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 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 1-8, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frodl (2006/0249681) in view of Paganelli et al. (2015/0325847).
Regarding claim 1, Frodl teaches an optical gas sensor device comprising: a light source that emits an infrared ray to a detection target gas (Frodl, source 102); an optical filter that transmits an infrared ray having a wavelength corresponding to an absorption wavelength of the detection target gas (Frodl, filter 106); a light receiver that detects the infrared ray entering through the optical filter and generates a detection signal (Frodl, detector 108); and a signal processor that calculates a gas concentration of the detection target gas or a value corresponding to the gas concentration, based on the detection signal (Frodl, control device 120).
Frodl lacks explicit teaching of [the signal processor] compares the calculated gas concentration or the calculated value corresponding to the gas concentration with a predetermined threshold, and that determines a state of the optical gas sensor device, based on a result of the comparison.
Paganelli teaches [the signal processor] compares the calculated gas concentration or the calculated value corresponding to the gas concentration with a predetermined threshold, and that determines a state of the optical gas sensor device, based on a result of the comparison. (Paganelli, throughout, but consider in particular Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the malfunction detection technique of Paganelli in the NDIR gas detector of Frodl in order to ensure operability of the device in critical situations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches the threshold includes a first threshold and a second threshold for determining a malfunction state of the optical gas sensor device, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; and when the calculated gas concentration or the calculated value corresponding to the gas concentration is less than the first threshold or greater than the second threshold, the signal processor determines that the optical gas sensor device is in the malfunction state. (Paganelli, Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0038])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches the threshold includes a third threshold for determining a warning state of the optical gas sensor device, the warning state corresponding to an occurrence of a gas leakage; andwhen the calculated gas concentration or the calculated value corresponding to the gas concentration is greater than the third threshold, the signal processor determines that the optical gas sensor device is in the warning state. (Paganelli, Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0038])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches the signal processor sends a state signal indicating the determined state of the optical gas sensor device to an apparatus. (Paganelli, implied – sensor output as analogue output voltage 342 must be “read” by an electronic device or processor)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches the signal processor sends the calculated gas concentration or the calculated value corresponding to the gas concentration to the apparatus. (id.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches a board and, on the board, comprising: a cover mounted to cover the light source and the light receiver such that the infrared ray passing through the optical filter is reflected on an inner surface of the cover and at least part of the reflected light reaches the light receiver; and a gas introduction part that introduces the detection target gas to an inside of the cover. (Frodl, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches the signal processor turns on the light source to obtain the detection signal of the detection target gas and turns off the light source. (Paganelli, [0039], “periodic autotest signal”)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches a switch for switching on and off the light source, wherein the signal processor controls the switch to turn on or off the light source. (Paganelli, [0039], “a periodic autotest signal”)
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 as it has the same substantive limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Frodl and Paganelli further teaches determining generation of warning, based on the calculated gas concentration or the calculated value corresponding to the gas concentration, after determining the state of the optical gas sensor device. (Paganelli, Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0038])
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 as it has the same substantive limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues alternately that there is no motivation to combine Frodl with Paganelli and that the differences between Paganelli and Frodl are too great to allow for combination. Neither argument is persuasive.
First, Frodl discloses a gas sensor intended for long term use. (Frodl, title) During the course of such use, and particularly if the operation of the sensor is critical, it would behoove the user to include some sort of fault detection. Paganelli, as part of a hydrogen fuel cell system, includes such a gas sensor (admittedly with different structure), and also teaches a method of fault detection. The cited error detection criteria is related to the signal corresponding to the hydrogen concentration. See Paganelli, [0027], [0028]. The method by which the sensor generates that signal is not germane to the signal itself, as a too high or too low concentration is measurable, and reportable as error. Therefore the references are combinable.
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 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 EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights