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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed January 21st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiso (WO 2021/124987 A1) in view of Hino (US 2018/0284055 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogiso teaches a sensor element (sensor element 10 in Figure 2 [para. 0025]), the sensor element comprising:
an element body (a long plate-shaped ceramic body 101 in Fig. 2 [para. 0025]) that includes a base part (element substrate 1 in Fig. 2 [para. 0025]) in an elongated plate shape (element substrate 1 has an elongated plate shape [para. 0024], also illustrated in Fig. 2), including an oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer (ceramic body 101 is made of a ceramic containing yttrium-stabilized zirconia, which is an oxygen-ion conductive solid electrolyte [para. 0026]), and a measurement-object gas flow cavity (sensor device 10 contains a serial three chamber structure having a first internal chamber 102, a second internal chamber 103, and a third internal chamber 104, with the first internal chamber 102 communicating with the gas introduction port 105 that is open to the outside; illustrated in Fig. 2 [para. 0027]) formed on a side of one end in a longitudinal direction of the base part (as illustrated in Fig. 2, the serial three chamber structure, such as gas introduction port 105 and first internal chamber 102, is formed on one side end in the longitudinal direction of the base part of element substrate 1, where the leading-end protective layer 2 covers the sensor element 10); and
a porous protective layer (leading-end protective layer 2 in Fig. 2 [para. 0024], which is composed of an inner protective layer 21 and an outer protective layer 22 [para. 0047]) that is formed from the one end in the longitudinal direction of the base part (as illustrated in Fig. 2, leading-end protective layer 2 covers an end surface [a 101e portion], and outer sides of four sides surfaces of sensor device 10 [para. 0025]) and covers a surface of a predetermined length in the longitudinal direction of the element body (leading-end protective layer is provided within a predetermined range from one end of the ceramic base body [para. 0018]), wherein
the element body comprises: an intracavity electrode (internal pump electrode 142 in Fig. 2 [para. 0029]) disposed in the measurement-object gas flow cavity (as illustrated in Fig. 2, internal pump electrode 142 is disposed in the first internal space 102 [para. 0029]); and an extracavity electrode (external pump electrode 141 [para. 0029]) that has a predetermined length in the longitudinal direction of the base part (as illustrated in Fig. 2, internal pump electrode 142 and external pump electrode 141 are disposed in a predetermined length in the longitudinal direction of the base part), is disposed on one principal surface of two principal surfaces of the element body (as illustrated in Fig. 2, external pump electrode 141 is provided on the outer surface of the ceramic body 101), and corresponds to the intracavity electrode (main pump cell P1 is an electrochemical pump cell which is formed by external [outer] pump electrode 141 and internal [inner] pump electrode 142 [para. 0031]); and
the protective layer comprises an inner layer (inner protective layer 21 in Fig. 2 [para. 0047]) covering the element body (inner protective layer 21 covers the element boy as illustrated in Fig. 2) and an outer layer (outer protective layer 22 in Fig. 2 [para. 0047]) positioned outside the inner layer (as illustrated in Fig. 2, outer protective layer 22 is positioned outside the inner protective layer 21).
Regarding the electrode presence region and the posterior region of instant claim 1, see Annotated Figure 2 of Ogiso below:
PNG
media_image1.png
947
1730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Ogiso
an electrode presence region in which the extracavity electrode exists (as illustrated in Annotated Fig. 2, the electrode presence region corresponds to a section in the longitudinal region of sensor element 10 that includes the outer pump electrode 141) and a posterior region following to the electrode presence region in the longitudinal direction of the base part (as illustrated in Annotated Fig. 2, a posterior region corresponds to a region to the right of the electrode presence region in the longitudinal direction that ends when the inner leading-end protective layer 2 stops covering the sensor element 10 in the longitudinal direction); and wherein
a porosity of the outer layer is lower than the porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer (outer leading-end protective layer 22 has a porosity smaller than that of the inner leading-end protective layer 21 [para. 0050]);
the limitation “for detecting a target gas to be measured in a measurement-object gas” is an intended use limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Ogiso teaches sensor element 10 is a ceramic structure that can detect NOx as the target gas in a measurement-object gas [paras. 0029-0030]. Thus, the sensor element 10 of Ogiso is capable of performing the intended use.
Ogiso is silent on a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer.
Hino teaches a sensor element with a porous thermal shock resistance layer (abstract). Although Hino does not explicitly teach a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer, Hino teaches a thermal shock resistant layer 180 in Fig. 1 (which corresponds to inner protective layer 21 of Ogiso), and that the thermal resistant layer 180 can be intentionally made to have different porosities at different positions [para. 0075].
Ogiso and Hino are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of NOx gas sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner protective layer of Ogiso to have different porosities at different positions, as taught by Hino, as the thermal shock resistant layer can have different porosities at different positions to prevent water-induced cracking (Hino, [para. 0075]). In addition, because the porosity of the inner layer in the posterior region can either be less than the porosity of the inner layer in the electrode presence region, equal to the porosity of the inner layer in the electrode presence region, or greater than the porosity of the inner layer in the electrode presence region, there are three identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try by choosing from the above three identified solutions, which would lead to choosing a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ogiso teaches the sensor element according to claim 1.
Ogiso teaches wherein the posterior region of the protective layer extends in the longitudinal direction of the base part to a position farther from the one end in the longitudinal direction of the base part than the measurement-object gas flow cavity (as illustrated in Annotated Fig. 2, a posterior region corresponds to a region to the right of the electrode presence region in the longitudinal direction that ends when the inner leading-end protective layer 2 stops covering the sensor element 10 in the longitudinal direction, which extends in the longitudinal direction further than the measurement-object gas flow cavity that includes the serial three chamber structure having a first internal chamber 102, a second internal chamber 103, and a third internal chamber 104, with the first internal chamber 102 communicating with the gas introduction port 105).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ogiso the sensor element according to claim 2, and modified Ogiso teaches wherein, in the longitudinal direction of the base part, a porosity in a region farther from the one end in the longitudinal direction of the base part than the measurement-object gas flow cavity in the posterior region of the protective layer is lower than the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer (as outlined in the claim 1 rejection above, modified Ogiso teaches the porosity in the posterior region is lower than the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer, and, as outlined in claim 2 rejection above, Ogiso teaches that the posterior region extends beyond the measurement-object gas flow cavity in the longitudinal direction, see Annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ogiso teaches the sensor element according to claim 1.
Ogiso is silent on wherein the porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is 30% by volume or more and 50% by volume or less.
However, Ogiso teaches wherein the porosity in the inner layer is 40% by volume or more and 90% by volume or less [para. 0077].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of the posterior region of the inner layer of modified Ogiso to be 40% or more and 90%, as this porosity range realizes water resistance and low thermal conductivity (Ogiso, [para. 0077]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ogiso teaches the sensor element according to claim 1, and teaches the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer is higher than the porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer (as outlined in the claim 1 rejection above, modified Ogiso teaches that the porosity in the posterior region is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region).
Ogiso is silent on wherein the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer is 40% by volume or more and 80% by volume or less.
However, Ogiso teaches wherein the porosity in the inner layer is 40% by volume or more and 90% by volume or less [para. 0077].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of the electrode presence region of the inner layer of modified Ogiso to be 40% by volume or more and 90% by volume or less, as this porosity range realizes water resistance and low thermal conductivity (Ogiso, [para. 0077]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ogiso teaches the sensor element according to claim 1.
Ogiso is silent on wherein the porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer by 5% by volume or more.
However, as the thermal shock resistant layer 180 is intentionally made to have different porosities at different positions or has unintentional non-uniformity and variance in the porosity thereof to prevent water-induced cracking as long as the thermal diffusion time in the thickness direction satisfies a predetermined condition (Hino, [para. 0075]), the property including different porosities at different positions of the thermal shock resistance layer affects the water-induced cracking of the sensor element (Hino, [para. 0002]). As water-induced cracking is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the property of thermal shock resistance layer including its porosity at different positions, the precise porosity of thermal shock resistance layer, including the porosities at different positions, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed porosity of the thermal shock resistance layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the porosity of the inner layer of modified Ogiso to obtain a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer by 5% by volume or more, in order to prevent water-induced cracking of the sensor element. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ogiso teaches the sensor element according to claim 1.
Ogiso teaches wherein the posterior region of the protective layer extends in the longitudinal direction of the base part to a position farther from the one end in the longitudinal direction of the base part than the measurement-object gas flow cavity (as illustrated in Annotated Fig. 2, a posterior region corresponds to a region to the right of the electrode presence region in the longitudinal direction that ends when the inner leading-end protective layer 2 stops covering the sensor element 10 in the longitudinal direction, which extends in the longitudinal direction further than the measurement-object gas flow cavity that includes a serial three chamber structure having a first internal chamber 102, a second internal chamber 103, and a third internal chamber 104, with the first internal chamber 102 communicating with the gas introduction port 105).
Ogiso is silent on wherein the porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer by 5% by volume or more.
However, as the thermal shock resistant layer 180 is intentionally made to have different porosities at different positions or has unintentional non-uniformity and variance in the porosity thereof to prevent water-induced cracking as long as the thermal diffusion time in the thickness direction satisfies a predetermined condition (Hino, [para. 0075]), the property including different porosities at different positions of the thermal shock resistance layer affects the water-induced cracking of the sensor element (Hino, [para. 0002]). As water-induced cracking is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the property of thermal shock resistance layer including its porosity at different positions, the precise porosity of thermal shock resistance layer, including the porosities at different positions, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed porosity of the thermal shock resistance layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the porosity of the inner layer of modified Ogiso to obtain a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than the porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer by 5% by volume or more, in order to prevent water-induced cracking of the sensor element. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ogiso teaches the sensor element according to claim 1.
Ogiso is silent on wherein a porosity of the inner layer is stepwise or continuously decreased in the longitudinal direction of the base part from the one end in the longitudinal direction of the base part.
Hino teaches that the thermal shock resistant layer 180 can be intentionally made to have different porosities at different positions, or have variance in porosity [para. 0075]).
However, as the thermal shock resistant layer 180 is intentionally made to have different porosities at different positions or has unintentional non-uniformity and variance in the porosity thereof to prevent water-induced cracking as long as the thermal diffusion time in the thickness direction satisfies a predetermined condition (Hino, [para. 0075]), the property including different porosities at different positions of the thermal shock resistance layer affects the water-induced cracking of the sensor element (Hino, [para. 0002]). As water-induced cracking is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the property of thermal shock resistance layer including its porosity at different positions, the precise porosity of thermal shock resistance layer, including the porosities at different positions, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed porosity of the thermal shock resistance layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the porosity of the inner layer of modified Ogiso wherein, on a porosity of the inner layer is stepwise or continuously decreased in the longitudinal direction of the base part from the one end in the longitudinal direction of the base part, in order to prevent water-induced cracking of the sensor element. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 5-10, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections and amended claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 103 prior art rejections for Claims 1-8 on pages 5-10, stating that neither Hino nor Ogiso disclose varying porosity within the same layer by region, as Ogiso is silent on a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer. In addition, Hino does not explicitly teach a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer. However, the Office argues that as Hino teaches a thermal shock resistant layer 180 in Fig. 1, thermal shock resistance layer 180 can be made to have different porosities at different positions. However, Applicant traverses this rejection as Hino teaches the thermal diffusion time satisfies a predetermined range, and that when the thermal shock resistant layer 180 is intentionally made to have different porosities at different positions or has unintentional non-uniformity or variance thereof. However, Hino does not teach or suggest how the porosity of the thermal shock resistant layer is varied, or suggest varying the porosity within the same layer by region.
Applicant also discloses unexpected results for providing “a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer”, as heat insulating effects can be improved while the adhesion strength between the element body 102 and the inner layer 91 is maintained. One of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify Ogiso by Hino to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As Hino teaches the thermal shock resistant layer 180 is provided to have a property of water resistance (Hino, [paras. 0042, 0045]) and to prevent water-induced cracking (Hino, [para. 0045]), as well as teaches that the porosity may vary within the same protective layer to intentionally have different porosities at different positions (Hino, [para. 0075]), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a porosity in the posterior region of the inner layer is lower than a porosity in the electrode presence region of the inner layer. In addition, porosity is considered a result effective variable, as porosity affects parameters including water-induced cracking, the precise porosity of thermal shock resistance layer, including the porosities at different positions, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Although Applicant discloses unexpected results of heat insulating effects can be improved while the adhesion strength between the element body 102 and the inner layer 91, one of ordinary skill in the art would still be motivated to modify Ogiso with Hino to arrive at the presently claimed invention as the porosity of the inner layer is considered a REV.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795