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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) claim 1, line 24, requires “a heater heating the sensor element… [italicizing by the Examiner]” This phrase may be read as indicating a method step; however, claim 1 is a device claim (”A gas sensor”). Thus, the statutory class of invention is not clear. If this claim were published in a patent as is, the public would not know whether they would have to perform this method step in order to infringe the claimed device. The Examiner suggests that Applicant use “configured to” or “adapted to “ phrasing to describe this heater function.
b) claim 1, line 28, requires “the adjustment pump cell pumps . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]“ This phrase may be read as indicating a method step; however, claim 1 is a device claim (”A gas sensor”). Thus, the statutory class of invention is not clear. If this claim were published in a patent as is, the public would not know whether they would have to perform this method step in order to infringe the claimed device. The Examiner suggests that Applicant use “configured to” or “adapted to “ phrasing to describe this adjustment pump cell function.
c) claim 1, line 31, requires “the first measurement pump cell pumps . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]“ This phrase may be read as indicating a method step; however, claim 1 is a device claim (”A gas sensor”). Thus, the statutory class of invention is not clear. If this claim were published in a patent as is, the public would not know whether they would have to perform this method step in order to infringe the claimed device. The Examiner suggests that Applicant use “configured to” or “adapted to “ phrasing to describe this first measurement pump cell function.
d) claim 1, line 35, requires “the second measurement pump cell pumps . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]“ This phrase may be read as indicating a method step; however, claim 1 is a device claim (”A gas sensor”). Thus, the statutory class of invention is not clear. If this claim were published in a patent as is, the public would not know whether they would have to perform this method step in order to infringe the claimed device. The Examiner suggests that Applicant use “configured to” or “adapted to “ phrasing to describe this second measurement pump cell function.
e) claim 1, line 38, requires “the controller identifies: [italicizing by the Examiner]” This phrase may be read as indicating a method step; however, claim 1 is a device claim (”A gas sensor”). Thus, the statutory class of invention is not clear. If this claim were published in a patent as is, the public would not know whether they would have to perform this method step in order to infringe the claimed device. The Examiner suggests that Applicant use “configured to” or “adapted to “ phrasing to describe this controller function.
f) in claim 1, line 38, a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
g) in claim 1, line 43, a concentration of carbon dioxide” should be – the concentration of carbon dioxide --, unless there is somehow more than one such concentration.
h) in claim 3, line 11, a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
i) in claim 3, line 15, a concentration of carbon dioxide” should be – the concentration of carbon dioxide -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
j) in claim 3, line 16, a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
k) in claim 3, line 19, a contribution of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such contribution.
l) in claim 3, line 22, a concentration of carbon dioxide” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
m) in claim 4, line 4, a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
n) in claim 4, line 8, a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
o) in claim 4, line 12, a contribution of water vapor” should be – the contribution of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such contribution .
p) in claim 4, line 16, a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
r) in claim 4, line 19, a contribution of water vapor” should be – the contribution of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such contribution .
s) in claim 4, line 22, a concentration of carbon dioxide” should be – the concentration of carbon dioxide -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
t) in claim 7, line 3, a concentration of oxygen” should be – the concentration of oxygen -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
u) in claim 8, part (e), a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
v) in claim 8, part (f), a concentration of carbon dioxide” should be – the concentration of carbon dioxide -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
w) in claim 10, lines 19-20, a concentration of carbon dioxide” should be – the concentration of carbon dioxide -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
x) in claim 11, step (e), a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
y) in claim 11, step (f), a concentration of water vapor” should be – the concentration of water vapor -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
z) in claim 14, step (h), a concentration of oxygen” should be – the concentration of oxygen -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
aa) in claim 17, line 3, a concentration of oxygen” should be – the concentration of oxygen -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
ab) in claim 20, line 3, a concentration of oxygen” should be – the concentration of oxygen -- , unless there is somehow more than one such concentration .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
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 1-20 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:
a) claim 1 requires that the sensor element comprises “an out-of-space pump electrode [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see lines 14-15 of the claim). The phrase “an out-of-space pump electrode” is unique to Applicant and is undefined. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase, especially as the sub-phrase “out-of-space” by itself means no more space, as in, for example, the box is out of space, that is, the box is full. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
b) claim 1, line 38, requires “the controller identifies: a concentration of water vapor . . . .; and a concentration of carbon dioxide . . . .” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. While one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art may say that a controller identifies one or more constituents of a sample gas, one would typically say that a controller determines or calculates the concentration of an analyte in a gas sample rather than identifies a concertation of an analyte. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by the controller identifies a concentration.
b) claim 1, line 40, requires “a value of a water vapor equivalent current”. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase as it appears to be unique to Applicant and undefined. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
c) claim 1, lines 44-45, mentions “a total reducing current”. It is not clear how the word “total” is being used here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
d) claim 3, lines 5-6, mentions “the Ip1-H2O data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant be the phrase “data being identified”.
e) claim 3, lines 5-6, mentions “the Ip1-H2O data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
f) claim 3, lines 9-10, mentions “the Ip1-CO2 data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant be the phrase “data being identified”.
g) claim 3, lines 9-10, mentions “the Ip1-CO2 data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
h) claim 3, lines 20-21, mentions “the Ip2-H2O data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant be the phrase “data being identified”.
i) claim 3, lines 20-21, mentions “the Ip2-H2O data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
j) claim 3 requires “the controller stores . . . . and identifies: a concentration of water vapor . . . .; a contribution of water vapor . . . ., and a concentration of carbon dioxide . . . .” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. While one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art may say that a controller identifies one or more constituents of a sample gas, one would typically say that a controller determines or calculates the concentration or contribution of an analyte in a gas sample rather than identifies a concertation or contribution of an analyte. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by the controller identifies a concentration or contribution.
k) claim 3, line 19, mentions “a contribution of water vapor [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the word “contribution” here.
l) claim 3, line 23, recites “subtracting the contribution from the total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the word “contribution” here.
m) claim 3, line 23, recites “subtracting the contribution from the total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the phrase “total reducing current ” here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
n) claim 4, lines 5-6, mentions “the Ip1-CO2 data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
o) claim 4, line 10, mentions “the Ip1-H2O data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
p) claim 4, lines 12-13, mentions “a contribution of water vapor [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the word “contribution” here.
q) claim 4, line 11, mentions “H2O characteristics data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It is not clear what this data may be. Applicant is requested to provide one or two examples of such data or H2O characteristics.
r) claim 4, lines 13-14, mentions “H2O characteristics data being identified in advance; . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
s) claim 4 requires “the controller stores . . . . and identifies: a concentration of water vapor . . . .; a contribution of water vapor . . . ., and a concentration of carbon dioxide . . . .” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. While one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art may say that a controller identifies one or more constituents of a sample gas, one would typically say that a controller determines or calculates the concentration or contribution of an analyte in a gas sample rather than identifies a concertation or contribution of an analyte. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by the controller identifies a concentration or contribution.
t) claim 4, line 19, mentions “a contribution of water vapor [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the word “contribution” here.
u) claim 7 requires “the controller further identifies: a concentration of oxygen” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. While one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art may say that a controller identifies one or more constituents of a sample gas, one would typically say that a controller determines or calculates the concentration of an analyte in a gas sample rather than identifies a concertation of an analyte. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by the controller identifies a concentration.
v) claim 7 refers to “the out-of-space pump electrode [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see lines 4-5 of the claim). The phrase “out-of-space pump electrode” is unique to Applicant and is undefined. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase, especially as the sub-phrase “out-of-space” by itself means no more space, as in, for example, the box is out of space, that is, the box is full. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
w) claim 7 refers to “an out-of-space pump electrode [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see lines 13-14 of the claim). The phrase “out-of-space pump electrode” is unique to Applicant and is undefined. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase, especially as the sub-phrase “out-of-space” by itself means no more space, as in, for example, the box is out of space, that is, the box is full. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
x) claim 8, part (e), requires “identifying: a concentration of water vapor” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. While one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art may say that a controller identifies one or more constituents of a sample gas, one would typically say that a controller determines or calculates the concentration or contribution of an analyte in a gas sample rather than identifies a concertation or contribution of an analyte. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by identifying a concentration.
y) claim 8, part (e), requires “a value of a water vapor equivalent current [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase as it appears to be unique to Applicant and undefined. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
z) claim 8, part (f), mentions “the value of a water vapor equivalent current [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase as it appears to be unique to Applicant and undefined. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
aa) claim 8, part (f), mentions “a value of a total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the phrase “total reducing current ” here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
ab) claim 8, part (f), mentions “a value of a total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. Is there more than one total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data? If yes, may each total have more than one value?
ac) claim 10 requires “g) prior to the steps a) to f), identifying in advance:Ip1-H20 data . . . .; Ip1-CO2 data . . . .; and Ip2-H20 data . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. What is meant by identifying data?
ad) claim 10, lines 3, requires “g) prior to the steps a) to f), identifying in advance:Ip1-H20 data . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
ae) claim 10, lines 14-15, requires “the value of a water vapor equivalent current”. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase as it appears to be unique to Applicant and undefined. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
af) claim 10, lines 17-18, mentions “the total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the phrase “total reducing current ” here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
ag) claim 10, line 15 mentions “the Ip2-H20 data is identified as . . . .” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. What is meant by identifying data?
ah) claim 10, line 17, mentions “a contribution of water vapor [italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear what such a contribution may be.
ah) claim 10, lines 19-20, mentions “the total reducing current is identified”. What does it mean for current to be identified?
ai) claim 10, lines 19-20, mentions “the total reducing current is identified”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the phrase “total reducing current ” here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
aj) claim 10, lines 19-20, mentions “the total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data is identified”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the phrase “total reducing current ” here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
ak) claim 10, lines 19-20, mentions “the total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data is identified”. It is not clear what is meant by identifying current in certain data.
al) claim 10, lines 20-21, mentions “the contribution from the total reducing current water vapor [italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear what such a contribution may be.
am) claim 11 requires “g) prior to the steps a) to f), identifying in advance:Ip1-CO2 data . . . .; Ip2-H2O data . . . .; and H20 characteristics data . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. What is meant by identifying data?
ao) claim 11, lines 3, requires “g) prior to the steps a) to f), identifying in advance:Ip1-H20 data . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” In advance of (before) what event?
ar) claim 11, line 10, mentions “H2O characteristics data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It is not clear what this data may be. Applicant is requested to provide one or two examples of such data or H2O characteristics.
as) claim 11, lines 11-12, mentions “a contribution of water vapor . . . .;” [italicizing by the Examiner]” Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by this “contribution”.
at) claim 11, lines 16-17, mentions “the total reducing current is identified [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the phrase “total reducing current ” here. Does it mean the cumulative current during the entire reducing procedure?
at) claim 11, lines 16-17, mentions “the total reducing current is identified”. It is not clear what is meant by identifying current.
au) claim 11, line 17, requires “the water vapor equivalent current”. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase as it appears to be unique to Applicant and undefined. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
av) claim 11, line 17-18, mentions “H2O characteristics data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It is not clear what this data may be. Applicant is requested to provide one or two examples of such data or H2O characteristics.
aw) claim 11, line 19, recites “subtracting the contribution from the total reducing current in the Ip1-CO2 data [italicizing by the Examiner]”. It Is not clear how Applicant is using the word “contribution” here.
ax) claim 11, lines 19-20, mentions “ the Ip1-CO2 data is identified[italicizing by the Examiner]” What does it mean for data to be identified?
ay) claim 14, line 3, requires “identifiying: a concentration of oxygen . . . .” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by the controller identifies a concentration.
az) claim 14 refers to “the out-of-space pump electrode [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see lines 4-5 of the claim). The phrase “out-of-space pump electrode” is unique to Applicant and is undefined. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase, especially as the sub-phrase “out-of-space” by itself means no more space, as in, for example, the box is out of space, that is, the box is full. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
ba) claim 17 requires “the controller further identifies: a concentration of oxygen” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. While one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art may say that a controller identifies one or more constituents of a sample gas, one would typically say that a controller determines or calculates the concentration of an analyte in a gas sample rather than identifies a concertation of an analyte. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by the controller identifies a concentration.
bb) claim 17 refers to “the out-of-space pump electrode [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see lines 4-5 of the claim). The phrase “out-of-space pump electrode” is unique to Applicant and is undefined. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase, especially as the sub-phrase “out-of-space” by itself means no more space, as in, for example, the box is out of space, that is, the box is full. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
bc) claim 20 requires “identifying: a concentration of oxygen” [italicizing by the Examiner]” To “identify” conventionally means to recognize something or someone. See the Cambridge online dictionary definition. Applicant is requested to clarify what is meant by identifying a concentration.
bb) claim 20 refers to “the out-of-space pump electrode [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see lines 4-5 of the claim). The phrase “out-of-space pump electrode” is unique to Applicant and is undefined. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase, especially as the sub-phrase “out-of-space” by itself means no more space, as in, for example, the box is out of space, that is, the box is full. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-7 and 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) the combination of limitations in claim 1 includes the following highlighted and underlined features
PNG
media_image1.png
372
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
412
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a)(i) the International Search Report for international application no. PCT/JP2023/029979 cites only “A” documents.
a)(ii) Okamoto et al. US 2016/0223487 A1 (hereafter “Okamoto”) discloses a gas sensor (see the Abstract) capable of measuring concentrations of a plurality of sensing target gas components contained in a measurement gas (see the Abstract and paragraph [0002]), the measurement gas at least containing water vapor and carbon dioxide (see again the Abstract and paragraph [0002]), the gas sensor comprising:
a sensor element (101 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0024]) having a structure formed of an oxygen-ion conductive solid electrolyte (4 and 6 in
Figure 1 and paragraph [0026]); and
a controller controlling operation of the gas sensor (such a controller is implied by the following, “The sensor element 101 uses this electromotive force V0 to feedback-control the variable power source 24 for the main pumping cell 21. This allows the pump voltage Vp0, which is applied to the main pumping cell 21 by the variable power source 24, to be controlled in accordance with the oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere of the first internal space 20. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See paragraph [0040].), wherein
the sensor element comprises:
a gas inlet (10 in Figure 1 and paragraph [0010]) through which the measurement gas is introduced (paragraph [0031]);
an internal chamber communicating with the gas inlet via a diffusion control part (the Examiner is construing first internal space 20 together with second internal space 30 and third internal space 40 as forming an internal chamber1. See Figure 1 and paragraph[0027].);
an adjustment electrode (the Examiner is construing main inside pump electrode 22 as an adjustment electrode. See Figure 1 and paragraph [0037]. Compare Okamoto 22 with 22 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0027]. ) , a first measurement electrode (the Examiner is construing first measuring inside pump electrode 51 as the first measurement electrode. See Figure 1 and paragraph [0043]. Compare Okamoto 51 with 51 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0038]. ), and a second measurement electrode (the Examiner is construing second measuring inside pump electrode 44 as the second measurement electrode. See Figure 1 and paragraph [0048]. Compare Okamoto 44 with 44 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0048]. ) each provided to face the internal chamber and arranged in order of proximity to the gas inlet while being spaced apart at predetermined intervals (this arrangement may be inferred from Okamoto Figure 1);
an adjustment pump cell (the Examiner is construing Ip0 along with main inside pump electrode 222, outside pump electrode 23, and the portion of solid electrolyte 6 between 22 and 23 to make up an adjustment pump cell. Compare this arrangement with 21 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0027].) including the adjustment electrode (Okamoto Figure 1), an out-of- space pump electrode (the Examiner is construing outside pump electrode 23 as an out-of- space pump electrode. See Figure 1 and paragraph [0043]. Compare Okamoto 23 with 23 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0027].) provided at a location other than a location in the internal chamber (see Okamoto Figure 1), and a portion of the solid electrolyte present between the adjustment electrode and the out- of-space pump electrode (see Okamoto Figure 1);
a first measurement pump cell (the Examiner is construing Ip1 along with first measuring inside pump electrode 51, outside pump electrode 233, and the portion of solid electrolyte 6 between 51 and 23 to make up a first measurement pump cell (note first measuring pump cell 50 in Okamoto paragraph [0043]). Compare this arrangement with 50 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0038]. ) including the first measurement electrode (see Okamoto Figure 1), the out-of-space pump electrode (see Okamoto Figure 1), and a portion of the solid electrolyte present between the first measurement electrode and the out-of-space pump electrode (see Okamoto Figure 1);
a second measurement pump cell ( the Examiner is construing Ip2 along with second measuring inside pump electrode 444, outside pump electrode 235, and the portion of solid electrolyte 6 between 44 and 23 to make up a second measurement pump cell (note second measuring pump cell 47 in Okamoto paragraph [0047]). Compare this arrangement with 41 in Applicant’s Figure 1 and specification paragraph [0046].) including the second measurement electrode (see Okamoto Figure 1), the out-of-space pump electrode(see Okamoto Figure 1), and a portion of the solid electrolyte present between the second measurement electrode and the out-of-space pump electrode (see Okamoto Figure 1); and
a heater heating the sensor element (70 in Okamoto figure 1 and paragraph [0052[),
However, Okamoto does not disclose, as required by claim 1, “the heater heats the sensor element so that a temperature is highest near the adjustment electrode in the internal chamber and decreases with increasing distance from the adjustment electrode in a longitudinal direction of the sensor element, . . . . “ This heater function, though, is prima facie obvious as routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05(II)) over Okamoto paragraph [0052] along with Watanabe et al.
US 2017/0052143 A1 the title, Abstract, Figures 1-6, paragraphs [101]-[103],and [0115].
More importantly, Okamoto does not disclose
the adjustment pump cell pumps oxygen out of the measurement gas having reached the adjustment electrode through the gas inlet to the extent that water vapor and carbon dioxide contained in the measurement gas are not decomposed,
the first measurement pump cell pumps oxygen out of the measurement gas having reached the first measurement electrode so that substantially all water vapor and carbon dioxide contained in the measurement gas of which oxygen has been pumped out by the adjustment pump cell are reduced,
the second measurement pump cell pumps oxygen into the internal chamber to selectively oxidize hydrogen generated by reduction of water vapor and contained in the measurement gas having reached the second measurement electrode, and . . . .
Instead, although in Okamoto the adjustment pump cell does pump oxygen out of the measurement gas having reached the adjustment electrode through the gas inlet, it does so to the extent that water vapor and carbon dioxide contained in the measurement gas are decomposed. See Okamoto paragraph [0055]. The first measurement pump cell pumps oxygen into the measurement gas having reached the first measurement electrode to react with H2 to produce water vapor. See Okamoto paragraph [0061]. The second measurement pump cell pumps oxygen into the internal chamber to selectively oxidize CO to CO2. See Okamoto paragraph [0066].
Thus, Okamoto also does not disclose
the controller identifies:
a concentration of water vapor contained in the measurement gas based on a value of a water vapor equivalent current as an oxygen pump current flowing between the second measurement electrode and the out-of-space pump electrode when hydrogen is oxidized with oxygen pumped in by the second measurement pump cell; and
a concentration of carbon dioxide contained in the measurement gas based on the value of the water vapor equivalent current and a value of a total reducing current as an oxygen pump current flowing between the first measurement electrode and the out-of-space pump electrode when water vapor and carbon dioxide are reduced by the first measurement pump cell pumping out oxygen.
Instead, as best understood by the Examiner, the controller identifies:
a concentration of water vapor contained in the measurement gas based on a value of a water vapor equivalent current as an oxygen pump current flowing between the second measurement electrode and the out-of-space pump electrode when hydrogen is oxidized with oxygen pumped in by the first measurement pump cell (see Okamoto paragraphs [0061] and [0072]-[0074]) ; and
a concentration of carbon dioxide contained in the measurement
gas based on the value of the water vapor equivalent current and a value of a total reducing current as an oxygen pump current flowing between the first measurement electrode and the out-of-space pump electrode when
CO is oxidized to C2O2 (see Okamoto paragraphs [0066] and [0072]-[0074]).
b) claims 2-7 and 15-17 depend directly or indirectly from allowable
claim 1.
c) the combination of limitations in independent claim 8 includes the following highlighted and underlined features
PNG
media_image3.png
140
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
700
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
c)(i) the discussion above regarding the allowability of claim 1 applies to claim 8 also.
d) claims 9-14 and 18-20 depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 Note that Applicant’s claim 2 requires the internal chamber to have three chambers.
2 Corresponding to Applicant’s adjustment electrode. See above.
3 Corresponding to Applicant’s out-of-space pump electrode. See above.
4 Corresponding to Applicant’s second measurement electrode. See above.
5 Corresponding to Applicant’s out-of-space pump electrode. See above.
Prosecution Insights