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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 12 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 19-22 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
New grounds of rejection under 35 § U.S.C 103 are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments as outlined below for new claims 21-22.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2021/0190674 A1) in view of Gao (A quartz sealed Ag/AgCl reference electrode for CaCl2 based molten salts. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2005; 579, 321-328, provided in IDS submitted on 06/21/2024) and Gervasio (US 2020/0166476 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a high temperature reference electrode (reference electrode 46 [para. 0042]; reference electrode is part of a high temperature corrosion sensor [para. 0042]), comprising:
a quartz tube (reference electrode is a tube and can be made of quartz [para. 0045]);
an electrode wire (reference electrode wire 47 [para. 0042]; illustrated in Figure 1; reference electrode wire can be a silver rod of 2 mm [para. 0075]), the electrode wire comprising an electrode connection (electrode connection is a heat-resistant nichrome wires [para. 0074]).
Liu is silent on a copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture sealed in the quartz tube; the electrode wire disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture; and the electrode wire extending through a seal of the quartz tube.
Gao teaches a quartz sealed Ag/AgCl reference electrode studied in CaCl2 based molten salts (abstract), and teaches sodium chloride mixture sealed in the quartz tube (outer quartz tube prepared previously was filled with a mixture that includes NaCl [second para. col. 2, page 323]); and the electrode wire disposed in the sodium chloride mixture (inner Ag electrode was inserted into the molten salt [second para. col. 2, page 323; also illustrated in Fig. 1, page 323]); the electrode wire extending through a seal of the quartz tube (as illustrated in Figure 1, the tungsten wire electrode connection labeled 4 extends through the seal of the quartz tube [Figure 1, page 323]).
Liu and Gao are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in high temperature environments. 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 reference electrode of Liu to include sodium chloride sealed in the quartz tube, and the electrode wire disposed in the sodium chloride; and the electrode wire extending through a seal of the quartz tube, as taught by Gao, as a reference electrode with this configuration is stable, temperature reversible, and reusable (Gao, [Conclusion, pages 327-328]).
Modified Liu is silent on wherein the electrolyte mixture also comprises “copper chloride” sealed in the quartz tube; and the electrode wire disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture.
Gervasio teaches a reference electrode stable over a wide range of temperatures (abstract), and teaches wherein the electrolyte mixture also comprises “copper chloride” sealed in the quartz tube (copper wire and CuCl2 is inserted in a quartz tube [para. 0021]); and the electrode wire (copper wire [para. 0021]) disposed in the copper chloride (CuCl2 [para. 0021]) and sodium chloride mixture (reference electrode includes an alkaline metal salt [para. 0005, Claims 1 and 6], which includes NaCl).
Modified Liu and Gervasio are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in electrochemical 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 electrolyte mixture sealed in the quartz tube of modified Liu to include copper chloride, and also to modify the electrode wire of modified Liu to be copper wire, as taught by Gervasio, as a reference electrode for high temperatures is stable and robust when made from a metal wire in contact with its ionic metal salt and an alkaline metal salt (Gervasio, [para. 0005]). Note that as the electrolyte mixture has been modified to include copper chloride and sodium chloride, the electrode wire is now disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 1, and teaches wherein the electrode wire is a copper wire disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture (as outlined in the claim 1 rejection above, Gervasio teaches the electrode wire can be a copper wire [para. 0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 2.
Liu silent on a diameter of the copper wire is in a range from about 0.5 mm to about 2.5 mm.
However, Liu teaches a diameter of the metal wire is in a range from about 0.5 mm to about 2.5 mm (as outlined in the claim 1 rejection above, Liu teaches a silver rod diameter is 2.0 mm [para. 0075], which was modified by Gervasio to be a copper wire).
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 diameter of the copper wire of modified Liu to be 2.0 mm, as taught by Liu, as a metal wire with a diameter of 2.0 mm has been successfully shown to serve as a component of a high temperature reference electrode (Liu, [para. 0075]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 2.
Liu teaches wherein the electrode connection comprises a wire welded to an end of the copper wire (as illustrated in Fig. 15, the wire is connected to an end of the metal wire, which is copper in the case of modified Liu).
Liu is silent on the wire is a “tungsten wire”, the wire extending through the seal of the quartz tube.
Gao teaches the wire is a tungsten wire (0.2 mm tungsten wire was inserted into the silver rod [last para. col. 1 to first para. col. 2, page 323]), and the wire extending through the seal of the quartz tube (reference electrode was sealed around the tungsten wire to seal the quartz tube [second para. col. 2, page 323]).
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 electrode connection of modified Liu to be a tungsten wire, the wire extending through the seal of the quartz tube, as taught by Gao, as a reference electrode with this configuration is stable, temperature reversible, and reusable (Gao, [Conclusion, pages 327-328]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 5.
Liu is silent on wherein a diameter of the tungsten wire is in a range from about 0.2 mm to about 1 mm.
Gao teaches wherein a diameter of the tungsten wire is in a range from about 0.2 mm to about 1 mm (a tungsten wire of 0.2 mm [fourth para. col. 1, page 323]).
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 diameter of the tungsten wire of modified Liu to be 0.2 mm, as taught by Gao, as a reference electrode with a tungsten wire connector of 0.2 mm with this configuration is stable, temperature reversible, and reusable (Gao, [Conclusion, pages 327-328]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 2;
the limitation “wherein the high temperature reference electrode has an ohmic resistance of about 6.7Ω k at 500⁰C” is an inherent property of the high temperature reference electrode of claim 2. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2112.01, I.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 1.
Liu teaches wherein a diameter of the quartz tube is about 10 mm or less (reference electrode can be either mullite or quartz [para. 0057], and the tubes used have an outer diameter of 0.313 inches [para. 0090, Table 2], which is 0.313 inches x 25.4 mm/1 inches = 7.95 mm).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 1.
Liu teaches wherein the high temperature reference electrode is a reference electrode in a high temperature electrochemical corrosion sensor (reference electrode of Liu is incorporated into a high temperature electrochemical corrosion sensor [para. 0061]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Liu teaches a method for electrochemical testing (a high temperature electrochemical sensor for in-situ corrosion monitoring in a coal-based power generator boiler [para. 0061]), comprising:
immersing electrodes of a high temperature electrochemical sensor in a corrosive medium (first working electrode 42, second working electrode 44, and a reference electrode 46 [para. 0042] are immersed in coal ash [para. 0079]), the high temperature electrochemical sensor comprising a high temperature reference electrode (reference electrode 46 [para. 0042]; reference electrode is part of a high temperature corrosion sensor [para. 0042]);
obtaining one or more electrochemical measurement via the electrodes immersed in the corrosive medium (open circuit potential and potentiodynamic polarization curves are measured [para. 0079]).
Liu further teaches a high temperature reference electrode comprising: a quartz tube (reference electrode is a tube and can be made of quartz [para. 0045]);
an electrode wire (reference electrode wire 47 [para. 0042]; illustrated in Figure 1; reference electrode wire can be a silver rod of 2 mm [para. 0075]), the electrode wire comprising an electrode connection (electrode connection is a heat-resistant nichrome wires [para. 0074]).
Liu is silent on a copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture sealed in the quartz tube; the electrode wire disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture; and the electrode wire extending through a seal of the quartz tube.
Gao teaches a quartz sealed Ag/AgCl reference electrode studied in CaCl2 based molten salts (abstract), and teaches sodium chloride mixture sealed in the quartz tube (outer quartz tube prepared previously was filled with a mixture that includes NaCl [second para. col. 2, page 323]); and the electrode wire disposed in the sodium chloride mixture (inner Ag electrode was inserted into the molten salt [second para. col. 2, page 323; also illustrated in Fig. 1, page 323]); the electrode wire extending through a seal of the quartz tube (as illustrated in Figure 1, the tungsten wire electrode connection labeled 4 extends through the seal of the quartz tube [Figure 1, page 323]).
Liu and Gao are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in high temperature environments. 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 reference electrode of Liu to include sodium chloride sealed in the quartz tube, and the electrode wire disposed in the sodium chloride; and the electrode wire extending through a seal of the quartz tube, as taught by Gao, as a reference electrode with this configuration is stable, temperature reversible, and reusable (Gao, [Conclusion, pages 327-328]).
Modified Liu is silent on wherein the electrolyte mixture also comprises “copper chloride” sealed in the quartz tube; and the electrode wire disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture.
Gervasio teaches a reference electrode stable over a wide range of temperatures (abstract), and teaches wherein the electrolyte mixture also comprises “copper chloride” sealed in the quartz tube (copper wire and CuCl2 is inserted in a quartz tube [para. 0021]); and the electrode wire (copper wire [para. 0021]) disposed in the copper chloride (CuCl2 [para. 0021]) and sodium chloride mixture (reference electrode includes an alkaline metal salt [para. 0005, Claims 1 and 6], which includes NaCl).
Modified Liu and Gervasio are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in electrochemical 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 electrolyte mixture sealed in the quartz tube of modified Liu to include copper chloride, and also to modify the electrode wire of modified Liu to be copper wire, as taught by Gervasio, as a reference electrode for high temperatures is stable and robust when made from a metal wire in contact with its ionic metal salt and an alkaline metal salt (Gervasio, [para. 0005]). Note that as the electrolyte mixture has been modified to include copper chloride and sodium chloride, the electrode wire is now disposed in the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Liu teaches the method of claim 14.
Liu teaches wherein the electrodes comprise a working electrode comprising an alloy under test (material of WE1, WE2, ER, and TC cap is 347 stainless steel (SS) [para. 0075]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Liu the method of claim 15.
Liu teaches wherein the alloy is an austenitic stainless steel (as outlined in claim 15 above, alloy is 347 stainless steel [para. 0075], which is an austenitic stainless steel).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Liu the method of claim 14.
Liu teaches wherein the corrosive medium comprises coal ash (sensor assesses melt corrosion of coal ash [paras. 0062 and 0079-0080]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Liu the method of claim 14.
Liu teaches wherein the one or more electrochemical measurement comprises open circuit potential (OCP) (open circuit potential curve for coal ash illustrated in Figure 4 [para. 0079]), potentiodynamic polarization (PDP) (potentiodynamic polarization curve for coal ash illustrated in Figure 4 [para. 0079]) or electrochemical noise (EN) (Figure 7 illustrates electrochemical noise signals of 347 SS at a superheater of a boiler [para. 0031]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Gao, and Gervasio, as applied to claim 3, and in view of Stern (Copper sulfate reference electrode. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 2011; 659, pages 143-150) and Abusneineh (US 2023/0295810 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 3.
Liu is silent on wherein the diameter of the copper wire is 1 mm.
Stern teaches a copper sulfate electrode (abstract), and although Stern does not explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the copper wire is 1 mm, Stern teaches wherein the diameter of the copper wire is 0.64 mm (99.99% pure copper wire of 0.64 mm diameter ([fifth para. col. 2, page 144]; also illustrated in Fig. 1).
Abusneineh teaches electrochemical reference electrodes for use in field measurements of metals subject to corrosion [para. 0002], and although Abusneineh does not explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the copper wire is 1 mm, Abusneineh teaches wherein the diameter of the copper wire is 6.35 mm (electrode, which may be a copper wire, has a diameter of 0.25 inches [para. 0056], which is 0.25 inches x 25.4 mm/1 inch = 6.35 mm).
Modified Liu, Stern, and Abusneineh are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in electrochemical sensors. As outlined above, as Stern teaches the copper wire can be 0.64 mm and Abusneineh teaches the copper wire can be 6.35 mm, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of copper wire of modified Liu to be 1.0 mm. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Gao, and Gervasio, as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Park (A Quartz Tube Based Ag/Ag+ Reference Electrode with a Tungsten Tip Junction for an Electrochemical Study in Molten Salts. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 2009; 30(1), pages 133-136).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 6.
Liu is silent on wherein the diameter of the tungsten wire is 0.4 mm.
Park teaches an Ag/Ag+ reference electrode with a tungsten tip junction for the electrochemical study of molten salts (abstract), and although Park does not explicitly teach the diameter of the tungsten wire is 0.4 mm, Park does teach the diameter of the tungsten wire is 1.0 mm (a small piece of tungsten wire 1.0 mm in diameter was inserted into bottom of quartz tube [fourth para. col. 1, page 134]).
Modified Liu and Park are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in electrochemical sensors. As Gao teaches the tungsten wire can be 0.2 mm (as outlined in the Claim 5 rejection above, 0.2 mm tungsten wire was inserted into the silver rod [last para. col. 1 to first para. col. 2, page 323]), and Park teaches the sensor wire can be 1.0 mm (tungsten wire is 1.0 in diameter [fourth para. col. 1, page 134]), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of tungsten wire of modified Liu to be 0.4 mm. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 9 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Gao, and Gervasio, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of PalmSens (Reference Electrode, 2021, https://www.palmsens.com/knowledgebase-topic/reference-electrode/).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 1.
Liu is silent on wherein the copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture has a molar ratio of 1:9.
PalmSens teaches a general understanding of reference electrode potential using the Nernst equation (first three sentences of PalmSens reference, page 1), and teaches that the reference electrode should have a constant potential, with the reference electrode having a metal surrounding by a salt of itself, and immersed in a solution containing the anion of the metal salt (third sentence, page 1). The anion has a high concentration to make sure that the metal salt is not dissolving fast and that small changes in the concentration of the metal ion has a low impact on the electric potential (fourth sentence, page 1; also illustrated in the Nernst equation 3.6 on page 1).
Modified Liu and PalmSens are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in electrochemical sensors. 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 copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture of modified Liu to have a high concentration of sodium chloride compared to copper chloride, as taught by PalmSens, as an electrolyte mixture with a high anion concentration ensures that the metal salt is not dissolving fast and that small changes in the concentration has a low impact on the potential (PalmSens, fourth sentence, page 1).
In addition, as the electrical potential is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the molar ratio of copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture (PalmSens, fourth sentence, page 1), with the electric potential both increasing or decreasing as copper chloride concentration is increased or decreased, the precise molar ratio of copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture 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 molar ratio of copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture 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 copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture to have a molar ratio of 1:9 in modified Liu to obtain the desired balance between the electric potential of the reference electrode affected by the copper chloride concentration, as taught by PalmSens. “[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 21, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 1.
Liu is silent on wherein the copper chloride and sodium chloride is a mixture consisting of copper chloride and sodium chloride.
PalmSens teaches a general understanding of reference electrode potential using the Nernst equation (first three sentences of PalmSens reference, page 1), and teaches the makeup of a reference electrode, which includes a metal wire (for example, silver wire [fourth para. page 1]) along with the corresponding metal salt (for example, AgCl [fourth para. page 1]) and an electrolyte with the corresponding anion (for example, KCl [fourth para. page 1]).
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 high temperature reference electrode of modified Liu to be composed of a metal wire, the metal’s corresponding salt, and an electrolyte with the common anion, as taught by PalmSens, as this composition may provide a stable electrode (PalmSens, [fourth para. page 1]). In addition, as copper wire, copper chloride, and sodium chloride are common elements for high temperature reference electrodes (see claim 1 rejection above), 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 mixture of modified Liu to consist of copper chloride and sodium chloride. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Liu teaches the method of claim 14.
Liu is silent on wherein the copper chloride and sodium chloride is a mixture consisting of copper chloride and sodium chloride.
PalmSens teaches a general understanding of reference electrode potential using the Nernst equation (first three sentences of PalmSens reference, page 1), and teaches the makeup of a reference electrode, which includes a metal wire (for example, silver wire [fourth para. page 1]) along with the corresponding metal salt (for example, AgCl [fourth para. page 1]) and an electrolyte with the corresponding anion (for example, KCl [fourth para. page 1]).
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 method of modified Liu to have a reference electrode composed of a metal wire, the metal’s corresponding salt, and an electrolyte with the common anion, as taught by PalmSens, as this composition may provide a stable electrode (PalmSens, [fourth para. page 1]). In addition, as copper wire, copper chloride, and sodium chloride are common elements for high temperature reference electrodes (see claim 1 rejection above), 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 mixture of modified Liu to consist of copper chloride and sodium chloride. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Gao, and Gervasio, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Wang (A Robust Alumina Membrane Reference Electrode for High Temperature Molten Salts. The Electrochemical Society 2012; 159(9), pages H740-H746).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Liu teaches the high temperature reference electrode of claim 10.
Liu is silent on wherein a thickness of the quartz tube is about 1 mm or less.
Wang teaches wherein a thickness of the tube is about 1 mm or less (alumina tube, which originally has a 1.0 mm wall thickness, is thinned to approximately 0.1 mm membrane thickness [second para. col. 2, page H740]).
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 thickness of the quartz tube of modified Liu to be about 0.1 mm, as taught by Wang, as a tube with a thickness of 0.1 mm performed satisfactorily in terms of stability, reusability, and reproducibility in molten salts (Wang, [Conclusion, first para. col. 1, page H746]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Gao, and Gervasio, as applied to claim 16 above, and in view of Zheng (Failure analysis of the TP347H austenitic stainless steel tube of boiler reheater in a coal-fired power plant. Engineering Failure Analysis 2021; 121, pages 1-12).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Liu teaches the method of claim 16.
Liu is silent wherein the austenitic stainless steel is TP347H stainless steel.
Liu teaches the material for the reference electrode is the same as the material of the superheater, which in the case of Liu is 347 stainless steel [para. 0075]. Liu also teaches that the superheater tubes can be made of fire-resistant stainless steel [para. 0061].
Zheng teaches and studies TP347H stainless steel tubes for boiler reheaters (abstract), and teaches wherein the austenitic steel is TP347H stainless steel (TP347H austenitic stainless steel [first para. page 2]).
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 austenitic stainless steel of modified Liu to be TP347H stainless steel, as taught by combined Liu and Zheng, as TP347H is a common material for superheaters (Zheng, first para. page 1) and the working electrodes can be made from the same material as the superheater (Liu, [para. 0075]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 7-16, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections and amended claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues and traverses on pages 7-10 that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change the molten salts taught by Gao as Gao already teaches a metal wire in contact with an ionic metal salt mixture of AgCl, NaCl, and KCl to the claim 1 limitation of sodium chloride and copper chloride. In addition, secondary reference of Gervasio teaches a copper wire inserted into a mixture of chemicals (Cu+CuCl+KCl). As such, Gervasio does not teach or suggest replacing AgCl or KCl with CuCl.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Gao and Gervasio are analogous references as they are in the same field of reference electrodes used in high temperature environments. As both Gao and Gervasio use a metal wire (Ag for Gao and Cu for Gervasio) with the metal wires’ respective metal salt (AgCl for Gao and CuCl for Gervasio) along with electrolytic salts with the Cl- anion (NaCl and KCl for Gao and KCl for Gervasio) in their respective high temperature electrodes, one of ordinary skill would consider selecting any of the filling electrolyte salts (NaCl or KCl) for use in a reference electrode to maintain a supply of Cl- ions. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)).
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues and traverses on pages 10-11 that the above-cited references represent improper hindsight. As only selected salts from the references of Gao and Gervasio are used, classic hindsight is used to reconstruct independent claim 1 limitations.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As both Gao and Gervasio both teach individually the metal wire with the corresponding metal salt along with a filling electrolyte salt containing the Cl- anion, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider using sodium chloride as the corresponding salt to a high temperature reference electrode that has a metal salt that has Cl- as the anion. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)).
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Applicant argues and traverses on pages 11-12 that dependent claim 8 should be allowed for the reasons of claim 1 above, and that as the Office asserts that the limitation “wherein the high temperature reference electrode has an ohmic resistance of about 6.7Ω k at 500⁰C” is not an inherent property as the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As claim 8 is an apparatus claim, and the high temperature reference electrode taught by modified Liu is substantially identical to the structure recited in claim 8, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see claim 8 above). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2112.01, I.
Examiner notes that as the structure is essentially identical to that of claim 8, and no objective evidence is provided that the limitation recited in claim 8 is not inherent, the limitation “wherein the high temperature reference electrode has an ohmic resistance of about 6.7Ω k at 500⁰C” remains an inherent property.
Applicant’s Argument #4:
Applicant argues and traverses on pages 13-17 that dependent claims 4, 7, 11, and 17 along with newly added claims 21-22 are allowable for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #4:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as claim 1 remains rejected under 103.
Applicant’s Argument #5:
Applicant argues and traverses on pages 13-14 that dependent claim 9 is allowable for the same reasons as independent claim 1. In addition, Applicant traverse claim 9 by arguing that the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, as PalmSens only teaches a general understanding using the Nernst equation, but does not use a copper chloride and sodium chloride mixture, thus cannot teach the molar ratio outlined in claim 9.
Examiner’s Response #5:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Although Examiner agrees that PalmSens is generalized towards reference electrodes using the Nernst equation (see page 1 of PalmSens that also usings an Ag/AgCl/3 M KCl reference electrode as an example) as opposed to specifically copper chloride and sodium chloride, PalmSens does teach that the molar ratio of the metal salt (such as copper chloride) to the corresponding electrolyte (such as sodium chloride) is important to establish and keep a constant potential (see second para. page 1 of PalmSens). Thus, the molar ratio of copper chloride and sodium chloride is considered a result-effective variable to keep a constant potential for reference electrodes.
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
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights