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 .
Preliminary Amendments
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on August 28, 2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
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) 1 and 3-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambert (US 2007/0272553) in view of Kitazawa (US 2010/0252432), and further in view of Liao (B. Liao, Effect of citrate ions on the electrochemical migration of tin in thin electrolyte layer containing chloride ions, Corrosion Science 2016(112), pp. 393-401).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 14, Gambert teaches an electrochemical oxygen sensor (for claim 1; Fig. 1; [0042] line 2: a galvanic, electrochemical sensor for O2) or equipment comprising the electrochemical oxygen sensor of claim 1 (for claim 14; Fig. 1; [0042] line 2: a galvanic, electrochemical sensor for O2) comprising:
a holder (Fig. 1; [0042] line 3: a housing 1);
a positive electrode (Fig. 1; [0042] line 7: a cathode 4);
a negative electrode (Fig. 1; [0042] line 3: an anode 2); and
an electrolyte solution (Fig. 1; [0042] line 10: electrolyte 5),
the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolyte solution being contained in the holder (Fig. 1: showing the cathode 4, the anode 2, and the electrolyte 5 are contained in the housing 1),
wherein the negative electrode contains an alloy of Sn ([0042] lines 3-4: an anode being made of an alloy of tin with a silver and a copper).
Gambert does not teach wherein the electrolyte solution contains a chelating agent and a molar concentration of the chelating agent is 1.4 mol/L or higher.
However, Kitazawa teaches an electrochemical oxygen sensor ([0014] lines 1-2), including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution contains a chelating agent ([0014] lines 2-4). The concentration of the chelating agent in the electrolyte solution is particularly preferably not less than 1.0 mol/liter ([0079] lines 2-5), which overlaps the claimed range.
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 Gambert by adjusting the concentration of the chelating agent within the claimed range as suggested by Kitazawa because the chelating agent would increase the response speed of the sensor ([0078] lines 1-3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Gambert and Kitazawa do not explicitly disclose the chelating agent contains at least one of citric acid and citrates (claim 1) or wherein the electrolyte solution contains trisodium citrate (claim 4).
However, Liao teaches tri-sodium citrate acts as an inhibitor by suppressing anodic dissolution and metallic ion transfer through the formation of tin citrate complexes ([Abstract]), and the dissolution rate of anode decreases with the increase of citrate ion concentration (Fig. 11: various citrate ion concentration, e.g., from 10 to 500 mM; p. 400, col. 1, para. 1). The disclosed tri-sodium citrate is a chelating agent because, as evidenced by Kitazawa, the chelating agent present in the electrolyte solution diffuses or partially dissolves the reaction inhibition production in the electrolyte solution, or catches an intermediate originating the reaction inhibition production to prevent the generation of the reaction inhibition production itself, thereby increasing the response speed of the oxygen sensor (Kitazawa, ¶77).
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 Gambert and Kitazawa by selecting tri-sodium citrate to be the chelating agent as taught by Liao because it acts as an inhibitor by suppressing anodic dissolution and metallic ion transfer through the formation of tin citrate complexes ([Abstract]), and the increase of the citrate ion concentration would decrease the dissolution rate of the anode (Fig. 11; p. 400, col. 1, para. 1). The suggestion for doing so would have been that tri-sodium citrate is a suitable material for the chelating agent and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Gambert does not explicitly disclose the electrolyte solution has a pH of not less than 2.09 and not more than 7.40.
However, Gambert teaches the composition of the electrolyte influences the function of the sensor ([0036] lines 1-2) and the best results can be obtained with strong phosphoric acid solutions ([0036] lines 3-4). The phosphoric acid solutions buffered with their salts that is used as electrolyte with a pH up to 7 gave good results ([0037] lines 3-5), which overlaps the claimed pH range from 2.09 to 7.40.
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 Gambert by setting the pH value of the electrolyte solution as claimed because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 1, including the electrolyte solution containing a chelating agent that contains citrate (Liao: tri-sodium citrate). Since Gambert teaches the electrolyte solution is acidic (¶37: a pH up to 7), the combined Gambert and Liao containing tri-sodium citrate as a chelating agent would necessarily result in citric acid in the electrolyte solution.
Regarding claim 5, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao do not explicitly disclose the electrolyte solution has a pH of not less than 3.75 and not more than 5.75.
However, Gambert teaches the composition of the electrolyte influences the function of the sensor ([0036] lines 1-2) and the best results can be obtained with strong phosphoric acid solutions ([0036] lines 3-4). The phosphoric acid solutions buffered with their salts that is used as electrolyte with a pH up to 7 gave good results ([0037] lines 3-5), which overlaps the recited pH range.
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 Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao by setting the pH value of the electrolyte solution as claimed because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Gambert teaches the electrolyte solution further contains phosphoric acid and salts of the compound ([0037] line 3: phosphoric acid solutions buffered with their salts).
Regarding claim 7, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 1. Gambert and Liao do not explicitly disclose the negative electrode is substantially lead free.
However, Kitazawa teaches the negative electrode is substantially lead free ([0060] lines 8-10: electrochemical oxygen sensors have been demanded which are low in environmental load without the use of lead or the like; [0061] lines 1-4: Accordingly, the material for the anode 8 is preferably tin in that no hydrogen generation due to local corrosion is caused in the electrolyte solution 7 containing the chelating agent, resulting in low environmental loads; thus the material of the anode, i.e., the negative electrode, is deemed to be substantially lead free).
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 Gambert and Liao by utilizing substantially lead free negative electrode as taught by Kitazawa because the electrochemical oxygen sensors have low environmental loads without the use of lead (0060] lines 8-10; [0061] lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, 10, and 15, Gambert teaches an electrochemical oxygen sensor (for claim 8; Fig. 1; [0042] line 2: a galvanic, electrochemical sensor for O2) or equipment comprising the electrochemical oxygen sensor of claim 8 (for claim 15; Fig. 1; [0042]) comprising:
a holder (Fig. 1; [0042] line 3: a housing 1);
a positive electrode (Fig. 1; [0042] line 7: a cathode 4);
a negative electrode (Fig. 1; [0042] line 3: an anode 2); and
an electrolyte solution (Fig. 1; [0042] line 10: electrolyte 5),
the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolyte solution being contained in the holder (Fig. 1: showing the cathode 4, the anode 2, and the electrolyte 5 are contained in the housing 1).
Gambert does not teach wherein the electrolyte solution contains a chelating agent and a molar concentration of the chelating agent is 1.4 mol/L or higher.
However, Kitazawa teaches an electrochemical oxygen sensor ([0014] lines 1-2), including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution contains a chelating agent ([0014] lines 2-4). The concentration of the chelating agent in the electrolyte solution is particularly preferably not less than 1.0 mol/liter ([0079] lines 2-5) , which overlaps the claimed range.
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 Gambert by adjusting the concentration of the chelating agent within the claimed range as suggested by Kitazawa because the chelating agent would increase the response speed of the sensor ([0078] lines 1-3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Gambert and Kitazawa do not disclose the chelating agent contains citrate (claim 8) or wherein the electrolyte solution contains trisodium citrate (claim 10).
However, Liao teaches tri-sodium citrate acts as an inhibitor by suppressing anodic dissolution and metallic ion transfer through the formation of tin citrate complexes ([Abstract]), and the dissolution rate of anode decreases with the increase of citrate ion concentration (Fig. 11: various citrate ion concentration, e.g., from 10 to 500 mM; p. 400, col. 1, para. 1). The disclosed tri-sodium citrate is a chelating agent because, as evidenced by Kitazawa, the chelating agent present in the electrolyte solution diffuses or partially dissolves the reaction inhibition production in the electrolyte solution, or catches an intermediate originating the reaction inhibition production to prevent the generation of the reaction inhibition production itself, thereby increasing the response speed of the oxygen sensor (Kitazawa, ¶77).
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 Gambert and Kitazawa by selecting tri-sodium citrate to be the chelating agent as taught by Liao because it acts as an inhibitor by suppressing anodic dissolution and metallic ion transfer through the formation of tin citrate complexes ([Abstract]), and the increase of the citrate ion concentration would decrease the dissolution rate of the anode (Fig. 11; p. 400, col. 1, para. 1). The suggestion for doing so would have been that tri-sodium citrate is a suitable material for the chelating agent and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Gambert does not explicitly disclose the electrolyte solution has a pH of not less than 2.09 and not more than 7.40.
However, Gambert teaches the composition of the electrolyte influences the function of the sensor ([0036] lines 1-2) and the best results can be obtained with strong phosphoric acid solutions ([0036] lines 3-4). The phosphoric acid solutions buffered with their salts that is used as electrolyte with a pH up to 7 gave good results ([0037] lines 3-5), which overlaps the claimed pH range from 2.09 to 7.40.
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 Gambert by setting the pH value of the electrolyte solution as claimed because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 8, including the electrolyte solution containing a chelating agent that contains citrate. Since Gambert teaches the electrolyte solution is acidic (¶37: a pH up to 7), the combined Gambert and Liao containing tri-sodium citrate as a chelating agent would necessarily result in citric acid in the electrolyte solution.
Regarding claim 11, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 8. Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao do not explicitly disclose the electrolyte solution has a pH of not less than 3.75 and not more than 5.75.
However, Gambert teaches the composition of the electrolyte influences the function of the sensor ([0036] lines 1-2) and the best results can be obtained with strong phosphoric acid solutions ([0036] lines 3-4). The phosphoric acid solutions buffered with their salts that is used as electrolyte with a pH up to 7 gave good results ([0037] lines 3-5), which overlaps the recited pH range.
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 Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao by setting the pH value of the electrolyte solution as claimed because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Gambert teaches the electrolyte solution further contains phosphoric acid and salts of the compound ([0037] line 3: phosphoric acid solutions buffered with their salts).
Regarding claim 13, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 8. Gambert and Liao do not explicitly disclose the negative electrode is substantially lead free.
However, Kitazawa teaches the negative electrode is substantially lead free ([0060] lines 8-10: electrochemical oxygen sensors have been demanded which are low in environmental load without the use of lead or the like; [0061] lines 1-4: Accordingly, the material for the anode 8 is preferably tin in that no hydrogen generation due to local corrosion is caused in the electrolyte solution 7 containing the chelating agent, resulting in low environmental loads; thus the material of the anode, i.e., the negative electrode, is deemed to be substantially lead free).
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 Gambert and Liao by utilizing substantially lead free negative electrode as taught by Kitazawa because the electrochemical oxygen sensors have low environmental loads without the use of lead (0060] lines 8-10; [0061] lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 16-17, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively. Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao do not explicitly disclose the molar concentration of the chelating agent is 2.2 mol/L or higher.
However, Kitazawa teaches an electrochemical oxygen sensor ([0014] lines 1-2), including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution contains a chelating agent ([0014] lines 2-4). The concentration of the chelating agent in the electrolyte solution is particularly preferably not less than 1.0 mol/liter ([0079] lines 2-5), which overlaps with the claimed range.
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 Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao adjusting the concentration of the chelating agent within the claimed range as suggested because the chelating agent would increase the response speed of the sensor ([0078] lines 1-3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambert in view of Kitazawa and Liao, and further in view of Tao (U.S. Patent Pub. 2003/0143440).
Regarding claim 2, Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao do not explicitly disclose the negative electrode contains a Sn-Sb alloy.
However, Tao teaches an electrochemical devices capable of operation as either as fuel cells or batteries ([0002] lines 2-3). The anode comprises a metal or alloy ([0059] lines 1-2), such as antimony, tin, or combinations thereof ([0059] lines 5-10). An example of anode comprised antimony alloy with 10% tin ([0125] lines 9-11). Thus, Tao teaches the negative electrode contains a Sn-Sb alloy ([0125] lines 9-11).
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 Gambert, Kitazawa, and Liao by utilizing a Sn-Sb alloy for the negative electrode as taught by Tao. The suggestion for doing so would have been that Sn-Sb alloy is a suitable material for the anode of an electrochemical device and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and Declaration filed on August 28, 2024 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the service life of the sensor has been improved at least 1.6 times longer is significant and unexpected (p. 7, para. 1-5; referring the Table 1 in the specification). This argument is unpersuasive. Kitazawa explicitly discloses the chelating agent present in the electrolyte solution diffuses or partially dissolves the reaction inhibition production in the electrolyte solution, or catches an intermediate originating the reaction inhibition production to prevent the generation of the reaction inhibition production itself, thereby increasing the response speed of the oxygen sensor (¶77). The response speed of the sensor can be increased with the presence of the chelating agent, and the increase in the concentration of the chelating agent would increase its service life till seven months with good response speed (e.g., Table 1: Ex. 11-13). Thus, the increase in the service life of the sensor is not unexpected results that support nonobviousness of the claim.
Applicant’s Declaration filed on August 28, 2024 has been considered. The Declarant conducted two experiments (Declaration, p. 2) to show that when Gambert and Kitazawa are combined, it is not possible to add the chelating agent to the electrolyte solution at a concentration 1.0 mol/L or more (p. 3, Conclusion). For example, in Example 1, the saturation concentration of the chelating agent (EDTA) in the electrolyte solution (Examiner notes here that Applicant does not disclose the composition of the electrolyte solution) is 0.86 mol/L, and thus Kitazawa’s chelating agent contained in the electrolyte solution with a pH of about 7 failed to meet the concentration 1.0 mol/L or more (p. 2). This argument is unpersuasive. Kitazawa, as a reference, merely discusses EDTA as an example of chelating agents. It offers a typical concentration of the chelating agent, not less than 1.0 mol/L, which is relied on to render the subject matter of claim 1 obvious so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use tri-sodium citrate as a chelating agent at a concentration of 1.4 mol/L or higher. The experiments conducted by Applicant merely show EDTA as a chelating agent in an electrolyte solution of pH 7 cannot be at such a high concentration, but there is no evidence that prevents the concentration of citrate from reaching that high concentration.
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