DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on June 17, 2026. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed on June 17, 2026 have been entered.
Status of Objections and Rejections
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 103 from previous Office action are maintained.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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; here, the designation “configured to detect a presence of a chemical substance” is functional limitation in apparatus claims, which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II));
a first heating element arranged proximate the primary chemical sensor (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 49: a heater 16; here, the sensing element 12 of Fig. 1 is read as the sensor which includes the sensing components, e.g., the protective layer, the layer containing catalyst, etc., but not including the heater and the temperature 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; further, the designation “configured to generate thermal energy to increase temperature of the primary chemical sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims, which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II));
a first temperature sensor arranged proximate the primary chemical sensor (Fig. 1; col. 4, l. 48: a temperature sensor 14; here, the sensing element 12 of Fig. 1 is read as the sensor which includes the sensing components, e.g., the protective layer, the layer containing catalyst, etc., but not including the heater and the temperature 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; here, the designation “configured to detect temperature of the primary chemical sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims, which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II)); 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; here the processing module is used to regenerate the sensor and detect the CO gas, and thus it must be in operative communication with the sensing element 12, i.e., the sensing components of the sensor);
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 to remove a contaminant from the primary chemical sensor (col. 6, ll. 43-51: 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 for a brief period of time before the sensor is ready for another period of operation; here, the designation “configured to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor, via the first heating element, up to a predefined regeneration temperature when the primary chemical sensor is not detecting presence of the chemical substance to remove a contaminant from the primary chemical sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims, which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II)) 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; here, the designation “thereby regenerate the primary chemical sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims regarding the intended result, and thus does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II)).
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; here, the designation “configured to activate the first heating element periodically, at a predetermined time interval” is functional limitation in apparatus claims and the designation “to increase the temperature of the primary sensor up to the predefined regeneration temperature and thereby regenerate the primary chemical sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims regarding the intended result, and thus do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II)).
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.
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) configured to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor (col. 4, ll. 59-61: the processing module 22 activates the heater 16 to heat the sensing element 12; here, the designation “configured to increase the temperature of the primary chemical sensor” is functional limitation in apparatus claims, which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 (II)); 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 the 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 step for the ECU to ascertain the presence of the contaminant 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, the designation “to ascertain the presence of the contaminant on the primary chemical sensor via the first heating element increasing temperature of the primary chemical sensor to a target operating temperature that is lower than the predefined regeneration temperature and thereby enable detection of the chemical substance” is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Liu in view of Khor teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed sensor regeneration system, in which the processing module 22 periodically activates 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 (Liu, col. 4, ll. 60-63) to remove the build-up of undesirable contaminants at the surface of the sensing element 12 (col. 6, ll. 43-44), and thus it would be capable of increasing temperature of the primary chemical sensor to a target operating temperature that is lower than the predefined regeneration temperature, via the first heating element, and thereby enabling detection of the chemical substance.
Liu further discloses the temperature that is higher than the catalystic light-off temperature for detection if from 100 to 150 ⁰C (Col. 6, ll. 19-38), while the regeneration temperature is above 200 ⁰C (Col. 6, ll. 43-48). Khor teaches the 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 heated element to the sample gas and potential contaminant (Khor, Col. 5, ll. 34-38, also see the description in claim 3), which indicates that the temperature for detecting the gas sample and the temperature for ascertaining the contaminant is at the same temperature. Thus, the combined Liu and Khor would necessarily result in the temperature for ascertaining contamination is lower than the regeneration temperature.
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. Here, the amount of energy consumed by the reference resistor is read as the threshold amount of energy.
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 a 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).
Further, the limitation “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” is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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 incorporating 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the temperature sensor 14 and the heater 16 are internal sub components within the sensing element 12 and they are not separate components arranged to the sensing element from the outside (Response, p. 12, para. 2) because due to the structural hierarchy of Liu’s sensor 10 and sensing element 12 (p. 11, section (I)(B)). As a result, Applicant argues the limitation “proximate” is not met (p. 12, section (I)(C)). These arguments are unpersuasive. Here, the CO sensor 10 (Fig. 1) is read as the recited sensor regeneration system and the sensing element 12 (Fig. 1) is read as the recited primary chemical sensor. Specifically, the sensing element is the component for catalyzing the reaction for gas measurement (e.g., Liu, Fig. 1: the components including the catalyst 15 and the protective layer 17), which are separate from but proximate the heater (e.g., Fig. 1: heater 16) and the temperature sensor (e.g., Fig. 1: temperature sensor 14). Examiner does not agree that the heater 16 is a “built-in heating element” disposed on the micro-bridge chip that constitutes the sensing element 12 (Response, p. 12, para. 4). Liu merely discloses the carbon monoxide sensor 10 can be periodically regenerated through controlled heating by the built-in heating element 16 which is disposed on the micro-bridge chip (Col. 6, ll. 44-47). This disclosure means that the heater is built-in within the carbon monoxide sensor 10, which is read as the whole system, and the sensing element 12, more specifically, the component for catalyzing the reaction for gas measurement (e.g., Liu, Fig. 1: the components including the catalyst 15 and the protective layer 17), is a separate component from the heater and the temperature sensor. Even if the heater and the temperature sensor are integrated into the sensing element, which Examiner does not agree, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange these components, making them integral or making them separable, which is a matter of choice and would yield nothing more than predictable result because the arrangement would not change their respective functions of these components. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)-(C), 2144.04(VI)(C).
Applicant argues that Liu does not teach the limitation “an ECU in operative communication with the primary chemical sensor, the first heating element, and the first temperature sensor” which requires the ECU to be in direct operative communication with the primary chemical sensor as a distinct, signal-generating entity (Response, p. 13, section D). Applicant asserts that Liu does not disclose the processing module 22 is in operative communication with the mapped sensing element as a distinct entity (p. 13, para. 3). Further, Applicant argues that points C and D cannot be satisfied simultaneously (p. 13, last para.). These arguments are unpersuasive. The primary chemical sensor (Liu: the sensing element 12 in Fig. 1, or more specifically, the component for catalyzing the reaction for gas measurement), the first heating element, and the first temperature sensor are distinct entities which are individually connected to the processing module 22 (Liu, Fig. 1) because the processing module is used to regenerate the sensor and detect the CO gas and must be in operative communication with the component of the sensing element 12 that containing the catalyst. Thus, Liu teaches that the heater 16 and the temperature sensor 14 are separate from and proximate the sensing element (e.g., components including catalyst 15 and protective layer 17 for generating sensing signal for gas measurement), which is in operative communication with the processing module (see Liu, claim 1, col. 7, ll. 63-64).
Applicant argues Liu provides two independent protective mechanisms intended to prevent extraneous contaminants: one is the filter 20 and the other is cover layer 17, both of which are to prevent extraneous contaminants (Response, pp. 14-15, section E). Applicant further argues that Liu’s primary heating cycle is itself the detection step (p. 15, para. 2). These arguments are unpersuasive. Besides the prevention of the extraneous contaminants (e.g., Liu, Fig. 1: the filter 20 and the cover layer 17), Liu explicitly discloses the build-up of undesirable contaminants would cause slow drift of the sensitivity of the sensor (Col. 6, ll. 42-44), and thus the regeneration is periodically done through controlled heating for a brief period of time before the sensor is ready for another period of operation (Col. 6, ll. 45-51). Thus, the regeneration is done for a brief period of time before the period of gas detection, and the regeneration is intended to remove the build-up of undesirable contaminants, a different mechanism from those of the filter and the protective layer. Also, the regeneration and detection are two separate mechanisms operated as regeneration followed by the detection.
Applicant argues that Liu is silent with respect to its processing module 22 monitoring the heater 16 when the temperature of the sensing element 12 is being increased thereby (Response, p. 16, para. 3). This argument is unpersuasive. Liu teaches the temperature increase of the sensing element can be detected by the temperatures sensor 14, and the heated regeneration can be operated above 200 C or other suitable temperature for a brief period of time (Liu, Col. 6, ll. 37-38, 47-49), which indicates that the processing module is configured to monitor not only the temperature but the operation of the heater.
Applicant’s argument that the combination of Liu and Khor does not disclose or suggest using the heating efficiency of a sensor’s own heating element to ascertain the presence of an extraneous contaminant deposited on that sensor’s surface (Response, p. 16, para. 4). This argument is unpersuasive. First, claim 3 does not recite “using the heating efficiency of a sensor’s own heating element.” Second, Liu teaches undesirable contaminants that can be removed periodically by the heater using a heated regeneration, e.g., above 200 ⁰C (Liu, Col. 6, ll. 43-48), but fails to explicitly disclose a step of ascertaining the presence of the contaminant. Examiner notes here that the contaminant is not extraneous contaminant prevented by the filter or the protective layer, but the build-ups during the sensor operation. Khor teaches that contaminant in the gas comes in contact with the sensor, the change in the thermal conductivity causes the change in temperature of the heated resistor 152, which indicates the presence of the contaminant based on the voltage difference detected by the processor (Khor, Col. 5, l. 60 to Col. 6, l. 1). Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Liu and Khor to arrive at the claimed subject matter, i.e., ascertaining the presence of contaminant before activating the regeneration operation.
Applicant argues the changes in the thermal conductivity of a gas flowing past the sensor as disclosed by Khor is not a threshold energy monitor for detecting surface fouling of a chemical sensor (Response, p. 18, last para.). This argument is unpersuasive because Khor teaches the change in thermal conductivity causes the temperature of the heated resistor 152 to change at a different rate from the reference resistor 154 (Khor, Col. 5, ll. 62-65). Thus, the difference rate of the temperature change between the heater resistor 152 and the reference resistor 154 is due to the difference in the thermal conductivity of these two resistors, and the temperature change of a resistor is due to its electrical energy consumption. The comparison between those of the two resistors would use the reference resistor 154 as a reference, and its electrical energy consumption is used as a threshold amount of energy.
Applicant argues Khor’s sensor does not monitor a confined environment for ambient contaminant concentration for the purpose of triggering regeneration (Response, p. 19, Section D). This argument is unpersuasive because the prior art, Liu, is relied on to teach there are build-up of the contaminants and then removing them by heated regeneration, and Khor is only relied on to teach ascertaining the contaminants. Similarly, Rogers and Humbert (see Response, pp. 19-20), are relied on to teach a relationship between the resistance and the temperature (for claim 7) and a second heater (for claim 8) respectively, which are not required to meet the limitations for steps of “monitoring …, ascertaining…, and activating” because the prior art, Liu and Khor, are relied on to teach those limitations.
Finally, the claims in the instant application recite the limitations “configured to….” are functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Examiner suggests the claims reciting more structural limitations to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that in the prior art.
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 extension fee 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 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