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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 have been amended; claims 11-20 have been withdrawn; and claims 6 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-10 are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
New grounds of specification and claim objections are necessitated by the amendment.
New grounds of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 112(d) as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. The instant specification discloses: “the nitrate salt may further reduce the movement of the electrochemical reaction balance with respect to NO2 in thus lead to generating a current signal that is negligible or close to 0” [para. 0040] in PG-Pub; “However, the interferent gaseous substance, NO2 is also oxidized and as a result of the NO3 − in the electrolyte produces a current signal that is close to 0 (as depicted, approximately between 600 and 800 along the x-axis)” [para. 0052] in PG-Pub; and “Additionally, the current signal associated with the interferent gaseous substance NO2 will be negligible or close to 0” [para. 0053] in PG-Pub. The y-axis represents a detected current signal by the sensing electrode measured in nA, and the current ranges from 4000 nA to 5000 nA, and the current signal associated with 400 ppb NO2 depicted approximately between 600 and 800 along the x-axis is in a range from 4000 nA to 4200 nA based on the y-axis of Fig.5. Thus, the current signal is not close to zero, and it is the current change is close to zero. The instant specification has two different meanings on the current signal. For the current signals associated with the target gas substance and the interferant gaseous substance, they are current change. The current signal measured from the sensing electrode is the current between the sensing electrode and the counter electrode.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “wherein the second current signal indicative of a second concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance” to –wherein the second current signal is indicative of a second concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “causing a second current signal to substantially zero value” and “a first current signal between the sensing electrode and the counter electrode indicative of a first concentration level of the target gaseous substance”. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In reHammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) [see MPEP 2173.03]. As outlined in the specification objection, there are two different definitions regarding the current signal in the specification. It is unclear if the first/second current signal refers the actual current signal between the sensing electrode and the counter electrode (see y-axis in Fig.5) or the current change signal. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “causing a second current signal to substantially zero value, wherein the second current signal is indicative of a second concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance”. First, there is no antecedent basis for "a second concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance" since there is no first concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance, and it is unclear if a first concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance is measured during the first electrochemical reaction. Second, since the second current signal is substantially zero value, it is unclear how a substantially zero value is indicative of a concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “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 to cause: a first electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and a target gaseous substance causing a generation of a first current signal between the sensing electrode and the counter electrode indicative of a first concentration level of the target gaseous substance in an instance in which a sample gaseous substance is incident on the sensing electrode, wherein the sample gaseous substance comprises the target gaseous substance and an interferent gaseous substance; and a second electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the interferent gaseous substance causing a second current signal to substantially zero value, wherein the second current signal is indicative of a second concentration level of the interferent gaseous substance”. It is unclear if the applied bias voltage causes the first and second electrochemical reactions occurring simultaneously or causes the two reactions occurring at different times such that the second reaction occurs after the first reaction. Note that Fig.5 shows that the first electrochemical reaction for SO2 and the second electrochemical reaction for NO2 occur at different times. Since the same bias voltage is applied and the sample gaseous substance comprises both the target gaseous substance and the interferent gaseous substance, it is unclear why the second electrochemical reaction occurs after the first electrochemical reaction. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “wherein the second electrochemical reaction occurs responsive to an above-threshold bias voltage provided to the sensing electrode via the bias voltage circuit”. Claim 1 recites “apply, via the bias voltage circuit, the bias voltage in a range between 90 to 150 mV at the sensing electrode to cause… a second electrochemical reaction”. It is unclear if “an above-threshold bias voltage” is the same as or different than “the bias voltage” recited in claim 1. If they are different, then claim 2 fails to further limit the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite. Claim 3 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “wherein the gas detecting apparatus comprises an electrochemical gas sensor”, and claim 1 recites a sensing component which is an electrochemical gas sensor since it detects the target gaseous substance and the interferent gaseous substance through the first and second electrochemical reactions, respectively. It is unclear if the sensing component in claim 1 is a part of the electrochemical gas sensor of claim 10 or the gas detecting apparatus further comprises another electrochemical gas sensor in addition to the sensing component. Thus, the scope of claim 10 is indefinite. If the sensing component is a part of the electrochemical gas sensor, Examiner suggests claim 10 is amended to wherein the sensing component is a part of an electrochemical gas sensor.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of claim 3 is redundant with “apply, via the bias voltage circuit, the bias voltage in a range between 90 to 150 mV at the sensing electrode” recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 6-11, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections have been fully considered, and all 102 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in response to the amendment to claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues at pages 6-10 that Ross fails to teach the controller configured to apply the bias voltage in a range between 90 to 150 mV at the sensing electrode to cause a second electrochemical reaction between the sensing electrode and the interferent gaseous substance causing a second current signal to substantially zero value, recited in amended claim 1. Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10 are dependent from independent Claim 1 discussed above, and are patentable for at least the same reasons.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and all prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
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.
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 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 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795