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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025 and 10/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group II, Claims 10-21, with traverse in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement.
Claim Objection
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: please amend “hydrogen gas” to – the hydrogen gas--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the predetermined temperature”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite. Claim 14 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the predetermined temperature” in Ln 2 and “the precursor gas” in Ln 3, which lack antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 13 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites “the hydrogen gas sensing operation ”, which lack antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the sensor” refers to the hydrogen gas sensor or the catalytic sensor. Therefore, the scope of claim 14 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “the sensor”, and it is unclear if “the sensor” refers to the hydrogen gas sensor or the catalytic sensor. “the predetermined temperature” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 15 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “the heating element ” in Ln 1, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “the heating element ” and “the reference electrode”, which lack antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 17 is indefinite. Claim 18 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “the sensor”, and it is unclear if “the sensor” refers to the hydrogen gas sensor or the catalytic sensor. Therefore, the scope of claim 18 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “the heating element ”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 19 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “ the catalyst ”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 20 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuki et al. (H2 selective gas sensor based on SnO2, Sensors and actuators B, 1998, 52, 30-37). Katsuki was provided in IDS filed on 10/14/2025.
Regarding claim 10, Katsuki teaches a hydrogen gas sensor (H2 selective gas sensor based on SnO2 [title, Fig.1] comprising:
a catalytic sensor (Sintered SnO2 in Figs. 1 and 4 as the catalyst); and
a layer of porous silica (SiO2 accumulated dense layer as shown in Fig.4 [section 2]; “porous layer” [col. 1 of section 3 on page 33]) deposited over active catalytic sites (active catalytic sites of SnO2 layer) associated with the catalytic sensor (see Figs. 1 and 4),
“wherein the deposited porous silica allows hydrogen gas and/or oxygen to diffuse and interact with the active catalytic sites of the catalytic sensor, resulting in detection of the hydrogen gas” is functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Katsuki teaches the deposited porous SiO2 layer configured to allow hydrogen gas and/or oxygen to diffuse and interact with the active catalytic sites of the catalytic sensor, resulting in detection of the hydrogen gas (see the simple model for selectivity and sensing mechanism to hydrogen in the SnO2 layer with the dense surface layer as shown in Fig.4, wherein H2 and O2 diffusive through the porous SiO2 layer to interact with the SnO2, and Fig.10 shows the detection result).
Regarding claim 11, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, and “wherein the layer of porous silica is deposited over the catalytic sensor by chemical vapor deposition of siloxane precursor gas at a predetermined temperature over the catalytic sensor” is a product by process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Katsuki further teaches the layer of porous silica is deposited over the catalytic sensor by chemical vapor deposition of siloxane precursor gas at a predetermined temperature over the catalytic sensor (a dense layer was formed by CVD of HMDS at 550 oC, and HMDS was decomposed thermally to silica [section 2]).
Regarding claim 12, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, “wherein the catalytic sensor is maintained at the predetermined temperature to reduce catalytic interaction between the catalytic sensor and one or more combustible gases having molecular size greater than molecular size of hydrogen gas” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Katsuki teaches the H2 gas sensor is configured to maintained at a predetermined temperature ranging from 400 oC to 560 oC, as shown in Fig.10, thus, is capable of performing the claimed function of maintaining at a predetermined temperature to reduce catalytic interaction between the catalytic sensor and one or more combustible gases having molecular size greater than molecular size of hydrogen gas.
Regarding claim 13, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, and the limitation “wherein temperature of the catalytic sensor is lowered below the predetermined temperature to increase catalytic interaction between the catalytic sensor and the precursor gas, and wherein temperature of the catalytic sensor is increased above the predetermined temperature to remove byproducts formed on surface of the catalytic sensor upon breaking of the precursor gas into a glass form” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Katsuki teaches the H2 gas sensor is configured to maintained at a temperature ranging from 400 oC to 560 oC, as shown in Fig.10, thus, is capable of changing a temperature of the catalytic sensor to be below a predetermined temperature to increase catalytic interaction between the catalytic sensor and the precursor gas or above the predetermined temperature to remove byproducts formed on surface of the catalytic sensor upon breaking of the precursor gas into a glass form.
Regarding claim 14, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 12, and “wherein the catalytic sensor is maintained at the predetermined temperature during the deposition of porous silica on the catalytic sensor and/or during the hydrogen gas sensing operation by the sensor” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Katsuki teaches the catalytic sensor is maintained at the predetermined temperature during the deposition of porous silica on the catalytic sensor (the gas sensor was heated at 550 oC during the deposition of porous silica [section 2]) and/or during the hydrogen gas sensing operation by the sensor (Fig.10 shows the catalytic sensor is maintained at a predetermined temperature during the hydrogen gas sensing operation), the catalytic sensor is capable of performing the claimed functions above.
Regarding claim 15, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, wherein the sensor comprises a heating element (platinum coil in Fig.1 [section 2]) and a reference electrode (fixed resistance of R0, R1 and R2 in Fig.2) disposed in thermal contact with the catalytic sensor (see Fig.2), and
“wherein the heating element is configured to heat and/or maintain the catalytic sensor at the predetermined temperature” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Katsuki teaches the heating element configured to heat and/or maintain the catalytic sensor at the predetermined temperature (the gas sensor was heated at 550 oC by Joule heating the coil [section 2]).
Regarding claim 16, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, wherein the heating element (platinum coil in Fig.1 [section 2]) having a predetermined resistance and a predetermined stiffness (platinum coil in Fig.1 having a predetermined resistance and a predetermined stiffness) is disposed within the catalytic sensor in a predefined coil arrangement (see Fig.1) to support and strengthen the catalytic sensor (see Fig.1).
Regarding claim 19, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, wherein the heating element (platinum coil in Fig.1 [section 2]) is made of a material of pure platinum metal (platinum wire coil [section 2]).
Regarding claim 21, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, and “wherein the hydrogen gas sensor is operated in any of a constant current mode, a constant power mode, a constant voltage mode, and/or a constant temperature mode to determine and monitor a concentration of the detected hydrogen gas based on the interaction between the hydrogen gas and the active catalytic sites” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Katsuki teaches the H2 gas sensor is configured to maintained at a constant temperature ranging from 400 oC to 560 oC, as shown in Fig.10 (the 2nd paragraph in Col.1 on page 36), thus the disclosed hydrogen gas sensor is capable of operating in a constant temperature mode to determine and monitor a concentration of the detected hydrogen gas based on the interaction between the hydrogen gas and the active catalytic sites.
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 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.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuki, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Soundarrajan et al. (US20090301879A1) and Lankheet (US6346178B1). Soundarrajan was provided in IDS filed on 10/14/2025.
Regarding claim 17, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, and is silent to wherein the catalytic sensor comprises: a substrate; a first layer of an inert refractory material coated on the substrate; and a second layer of a catalyst coated on the first layer to fabricate the catalytic sensor having the active catalytic sites, wherein the heating element and the reference electrode are disposed within the substrate.
Soundarrajan teaches a solid-state hydrogen gas sensor employing catalytic metals such as palladium, platinum, ruthenium, vanadium and/or other precious/noble metal catalysts, and their alloys (title and [para. 0012]). Fig.1 shows the catalyst sensor
comprises: a substrate (Si substrate); a first layer of an inert refractory material (SiO2/Si3N4 in Fig.1) coated on the substrate; and a second layer of a catalyst (Pd-Ni catalyst in Fig.1 [para. 0013]) coated on the first layer to fabricate the catalytic sensor having the active catalytic sites. The sensor further comprises a coating of SiO2 layer on the catalytic sensor (claim 1 and Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catalytic sensor in Katsuki by providing a substrate; a first layer of an inert refractory material coated on the substrate; and a second layer of a catalyst coated on the first layer to fabricate the catalytic sensor having the active catalytic sites, as taught by Soundarrajan, which teaches a suitable alternative configuration for the hydrogen gas sensor which would improve the accuracy and performance of hydrogen detectors in harsh chemical process stream backgrounds that include contaminants like CO (a surface adsorbing/inhibiting chemical species), H2S (a precious metal catalyst poison), Cl2 (an electroactive species) [para. 0012 ].
Modified Katsuki is silent to wherein the heating element and the reference electrode are disposed within the substrate.
Lankheet teaches a gas sensor comprising a dielectric substrate, a heater disposed within said substrate, a ground plane disposed within said substrate (Col. 2, Ln 20-26), and the gas sensor could be hydrogen sensor (Col. 3, Ln 5-7). The heater serves to heat the sensor to a temperature at which gas sensing is optimized. The ground plane can be disposed between two substrate layers. The leads connect various sensor components, e.g., electrodes, the ground plane, etc., to the contacts (Col. 4, Ln 50-57). The ground plane electrode is deemed as the reference electrode. Thus, Lankheet teaches a hydrogen gas sensor comprising heating element and reference electrode disposed within the substrate.
Given the teachings of Katsuki regarding heating the sensor to maintain a predetermined temperature (see Fig.10), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen gas sensor by providing a heating element and a reference electrode disposed within the substrate, as taught by Lankheet, since it would allow to heat the sensor to a temperature at which gas sensing is optimized (Col. 4, Ln 50-57 in Lankheet).
Regarding claim 18, modified Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 17, and Katsuki is silent to wherein the sensor further comprises a third layer of a nanoporous glassy or ceramic material coated on the catalytic sensor having the deposited porous silica thereon, wherein the third layer allows the hydrogen gas and/or the oxygen to diffuse therethrough and interact with the active catalytic sites of the catalytic sensor.
Soundarrajan teaches wherein the sensor further comprises a third layer of a nanoporous glassy or ceramic material (at least one layer of alumina [abstract]) coated on the catalytic sensor having the deposited porous silica thereon, wherein the third layer allows the hydrogen gas to diffuse therethrough and interact with the active catalytic sites of the catalytic sensor (Example 2: Inorganic coatings comprising Al2O3 and SiO2; Fig.2 [para. 0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor by providing a third layer of a ceramic material (alumina) coated on the catalytic sensor having the deposited porous silica thereon, wherein the third layer allows the hydrogen gas to diffuse therethrough and interact with the active catalytic sites of the catalytic sensor, as taught by Soundarrajan, since it would enable long term performance of the sensor [para. 0063 in Soundarrajan].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuki, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Soundarrajan et al. (US20090301879A1).
Regarding claim 20, Katsuki teaches the hydrogen gas sensor of claim 10, wherein the siloxane precursor gas is hexamethyldisiloxane (hexamethyldisiloxane [HMDS] in Abstract and section 2).
Katsuki teaches wherein the catalytic sensor or the catalyst is SnO2, thus is silent to wherein the catalytic sensor or the catalyst is selected from a group of materials comprising platinum, and palladium.
Soundarrajan teaches a solid-state hydrogen gas sensor employing catalytic metals such as palladium, platinum, ruthenium, vanadium and/or other precious/noble metal catalysts, and their alloys (title and [para. 0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the catalyst of SnO2 with a catalytic metal selected from a group of materials comprising platinum and palladium, as taught by Soundarrajan, since it would improve the accuracy and performance of hydrogen detectors in harsh chemical process stream backgrounds that include contaminants like CO (a surface adsorbing/inhibiting chemical species), H2S (a precious metal catalyst poison), Cl2 (an electroactive species) [para. 0012 in Soundarrajan].
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tu (US20250027893A1) teaches an apparatus for simultaneously measuring air contained hydrogen and water vapor concentration. Jones et al. (US20200271617A1) teaches an electrochemical hydrogen gas sensor. Kimura (US20160103082A1) teaches a H2 gas sensor comprising a catalyst layer made of Pt. Yoshioka (WO2007099789A1) teaches a gas sensor comprising a catalyst layer, a measuring electrode and a reference electrode disposed on a substrate and a heater disposed within the substrate. Seo et al. (US20230243795A1) teaches a hydrogen sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 V. 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 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights