Diagnosing a Hydrogen Sensor
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, limitation is unclear if the claim is asserting a second ascertained diagnosis value since claim 2 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 already asserts “a time value as a diagnosis value”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (JP 3069814; “Hale”), in view of Nishijima (US 9702836; “Nishijima”).
Regarding claim 1, Hale discloses, in figures 1-11, a hydrogen (col. 4, lines 27-29, Hydrogen is Hale’s target gas) sensor (10) having a measurement space (12), a heater (33) and a temperature sensor ((13), col. 11, lines 36-37, Hale’s thermal conductivity sensor includes an ambient temperature sensor), wherein the measurement space (12) is fluidly connected to an environment (F) of the hydrogen sensor (10) by a measurement space (12) opening (see fig. 1, examiner notes Hale’s detection space is separated from the fluid by the membrane) closed by a gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable (col. 5, lines 7-9) membrane (11).
Hale fails to disclose determining a blockage of the membrane by heating the measurement space, measuring a time period for the space to heat to a certain temperature and determining a blockage if the time is less than a threshold.
Nishijima teaches, in figures 1-7, a pm sensor (46) having a measurement space (see fig. 2) housing an element section (64), a heater (70), a temperature sensor (68) and an element cover (74) the method comprising: changing the temperature (col. 7, lines 28-29) in the measurement space (see fig. 2) using the heater (70); ascertaining a time value ((t), col. 7 line 33) as a diagnosis value in the measurement space (col. 7, lines 64-67) using the temperature sensor (68), the time value (t) representing a duration of time elapsed for the measurement space to reach a certain temperature (col. 7, lines 28-32, “the elapsed time t from the start of heating of the element section 64 by the heater 70 until the element temperature reaches a predetermined reference temperature T0 (the elapsed time is hereinafter referred to as a temperature rising time)”); comparing the time value with a recorded diagnosis value (col. 7, lines 32-33, “If the temperature rising time t is shorter than a predetermined judgment time ts”); and determining that the membrane or the measurement space opening is blocked by a foreign body or a liquid when the time value is below the recorded diagnosis value (col. 7, line lines 33-35, “present embodiment determines that the element cover 74 is subjected to clogging”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nishijima’s scheme of analyzing heating time to detect element cover clogging into Hale’s method of operating a thermal conductivity sensor since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of diagnosing sensor failures by clogging.
Regarding claim 3, Hale and Nishijima disclose, in Nishijima’s figures 1-7, the ascertained diagnosis value comprises a value selected from the group consisting of: a temperature, a rate of temperature change (Nishijima, col. 8, lines 21-22, “the rate of change in the element temperature) is greater than a predetermined judgment value A shown in FIG. 5”), a progression of temperature change (see Nishijima’s figure 5), and a time value (Nishijima, (t), col. 7 line 33).
Regarding claim 4, Hale and Nishijima disclose, in Nishijima’s figures 1-7, comparing the ascertained diagnosis value with a recorded diagnosis value (Nishijima, col. 7, lines 32-33, “If the temperature rising time t is shorter than a predetermined judgment time ts”).
Regarding claim 5, Hale and Nishijima disclose, in Nishijima’s figures 1-7, the recorded diagnosis value (Nishijima (ts)) is of a matching type (examiner notes Nishijima’s rising time and judgement time are time) with the ascertained diagnosis value (Nishijima (t)).
Regarding claim 7, Hale and Nishijima disclose, in Nishijima’s figures 1-7, changing the temperature in the measurement space and ascertaining the diagnosis value are conducted simultaneously, after a time delay, or in direct succession (see fig. 7, examiner notes Nishijima starts the heating process in step 200, then measures time t required to raise temperature of element section in step 202, thus time is being measured as the temperature is rising).
Regarding claim 9, Hale and Nishijima disclose, in Nishijima’s figures 1-7, the method begins when the temperature in the measurement space reaches a particular temperature (Nishijima, col. 9, lines 25-30, examiner notes the process begins when the engine is already hot).
Regarding claim 10, Hale and Nishijima disclose, in Nishijima’s figures 1-7, determining the diagnosis comprises determining a blockage of the membrane (Hale (11)) by a foreign body or a liquid (Nishijima, col. 7, line lines 33-35, “present embodiment determines that the element cover 74 is subjected to clogging”).
Regarding claim 12, Hale discloses, in figures 1-11, a hydrogen (col. 4, lines 27-29, Hydrogen is Hale’s target gas) sensor (10) comprising: a measurement space (12); a heater (33); a temperature sensor ((13), col. 11, lines 36-37, Hale’s thermal conductivity sensor includes an ambient temperature sensor); wherein the measurement space (12) is fluidly connected to an environment (F) of the hydrogen sensor (10) by a measurement space (12) opening (see fig. 1, examiner notes Hale’s detection space is separated from the fluid by the membrane); a membrane (11) closing the measurement space opening (see previous comment); wherein the membrane (11) is gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable (col. 5, lines 7-9); and a controller (15, 36).
Hale fails to disclose a controller that determines a blockage of the membrane by heating the measurement space, measuring a time period for the space to heat to a certain temperature and determining a blockage if the time is less than a threshold.
Nishijima teaches, in figures 1-7, a pm sensor (46) having a measurement space (see fig. 2) housing an element section (64), a heater (70), a temperature sensor (68) an element cover (74) and a controller (50) operable to change the temperature (col. 7, lines 28-29) in the measurement space (see fig. 2) using the heater (70), ascertain a time value ((t), col. 7 line 33) as a diagnosis value in the measurement space (col. 7, lines 64-67) using the temperature sensor (68), the time value (t) representing a duration of time elapsed for a certain temperature (col. 7, lines 28-32, “the elapsed time t from the start of heating of the element section 64 by the heater 70 until the element temperature reaches a predetermined reference temperature T0 (the elapsed time is hereinafter referred to as a temperature rising time)”) to be measured within the measurement space (see fig. 2), compare the time value with a recorded diagnosis value (col. 7, lines 32-33, “If the temperature rising time t is shorter than a predetermined judgment time ts”), and determine that the membrane or the measurement space opening is blocked by a foreign body or a liquid if the time value is below the recorded diagnosis value (col. 7, line lines 33-35, “present embodiment determines that the element cover 74 is subjected to clogging”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nishijima’s scheme of analyzing heating time to detect element cover clogging into Hale’s sensor since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of diagnosing sensor failures by clogging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
