DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehnlein et al. (WO2019/001802, examiner is using English machine translation of the reference) in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2014/0291150).
Claim 1. Kuehnlein et al. teach a gas sensor comprising:
a sensor element that detects a gas contained in a gas to be detected (sensor element 10 for sensing gas; see abstract and Fig 1), wherein:
the sensor element includes
a solid electrolyte body in which an electrode that is exposed to the gas to be detected is provided in a detection tip end portion in a longitudinal direction of the sensor element (solid electrolyte 14 in which an electrode 28 is exposed to measuring gas in a detection tip in a longitudinal direction; see page 12 and Figs 1 and 2),
a heater that includes a heat generating unit in a position opposing the electrode and is disposed opposing the solid electrolyte body (heating element 38 is positioned opposing electrode 28 and solid electrolyte 14; see Fig 1 and page 12), and
a protective layer that covers the detection tip end portion (thermal shock protection layer 44 is porous layer covering detection tip; see Fig 2 and page 2); and
the protective layer includes
a shielding side portion that is a planar portion on a side of the protective
layer on which the solid electrolyte body is positioned in an opposing direction of the solid electrolyte body and the heater (top side 16 of thermal shock protection layer is a planar portion in an opposite direction of solid electrolyte 14 and the heating element 38; see Fig 1 and page 13), and
a heater side portion that is a planar portion on a side of the protective
layer on which the heater is positioned in the opposing direction, and a thickness of the shielding side portion is greater than a thickness of the heater side portion (bottom side 18 is a planar portion on which the heating element is positioned and thickness of top side is greater than thickness of bottom side; see Fig 1 and page 13).
Kuehnlein et al. do not explicitly teach thermal protection layer has a porosity of equal to or greater than 25%.
However, Otsuka et al. teach a gas sensor element 100 comprising detection portion 150 covered with porous protection layer 20 with porosity of 30-50% and 50-70% to provide proper thermal insulation effect for the sensor element and barrier protection from poisoning substances or water droplets (abstract and [0064][0067])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Otsuka et al. teaching to form the thermal protection layer of Kuehnlein et al. of porosities in the range of 30-50% and 50-70% because porosities in such range provides proper thermal insulation effect and barrier protection from poisoning substances or water droplets.
Claim 2. Kuehnlein et al. teach in a cross-section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the sensor element in a heat generation center position in the longitudinal direction of the heat generating unit, an overall thickness of a shielding side portion of the protective layer is equal to or greater than 1.3 times an overall thickness of a heater side portion of the protective layer (overall thickness of top side is greater than thickness of bottom side; see Fig 1 and page 13. Kuehnlein et al. do not explicitly teach thickness is equal to or greater than 1.3 times an overall thickness of heater side portion of the protective layer. However, discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II. B)).
Claims 3 and 7. Modified Kuehnlein et al. teach the thickness of the shielding side portion of the protective layer is equal to or greater than 498 μm (thickness of the porous protection layer is in the range of 20-800 or 100 to 800 microns; [0065][0068]).
Claims 4 and 8. Kuehnlein et al. teach a thickness of a side portion of the protective layer positioned on both sides in a width direction orthogonal to both the longitudinal direction and the opposing direction is greater than the thickness of the heater side portion of the protective layer (the thickness of side edges of the thermal protection layer is greater than thickness of the bottom side; see page 13).
Claims 5 and 9. Kuehnlein et al. teach the sensor element excluding the protective layer has a composition in which a proportion of volume occupied by a zirconia material is largest (the sensor element proportion of volume is occupied by zirconia; see page 2).
Claims 6 and 10. Kuehnlein et al. teach the shielding side portion of the protective layer is configured by an inner layer, and an outer layer that is laminated onto an outer side of the inner layer and has a smaller porosity than the inner layer (thermal shock protection layer comprised of gradient layer system wherein the thermal conductivity of inner layer is kept low; see page 9, thus it is apparent the inner layer has higher porosity compared to outer layer).
Claim 11. Kuehnlein et al. teach a thickness of the shielding side portion is greater than a thickness of the heater side portion in a same opposing direction of the solid electrolyte body and the heater corresponding to a same lamination direction of the protective layer (thickness of top side portion is greater than thickness of bottom side 18 in opposing direction of the solid electrolyte 14 and the heating element 38 in same lamination direction of the thermal shock protection layer 44; see Fig 1 and page 13).
Claim 12. Kuehnlein et al. teach the protective layer is formed such that the shielding side portion and the heater side portion are disposed on opposite sides of the element body in the opposing direction, and each of the shielding side portion and the heater side portion extends continuously across a full width of the element body in the width direction orthogonal to both the longitudinal direction and the opposing direction (bottom side 18 and top side 16 are disposed in opposing direction of the solid electrolyte 14 and each of the bottom side portion and the top side portion extends continuously across a full width of the solid electrolyte in the width direction orthogonal to both the longitudinal direction and the opposing direction; see Fig 1).
Claim 13. Kuehnlein et al. teach the thickness of the shielding side portion is greater than the thickness of the heater side portion (thickness of top side portion is greater than thickness of bottom side 18; see Fig 1 and page 13). Kuhnlein et al. do not explicitly teach protection layer configured to inhibit occurrence of tensile stress in the heater side portion and compressive stress in the shielding side portion of the detection tip end portion during temperature increase of the sensor element by the heater. However, the thickness of top side portion is greater than thickness of bottom side 18 and thus it would be obvious if not apparent the thermal protection layer with similar thickness would have the property of inhibit occurrence of tensile stress in the heater side portion and compressive stress in the shielding side portion of the detection tip end portion during temperature increase of the sensor element by the heater.
Claim 14. Kuehnlein et al. teach the thickness of the shielding side portion of the protective layer is greater than the thickness of the heater side portion of the protective layer thickness of top side portion is greater than thickness of bottom side 18; see Fig 1 and page 13). Kuehnlein et al. do not teach heat retention effect of the shielding side portion is greater than a heat retention effect of the heater side portion, so as to be configured to inhibit occurrence of temperature distribution in the opposing direction in the detection tip end portion during temperature increase of the sensor element by the heater. However, the thickness of top side portion is greater than thickness of bottom side 18 and thus it would be obvious if not apparent the thermal protection layer with similar thickness would have the property of heat retention effect of the shielding side portion is greater than a heat retention effect of the heater side portion, so as to be configured to inhibit occurrence of temperature distribution in the opposing direction in the detection tip end portion during temperature increase of the sensor element by the heater.
Claims 15 and 16. Kuehnlein et al. teach in a cross-section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the sensor element at a heat generation center position in the longitudinal direction of the heat generating unit, the thickness of the shielding side portion is greater than the thickness of the heater side portion at every position in the width direction across the full width of the shielding side portion and the heater side portion (thickness of top side 16 is greater than bottom side 18 at every position in the width direction in a cross-section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the sensor element at a heat generation center position in the longitudinal direction of the heating element 38; see Fig 2) .
Claim 17. Kuehnlein et al. teach the thickness of top side portion is greater than thickness of bottom side 18; see Fig 1 and page 13. Kuehnlein et al. do not teach the thickness of the shielding side portion of the protective layer is equal to or greater than 1.3 times and equal to or less than 3.0 times the thickness of the heater side portion of the protective layer. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of remarks section that cited reference Kuehnlein in Fig 1 and Page 13 teach the thickness of upper side portion and lower-side portion has same thickness. In response, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. It is not evident from disclosure, Kuehnlein Fig 1 is drawn to scale, thus one of ordinary skill in the art cannot conclude from Fig 1 the thickness height of upper side and lower side of thermal shock protection layer 44. In making the rejection, examiner cited page 13 for the teaching of thickness of upper side portion is greater than lower side portion. See the passage below:
“Embodiment further covers the thermal shock protective layer 44.The top side 16 and the bottom 18 The side edges 22 covering portion 46 of the thermal shock protection layer 44 has a greater layer thickness than the top 16 covering portion 50 and the bottom 18 covering portion 52 of the thermal shock protection layer 44 The Sections 48, 50 and 52 on the side surfaces 20, the upper side 16 and the Bottom 18 can have identical or different layer thicknesses. By way of example, the section 50 of the thermal shock protection layer 44 covering the upper side 16 has a greater layer thickness than the underside 18 covering section 52 of the thermal shock protection layer 44. Furthermore, the thermal shock protection layer 44 covers the leading edges.”
Applicant further cited passage from page 9 of Kuehnlein instead of page 13 to support their argument of the thickness of upper side portion and lower-side portion has same thickness. As indicated above, the passage on page 13 teach the upper side 16 has a greater layer thickness than the underside 18. (see previously attached machine translation copy of Kuehnlein et al. provided with previous office action).
Applicant is invited for interview if further clarification/discussion is needed about cited prior art, Kuehnlein et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights