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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed July 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 20 have been amended; and claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and Claims have overcome each objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 8, 2026.
New grounds of claim objection as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “or a counter electrode, and” to -- or a counter electrode, [[and]]--; “wherein the electrolyte does not contact a gas permeable membrane,” to -- wherein the electrolyte does not contact a gas permeable membrane, and--; “an anion is represented by” to -- an anion [[is]] represented by--; “or a combination thereof:” to -- or a combination thereof[[:]],--; “R12 to R15 is each independently be hydrogen” to -- R12 to R15 is each independently [[be]] hydrogen--.
Claim 14: please amend “the gas comprises oxygen” to -- the gas content comprises oxygen--.
Claim 20: please amend “a gas permeable membrane” to – [[a]] the gas permeable membrane--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toniolo et al. (“Use of an electrochemical room temperature ionic liquid-based microprobe for measurements in gaseous atmospheres,” 2017, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, vol. 240, pgs. 239-247), and in view of Schoenfisch et al. (US 20140008221 A1) and Lee et al. (Screen-printed graphite electrodes as low-cost devices for oxygen gas detection in room-temperature ionic liquids, Sensors, 2017, 17, 2734). WPI (“Septum Theta,” 2025, World Precision Instruments) is used as evidence for claim 3, and Rogers et al. (“Ionic Liquids,” 2007, Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 40, pgs. 1077-1078) is used as evidence for claim 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo
Regarding claim 1, Toniolo teaches a gas sensor (an electrochemical gas sensor as shown in Fig. S1 for sensing aldehydes in gaseous phases [Abstract; section 2.2]) for measuring a gas content (sensing aldehydes in gaseous phases [abstract]) in an electrolyte (RTIL in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo; Table 1 lists three RTILs), the gas sensor comprising:
an at least partially closed capillary tube (a sealed theta glass pipette [section 2.2; Fig.S1]), comprising:
a first channel (see “first channel” in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo);
a second channel (see “second channel” in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo); and
a tip (see “Tip surface” in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo),
wherein the first channel and the second channel are separated by a septum (see “septum” in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo, wherein the first channel and the second channel are separated by the septum), and
wherein the first channel and the second channel are closed by the tip (see annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo);
a first electrode that is located in the first channel, extends to an outer surface of the tip (se “Tip surface” in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo), and is exposed on the outer surface of the tip (see annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo);
a second electrode that is located in the second channel, extends to the outer surface of the tip, is exposed on the outer surface of the tip (see annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo), and is spaced apart from the first electrode (see annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo);
the electrolyte that is in contact with the outer surface of the tip is in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode, and is exposed to an outer surface of the gas sensor (annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo shows the RTIL electrolyte is in contact with the outer surface of the tip and is in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode, and is exposed to an outer surface of the gas sensor);
a voltage source disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (a 430A CHI electrochemical analyzer was used for voltammetric and chronoamperometric measurements, the smallest Pt disk in Fig.S1 is used as a working electrode and the biggest as counter/pseudo-reference electrode [section 2.2]; Fig.1 shows a potential ranges 0 to 1.8 V is applied between the two electrodes [section 3.1]); and
a current meter disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (a 430A CHI electrochemical analyzer was used for voltammetric and chronoamperometric measurements [section 2.2]; y-axis in Figs.1-2 shows the measured current between the two electrodes),
wherein the electrolyte is not present in the first channel and the second channel (annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo shows the RTIL is only disposed on the outer surface of the gas sensor),
wherein a shape of the electrolyte is defined by the tip and a surrounding atmosphere (annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo shows the shape of RTIL is defined by the tip and a surrounding atmosphere),
wherein the first electrode is a working electrode and the second electrode is a reference electrode or a counter electrode (the smallest Pt disk is used as a working electrode and the biggest Pt as counter/pseudo-reference electrode [section 2.2]),
wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid drop (RTIL in annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo),
wherein the electrolyte does not contact a gas permeable membrane (Fig.S1 and annotated Graphical Abstract from Toniolo show that the RTIL electrolyte does not contact a gas permeable membrane),
wherein the ionic liquid drop comprises a cation represented by Formula 3 (RTIL is [BMIM][NTF2] [col. 1, para.2 on pg. 240 and section 2.1]; [BMIM] is represented by Formula 3 as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
97
104
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein Z is N, and R12-R16 is each independently an unsubstituted C1-C30 alky group).
Toniolo is silent to: (1) wherein an outer diameter of the tip is about 10 micrometers or less; and (2) the RTIL comprises an anion represented by BF4-, PF6-, AsF6-, SbF6-, AlCl4- , HSO4-, ClO4-, CH3SO3-, CF3CO2-, Cl-, Br-, I-, SO4-, CF3SO3-, (OTf-), (FSO2)2N-, (C2F5SO2)2N-, (C2F5SO2)(CF3SO2)N-, or a combination thereof.
Schoenfisch teaches a gas sensor 100 as shown in Fig. 1A for sensing gaseous species (Abstract; [para. 0200]) in an electrolyte (hydrogel 114 in Fig. 1 is an internal electrolyte layer [para. 0076, 0200]), the gas sensor comprising: an at least partially closed capillary tube (a capillary tube with barrels made of insulating material 108 encloses electrodes 104 and 106 to form electrode assembly 102 in Fig. 1A [ para. 0199-0200]), comprising: a first channel (the barrel accommodating working electrode 104 in Fig. 1A [para. 0200]); a second channel (the barrel accommodating reference electrode 106 in Fig. 1A [para. 0200]); and a tip (end 110 of electrode assembly 102 in Fig. 1A [para. 0200]), wherein the first channel and the second channel are separated by a septum (electrodes 104 and 106 are insulated from each other by insulating material 108 in Fig. 1A [para. 0200]), and wherein the first channel and the second channel are closed by the tip (electrodes 104 and 106 are surrounded by insulating material 108 at end 110 in Fig. 1A [para. 0199-0200]); a first electrode that is located in the first channel, extends to an outer surface of the tip, and is exposed on the outer surface of the tip (working electrode 104 extends to end 110 and is exposed on the outer surface of the tip as shown in Fig. 1A [para. 0199-0200]); a second electrode that is located in the second channel, extends to the outer surface of the tip, is exposed on the outer surface of the tip (reference electrode 106 extends to end 110 and is exposed on the outer surface of the tip as shown in Fig. 1A [para. 0199-0200]), and is spaced apart from the first electrode (electrodes 104 and 106 are insulated from each other by insulating material 108 in Fig. 1A [para.0200]); the electrolyte that is in contact with the outer surface of the tip and is in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode (hydrogel electrolyte 114 contacts the first and second electrodes 104 and 106 on the tip surface 110 in Fig. 1A [para. 0200]); wherein the electrolyte is not present in the first channel and the second channel (hydrogel electrolyte 114 is only disposed on the outer surface of the gas sensor in Fig. 1A [para. 0200]), and wherein the first electrode is a working electrode (working electrode 104 [para. 0200]) and the second electrode is a reference electrode (reference electrode 106 [para. 0200]). Schoenfisch further teaches microsensors having a sensor tip diameter of about 10 μm can also be referred to as “ultramicrosensors” [para. 0195].
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 diameters of the first and second electrodes and outer diameter of the tip in Toniolo such that the modified gas sensor has a sensor tip diameter of about 10 μm, as taught by Schoenfisch, since it would make the gas sensor to be an ultramicrosensor [para. 0195 in Schoenfisch]. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Modified Toniolo is silent to: (2) the RTIL comprises an anion represented by BF4-, PF6-, AsF6-, SbF6-, AlCl4- , HSO4-, ClO4-, CH3SO3-, CF3CO2-, Cl-, Br-, I-, SO4-, CF3SO3-, (OTf-), (FSO2)2N-, (C2F5SO2)2N-, (C2F5SO2)(CF3SO2)N-, or a combination thereof.
Lee teaches an oxygen gas sensor comprising electrodes covered by a RTIL drop (see Fig.1), and tested 6 different RTILs including (a) [C2mim][NTf2], (b) [C4mim][NTf2], (c) [C6mim][FAP], (d) [C4mpyrr][NTf2], (e) [C4mim][BF4], and (f) [C4mim][PF6] (section 2.1 and Fig.2). Overall, the gas sensor with [C4mim][PF6] gave the best analytical responses (conclusions and abstract). Note that [C4mim][NTf2] is the same as [BMIM][NTF2], and [C4mim][PF6] is the same as [BMIM][PF6]. Thus, Lee teaches both RTILs of [BMIM][NTF2] and [BMIM][PF6] could be used for the detection of O2, and the RTIL of [BMIM][PF6] provides the best analytical responses.
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 RTIL of [BMIM][NTF2] in Toniolo with the RTIL of [BMIM][PF6], as taught by Lee, since RTIL of [BMIM][PF6] would provide better analytical responses (abstract and conclusions in Lee). The substituted RTIL of [BMIM][PF6] comprises an anion of PF6-.
Regarding claim 3, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, wherein a volume of the electrolyte is about 1 milliliter or less (As shown in the graphical abstract of Toniolo, the electrolyte forms a cylindrical layer on the sensor tip surface [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 241 in Toniolo]. The electrolyte has a thickness of 155 µm [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 241 in Toniolo], and the sensor tip has a diameter of about 10 micrometers [see the rejection of claim 1 above]. Thus, the electrolyte volume is about 1.22e-8 milliliters [electrolyte volume = π*r2*h = π*0.0052*0.155 = 1.22e-5 mm3], falls within the claimed range of 1 milliliter or less).
Toniolo does not teach the detailed dimension of the theta glass, thus is silent to wherein the volume of the electrolyte is less than a volume of the at least partially closed capillary tube.
Schoenfisch teaches the theta glass wherein the two electrodes are inserted into the separate barrel, and suitable glass capillary tubes are available, for example, from World Precision Instruments (WPI) (Sarasota, Fla., United States of America) [para. 0199]. As evidenced by WPI, the referenced glass capillary (septum theta capillary for microelectrodes) has an overall length of 152 mm and an inner diameter of 1.02 mm with a septum thickness of 0.2 mm (see Special Configuration Borosilicate Glass Tubing). Thus, the volume of the capillary tube is 0.080 milliliters (capillary volume = π*r2*h = π*((1.02-0.2)/2)2*152 = 80 mm3). Therefore, the volume of the electrolyte is less than the capillary tube volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the theta glass of Schoenfisch to make the gas sensor, wherein the theta glass is available from World Precision Instruments, since Schoenfisch teaches the suitable alternative glass capillary tubes from WPI for making a similar gas sensor [para. 0199]. With the modified capillary tube, modified Toniolo teaches the volume of the electrolyte is less than a volume of the at least partially closed capillary tube, as outlined in the above calculations.
Regarding claim 5, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and Toniolo is silent to wherein a diameter of the first electrode and a diameter of the second electrode are each independently less than about 1 micrometer.
As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the diameters of the first and second electrodes and the tip diameter are modified based on the teachings of Schoenfisch to provide ultramicrosensors. Schoenfisch further teaches that the electrodes can have outer diameters ranging from between a few millimeters and a few tenths of a micrometer [para. 0200], overlapping with the claimed diameter range of less than about 1 micrometer.
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized electrode outer diameters within the disclosed range, as taught by Schoenfisch, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Schoenfisch specifically teaches the range of the outer diameter of the electrodes to be suitable for use in a gas sensor [para. 0200]. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the outer surface of the tip is less than about 10 micrometers (as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the tip diameter is about 10 µm. Annotated graphic abstract from Toniolo shows that the two electrodes are exposed on the tip surface, thus the distance between the first and second electrodes must be less than the tip diameter which is about 10 µm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and Toniolo further teaches wherein the first electrode and the second electrode each independently comprises platinum (Pt) (see “Pt” in Annotated graphic abstract from Toniolo; two Pt fibres [section 2.2]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and Toniolo is silent to wherein the at least partially closed capillary tube further comprises: a third channel; and a third electrode that is located in the third channel, extends to the outer surface of the tip, and is spaced apart from the first electrode and the second electrode.
Schoenfisch further teaches wherein the at least partially closed capillary tube further comprises: a third channel; and a third electrode that is located in the third channel, extends to the outer surface of the tip, and is spaced apart from the first electrode and the second electrode (the electrode assembly can comprise three electrodes insulated from each other [para. 0192, 0210]).
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 capillary tube to provide a third channel in the capillary tube, and provide a third electrode that is located in the third channel, extends to the outer surface of the tip, and is spaced apart from the first electrode and the second electrode, as taught by Schoenfisch, since it would make the sensor to have a three-electrode configuration comprising a working electrode, a counter electrode and a reference electrode [para. 0210 in Schoenfisch].
Regarding claim 10, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the electrolyte is an electrolyte liquid drop or an electrolyte film (the ionic liquid is formed as a film [col. 2, para. 4 on pg. 240 in Toniolo]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a salt (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid of [BMIM][PF6], which is a salt as evidenced by Rogers [col. 1, para. 2 on pg. 1077]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is gas permeable (the ionic liquid electrolyte acts as a solvent for gaseous analytes [col. 2, para. 2 on pg. 239 in Toniolo]; the gases are partitioned into the RTIL at the gas-ionic liquid interface [para. 1 on pg. 4 and Fig.1 in Lee]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the gas comprises oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen fluoride (HF), or a combination thereof” further limits the sample but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claims further limit the gas to be measured (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gas sensor (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight. However, examiner notes that the gas sensed by the sensor of modified Toniolo comprises oxygen ([0097 in Schoenfisch; title and abstract in Lee]).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toniolo, Schoenfisch, and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rizzuto et al. (Study of the BMIM-PF6: Acetonitrile binary mixture as a solvent for electrochemical studies involving CO2, Electrochimica Acta, 2021, 56, 5003-5009).
Regarding claim 9, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the electrolyte further comprises a liquid, a gel or a solid.
Rizzuto teaches using a binary mixture of BMIM-PF6 and acetonitrile as an electrolyte for use in electrochemical studies involving CO2. The data indicated that a binary mixture containing 15-20 vol% CH3CN in BMIM-PF6 was optimal for electrochemistry of CO2 (title and abstract).
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 electrolyte of [BMIM][PF6] in modified Toniolo to a binary mixture of BMIM-PF6 and acetonitrile, as taught by Rizzuto, since the added acetonitrile would provide a notable increase in conductivity and decrease in viscosity compared to pure BMIM-PF6, but would not represent a significant sacrifice in terms of CO2 solubility (the last paragraph in section 1 on page 5004 in Rizzuto). The modified electrolyte further comprises a liquid of acetonitrile.
Regarding claim 11, modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the electrolyte further comprises an aqueous solvent, an organic solvent, an ionic liquid polymer, an ion conductive polymer, a matrix polymer, or a combination thereof.
Rizzuto teaches using a binary mixture of BMIM-PF6 and acetonitrile as an electrolyte for use in electrochemical studies involving CO2. The data indicated that a binary mixture containing 15-20 vol% CH3CN in BMIM-PF6 was optimal for electrochemistry of CO2 (title and abstract).
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 electrolyte of [BMIM][PF6] in modified Toniolo to a binary mixture of BMIM-PF6 and acetonitrile, as taught by Rizzuto, since the added acetonitrile would provide a notable increase in conductivity and decrease in viscosity compared to pure BMIM-PF6, but would not represent a significant sacrifice in terms of CO2 solubility (the last paragraph in section 1 on page 5004 in Rizzuto). The modified electrolyte further comprises an organic solvent of acetonitrile.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulter et al. (“Observation of Dynamic Interfacial Layers in Li-Ion and Li-O2 Batteries by Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy,” 2016, Electrochimica Acta, vol. 199, pgs. 366-379) in view of Toniolo, Schoenfisch, and Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Bulter teaches a scanning electrochemical gas microscope (scanning electrochemical microscope in Fig. 1b), comprising:
a sample (the microscope is used to investigate the gas diffusion electrode of a lithium-air battery [col. 2, para. 2 on pg. 375]);
a gas sensor (Pt microelectrode [col. 2, para. 3 on pg. 375]); and
a scanning member that scans a surface of the sample by the gas sensor according to a scan pattern (a positioning system in the microscope moves the microelectrode over the sample using patterned increments to generate a scan of the sample, see Fig. 7 [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 369; col. 2, para. 3 on pg. 375]).
Bulter is silent to wherein the gas sensor is the gas sensor according to claim 1.
Modified Toniolo teaches the gas sensor of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above). The gas sensor in modified Toniolo is an ultramicrosensor (tip diameter is about 10 micrometers, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above; ultramicrosensors [para.0195 in Schoenfisch]), wide electrochemical windows, and good thermal stability due to the RTIL electrolyte on the sensor tip (col. 2, para. 2 on pg. 239 in Toniolo).
Bulter and modified Toniolo are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical gas sensors. 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 microelectrode gas sensor in Bulter with the ultramicrosensor comprising a RTIL electrolyte-coated tip, as taught in modified Toniolo, because the substitution would minimize size while widening the sensor’s electrochemical windows, and improve thermal stability [para. 0195 in Schoenfisch; col. 2, para. 2 on pg. 239 in Toniolo]. Furthermore, the claimed device differs from Bulter by the substitution of some components (the microelectrode gas sensor in Bulter) with other components (the microelectrode gas sensor with a coated tip in modified Toniolo) whose functions were known in the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art could substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bulter teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 15, and Butler further teaches wherein the scanning electrochemical gas microscope comprises an image acquisition member that is electrically connected to the gas sensor and acquires a gas concentration profile image of the surface of the sample (the scanning electrochemical microscope [SECM] includes an image acquisition member, as it acquires an oxygen concentration flux profile image of the surface of the sample in Fig. 9 [col. 2, para. 2-3 on pg. 376]. This image is based on the gas sensor position and detected current measurements that are received via an electrical connection to the gas sensor [col. 2, para. 3 on pg. 375]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bulter teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 15, wherein the electrolyte is spaced apart from the sample (the gas sensor electrode is positioned a high distance above the gas diffusion electrode sample to prevent contact between the electrode and sample [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 376 in Bulter], such that the thin film RTIL electrolyte disposed on the electrode surface would be spaced apart from the sample [Abstract in Toniolo]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bulter teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 15, and the limitation “wherein a gas content on an outer surface of the sample detected by the gas sensor is 0.0014 percent by volume or greater” 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, modified Bulter teaches a scanning electrochemical gas microscope that is configured to perform the functional limitations above (as stated in the rejection of claim 15 above, the gas sensor in modified Bulter is the gas sensor in modified Toniolo, which is capable of detecting an oxygen content of 0.1-20 percent by volume [see Fig. 5b in Lee] due to the use of the same RTIL of [BMIM][PF6]. This falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 19, modified Bulter teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 15, and the limitation “wherein the sample is a metal-air battery” further limits the sample but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claims further limit the sample (material worked upon) but fails to limit the microscope (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Examiner further notes that Bulter teaches that the sample is a metal-air battery (the microscope is used to investigate the gas diffusion electrode of a lithium-air battery [col. 2, para. 2 on pg. 375]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toniolo, in view of Schoenfisch, Lee and Yang et al. (“Fabrication and Characterization of a Dual Submicrometer-Sized Electrode,” 2009, Analytical Chemistry, vol. 81, pgs. 7496-7500).
Regarding claim 20, modified Toniolo teaches a method of manufacturing the gas sensor of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising:
preparing a theta capillary tube comprising the first channel and the second channel, wherein the first channel and the second channel are separated by the septum (a theta glass pipette with two barrels separated by septum as shown in annotated graphic abstract from Toniolo [section 2.2 in Toniolo]);
placing the first electrode in the first channel and the second electrode in the second channel (two Pt wires are each inserted into separate barrels of the capillary [section 2.2 in Toniolo]; see annotated graphic abstract from Toniolo);
preparing the at least partially closed capillary tube (two Pt wires were sealed into a theta glass pipette [section 2.2 in Toniolo]; see annotated graphic abstract from Toniolo); and
contacting the electrolyte and the tip of the at least partially closed capillary tube (the RTIL electrolyte is dip coated onto the sensor tip [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 241 in Toniolo]; the RTIL of Toniolo is further substituted with the RTIL of [BMIM][BF6] of Lee as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the electrolyte is in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode, and is exposed to the outer surface of the gas sensor (the RTIL ensures connectivity between the two electrodes and is exposed to an outer surface of the gas sensor in the annotated graphical abstract [Abstract in Toniolo]),
wherein the outer diameter of the tip is about 10 micrometers or less (as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the outer diameter of the sensor tip is about 10 micrometers), and
wherein the shape of the electrolyte is defined by the tip and the surrounding atmosphere (the RTIL electrolyte is dip coated onto the sensor tip, such that the shape of the liquid electrolyte is defined by the tip and surrounding air [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 241 in Toniolo]),
wherein the electrolyte does not contact the gas permeable membrane (the annotated graphical abstract from Toniolo shows that the RTIL does not contact a gas permeable membrane).
Modified Toniolo is silent to how the partially closed capillary tube is prepared, thus modified Toniolo is silent to the limitation wherein the at least partially closed capillary tube is prepared by applying energy on a center portion of the theta capillary tube while pulling both ends of the theta capillary tube in opposite directions.
Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a sensor (electrode assembly [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 7469]), the method comprising: preparing a theta capillary tube comprising a first channel and a second channel (theta glass pipet with two barrels [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 7498]), wherein the first channel and the second channel are separated by a septum (theta glass pipet has two separate channels [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 7498]); placing a first electrode in the first channel and a second electrode in the second channel (electrode wires are inserted into each barrel of the theta glass pipet [col. 1, para. 1 on pg. 7498]); applying energy on a center portion of the theta capillary tube while pulling both ends of the theta capillary tube in opposite directions to prepare an at least partially closed capillary tube (the glass capillary is heated and pulled via a laser puller until the electrode wires are sealed in the glass tube, then the capillary is broken into two halves to form a tip [col. 1, para. 2-3 on pg. 7498]). Yang teaches that this manufacturing method for a partially closed capillary tube completely seals the electrodes in the glass tube with no trapped air bubbles [col. 1, para. 2 on pg. 7498].
Modified Toniolo and Yang are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capillary tube sensors comprising electrodes in theta capillaries. 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 method of preparing the partially closed capillary tube in modified Toniolo by applying energy on a center portion of the theta capillary tube while pulling both ends of the theta capillary tube in opposite directions, as taught in Yang, since this would completely seal the electrodes in the glass tube with no trapped air bubbles [col. 1, para. 2 on pg. 7498 in Yang]. Furthermore, Yang teaches the claimed improvement as a known technique that is applicable to the base method in modified Toniolo. One skilled in the art could have applied the partially closed capillary preparation method in Yang in the same way to the base device in modified Toniolo, yielding predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 10-14, filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, and all 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues at pages 10-14 that the amended claim 1 recites “wherein the electrolyte does not contact a gas permeable membrane”, and replacing the polysiloxane membrane in Schoenfisch with an RTIL would change the operating principle of the Schoenfisch application.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection for claim 1 above.
Examiner suggests applicant to further limit the electrolyte in claim 1 by incorporating some limitations of claim 11 based on [para.0071] in PG-Pub of the instant specification to overcome the teachings from Rizzuto.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 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).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights