller (50 with 30) applying a voltage to the sensor unit to measure a flowing electric current and controlling at least the sensor unit and the heater unit (Sasago, [0002, 0037, 0056-0058]).
Sasago et al. also discloses wherein the unit comprises a semiconductor substrate (11S), an impurity layer of a first conductivity type formed on a surface of the semiconductor substrate (12S), a metal oxide layer (16Sa) formed on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Sasago, [0038, 0044]) and a metal electrode layer (16Sb), which is made of a metal having adsorption sites for hydrogen and toxic impurities, formed on the metal oxide layer and exposed to the atmosphere to be able to adsorb the toxic impurities (Sasago, [0044-0045]).
Further, Sasago et al. discloses the system controller detects a concentration of the toxic impurities by measuring change in work function of the metal electrode layer according to type and concentration of the toxic impurities (Sasago, [0006, 0048, 0085-0087]) and performs a refresh operation by heating the metal electrode layer with the heater unit to remove toxic impurities on the metal electrode layer (Sasago, [0194]).
While Sasago discloses the refresh is initiated by the controller and uses the heater to perform the refresh and burn the impurities, the trigger is not necessarily the concentration or type of impurity and the impurities are not necessarily desorbed. However, the skilled artisan would be aware of variations of sensor refreshes to include different triggers and desorbing instead of burning as taught in Bao et al. which discloses a beneficial gas system which detects an impurity (H2S) which adsorbs at exposed noble metal surface sites and changes an electrical sensor output where the MCU converts the output to a measured concentration and initiates a refresh when there is a saturation threshold crossed by increasing the temperature of a heater to desorb the adsorbed material and completely removes the impurity (H2S) from the surface of the metal with an advantage to this method of refresh taught as being faster and more efficient than conventional heating methods (Bao, Abstract, Cols 12-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a heating refresh triggered by detection of impurities that desorbs the impurities as taught in Bao et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Bao and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Lastly, while Sasago discloses the gas sensing system in an atmosphere comprising gases that include hydrogen (Sasago, [0069]), it does not necessarily provide the system in an atmosphere with highly concentrated hydrogen. However, the skilled artisan of Sasago would be aware of other useful atmospheres to deploy the invention as evidenced by Gardner et al. which discloses detecting H2S impurities using a sensor system in pure hydrogen, obtaining a concentration dependent response and uses thermally modulated sensor to do so (Gardner, Abstract, Experimental). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the sensor system of Sasago in a pure hydrogen atmosphere as done in Gardner as doing so would be obvious to try and as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success given the ability of Sasago's system to detect impurities such as H2S.
In regard to Claims 4-5, Sasago in view of Bao and Gardner et al. discloses the hydrogen impurity testing system according to claim 2. While Sasago discloses the sensor having a reaction with oxygen gas it is silent as to a gas exchange mechanism which introduces oxygen to refresh the sensor. Bao et al. discloses impurities adsorbed on a sensing surface which can be refreshed in an oxygen environment by oxidizing H2S to sulfur dioxide and water and a benefit that oxygen materially increases the sensor response, wherein the system further comprises a flow control block with solenoids for controlling gas composition and flow to the sensor (controller operated gas exchange mechanism) (Bao, [Cols 3, 20-21]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a controller operated gas exchange mechanism as an alternate method to refresh the sensor as taught in Bao to the system of Sasago et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Bao and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 10, Sasago in view of Bao and Gardner et al. discloses the hydrogen impurity testing system according to claim 1. Sasago et al. in view of Bao and Gardner et al. also discloses a hydrogen impurity testing method using the hydrogen impurity testing system according to claim 1. Sasago discloses a work function change measurement step that measures change in work function of the metal electrode layer (Sasago, [0006, 0048]); a concentration measurement step that measures concentration of the impurities, a threshold determination step that determines whether change in work function of the metal electrode layer exceeds a predetermined threshold value, and a refresh step in which the sensor unit is heated by the heater unit in case the predetermined threshold value is determined to be exceeded in the threshold determination step (Sasago, [0006, 0048, 0085-0087, 0194]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasago et al. (US 20180120253 A1), hereinafter "Sasago" in view of Bao et al. (US 5985673 A), hereinafter "Bao" and Gardner et al. (Identification of H2S Impurity in Hydrogen Using Temperature Modulated Metal Oxide Resistive Sensors with a Novel Signal Processing Technique, Sensor Letters, VOL.1,NO.4,AUGUST2017), hereinafter "Gardner" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Puglisi et al. (Benefits of virtual sensors for air quality monitoring in humid conditions, Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical 344 (2021) 130294), hereinafter "Puglisi". Sasago, Bao, Gardner and Puglisi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely gas sensing equipment.
In regard to Claim 3, Sasago in view of Bao and Gardner et al. discloses the hydrogen impurity testing system according to claim 2. While Sasago et al. discloses a voltage controlled heater used to perform the refresh which is activated by the system controller, it is silent as to the heater operating in multiple stages.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of programming a controller and heaters assembly to operate in stages as taught in Puglisi et al. which discloses beneficial gas testing system comprising a semiconductor substrate, metal oxide layer, metal sensing electrode, impurities adsorbed on the surface and electrical detection of the impurities which triggers a refresh using a controller and heater which operates in stages to desorb different impurities with an advantage of allowing the sensor signal to stabilize after each temperature change (Puglisi, Abstract, Materials and Methods). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a controller and heater which operate in steps as taught in Puglisi and apply it to Sasago's controller and heater as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Puglisi and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasago et al. (US 20180120253 A1), hereinafter "Sasago" in view of Bao et al. (US 5985673 A), hereinafter "Bao" and Gardner et al. (Identification of H2S Impurity in Hydrogen Using Temperature Modulated Metal Oxide Resistive Sensors with a Novel Signal Processing Technique, Sensor Letters, VOL.1,NO.4,AUGUST2017), hereinafter "Gardner" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Knights et al. (US 20010028966 A1), hereinafter "Knights". Sasago, Bao, Gardner and Knights et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely gas sensing equipment.
In regard to Claims 6-7, Sasago in view of Bao and Gardner et al. discloses the hydrogen impurity testing system according to claims 4-5. While Sasago discloses the sensor having a reaction with oxygen gas it is silent as to a gas exchange mechanism which introduces oxygen to refresh the sensor. Bao et al. discloses impurities adsorbed on a sensing surface which can be refreshed in an oxygen environment by oxidizing H2S to sulfur dioxide and water and a benefit that oxygen materially increases the sensor response, wherein the system further comprises a flow control block with solenoids for controlling gas composition and flow to the sensor (controller operated gas exchange mechanism) (Bao, [Cols 3, 20-21]).
While Sasago discloses the sensor having a reaction with oxygen gas it is silent as to a gas exchange mechanism which introduces oxygen to refresh the sensor in multiple steps. However, the skilled artisan using oxygen to refresh a sensor would be well aware of the amount of impurities desorbed from the sensor based on the level of heat applied or the level of oxygen concentration and duration as evidenced by Knight et al. which discloses a hydrogen gas system with an impurity sensor exposed to the hydrogen gas wherein a controller adjust oxygen concentration which is added in multiple steps when the sensor performance degrades due to impurity adsorption and a refresh of the sensor is performed with oxygen by the system (Knight, [0020, 0031-0034, 0040-0044]).
Therefore provide a controller operated gas exchange mechanism that provides the oxygen in multiple steps to separate components of the toxic impurities from correspondence between concentration of oxygen and amount of refresh of change in work function by the toxic impurities as taught in Knight et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11 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: Clams 8-9 are directed to inter alia a hydrogen impurity sensor in line with a hydrogen supply to a polymer electrolyte fuel cell which refreshes to desorb contaminants and after a predetermined number of refreshes of the sensor a controller sends a signal to refresh the fuel cell and desorb impurities from the fuel cell.
Sasago et al. (US 20180120253 A1), is considered to be the closest prior art to the sensor and discloses an impurity sensor which may be provided in a hydrogen atmosphere which desorbs by using a heater and performs a refresh to desorb contaminants, wherein use of the sensor is contemplated in fuel cell systems. However, Sasago is silent as to a controller counting the refreshes and then sending a signal to refresh the fuel cell.
Knights et al. (US 20010028966 A1) is also considered relevant prior art to the fuel cell system as it discloses a hydrogen gas system with an impurity sensor exposed to the hydrogen gas wherein a controller adjust oxygen concentration which is added in multiple steps when the sensor performance degrades due to impurity adsorption and a refresh of the sensor is performed with oxygen by the system (Knight, [0020, 0031-0034, 0040-0044]). Knights also refreshes a polymer electrolyte fuel cell with oxygen to desorb contaminates however this is done at a set interval and is not triggered by the sensor refresh count and does not involve a predetermined threshold.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious or necessary for the skilled artisan to use this logic of counting the refreshes of the sensor and using a threshold of counts to trigger the fuel cell reset as the problem is already solved by using a predetermined time interval as taught in Knights and both Sasago and Knights neither disclose, teach, suggest or render obvious the sequence of claims 8-9.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasago 2 et al. (WO 2019097808 A1) which discloses a work function-type gas sensor comprising: a first noble metal layer which is in an electrically floating state and formed on a first gate insulating film formed on the main surface of a semiconductor substrate; a first metal oxide layer having ionic conductivity (Sasago 2, Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights