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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1 the following changes should be made, the second occurrence of “a)” should be replaced with – b) --; and “b)” should be replaced with – c) -- and
b) claim 17 requires “. . . ., and c) an inlet conduit carrying a reference gas to the interior side of the conical shape, causing the reference gas to come in contact with the platinum RE; . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” These phrases may be read as indicating method steps; however, claim 17 is a system (device) claim. Thus, the statutory class of invention is not clear. If this claim were published in a patent as is, the public would not know whether they would have to perform these method steps in order to infringe the claimed device. The Examiner suggests that Applicant use “configured to” or “adapted to “ phrasing to describe these inlet functions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
a) Claim 6 recites, “. . . ., where the rare earth element is selected from any of Y, Yb, In, Sc, Gd, Nd, Sm, Ga, Er or combinations, thereof. [highlighting by the Examiner]” However, neither In nor Ga are conventionally considered to be rare earth elements. See, for example, “REE - Rare Earth Elements and their Uses” at the Geology dot com website. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of the phrase “rare earth element” as used in claim 2. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
b) claim 17 requires
PNG
media_image1.png
214
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Is the port of part (c)(i) of the claim differ from the port of part (b)(iii)?
c) claim 19 requires “. . . ., the platinum SE being located in the reaction chamber. [italicizing by the Examiner]” However, underling claim 17 requires “i. the hydrogen sensor being inserted into a port of the system with the platinum SE being oriented to face gas from the reaction chamber . . . .” As the platinum is part of the hydrogen sense these two limitations seem inconsistent as they appear to require the platinum Se to be in two different locations at the same time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukatsu, N., Kurita, N. Hydrogen sensor based on oxide proton conductors and its application to metallurgical engineering. Ionics 11, 54–65 (2005) (hereafter “Fukatsu”).
Addressing claim 1, Fukatsu discloses a hydrogen sensor (see the title) comprising:
a) a proton-carrying electrolyte (see the Abstract and Figure 4, noting therein CaZr0.9In0.1O3-δ);
b) an RE (reference electrode) lining a first side of the proton-carrying electrolyte (the top Pt electrode in Figure 41);
c) an SE (sense electrode) lining a second side of the proton-carrying electrolyte (the top Pt electrode in Figure 42); and
d) a voltage measuring device (
PNG
media_image2.png
30
44
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in Figure 4) that is electrically connected to the RE and the SE to measure a voltage drop between the RE and the SE (see Figure 4 and Figures 5 and 6, and equation (8), which is on
page 58), the proton-carrying electrolyte being capable of maintaining a gradient of concentration of hydrogen cations between the SE and the RE at 250°C (Figure 7 noting inset “at 973 K, which equals 699.85 °C).
Addressing claims 2 and 6, for the additional limitations of these claims note: (1) the presence of the element In in the proton-carrying electrolyte of Fukatsu (CaZr0.9In0.1O3-δ), and (2) that Applicant’s claim 6 and originally filed specification paragraph [0021]3 evidences that Applicant considers the element In to be a rare earth element.
Addressing claims 3 and 5, for the additional limitations of these claims recall from the rejection of underlying claim 1 the perovskite has the structure CaZr0.9In0.1O3-δ. So, A, in the claim structure ABO3, is Ca, and B is Zr. Also note that In in the aforementioned perovskite structure is dopant (See the Fukatsu Abstract and the last sentence on page 60, bridging to page 61) and Applicant’s claim 5, which depends form claim 3, requires “. . . ., where both the A cation and the B cation are doped.”
Addressing claim 12, the additional limitation of this claim may be inferred from Fukatsu Figures 4 and 10. Also, note the following, “ A test tube shaped polycrystalline sintered CaZr0.9In0.103-δ electrolyte was set with the open end being faced to the liquid melt. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See right column on Fukatsu page 57.
Addressing claim 13, for the additional limitation of this claim the Examiner is construing the Alumina tube in Figure 4 as the claimed ceramic vessel.
Addressing claim 14, for the additional limitation of this claim the Examiner is construing the Stainless tube in Figure 4 as the claimed gas inlet. In this eagrd also note the following, “To the outside electrode gas of argon containing 1% hydrogen is supplied through a metallic pipe which also serves as the lead wire to the reference electrode. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See the left column on Fukatsu page 58.
Addressing claim 15, the additional limitation of this claim may be inferred from Fukatsu Figure 4, the cavity being the inertial space of the “Stainless tube”.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hinojo, A.; Lujan, E.; Nel-lo, M.; Abella, J.; Colominas, S. Potentiometric Hydrogen Sensor with 3D-Printed BaCe0.6Zr0.3Y0.1O3- Electrolyte for High-Temperature Applications. Sensors 2022, 22, 9707 with supplementary information (hereafter “Hinojo”).
Addressing clam 1, Hinojo discloses a hydrogen sensor (see the title) comprising:
a) a proton-carrying electrolyte (“In the present work, BaCe0.6 Zr0.3Y0.1O3 -α (BCZY) was used as a proton-conducting electrolyte for potentiometric sensors construction.” See the Abstract. );
b) an RE (reference electrode) lining a first side of the proton-carrying electrolyte)(see Figures 2(a) and 2(b), noting therein RE);
c) an SE (sense electrode) lining a second side of the proton-carrying electrolyte (see Figures 2(a) and 2(b), noting therein WE); and
d) a voltage measuring device (note Potentiostat 1 and Potenstiostat 2 in Figure 3) that is electrically connected to the RE and the SE (see Figure 2) to measure a voltage drop between the RE and the SE (see the first sentence of 2.4. Electrochemical Measurements, which is on page 5 of 14. Also see Figure 7, which is on page 8 of 14, and see equation (1), which is on page 5 of 14.), the proton-carrying electrolyte being capable of maintaining a gradient of concentration of hydrogen cations between the SE and the RE at 250 °C (Finally, the electrodes were connected to a high-impedance voltmeter (PalmSens EmStat3+ Blue) using platinum wires to measure the potential difference (DE) at 500 °C.” See the last sentence on page 5 of 14, bridging to page 6 of 14.).
Addressing clam 2, for the additional limitation of this claim first note the following, “In previous works [18,19], BaCe0.6 Zr0.3Y0.1O3 -α perovskite material was used as an electrolyte for potentiometric and amperometric hydrogen sensors construction. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See page 2 of 14. Now note the following, “In the present work, BaCe0.6 Zr0.3Y0.1O3 -α solid-state electrolyte was used for potentiometric sensors construction.” See page 2 of 14.
Addressing clam 6, for the additional limitation of this claim note the element Y in BaCe0.6 Zr0.3Y0.1O3 -α.
Addressing clam 7, for the additional limitation of this claim recall form the rejection of underlying claim 1 that the proton-carrying electrolyte in Hinojo is BaCe0.6 Zr0.3Y0.1O3 -α.
Addressing clam 8, for the additional limitations of this claim see Hinojo Figure 2 noting therein “6 – Platinum wires”.
Addressing clam 10, for the additional limitations of this claim see Hinojo Figure 3 noting therein the PID Temperature Controller.
Addressing clam 12, the additional limitation of this claim may be inferred from Hinojo Figure 2(b).
Addressing clam 13, for the additional limitation of this claim see Hinojo
Figures 2(a) and 2(b) noting therein “1- Alumina tube”.
Addressing clam 14, for the additional limitation of this claim see Hinojo
Figures 2(a) and 2(b) noting therein “2- RE gas inlet”. Also note “RE gas inlets” in Figure 3.
Addressing clam 15, for the additional limitation of this claim see Hinojo
Figures 2(a) and 2(b). The Examiner is construing the internal “RE” space, especially below the bottom end of the RE gas inlet, as the claimed cavity.
Addressing clam 16, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the proton-carrying electrolyte comprises barium-zirconate-cerate material doped with yttrium (BCZY), having a barium zirconate site and a barium cerate site; where both the barium zirconate site and the barium cerate site are doped; where both the barium zirconate site and the barium cerate site are doped; . . . .” note again in Hinojo, “In the present work, BaCe0.6 Zr0.3Y0.1O3 -α (BCZY) was used as a proton-conducting electrolyte for potentiometric sensors construction; .” See the Abstract. Regarding composition claims, it has been held that if the composition [here BCZY] in the prior art is physically the same as claimed, it must have the same properties4. See MPEP 2112.01. Also, compounds similar in structure will have similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09(I). Last, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the element Y is a dopant.
As for the claim limitation “. . . .; the RE and the SE are made from platinum; . . . .”, see Hinojo Figures 2(a) and 2(b) noting “4 – platinum ink”.
As for the claim limitation “. . . .; the proton-carrying electrolyte having a conical shape; . . . .”, it may be inferred from Hinojo Figure 2(b).
As for the claim limitation “. . . .; and the hydrogen sensor further including at least a ceramic vessel connected to the proton-carrying electrolyte so that the ceramic vessel and the proton-carrying electrolyte form a cavity in which the RE is within the cavity and the SE is outside of the cavity…”, see Hinojo Figure 2(b) in which “1- Alumina tube” is the claimed ceramic vessel and the internal “RE” space, especially below the bottom end of the RE gas inlet, is the claimed cavity.
Addressing clam 17, Hinojo discloses a system (Figure 3) comprising:
a) a hydrogen sensor (see the title and Abstract, and Figures 2(a) and 2(b), which show a detailed view of each version of the hydrogen sensors in the system view of Figure 3.), the hydrogen sensor including an electrolyte having a barium-zirconate-cerate material doped with yttrium (BCZY), the electrolyte having a conical shape; wherein
i. the conical shape has an exterior side covered with a platinum SE (sensor electrode) (see Figure 2(b), noting the exterior platinum ink (4) of the WE (SE)) and
ii. the conical shape has an interior side covered with a platinum RE (reference electrode) (see Figure 2(b), noting the interior platinum ink (4) of the RE); and
b) a reaction chamber (stainless-steel reactor clearly visible in Figure 3, although unlabeled. Also see the first sentence of 2.4. Electrochemical Measurements, which is on page 5 of 14), the reaction chamber including,
i. one or more inlet conduits for transporting starting materials into the reaction chamber, the starting materials including aluminum and water;
ii. one or more outlet conduits for transporting an end product out of the reaction chamber, the end product including hydrogen; and
iii. a port for accepting the hydrogen sensor; and
c) an inlet conduit carrying a reference gas to the interior side of the conical shape (“2- RE gas inlet” in Figure 2(b)), causing the reference gas to come in contact with the platinum RE (this feature may be inferred form Figures 2(b) and 3); wherein,
i. the hydrogen sensor being inserted into a port of the system (this port may be inferred form Figure 3, at the top of the reaction chamber) with the platinum SE being oriented to face gas from the reaction chamber (this feature may be inferred from Figure 3 when viewed together with
Figure 2(b)) so that a ratio of a hydrogen partial pressure of the gas from the reaction chamber and a hydrogen partial pressure of the reference gas generates a voltage drop between the platinum SE and the platinum RE (this feature may be inferred from equation (1), which is on page 5 of 14); and
ii. the platinum SE and the platinum RE being in electrical contact with an output (see Figure3, noting therein the “Platinum connections”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinojo as evidenced by the PalmSens EmStat3 series Brochure (hereafter “PalmSens”).
Addressing clam 9, as a first matter note that Fukatsu meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above based on Fukatsu.
for the additional limitation of claim 9 first note the following in Hinojo, “Finally, the electrodes were connected to a high-impedance voltmeter (PalmSens EmStat3+ Blue) using platinum wires to measure the potential difference (DE) at 500 °C. [underlining by the Examiner]” See the last sentence on page 5 of 14, bridging to
page 6 of 14. As evidenced by PalmSens the voltmeter used by Hinojo is a multimeter. See PalmSens page 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu in view of Islam et al., “Proton Migration and Defect Interactions in the CaZrO3 Orthorhombic Perovskite: A Quantum Mechanical Study,” Chem. Mater. 2001, 13, 2049-2055 (hereafter “Islam”).
Addressing claim 4, as a first matter note that Fukatsu meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 3. See the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above based on Fukatsu.
There is not enough information in Fukatsu to determine whether or not “the A cation is a 12-coordinated A2+ cation, and the B cation is a 6-coordinated B4+ cation. However, based on the following in Islam there is a reasonable expectation that that these features are met by the CaZr0.9In0.1O3-δ of Fukatsu
PNG
media_image3.png
88
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see the Islam abstract), and
PNG
media_image4.png
211
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see Islam page 2025).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu in view of Martin et al. US 4,907,440 (hereafter ‘Martin”).
Addressing claim 10, as a first matter note that Fukatsu meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1.
As for the claim limitation, “. . . ., the voltage measuring device comprising a controller…”, Fukatsu implies that the voltage measuring device comprises a controller as Fukatsu states, “The emf of both cells was measured by a computer-controlled voltmeter and the calculated values of hydrogen and oxygen partial pressures are displayed on the screen as a function of the time.[italicizing by the Examiner]” See page 61, left column. Moreover, using a computer controller for a probe for determining gas concentration of a molten metal is known in the art. See, for example, Martin the title and Figure 1 (noting “Computer Controller” 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide such a controller for the hydrogen sensor of Fukatsu because Fukatsu discloses and intends for the hydrogen senor to be used in practical industrial settings relating to metallurgical engineering, such as monitoring a molten aluminum melt (see the title, Abstract, especially the last two sentences, and the last paragraph on page 57). So, providing a controller is obvious as a way to automate the hydrogen sensing of an industrial process rather than having a technician checking the measurements. Automating a manual activity is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Addressing claim 11, as for having the controller be configured to take action based on the specified equation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to so configure the controller of Fukatsu as modified by Martin because
(1) Fukatsu already uses the same equation to determine hydrogen partial pressure (concentration)5, and
(2) it will be consistent with and will further the monitoring of an industrial process indicated in the rejection of underlying claim 10 by using the measured hydrogen partial pressure to determine whether the industrial process is proceeding satisfactorily.
16. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojo.
Addressing claim 11, as a first matter note that Hinojo meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 10. See the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above based on Hinojo.
The controller in Hinojo is a temperature controller.
Using a computer controller for a probe for determining gas concentration of a molten metal is known in the art. See, for example, Martin the title and Figure 1 (noting “Computer Controller” 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide such a computer controller for the hydrogen sensor of because Hinojo discloses and intends for the hydrogen senor to be used in practical industrial settings (see the title, and the Abstract, especially the first two sentences). So, providing a computer controller as taught by Martin is obvious as a way to automate the hydrogen sensing of an industrial process rather than having a technician checking the measurements. Automating a manual activity is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
As for having the computer controller be configured to take action based on the specified equation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to so configure the controller of Hinojo as modified by Martin because
(1) Hinojo already uses the same equation to determine hydrogen partial pressure (concentration)6, and
(2) it will be consistent with and will further the monitoring of an industrial process indicated above by using the measured hydrogen partial pressure to determine whether the industrial process is proceeding satisfactorily.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojo in view of Gutbier et al. US 3,932,600 (hereafter “Gutbier”).
Addressing clam 17, Hinojo discloses a system (Figure 3) comprising:
a) a hydrogen sensor (see the title and Abstract, and Figures 2(a) and 2(b), which show a detailed view of each version of the hydrogen sensors in the system view of Figure 3.), the hydrogen sensor including an electrolyte having a barium-zirconate-cerate material doped with yttrium (BCZY), the electrolyte having a conical shape; wherein
i. the conical shape has an exterior side covered with a platinum SE (sensor electrode) (see Figure 2(b), noting the exterior platinum ink (4) of the WE (SE)) and
ii. the conical shape has an interior side covered with a platinum RE (reference electrode) (see Figure 2(b), noting the interior platinum ink (4) of the RE); and
b) a reaction chamber (stainless-steel reactor clearly visible in Figure 3, although unlabeled. Also see the first sentence of 2.4. Electrochemical Measurements, which is on page 5 of 14), the reaction chamber including,
i. one or more inlet conduits for transporting starting materials into the reaction chamber (note “WE Gas inlet” in Figure 3);
ii. one or more outlet conduits for transporting an end product out of the reaction chamber, the end product including hydrogen (note “WE gas exit” in Figure 3 and “The hydrogen concentration in the reactor (working electrodes) ranged from . . . .”(first sentence ion the last paragraph on page 5 of 14)); and
iii. a port for accepting the hydrogen sensor (this port may be inferred form Figure 3, at the top of the reaction chamber); and
c) an inlet conduit carrying a reference gas to the interior side of the conical shape (“2- RE gas inlet” in Figure 2(b)), causing the reference gas to come in contact with the platinum RE (this feature may be inferred form Figures 2(b) and 3); wherein,
i. the hydrogen sensor being inserted into a port of the system (this port may be inferred form Figure 3, at the top of the reaction chamber) with the platinum SE being oriented to face gas from the reaction chamber (this feature may be inferred from Figure 3 when viewed together with
Figure 2(b)) so that a ratio of a hydrogen partial pressure of the gas from the reaction chamber and a hydrogen partial pressure of the reference gas generates a voltage drop between the platinum SE and the platinum RE (this feature may be inferred from equation (1), which is on page 5 of 14); and
ii. the platinum SE and the platinum RE being in electrical contact with an output (see Figure3, noting therein the “Platinum connections”).
However, Hinojo does not disclose that the reaction chamber includes
“
i. one or more inlet conduits for transporting starting materials into the reaction chamber, the starting materials including aluminum and water; [italicizing by the Examiner]
“
As a first matter, (1) the limitation “starting materials including aluminum and water; . . . .” only expresses an intended use of the one or more inlet conduits, not the actual presence of these materials. The WE Gas inlet of Hinojo Figure 3 arguably could be used for transporting starting materials into the reaction chamber, the starting materials including aluminum and water. That is, the WE Gas inlet of Hinojo Figure 3 is arguably inherently an inlet conduit as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01(I). In any event, Gutbier discloses a process for the generation of hydrogen (see the title) that involves using a reaction chamber (Figure 4 and col. 5:56-58) including,
i. one or more inlet conduits for transporting starting materials into the reaction chamber (the Examiner is construing the unlabeled inlet conduit at the upper left-hand corner of supply container 55 as such an inlet. See Gutbier Figure 4 and col. 5:62-65. Open bottom end 52a is another such inlet. See Gutbier Figure 4 and col. 5:56-58), the starting materials including aluminum (see col. 5:65-68 and claim 1) and water
(col. 6:19-22);
ii. one or more outlet conduits (53) for transporting an end product out of the reaction chamber, the end product including hydrogen (col. 6:4-7 and col. 6:26-28); and
iii. a port (61) for accepting a hydrogen sensor (60)(col. 6:4-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to substitute the reaction chamber of Gutbier for that of Hinojo (or from another perspective have the hydrogen sensor in Gutbier be the (conical) hydrogen sensor of Hinojo) because this will make the sensor of Hinojo useful for a real-world application (monitoring hydrogen produced by a reaction involving aluminum and water, with the hydrogen being a fuel for a fuel cell. See Gutbier col. 1:1-14.) as the reaction chamber of Hinojo is primarily suited for studying the response characteristics of different embodiments of the hydrogen sensor (Hinojo Figures 2(a) and 2(b)) to predetermined test gas compositions.
Addressing clam 18, for the additional limitation of this claim note that although Hinojo Figure 2(b) shows the hydrogen sensor further comprising a ceramic vessel (“1 – Alumina tube”) attached to the exterior side of the conical shape, to have the ceramic vessel instead be attached to the interior side of the conical shape is prima facie obvious as a simple size change (slightly reducing the outer diameter oof the ceramic vessel) that will not materially affect the operation of the hydrogen censor (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A)).
Addressing clam 19, for the additional limitation of this claim consider Hinojo Figure 3 alongside Figure 2(b).
Addressing clam 20, for the additional limitation of this claim consider Gutbier Figure 4 noting that the hydrogen sensor of Hinojo (Figure 2(b)) would, based on the claim 17 rejection, be substituted for the Gutbier hydrogen sensor 60.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 “The cell is designed to compose a gas concentration cell whose working electrode is exposed to the closed gas phase equilibrated with the melt and the reference electrode is exposed to the gas of
known activity of hydrogen [9]. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See the right column on page 57.
2 The cell is designed to compose a gas concentration cell whose working electrode is exposed to the closed gas phase equilibrated with the melt and the reference electrode is exposed to the gas of
known activity of hydrogen [9]. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See the right column on page 57.
3 “In various embodiments, the rare earth element is selected from any of Y, Yb, In, Sc, Gd, Nd, Sm, Ga, Er or combinations, thereof.”
5 The equation in Applicant’s claim 11 is identical to that of equation (8) of Fukatsu (on page 58), only rearranged so that pH2 (Applicant’s P’H2) is on the left side of the equals sign. The 0.01 in Fukatsu equation (8) is the actual value of Applicant’s P”H2 (““To the outside electrode gas of argon containing 1% hydrogen is supplied through a metallic pipe which also serves as the lead wire to the reference electrode. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See Fukatsu page 58, left column.).
6 The equation in Applicant’s claim 11 is identical to that of equation (1) of Hinojo (on page 5 of 14), only rearranged so that (PH2)WE (Applicant’s P’H2) is on the left side of the equals sign. (PH2)RE in this equation is Applicant’s P”H2.