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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s reply filed 05/14/2026 which has amendments to the claims and Applicant's arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the amendments obviate the rejections under 112(b) for indefiniteness. The examiner is persuaded and withdraws the rejections under 112(b).
Applicant traverses the anticipation and obviousness rejections and argues Sasaki fails to disclose a liquid-impermeable membrane separates the measurement space and environment since Sasaki detects a temporary abnormality has occurred in the gas detection element due to adhesion of moisture caused by a supply of gas.
The examiner is not persuaded. While Sasaki clearly addresses a temporary abnormality condition of short circuiting due to the adhesion of moisture, Sasaki’s moisture is due to humidification of reaction gas. The examiner asserts humidity is water vapor, a gaseous form of water. After the humid reaction gas reaches the detection chamber, some of the water vapor may condense within the chamber (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 3). Therefore, Sasaki’s filter is liquid impermeable.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (JP 2006153601).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, a method of diagnosing a hydrogen sensor (p. 2, ¶ 5, “gas sensor failure detection method”) having a measurement space (11a), a heater (13) and a temperature sensor ((12) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 8, ¶ 2, examiner notes Sasaki’s gas sensor measures temperature and is a temperature sensor), wherein the measurement space (11a) is fluid connected to an environment (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 5, “The gas detection chamber 11a communicates with the inside of the exhaust pipe 15d through a filter 14”) of the hydrogen sensor (1) by a measurement space opening (not enumerated, see previous comment) closed by a gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable membrane ((14) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 5, “exhaust gas… is introduced into the gas detection chamber 11a through the filter… the filter 14 removes water droplets contained in the exhaust gas”), the method comprising: changing the temperature ((ST6) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 1-2, examiner notes Sasaki “continues to drive the heater”) in the measurement space (11a) using the heater (13); ascertaining ((ST7) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, Sasaki determines “whether or not this abnormal signal has continued for a predetermined time”, the examiner construes Sasaki’s determination as evidence the signal is sampled) a diagnosis value (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, “signal”) in the measurement space (11a) using the temperature sensor (12); and determining a diagnosis ((ST7) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, Sasaki determines if the sensor has failed or is temporarily abnormal due to water in the filter) based at least in part on the diagnosis value (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, “signal”).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, the ascertained diagnosis value (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, “signal”) comprises a value selected from the group of: a temperature (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 8, ¶ 2, examiner notes Sasaki’s gas sensor measures temperature).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, comparing the ascertained diagnosis value (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, “signal”) with a recorded diagnosis value (see fig. 4, see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, Sasaki compares the current signal to threshold A to determine if the diagnosis is a failure or temporary abnormality).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, the recorded diagnosis value is of a matching type with the ascertained diagnosis value (see fig. 4, examiner notes Sasaki’s threshold and signal value types are represented as current values on the y axis).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, changing the temperature in the measurement space (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 1, Sasaki “continues to drive the heater”) and ascertaining the diagnosis value are conducted simultaneously, after a time delay, or in direct succession (see fig. 4, see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, examiner notes the fault determination is occurs in a subsequent step to the heater continuing to be driven).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, the method begins ((ST2), see Sasaki’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 5, examiner notes ST2 is the beginning of the abnormality determination step and ST1 is the temperature acquiring step used in ST2) when the temperature in the measurement space (see fig. 4) reaches a particular temperature (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 5, “threshold A”).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki discloses, in figures 1-4, a hydrogen sensor (1) comprising: a measurement space (11a); a heater (13); a temperature sensor ((12) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 8, ¶ 2, examiner notes Sasaki’s gas sensor measures temperature and is a temperature sensor); wherein the measurement space (11a) is fluid connected to an environment (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 5, “The gas detection chamber 11a communicates with the inside of the exhaust pipe 15d through a filter 14”) of the hydrogen sensor (1) by a measurement space opening (not enumerated, see previous comment); a membrane (14) closing the measurement space opening (not enumerated, see previous comment); wherein the membrane is gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 5, “exhaust gas… is introduced into the gas detection chamber 11a through the filter… the filter 14 removes water droplets contained in the exhaust gas”); and a controller (7) operable to change the temperature ((ST6) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 1-2, examiner notes Sasaki “continues to drive the heater”) in the measurement space (11a) using the heater (13), ascertain ((ST7) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, Sasaki determines “whether or not this abnormal signal has continued for a predetermined time”, the examiner construes Sasaki’s determination as evidence the signal is sampled) a diagnosis value (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, “signal”) in the measurement space (11a) using the temperature sensor (12), and determine a diagnosis ((ST7) see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, Sasaki determines if the sensor has failed or is temporarily abnormal due to water) based at least in part on the diagnosis value (see Sasaki’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 2, “signal”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2006153601) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishijima (US 9702836).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki fails to disclose determining a blockage of the membrane.
Nishijima teaches, in figures 1-5, determining the diagnosis comprises determining a blockage of the membrane by a foreign body or a liquid (col. 2, lines 43-47, “the clogging detection means is configured to determine that the element cover is subjected to clogging if a change in the temperature of the element section observed when the element section is heated by the heater is greater than a predetermined judgment value”).
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 determining a clogged element cover when a change in temperature observed due to heating is greater than a threshold into Sasaki’s scheme of detecting a gas sensor trouble 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 determining multiple failure modes of a gas sensor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights