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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed July 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13, 16, and 18-20 have been amended; Claims 14-15 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-13, 16, and 18-20 are currently pending and examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 11, 2026.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.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.
All double patenting rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a transport member for transporting the sample adjacent to the gas sensor or transporting the gas sensor adjacent to the sample, wherein the transport member comprises a conveyor; wherein the sample comprises a solid sample, a liquid sample, or a combination thereof, wherein the sample comprises an explosive compound”. The instant specification discloses that “Toy stroller bags passed below the NAC probe on a conveyor belt system, with select bags loaded with 36 mg/cm2 DNT. The circular opening for vapor escape on each loaded bag was 5 mm in diameter, and the DNT compartment was 2 mm in depth. The distance between the probe tip and the passing baggage was approximately 2 mm. The carousel experiments were performed without any pretreatment to the DNT solids and without excluding oxygen from the sensor environment at room temperature, a testament to the versatility of the NAC probe” [para. 0224; Fig.12A-12B ] in PG-Pub. The specification/drawing only supports that the transport member for transporting the sample adjacent to the gas sensor, and does not support that the transport member for transporting the gas sensor adjacent to the sample. Furthermore, the specification only supports wherein the transport member for transporting the sample comprising a solid sample since the sample is a toy stroller bag loaded with solid DNT and DNT vapor escapes from the loaded bag. The specification does not disclose that the toy stroller bag comprises a liquid sample or a combination of a solid sample and a liquid sample. Thus, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-13, 16, and 18-20 are new matter.
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 1-13, 16 and 18-20 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 “the gas” in Ln 3, which lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-13, 16, and 18-20 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
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 1-7, 9-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Membraneless ionic liquid droplet nanoprobe for oxygen sensing and gas phase scanning electrochemical microscopy, analytical chemistry, 2022, 94, 8101-8104), and in view of Wang (Electrochemical sensing of explosives, Electroanalysis, 2007, 19, 415-423) and Launiere et al. (US20210172853A1). Rogers et al. (“Ionic Liquids,” 2007, Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 40, pgs. 1077-1078) is used as evidence for claim 12.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a scanning electrochemical gas microscope (gas phase scanning electrochemical microscopy [title and abstract]; Fig.4), comprising:
a sample (oxygen gas was provided by a direct feed to the nanoprobe through the pin holes on the silicon wafer gas [caption of Fig.4; Electrochemical Measurements in SI on page S2]);
a gas sensor for measuring a gas in an electrolyte (nanoprobe positioned directed above the silicon wafer [Fig.4]; and the RTIL based oxygen nanoprobe as shown in Fig.1 corresponds to the gas sensor for measuring oxygen gas in RTIL film);
a scanning member (SECM stage in Fig.4); “that scans a surface of the sample by the gas sensor according to a scan pattern” 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, Choi teaches the SECM stage to obtain the SECM images at a constant applied voltage at the tip of -1.6 V and the x-y plane imaging rate of 2 µm every 0.2 s [3600 pixels, 720 s imaging time]. The resulting SECM images are shown in Figs. 4 and S7 [the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8104]). Thus, the disclosed scanning member is configured to perform the claimed function of scanning a surface of the sample by the gas sensor according to a scan pattern,
wherein the gas sensor comprises:
an at least partially closed capillary tube (a [Symbol font/0x71]-shaped glass capillary in Fig.1 [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 8101]), comprising:
a first channel (the barrel of the WE in Fig.1);
a second channel (the barrel of the CE in Fig.1); and
a tip (the bottom end of the nanoprobe showing WE and CE in Fig.1),
wherein the first channel and the second channel are separated by a septum (WE and CE electrodes are separated from each other by a septum of the [Symbol font/0x71]-shaped glass capillary as shown in Fig.1; Figs. 1b-1c show each of WE and CE has a flat disk-type geometry [caption of Fig.1], and the two electrodes are separated by a septum), and
wherein the first channel and the second channel are closed by the tip (see Fig.1);
a first electrode (WE electrode in Fig.1) 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 (see Fig.1);
a second electrode (CE electrode in Fig.1) that is located in the second channel, extends to the outer surface of the tip, is exposed on the outer surface of the tip, and is spaced apart from the first electrode (see Fig.1);
the electrolyte (RT-IL film in Fig.1b) that is in contact with the outer surface of the tip (see Fig.1b), is in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode, and is exposed to an outer surface of the gas sensor (see Fig.1; a thin-layer of RT-IL was applied to a capillary electrode to complete the electrode electrochemical cell by gentle dipping of the tip in a RT-IL solution [the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102]);
a voltage source (CHI760E bipotentiostat and CHI920D SECM bipotentiostat [section of Electrochemical Measurements in Supporting Information]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (amperometry and cyclic voltammetry were performed on the nanoprobe [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102]); and
a current meter (CHI760E bipotentiostat and CHI920D SECM bipotentiostat [section of Electrochemical Measurements in Supporting Information]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (amperometry and cyclic voltammetry were performed on the nanoprobe [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102]; Figs. 2-3 show the amperometry current response; Fig.S2-S3 show CV; and Fig.S7 shows the current obtained from SECM),
wherein the electrolyte is not present in the first channel or the second channel (see Fig.1), and
“wherein the gas comprises an explosive compound” 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 gas content (material worked upon) but fails to limit the gas sensor (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Choi is silent to: (1) a transport member for transporting the sample adjacent to the gas sensor or transporting the gas sensor adjacent to the sample, wherein the transport member comprises a conveyor; (2) wherein the sample comprises a solid sample, a liquid sample, or a combination thereof, wherein the sample comprises an explosive compound.
Wang reviews electrochemical sensing of explosives (title), and further reviews gas-phase voltammetric detection of explosive vapors, wherein a solid-state TNT gas sensor comprising a WE and a CE/RE electrode arranged in a single plane coated with an electrolyte film. Fig.7 shows a CV recorded by placing the probe 10 cm away from the solid TNT sample (section 4.4 in Col. 1 on page 420).
Choi and Wang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical gas sensor comprising two electrodes arranged in a single plane covered with an electrolyte film. 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 sample of Choi with a solid TNT sample, as taught by Wang, since it would allow for real-time detection of explosive vapors which would be extremely important for practical applications ranging from airport screening for hidden explosives, landmine detection or standalone roadside-checkpoint testing (section 4.4 in Col. 1 on page 420 in Wang). With the substituted sample, modified Choi teaches wherein the sample comprises a solid sample, wherein the sample comprises an explosive compound, and wherein the measured gas comprises the explosive compound.
Modified Choi is silent to: (1) a transport member for transporting the sample adjacent to the gas sensor or transporting the gas sensor adjacent to the sample, wherein the transport member comprises a conveyor.
Launiere teaches an automated sampling system comprising an analysis system 140 to analyze samples from the sampling system 110 which includes a fluid sample 122 and a solid sample 123. The analysis system 140 can include a detector 150 to measure a property of the fluid sample 122 or solid sample 123. The analysis substrate 142 can include a conveyor system or rotating platform to transport the fluid sample 122 or solid sample 123 to the detector 150. The detector 150 can include one or more electrochemical sensors [para.0045-0056; Fig.1]. Thus, Launiere teaches a transport member for transporting the sample comprising a solid sample adjacent to the electrochemical sensor, wherein the transport member comprises a conveyor.
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 scanning electrochemical gas microscope in modified Choi by providing a transport member for transporting the sample adjacent to the electrochemical sensor (corresponding to the electrochemical gas sensor in modified Choi) , wherein the transport member comprises a conveyor, as taught by Launiere, since the automated sampling and analysis approach would provide many benefits relative to sand-off or dip probe methods [para. 0039 in Launiere].
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein a shape of the electrolyte is defined by the tip and a surrounding atmosphere (a thin-layer of RT-IL was applied to a capillary electrode to complete the electrode electrochemical cell by gentle dipping of the tip in a RT-IL solution [the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102]. Thus, a shape of the electrolyte is defined by the tip and a surrounding atmosphere).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein a volume of the electrolyte is about 1 milliliter or less (the overall volume of the electrochemical cell was measured at 79[Symbol font/0xB1]5 nL by NMR quantification of the [EMIM][NTf2] molecules [the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102], which falls within the claimed volume range of about 1 milliliter or less).
Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the volume of the electrolyte is less than a volume of the at least partially closed capillary tube.
Since there are only three finite number of options: (A) the volume of the electrolyte is less than the volume of the closed capillary tube; (B) the volume of the electrolyte is equal to the volume of the closed capillary tube; and (C) the volume of the electrolyte is larger than the volume of the closed capillary tube, therefore, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try by choosing from the above three finite number of identified solutions, which would lead to choose the volume of the electrolyte is less than a volume of the closed capillary tube. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein an outer diameter of the tip is about 10 micrometers or less (1-3 µm diameter probe [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 8101]; Furthermore, based on the dimensions of the cone with r2=0.000125 cm=1.25 µm [Fig.S1 and section of calculation of the thickness of ionic liquid film in SI], the outer diameter of the tip is 2xr2=2.5 µm. Alternatively, based on the scale bar of 1 µm in Fig.1c, the diameter of the tip is measured to be about 2.5 µm. The disclosed outer diameter of the tip falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein a diameter of the first electrode and a diameter of the second electrode are each independently less than about 1 micrometer (typically electrodes exhibited 300-500 nm diameters [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 8101]; Furthermore, based on the scale bar of 1 µm in Fig.1c, a diameter of the WE and a diameter of the CE as shown in Fig.1c are each independently less than about 1 micrometer).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi 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 (based on the scale bar of 1 µm in Fig.1c, a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the outer surface of the tip is less than about 10 micrometers as shown in Fig.1c. Furthermore, based on the dimensions of the cone with base radius r2=0.000125 cm=1.25 µm [Fig.S1 and section of calculation of the thickness of ionic liquid film in SI], thus, the outer diameter of the outer surface of the tip is 2xr2=2.5 µm. Since the two electrodes are arranged within the outer surface as shown in Fig.1c, the distance between the two electrodes must be less than 2.5 µm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the first electrode and the second electrode each independently comprises platinum (Pt) (two Pt wires were inserted into each section of the borosilicate [Symbol font/0x71] glass capillary [Microprobe Fabrication in SI on page S3]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the electrolyte is a liquid (Room temperature ionic liquid [RT-IL] in Fig.1b).
Regarding claim 10, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the electrolyte is an electrolyte liquid drop or an electrolyte film (RT-IL film in Fig.1b).
Regarding claim 11, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid (RT-IL film in Fig.1b).
Regarding claim 12, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a salt (RT-IL [EMIM][NTf2] [the 1st paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102]; IL is a salt, as evidenced by Rogers [para. 2 in Col.1 on pg. 1077]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the electrolyte is gas permeable (RT-IL [EMIM][NTf2] [the 1st paragraph in Col. 1 on page 8102], which is gas permeable. Examiner notes that in this instant application, the ionic liquid may be [emim]NTf2 [para. 0109] in PG-Pub, thus the disclosed RT-IL [EMIM][NTf2] is the same as that used in this instant application).
Regarding claim 16, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the scanning electrochemical gas microscope acquires a three-dimensional gas concentration profile of the atmosphere close to the sample” 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, Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope comprises a CHI920D SECM bipotentiostat to acquire the SECM images displaying absolution current scale bars (see Fig.S7), and the nanoprobe is position directly above the sample (see Fig.4). Figs. 4c and S7 show the SECM images of one plane above the sample, and the measured current is proportional to the gas concentration (see Fig.3b). Thus, the disclosed scanning electrochemical gas microscope is configured to acquire a three-dimensional gas concentration profile of the atmosphere close to the sample by acquiring the SECM images at different planes closed to the sample in terms of three-dimensional current profile, which is a three-dimensional gas concentration profile based on the relationship between the current and the gas concentration.
Regarding claim 18, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and Choi teaches wherein the electrolyte is spaced apart from the sample (Fig.4 shows the nanoprobe is positioned directly above the sample, thus the electrolyte of the nanoprobe is spaced apart from the sample).
Regarding claim 19, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and the limitations “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 Choi teaches the gas sensor comprising substantially the same elements or components as that of the applicant, as evidenced by the rejection of claim 1 above, it is contended that the gas sensor of the prior art is capable of providing the same detection limit of a gas content.
Regarding claim 20, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, wherein the explosive compound comprises an explosive aromatic compound, wherein the explosive aromatic compound comprises a nitroaromatic compound, wherein the nitroaromatic compound comprises two or more nitro groups and a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the sample comprises the explosive compound of TNT, which comprises an explosive aromatic compound comprising a nitroaromatic compound, which comprises three nitro groups and a benzene ring, which is a substituted arylene group).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Wang, and Launiere, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gwon et al. (Quadruple nanoelectrode assembly for simultaneous analysis of multiple redox species and its application to multi-channel scanning electrochemical microscopy, Analytical Chimica Acta, 2022, 1226, 340287).
Regarding claim 8, modified Choi teaches the scanning electrochemical gas microscope of claim 1, and 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.
Gwon teaches an at least partially closed capillary tube comprising four nanoelectrodes of diameter of 100-400 nm with each nanoelectrode located in a corresponding channel and extended to the outer surface of the tip, and the four nanoelectrodes are spaced apart from each other as shown in Fig.1. The nanoelectrode bundle was also demonstrated as a stand-alone microprobe for electroanalytical investigation in small volumes. The nanoelectrode assembly was implemented as a tip electrode for multi-channel SECM, dramatically improving the time efficiency of SECM operations (abstract).
Modified Choi and Gwon are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nanoprobe and SECM. 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 at least partially closed capillary tube of modified Choi by providing 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, as taught by Gwon, since it would allow for multi-channel SECM, dramatically improving the time efficiency of SECM operations (abstract in Gwon).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 8-11, filed 7/10/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102, 35 U.S.C. § 103, and double patenting rejections have been fully considered. All 102, 103, and double patenting rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Regarding the 102 rejections, Applicant argues that at pages 8-9 that Choi fails to disclose a conveyor as a transport member for a sample that comprises a solid sample, a liquid sample, or a combination thereof.
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.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Regarding the 103 rejections for claims 3, 8, and 20, applicant argues at pages 10-11 that Choi and Wang do not disclose or suggest a conveyor as a transport member, thus cannot render the amended claim 1 obvious.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection for claim 1 above.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Regarding double patenting, applicant argues at page 11 that a terminal disclaimer is submitted.
Examiner’s Response #3:
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the submitted terminal disclaimer.
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