DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the Hashikawa, et al. application filed with the Office on 17 June 2024.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application is a continuation application of an International Patent Application, PCT/JP2022/043887, filed on 29 November 2022, which claims priority to a Japanese Patent Application, JP 2021-208247, filed on 22 December 2021. Thus, 22 December 2021, is the effective filing date of the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted regarding the present application filed on 17 June 2024 and 8 July 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 144b and 144c, shown in Figure 1; and, 22a, shown in Figure 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a US Patent Application Publication to Watanabe (US 2018/0284056 A1; hereinafter, “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a sensor element (Title), comprising:
an element body having an oxygen-ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer ([0007]: “… gas sensor element of the present invention includes a laminate having a plurality of laminated oxygen ion conductive solid electrolyte layers …”) and provided therein with a measurement-object gas flow section, the measurement-object gas flow section receiving a measurement-object gas and causing the measurement-object gas to flow therethrough ([0007]: “… having therein a measurement-object gas flowing portion for introducing and flowing a measurement-object gas …”);
a measurement electrode disposed in the measurement-object gas flow section ([0007]: “… a measurement electrode disposed on the inner peripheral surface of the measurement-object gas flowing portion …”);
a reference electrode disposed inside the element body ([0007]: “… a reference electrode disposed in the laminate …”);
a reference-gas introduction section having a reference-gas introduction space and a porous reference-gas introduction layer, the reference-gas introduction space being open outward of the element body and introducing a reference gas serving as a reference for detecting a specific gas concentration in the measurement-object gas into the element body, the porous reference-gas introduction layer causing the reference gas to flow from the reference-gas introduction space to the reference electrode ([0007]: “ … a porous reference gas introduction layer for introducing a reference gas as a reference for detecting a specific gas concentration of the measurement-object gas from an entrance and allowing the reference gas to flow to the reference electrode disposed at the back.”); and
a heater that heats the element body ([0060]: “… the sensor element 101 is provided with a heater portion 70 serving as a temperature regulating device for heating the sensor element 101 to keep it warm.”),
wherein the reference-gas introduction layer has a first porous region and a second porous region in a path of the reference gas between the reference-gas introduction space and the reference electrode ([0066]: “The atmosphere introduction layer 48 is divided by the partition position Ps defined to be in the range of 50 to 95% (preferably 70 to 95%, more preferably 85 to 95%) of the full length (here, the length in the front-rear direction) from the entrance portion 48c toward the inside, into a back side portion 48a and an entrance side portion 48b.”; Figure 3)
the second porous region having a low porosity region with a lower porosity than the first porous region and being disposed closer to the reference electrode relative to the first porous region ([0067]: “… the diffusion resistance Rb of the entrance side portion 48b is higher than the diffusion resistance Ra of the back side portion 48a.”; it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the diffusion resistance is inherently inversely proportional to porosity, thus the recited back side portion 48a has higher porosity than the entrance side portion 48b based on the relative diffusion resistances).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein a ration of Rp2/Rp1 between a diffusion resistance Rp1 per unit length of the first porous region and a diffusion resistance Rp2 per unit length of the second porous region is between 5 and 50 inclusively.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio Rp1/Rp0 between a diffusion resistance Rp0 per unit length of the reference-gas introduction space and a diffusion resistance Rp1 per unit length of the first porous region is between 2 and 10 inclusive.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches the diffusion resistance Ra is preferably no less than 1000[/cm] and no more than 5500[/cm] and the diffusion resistance Rb is preferably no less than 5000[/cm] and no more than 50000[/cm] ([0010]).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the diffusion resistance Ra of the reference-gas introduction section is 1200 mm-1 or lower.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches the porosity regions have different widths (Figure 3).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the width W2 of the low porosity region is 90% or more of a width W1 of the first porous region and 90% or more of a Wr of the reference electrode.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein, in plan view, an area S2 of the low porosity region is 45% or more of an area Sw of a segment between the reference-gas introduction space and the reference electrode in the reference-gas introduction layer.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe teaches a gas sensor comprising the claimed sensor element (Title).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Watanabe teaches the diffusion resistance Ra is preferably no less than 1000[/cm] and no more than 5500[/cm] and the diffusion resistance Rb is preferably no less than 5000[/cm] and no more than 50000[/cm] ([0010]).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the diffusion resistance Ra of the reference-gas introduction section is 1200 mm-1 or lower.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Watanabe teaches the porosity regions have different widths (Figure 3).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the width W2 of the low porosity region is 90% or more of a width W1 of the first porous region and 90% or more of a Wr of the reference electrode.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein, in plan view, an area S2 of the low porosity region is 45% or more of an area Sw of a segment between the reference-gas introduction space and the reference electrode in the reference-gas introduction layer.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited Watanabe reference is the closest prior art to the instant claims. However, Watanabe does not anticipate nor render obvious the limitation, “wherein the low porosity region and the high porosity region are arranged in an overlapping manner in a thickness direction of the reference-gas introduction layer”, recited in each of instant claims 7 and 17. Watanabe teaches the porosity regions are stacked in along the length of the reference-gas introduction layer, rather than in the thickness direction. Claims 8 and 9 are dependent upon claim 7; claims 18 and 19 are dependent upon claim 17.
Interview with the Examiner
If at any point during the prosecution it is believe an interview with the Examiner would further the prosecution of an application, please consider this option.
The Automated Interview Request form (AIR) is available to request an interview to be scheduled with the Examiner. First, an authorization for internet communications regarding the case should be filed prior or with an AIR online request.
The internet communication authorization form (SB/0439), which authorizes or withdraws authorization for internet-based communication (e.g., video conferencing, email, etc.) for the application must be signed by the applicant or the attorney/agent for applicant. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The AIR form can be filled out online, and is automatically forwarded to the Examiner, who will call to confirm a requested time and date, or set up a mutually convenient time for the interview. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html
The Examiner encourages, but does not require, interviews by the USPTO Microsoft Teams video conferencing. This system allows for file-sharing along audio conferencing. Microsoft Teams can be used as an internet browser add-on in Microsoft IE, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Foxfire, or as a temporary Java-based application on these browsers. Steps for joining an Examiner setup Microsoft Teams can be found at the USPTO website:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice#step3
Additionally, a blank email to the Examiner at the time of a telephonic interview can be used for a reply to easily allow for Microsoft Teams communication. Please note, policy guidelines regarding Internet communications are detailed at MPEP §500-502.3, and office policy regarding interviews are detailed at MPEP §713.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C BALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5119. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/J. Christopher Ball/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795