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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, 10, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 August 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 3 includes only reference numbers but no text or labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The examiner recommends including text and/or labels consistent with Applicant’s disclosure in figure 3 and in the event a replacement sheet with such additions is supplied, the above drawing objection will be withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka et al. US PG-PUB 2006/0016268 A1 (hereafter Nagasaka), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1619487 listed on the IDS filed 4 October 2024 in view of Nagai US PG-PUB 2010/0320519 A1 (hereafter Nagai).
As to claim 1: Nagasaka discloses a sensor device (1; see fig. 1 and ¶ 27) for contacting hydrogen (see ¶ 27) comprising a sensor membrane (12; see ¶ 28) configured to come into contact with a hydrogen atmosphere (see ¶ 27 and 28), wherein the sensor membrane (12) comprises at least one stainless steel or rust-resistant steel or a steel comprising a nickel base alloy (see ¶ 28 and 29; the steel utilized is SUH 660 steel which is disclosed as being excellent in corrosion resistance and also contains nickel).
Nagasaka does not explicitly teach:
the sensor membrane comprising a hydrogen protection layer.
However, Nagai teaches a membrane comprising a hydrogen protection layer (53; see ¶ 144).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagasaka’s sensor membrane to comprise a hydrogen protection layer because such a layer is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of preventing reductive substances, such as hydrogen, from reaching sensitive electronic components, such as suggested in Nagai ¶ 144 and therefore would improve the longevity of Nagasaka’s device.
As to claim 3: Nagasaka as modified by Nagai teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the hydrogen protection layer comprises alumina or silica (53 of Nagai; see ¶ 144).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka et al. US PG-PUB 2006/0016268 A1 (hereafter Nagasaka), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1619487 listed on the IDS filed 4 October 2024 in view of Nagai US PG-PUB 2010/0320519 A1 (hereafter Nagai) as applied above, and further in view of Leuthner et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0410774 A1 (hereafter Leuthner).
As to claim 2: Nagasaka as modified by Nagai teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a stainless or rust-resistant steel (see ¶ 28 and 29 of Nagasaka), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the stainless or rust-resistance steel comprises martensitic steels such as 1.4542, 1.4418, or 1.4034.
However Leuthner teaches that a sensor component may comprise martensitic steel such as 1.4418 (see ¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nagasaka’s steel to comprise martensitic steel such as 1.4542, 1.4418, or 1.4034 because this steel provides a harder surface, such as suggested in ¶ 37 of Leuthner and thus would be advantageous for Nagasaka’s sensor device if being placed in an environment subject to harsh conditions to provide the extra durability afforded by such a martensitic steel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka et al. US PG-PUB 2006/0016268 A1 (hereafter Nagasaka), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1619487 listed on the IDS filed 4 October 2024 in view of Nagai US PG-PUB 2010/0320519 A1 (hereafter Nagai) as applied above, and further in view of Schoenberg US PG-PUB 2018/0327910 A1 (hereafter Schoenberg).
As to claim 4: Nagasaka as modified by Nagai teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim, including a hydrogen protection layer (53 of Nagai; see ¶ 144), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the hydrogen protection layer has a thickness t of between 0.1 μm and 5 μm.
However, Schoenberg teaches that hydrogen protection layers may have a thickness t of between 0.1 μm and 5 μm (see ¶ 57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nagasaka’s hydrogen protection layer to have a thickness t of between 0.1 μm and 5 μm because such a thickness is an art recognized means of achieving protection from rust as suggested in ¶ 57 of Schoenberg while also minimizing the negative effects of hydrogen which can include material fatigue as also noted in ¶ 4 of Schoenberg. Accordingly, such a protection layer with this thickness would improve the longevity of Nagasaka’s device by providing the aforementioned protection from rust and hydrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights