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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Brief description of drawings do not refer to individual Figures 6A-C, 7A-C and 8A-D.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4 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.
As to claim 1, “an electrode portion” (line 2) is a problematic, as it’s not clear if it is a portion of all of lines 2-last, or if it’s a portion of a greater electrode material.
As to claim 1, “membrane disposed between” (line 5) electrode pair is indefinite, as the disclosure indicates that such ”disposed between” is a portion of the membrane, and is not a membrane whose (entire) body is “disposed between”. Contrast “sensitive membrane” with - - sensitive membrane material - - to more appreciate the Undersigned’s concern.
As to claim 1, “voltage application section” (line 7) is indefinite, as it’s not apparent what it is a section of. Consider the “electrode portion” (line 2) and membrane are not tagged as sections (but of course they are). The terms “portion” (line 2) and “section” (line 8) always seem to suggest that there is there is something additional associated therewith.
As to claim 1, “a dense body” (italics added, last line) is indefinite. What does the adjective “dense” mean for comprehending the metes and bounds of the body? Is the phrase “dense body” recognized as a body having a density that’s greater than another (claimed, or otherwise) body? (The term “dense” continues to retain its common meaning (weight per unit volume) in the application. What of the many features of the specification is to be associated with the term of “dense” in the claims, and thus provide a clear limitation? The body itself would not seem to be by itself “dense”. Specification calls for much to produce a dense material, but nothing is seems to provide any aide in clearly defining “dense body” in the claims. A product by process limitation is not apparent.
As to claim 1, “a dense body” (italics added) is indefinite for the same reason that “membrane” is. Consider that it’s not clear what the boundaries of the “body”; that as disclosed, the material body extend across the entire substrate, but the claim refers to a mere gap between the electrodes.
As to claim 3, where is there a step in this claim? The phrase “membrane is formed” (line 3) appears as past tense, suggestive that the claim is limited to the article (gas sensor) itself, and is not really a method.
As to claim 3, the method step does not refer to many elements (i.e. the electrode portion, voltage application section of claim 1), and as such claim 3 appears to be limited to the combination of a (questionable) step and a list of those many structural elements. This entitled “method” (line 1) is problematic because all of the substance (components) of the claim is not associated with any steps. A claim may be an apparatus or a method, not some combination of both.
As to claim 4, where is there a step in this method? Note claim 2 includes the membrane, and that claim 4 includes a step that had taken place in past to provide for that membrane. As such, it’s not clear how claim 4 is introducing a step.
As to claim 4, the method step added does not refer to many elements (i.e. the electrode portion, voltage application section of claim 1), and as such claim 4 appears to be limited to the combination of a (questionable) step and a list of those many structural elements. This entitled “method” (line 1) is problematic because all of the substance (components) of the claim is not associated with any steps. A claim may be an apparatus or a method, not some combination of both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Park et al 5,605,612.
As to claim 1,2,3,4 Park teaches (Figures 4,5a gas sensor characterized by comprising:
an electrode portion which includes one or more electrode pairs each having a first electrode 29 and a second electrode 33-2, the first electrode and the second electrode being opposed to each other in a first direction in the electrode pair (best visible in Figure 5), with a gap formed therebetween
PNG
media_image1.png
230
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
a sensitive membrane 25-2 disposed/deposited between the first electrode and the second electrode in the electrode pair; and
a voltage application section which applies a voltage to the electrode portion 33-1,33-2 such that the voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the sensitive membrane is a dense body ZnO (i.e. is as much a dense body as claimed, or in the alternative, is known to be denser than other materials), or is “dense” as described below
“Subsequently, in order for the structure of the gas sensing layers to become dense and to promote easy gas reaction, heat treatment is performed for several hours at 400.degree.-800.degree. C. in air. Near to the ZnO gas sensing layer pair, a gas sensing layer where Pd is contained by 0-10% in SnO.sub.2 is deposited and thermally treated in the same manner as the ZnO gas sensing layer. A gas sensing material where Pd is contained by 0-10% in WO.sub.3 is deposited and thermally treated near SnO.sub.2 layer in the same manner as above. By doing this, six gas sensing layers all are formed. In another way, once heat treatment is allowable after all the gas sensing layers are formed” (Reference Park).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Maric 2017/02849999 (listed 1449).
As to claims 1,2,3, Maric et al 2017/0284999 (listed 1449) teaches (Para 112) a gas sensor characterized by comprising:
an electrode portion which includes one or more electrode pairs each having a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode and the second electrode being opposed to each other in a first direction in the electrode pair, with a gap formed therebetween (“interdigitated electrodes”, Para 112);
a sensitive membrane disposed (vis deposition) between the first electrode and the second electrode in the electrode pair (“metal-oxide sensing layer”, Para 112; and
a voltage application section which applies a voltage to the electrode portion such that the voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode (“change in resistance can be correlated with the concentration of NO2”, Para 112,
wherein the sensitive membrane is a dense body.
As to claim 1,2,3, the “metal-oxide sensing layer” has a density, is as much a membrane as claimed. In the alternative, Paragraphs 227,228 indicate that the sensing membrane is produced by RSDT and is porous, the RSDT method including (TABLE 2, column entitled RSDT; Para 106) heating and membrane material fabrication indicate of “dense” as much as claimed.
As to claim 4, TABLE 2 provides a working temperature that called for heat.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hyodo et al (“NO2 sensing .. template”; listed 1449 3/26/26).
As to claim 1, Hyodo teaches (p. 266, right hand column; Figure) a gas sensor characterized by comprising:
an electrode portion which includes one or more electrode pairs each having a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode and the second electrode being opposed to each other in a first direction in the electrode pair, with a gap formed therebetween;
a sensitive membrane disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode in the electrode pair; and
a voltage application section which applies a voltage to the electrode portion such that the voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the sensitive membrane is a dense body.
As to claim 1,2,4, the “oxide power” (microporous and listed temperatures 550, 100-300 degrees Cmetal-oxide sensing layer) has a density, and is as much a membrane as claimed.
As to claim 3, the oxide film is show as being deposited by sputtering (p. 265, tope 3 lines of right hand).
As to claim 4, TABLE 2 provides a working temperature that called for heat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights