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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, drawn to a sensor regeneration system in the reply filed on March 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-18 and 19-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to a sensor regeneration system of a sensor array microchip having a plurality of silicon chemical-sensitive field effect transistors (CS-FETs) and another nonelected Group III, drawn to a method of monitoring and regenerating a chemical sensor, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 23, 2026.
Applicant traversed the restriction of claims 1-9 and claims 19-25 based on the ground(s) that the system cannot be used to practice another and materially different method, and the method cannot be practiced using a materially different system (Response, p. 2, para. 2). This is not found persuasive because the sensor regeneration system as recited is basically a chemical sensor that can be used to measure the gas concentration instead of ascertaining presence of a contaminant and removing thereof.
Applicant traversed the restriction of claims 1-9 and claims 10-18 based on the ground(s) that they are related as a sensor regeneration system for a generally configured chemical sensor and an analogous sensor regeneration system for a particular type of chemical sensor (p. 2, para. 3). This is not found persuasive because claims 1-9 and 10-18 are related as combination and subcombination. They are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because a two-electrode electrochemical sensor, each electrode made of a conductive material instead of each CS-FET, would be able to detect the gas as a gas sensor with regenerating feature. The subcombination has separate utility because the CS-FETs can be used to generate and store electrical energy other than detecting the gas, as recited in claim 10 that they are used to detect gases vented by a lithium-ion battery cell.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 6,550,310).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a sensor regeneration system (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 46: carbon monoxide sensor 10; col. 6, ll. 44-46: the carbon monoxide sensor 10 can be periodically regenerated through controlled heating) comprising:
a primary chemical sensor (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 47: a sensing element 12) arranged in a confined environment (Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 66-67: the housing 24) and configured to detect a presence of a chemical substance (CO sensor; col. 5, ll. 8-10);
a first heating element (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 49: a heater 16) arranged proximate the primary chemical sensor and configured to generate thermal energy to increase temperature of the primary chemical sensor (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 60: activate the heater 16 to heat the sensing element 12);
a first temperature sensor (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 48: a temperature sensor 14) arranged proximate the primary chemical sensor and configured to detect temperature of the primary chemical sensor (col. 6, ll. 37-38: temperature increase of the sensing element 12 can be detected by the temperature sensor 14); and
an electronic control unit (ECU) in operative communication with the primary chemical sensor, the first heating element, and the first temperature sensor (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 34-36: the sensing element sends signals indicative of the temperature of the sensing element to the processing module; col. 4, ll. 53-54: the temperature sensor 14, the heater 16 are coupled to a processing module 22);
wherein the ECU is configured to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor, via the first heating element (col. 4, ll. 59-61: the processing module 22 activates the heater 16 to heat the sensing element 12), up to a predefined regeneration temperature when the primary chemical sensor is not detecting presence of the chemical substance and thereby regenerate the primary chemical sensor (col. 6, ll. 42-46: to avoid slow drift of the sensitivity of the carbon monoxide sensor 10 due to build-up of undesirable contaminants at the surface of the sensing element 12, the carbon monoxide sensor 10 can be periodically regenerated through controlled heating by the built-in heating element 16; the heated regeneration can be operated above 200⁰C or other suitable temperature for a brief period of time before the carbon monoxide sensor 10 is ready for another period of operation).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches wherein the ECU is configured to activate the first heating element periodically, at a predetermined time interval, to increase the temperature of the primary sensor up to the predefined regeneration temperature and thereby regenerate the primary chemical sensor (col. 6, ll. 44-46: the carbon monoxide sensor 10 can be periodically regenerated through controlled heating by the built-in heating element 16).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Khor (US 11,747233).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the ECU is additionally configured to:
monitor the temperature of the primary chemical sensor via the first temperature sensor and operation of the first heating element (col. 6, ll. 37-38: temperature of the sensing element 12 can be detected by the temperature sensor 14; col. 2, ll. 34-36: the sensing element sends signals indicative of the temperature of the sensing element to the processing module); and
activate the first heating element, when the primary chemical sensor is not detecting presence of the chemical substance, to increase the temperature of the primary sensor up to the predefined regeneration temperature for a predetermined period of time (col. 6, ll. 42-51).
Although Liu teaches the periodical regeneration is due to build-up of undesirable contaminants, it does not explicitly the step of ascertain presence of a contaminant on the primary chemical sensor using the monitored temperature of the primary chemical sensor and operation of the first heating element or the activation of the first heating element is in response to the ascertained presence of the contaminant to remove the contaminant from the primary chemical sensor and thereby regenerate the primary chemical sensor.
However, Khor teaches a gas sensor 144 detecting a contaminant in a sample gas, wherein a processor measures voltage difference caused by minute changes in resistance of a heated element resulting from the temperature change due to heat transfer from the element to the sample gas and potential contaminant (Fig. 4-5; col. 5, ll. 30-38). When the sample gas 60 having a contaminant, the thermal conductivity of the gas changes accordingly; the change in thermal conductivity causes the temperature of the heated resistor 152 to change at a different rate from the reference resistor 154, thereby causing the processor to detect a voltage difference (col. 5, ll. 60-66), which signifies that a contaminant is present (col. 5-6: bridging sentence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu by including a contaminant sensor for the ECU to ascertain the presence of the contaminant before regeneration as taught by Khor because it would provide the information, i.e., the presence of contaminant, that requires the regeneration before the action of regeneration. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the regeneration by activating the heating element would be in response to the ascertained presence of the contaminant in the combined Liu and Khor.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches wherein the first heating element is configured to increase temperature of the primary chemical sensor to a target operating temperature
and thereby enable detection of the chemical substance (col. 4, ll. 60-63: activate the heater 16 to heat the sensing element 12 to a first temperature at least as high as the catalytic oxidation temperature of the adsorbed carbon monoxide).
Regarding claim 5, Liu and Khor disclose all limitations of claim 4, including wherein the ECU is configured to ascertain the presence of the contaminant (Khor, col. 5-6: bridging sentence) on the primary chemical sensor via determining an amount of electrical energy consumed by the first heating element to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor to the target operating temperature (col. 5, ll. 54-55: a temperature change due to the heat transfer caused by the passing of the sample gas having a contaminant as compared to the reference resistor 154).
Regarding claim 6, Liu and Khor disclose all limitations of claim 5, including wherein the ECU is configured to monitor the amount of electrical energy consumed by the first heating element to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor to the target operating temperature (Khor, col. 5, ll. 54-55: a temperature change due to the heat transfer caused by the passing of the sample gas having a contaminant as compared to the reference resistor 154); and activating the first heating element to remove the contaminant from the primary chemical sensor (Liu, col. 6, ll. 42-46).
Liu and Khor do not explicitly disclose the removing contaminant is when the amount of electrical energy consumed by the first heating element to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor to the target operating temperature is greater than a predefined threshold amount of energy.
However, Khor teaches the gas sensor 144 having a resistor 152 and a reference resistor 154 (Fig. 5; col. 5, ll. 30, 43, 57). A thermal insulating membrane 158 ensures an independent response to a temperature range due to the heat transfer caused by the passing of the sample gas having a contaminant as compared to the reference resistor 154 (col. 5, ll. 53-57), which leads to a different rate of the change in thermal conductivity (col. 5, ll. 60-66). This voltage difference signifies that a contaminant is present in the sample gas (col. 5-6: bridging sentence). Thus, the different rate of the change in thermal conductivity corresponds to the amount of consumed electrical energy and the resulted voltage difference would be the difference between the gases with and without the contaminant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu and Khor by utilizing the reference resistor as a predefined threshold (e.g., thermal conductivity, transferred heat, voltage) as suggested by Khor because it would provide a reference to determine the presence of contaminant. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1, including wherein the ECU is configured to activate the first heating element to increase the temperature of the primary sensor up to the predefined regeneration temperature (col. 6, ll. 42-51).
Liu does not explicitly disclose a contaminant sensor in operative communication with the ECU and configured to: monitor the confined environment for presence of the contaminant; and detect and communicate to the ECU presence of a predefined concentration of the contaminant in the confined environment or the regeneration is in response to the detected presence of the predefined concentration of the contaminant.
However, Khor teaches a gas sensor 144 detecting a contaminant in a sample gas, wherein a processor measures voltage difference caused by minute changes in resistance of a heated element resulting from the temperature change due to heat transfer from the element to the sample gas and potential contaminant (Fig. 4-5; col. 5, ll. 30-38). When the sample gas 60 having a contaminant, the thermal conductivity of the gas changes accordingly; the change in thermal conductivity causes the temperature of the heated resistor 152 to change at a different rate from the reference resistor 154, thereby causing the processor to detect a voltage difference (col. 5, ll. 60-66), which signifies that a contaminant is present (col. 5-6: bridging sentence). Thus, Khor teaches a contaminant sensor (Fig. 4-5, col. 5, l. 34: gas sensor 144) in operative communication with the ECU (col. 5, ll. 60-66) and configured to: monitor the confined environment for presence of the contaminant (col. 5-6: bridging sentence); and detect and communicate to the ECU presence of a predefined concentration of the contaminant in the confined environment (col. 10, ll. 3-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu by including a contaminant sensor as taught by Khor because it would provide the information, i.e., the presence of contaminant, that requires the regeneration before the action of regeneration. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the regeneration by activating the heating element would be in response to the ascertained presence of the contaminant in the combined Liu and Khor.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Rogers (US 2022/0381731).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the ECU is configured to determine the temperature detected by the first temperature sensor using a relationship between electrical resistance of the first temperature sensor and the temperature of the primary chemical sensor programmed into the ECU.
However, Rogers teaches method of calibrating a gas sensor and determining a sensitivity of the gas sensor ([Abstract]). The log of the temperature of one or more gases proximate the sensor may exhibit a linear relationship with a log of a resistance measured by the sensor (¶45). The raw data, temperature, pressure, relative humidity, concentration of one or more gases proximate the sensor, etc., all of which may be stored in a memory associated with the sensor (¶74). Thus, the temperature would be able to be determined using the linear relationship between the resistance and the temperature in the ECU.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu by utilizing the relationship between the electrical resistance of the temperature sensor for temperature to be determined because it is well-known in the art as taught by Rogers. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Khor, and further in view of Humbert (US 2015/0285750).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses all limitations of claim 8, including another embodiment of the carbon monoxide sensor 30 having a second heating element 36 besides the first heating element 16a (Fig. 2; col. 6, ll. 52-54, 56-58, 63-65). Liu does not disclose wherein the ECU is further configured to regenerate the contaminant sensor via the second heating element.
However, Humbert teaches a thermal conductivity gas sensor having an amplification material which has a target gas dependent thermal diffusivity used to determine a target gas concentration ([Abstract]). The thermal diffusivity of the amplification material 108 needs to be reset to an initial thermal diffusivity by heating the amplification material 108 either with a separate heating element or with the sensing element 104 (Fig. 1-2; ¶25). Thus, Humbert teaches using a single heating element or separate heating elements to heat for two components or two purposes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu by utilizing a second heating element for heating and thus regenerating the contaminant sensor besides the first heating element for heating the primary chemical sensor as suggested by Humbert because it is a design choice to use one single or separate heating elements for heating requirements. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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 on 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights