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 May 1, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 9-10 have been amended; and claims 3, 6, 8, and 11-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-10 are currently pending and 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 February 2, 2026.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ross et al. (US 20190227025 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ross teaches a gas detecting apparatus (gas sensor 10 in Fig. 1A) comprising:
a sensing component (gas sensor 10 in Fig. 1A [0097]), the sensing component comprising at least:
a housing (sensor housing 20 in Fig. 1A [0097]) includes an electrolyte material comprising nitrate salt (an electrolyte 30 arranged in the sensor housing 20 [para. 0097; Fig.1A]; the electrolyte includes an ionic liquid, which include a nitrate anion; the ionic liquid comprises ethylammonium nitrate [para. 0085-0087]);
a bias voltage circuit (electronic circuitry 300 in Fig. 1A [0073, 0103]) configured to generate a bias voltage (electronic circuitry including one or more voltage transmitters for applying the bias thereto. The bias or voltage is applied to the electrode by connecting the electrode to the voltage transmitter [para. 0070]; In case the target gas is reduced on a working electrode, the reduction is supported by applying a negative bias or voltage to the working electrode. A reduction reaction is thus inhibited by applying a positive bias or voltage to the electrode [para. 0072]; thus the electronic circuitry is configured to generate a bias voltage);
a reference electrode disposed within the housing (reference electrode 70 is disposed in housing 20 in Fig. 1A [0100]);
a counter electrode disposed within the housing (counter electrode 50 is disposed in housing 20 in Fig. 1A [0099]);
a sensing electrode disposed within the housing (working electrode 40 is disposed in housing 20 in Fig. 1A [0100]) electrically coupled to the bias voltage circuit (electronic circuitry 300 electrically connects to the working electrode 40 in Fig. 1A to apply a voltage to the working electrode [0073, 0103]); and
a controller component (control system 306 in Fig.1A [para. 0103]) comprising a processing circuitry (control circuitry and/or a processor system 310 in Fig.1A [para. 0103]) and a memory (an associated memory system 320 in Fig.1A [para. 0103]), wherein the controller component is in communication with the sensing component (As shown in Fig.1A, electronic circuitry 300 is in electrical connection with electrodes 40, 50, 60, 70 of gas sensor 10. Electronic circuitry 300 may, for example, be configured to measure an output from primary working electrode 40, measure an output from the secondary or baseline electrode 60, and determine a correction for the output from primary working electrode 40 on the basis of the output from primary working electrode 40 and secondary or baseline electrode 60. Electronic circuitry 300 may also, for example, be configured to maintain a predetermined bias on one or more electrodes of the gas sensor hereof [para. 0103 ]).
The limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: apply, via the bias voltage circuit, the bias voltage in a range between 90 to 150 mV at the sensing electrode, wherein, when a sample gaseous substance comprising a target gaseous substance and an interferent gaseous substance is incident on the sensing electrode: a first electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the target gaseous substance causes a generation of a current signal between the sensing electrode and the counter electrode indicative of a concentration level of the target gaseous substance; and a second electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the interferent gaseous substance causes a change to the current signal that is negligible or close to zero due to the nitrate salt in the electrolyte material, reducing cross-interference with respect to determining the concentration level of the target gaseous substance” 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, Ross teaches as shown in Fig. 1D, the bias voltage circuit can apply a potential between -800 mV to +350 mV [0067, 0073]. Thus, the processing circuitry is capable of applying, via, the bias voltage circuit, the bias voltage in a range between 90-150 mV at the sensing electrode. Since the disclosed gas detecting apparatus comprises substantially the same elements or components as that of the instant application (see the rejection outlined above), it is contended that the gas detecting apparatus of the prior art is capable of generating a first electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the target gaseous substance causes a generation of a current signal between the sensing electrode and the counter electrode indicative of a concentration level of the target gaseous substance; and a second electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the interferent gaseous substance causes a change to the current signal that is negligible or close to zero due to the nitrate salt in the electrolyte material, reducing cross-interference with respect to determining the concentration level of the target gaseous substance, when a sample gaseous substance comprising a target gaseous substance and an interferent gaseous substance is incident on the sensing electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Ross teaches the gas detecting apparatus of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the second electrochemical reaction occurs responsive to the bias voltage provided to the sensing electrode via the bias voltage circuit being above a threshold” 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, Ross teaches a bias voltage circuit that is configured to apply the claimed bias voltage, and the disclosed gas detecting apparatus comprises substantially the same elements or components as that of the instant application (see the rejection of claim 1 as outlined above), it is contended that the gas detecting apparatus of the prior art is capable of generating the second electrochemical reaction occurring responsive to the bias voltage provided to the sensing electrode via the bias voltage circuit being above a threshold.
Regarding claim 4, Ross teaches the gas detecting apparatus of claim 1, and
the limitation “wherein the target gaseous substance comprises Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)” 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 claim further limits the target gaseous substance (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gas detecting apparatus (by a structure being claimed), the limitation of the claim has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, Ross teaches the gas detecting apparatus of claim 1.
The limitation “wherein the interferent gaseous substance comprises Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)” 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 claim further limits the interferent gaseous substance (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gas detecting apparatus (by a structure being claimed), the limitation of the claim has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, Ross teaches the gas detecting apparatus of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the nitrate salt and the bias voltage facilitate the modification to the direction of the second electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the interferent gaseous substance” 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, Ross teaches all of the structural limitations of the gas detecting apparatus, including the same electrolyte material comprising the nitrate salt, thus the gas sensing apparatus of Ross is configured to perform the claimed functional limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Ross teaches the gas detecting apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the controller component is configured to:
receive an indication of the current signal (the circuitry receives the current signal between the working and counter electrodes to arrive at the data in Fig. 4A [0004, 0042-0043, 0123]); and
determine the concentration level of the target gaseous substance based at least in part on the indication of the current signal (the current between the working and counter electrode is proportional to the concentration of the analyte, such that the concentration of the target gas is calculated as in Fig. 4B [0012, 0043, 0124]).
Regarding claim 10, Ross teaches the gas detecting apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensing component is a part of an electrochemical gas sensor (the gas sensor is an electrochemical gas sensor [Abstract]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 9-13, filed 5/1/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and (112(d) rejections have been fully considered and the previous 112(b) and 112(d) rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights