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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1-6 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claim group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 23, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9-14 in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim13 is objected to because of the following informalities
Claim 13 uses the phrases “300 hundred°” and “first temperatureof”
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.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 9 the use of ‘corresponding’ makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to whether or not the second time is the same, similar, or on in the order of the first time presented in the instant claim. As the rejection is to independent claim 9, its dependent claims are also rejected (claims 10-14) since they depend on a rejected base claim and do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tian (GB 2521515 A).
The preamble in claim 9 reciting “manufacturing a halogenated gas sensor” is intended use and is not given patentable weight since the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02 II.
Regarding claim 9, Tian discloses the process of heating a component comprising a zeolite, which is a molecular sieve, that is calcined at a temperature of 300°C for 3 hours and calcined again at 450°C for 4 hours. (Tian[Example A.1.1.4]). This example teaches a length of time which meets the limitation requiring a duration that “corresponds” to the first time for “about 3 hours”. Therefore, the disclosure in the prior art meets the limitations of the instant claim requiring a molecular sieve to be heated at 300°C for 3 hours, then heated at a temperature higher than 300°C for a duration corresponding with the previous time.
Alternatively, Tian teaches a second calcination time between 1-4 hours (Tian[Pg.18 Step(5)), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art found is Tian (GB 2521515 A) who teaches the process of heating a component comprising of a zeolite, which is a natural molecular sieve, that is calcined at a temperature between 300-350°C for 2-4 hours (Tian[Pg.18 Step(2)) and is calcined again at 500-600°C for 1-4 hours (Tian[Pg.18 Step(5)).
Regarding claim 10, Tian does not teach nor suggest that the first component is grounded down into fine particles with an average size below 5µm after the heating process.
Regarding claim 11, Tian teaches a component containing a molecular sieve(Tian[Pg.18 Step(2)). However, Tian does not teach nor suggest that the first component contains a 1:1 ratio of NaAlSiO4 and KAlSiO4.
Regarding claim 12, Tian teaches that a molecular sieve, in the form of and deionized water can be combined to prepare a suspension (Tian[Example B.1.2.1) . However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest that CsNO3 is added in with the molecular sieve and deionized water.
Regarding claim 13, Tian does not teach nor suggest that the mixed suspension containing the molecular sieve and CsNO3 in water, would be stirred for 3 to 24 hours, centrifuged, heated to a temperature between 300 to 900°C for one or two hours, then is heated to a second temperature of 1100°C for 3 hours.
Regarding claim 14, Tian does not teach nor suggest that the second component, containing CsNO3 and a molecular sieve, is grounded down into fine particles with an average size of about 3 to 4µm after heat treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights