Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,588

ELECTROCHEMICAL GAS SENSOR AND ELECTROLYTE FOR AN ELECTROCHEMICAL GAS SENSOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Examiner
NOGUEROLA, ALEXANDER STEPHAN
Art Unit
1795
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
DRÄGERWERK AG & CO. KGAA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1253 granted / 1522 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1551
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1522 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Objections Claims 29 and 57 are objected to because of the following informalities: a) in claim 29, line 3, – or – should be inserted between “mediator,” and “an”; and b) in claim 57, line 2, -- an – should be inserted between “providing” and “electrochemical”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims. 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 28-57 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: a) claim 28 recites PNG media_image1.png 98 654 media_image1.png Greyscale The claim preamble is confusing as it indicates that the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode and the electrolyte are on the one hand part of the claimed electrochemical gas sensor (“An electrochemical gas sensor”), but, on the other hand, are for any electrochemical gas sensor (“an electrochemical gas sensor” rather than – the electrochemical gas sensor --); b) claim 28 recites “wherein the cyclic compound corresponds to formula (I) [(A)R1R2]+[Y]; . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” The scope of the word “corresponds” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforms to – or – has – or does Applicant intend that the cyclic compound does not necessarily have to meet all the specified features for A, R1, R2, and Y, but only “correspond” to them? c) claim 29 recites, “An electrochemical gas sensor in accordance with claim 28, wherein the electrolyte contains at least one additional component comprising a buffer substance, a reaction mediator, an addition or a mixture consisting of two or more of these components, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear how to interpret the phrase “two or more of these components” as there are only two possible components listed - a buffer substance and a reaction mediator. Does Applicant mean -- an addition or a mixture consisting of both of these components --? d) regarding claim 29, the phrase "is further preferably selected from" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). e) claim 29 is confusing as it begins with “An electrochemical gas sensor in accordance with claim 28, wherein the electrolyte contains at least one additional component comprising a buffer substance, a reaction mediator, an addition or a mixture consisting of two or more of these components, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” (that is, the addition is both the buffer substance and the reaction mediator) yet none of the listed possible addition compounds (“wherein the addition is further preferably selected from methane sulfonic acid, potassium acetate, EMIM acetate, pyridinium acetate, BaCl2, CaCl2, EuCl2.”) is in the list of possible buffer substances (“ wherein the buffer substance is further selected from the group comprising EDTA, EGTA, TEA, Bis-Tris, ADA, Tris, potassium hydrogen phthalate, pyridinium formate, MOPS, HEPES, CHES, TRICIN, PIPES or carbonate, . . . “) or in the list of possible reaction mediator (“ wherein the reaction mediator is further selected from the group comprising CuCl2, CoCl3, quinone, quinone derivatives, MnCl2, . . . .”). f) claim 30 recites “wherein the second cyclic compound corresponds to formula (I) [(A)R1R2]+[Y]; . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” The scope of the word “corresponds” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforms to – or – has – or does Applicant intend that the second cyclic compound does not necessarily have to meet all the specified features for A, R1, R2, and Y, but only “correspond” to them? g) claim 32 is PNG media_image2.png 136 724 media_image2.png Greyscale Formula (VI) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 32 or any of the claims that claim 32 depends from. h) claim 32 is PNG media_image2.png 136 724 media_image2.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VI) and formula (VII), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). i) claim 33 is PNG media_image3.png 288 700 media_image3.png Greyscale Formula (VI), formula (VII), formula (VIII), and formula (IX) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 33 or any of the claims that claim 33 depends from. j) claim 33 is PNG media_image3.png 288 700 media_image3.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of formula (VI), formula (VII), formula (VIII), or formula (IX), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). k) claim 34 recites “wherein the second cyclic compound corresponds to formula (I) [(A)R1R2]+[Y]; . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” The scope of the word “corresponds” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforms to – or – has – or does Applicant intend that the second cyclic compound does not necessarily have to meet all the specified features for A, R1, R2, and Y, but only “correspond” to them? l) claim 37 is PNG media_image4.png 150 680 media_image4.png Greyscale Formula (VI) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 37 or any of the claims that claim 37 depends from. m) claim 37 is PNG media_image4.png 150 680 media_image4.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VI) and formula (VII), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). n) claim 38 is PNG media_image5.png 158 670 media_image5.png Greyscale Formula (VI) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 38 or any of the claims that claim 38 depends from. o) claim 38 is PNG media_image5.png 158 670 media_image5.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VI) and formula (VII), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). p) claim 39 is PNG media_image6.png 250 676 media_image6.png Greyscale Formula (VI), formula (VII), and formula (VIII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 39 or any of the claims that claim 39 depends from. q) claim 39 is PNG media_image6.png 250 676 media_image6.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of formula (VI), formula (VII) and formula (VIII), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). r) claim 40 is PNG media_image7.png 274 744 media_image7.png Greyscale Formula (VI), formula (VII), formula (VIII), and formula (IX) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 40 or any of the claims that claim 40 depends from. s) claim 40 is PNG media_image7.png 274 744 media_image7.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of formula (VI), formula (VII), formula (VIII), and formula (IX), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). t) claim 41 is PNG media_image8.png 160 646 media_image8.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (IX) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 41 or any of the claims that claim 41 depends from. u) claim 41 is PNG media_image9.png 241 975 media_image9.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VIII) and formula (IX), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). v) claim 42 is PNG media_image10.png 142 682 media_image10.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (IX) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 42 or any of the claims that claim 42 depends from. w) claim 42 is PNG media_image10.png 142 682 media_image10.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VIII) and formula (IX), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). x) claim 43 is PNG media_image11.png 154 712 media_image11.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (IX) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 43 or any of the claims that claim 43 depends from. y) claim 43 is PNG media_image11.png 154 712 media_image11.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VIII) and formula (IX), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). z) claim 44 is PNG media_image12.png 150 700 media_image12.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (IX) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 44 or any of the claims that claim 44 depends from. aa) claim 44 is PNG media_image12.png 150 700 media_image12.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VIII) and formula (IX), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). ab) claim 45 is PNG media_image13.png 146 704 media_image13.png Greyscale Formula (VII) and formula (VI) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 45 or any of the claims that claim 45 depends from. ac) claim 45 is PNG media_image13.png 146 704 media_image13.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). ad) claim 46 is PNG media_image14.png 114 678 media_image14.png Greyscale Formula (VII) and formula (VI) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 46 or any of the claims that claim 46 depends from. ae) claim 46 is PNG media_image14.png 114 678 media_image14.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). af) claim 47 is PNG media_image15.png 152 718 media_image15.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 47 or any of the claims that claim 47 depends from. ag) claim 47 is PNG media_image15.png 152 718 media_image15.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). ah) claim 48 is PNG media_image16.png 160 718 media_image16.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 48 or any of the claims that claim 48 depends from. ai) claim 48 is PNG media_image16.png 160 718 media_image16.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). aj) claim 49 is PNG media_image17.png 166 658 media_image17.png Greyscale Formula (VIII) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 49 or any of the claims that claim 49 depends from. aj) claim 49 is PNG media_image17.png 166 658 media_image17.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). ak) claim 50 is PNG media_image18.png 146 704 media_image18.png Greyscale Formula (IX) and formula (VI) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 50 or any of the claims that claim 50 depends from. al) claim 50 is PNG media_image18.png 146 704 media_image18.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). am) claim 51 is PNG media_image19.png 130 682 media_image19.png Greyscale Formula (IX) and formula (VI) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 51 or any of the claims that claim 51 depends from. an) claim 51 is PNG media_image19.png 130 682 media_image19.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). ao) claim 52 is PNG media_image20.png 148 708 media_image20.png Greyscale Formula (IX) and formula (VI) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 52 or any of the claims that claim 52 depends from. ap) claim 52 is PNG media_image20.png 148 708 media_image20.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (VII) and formula (VI), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). aq) claim 53 is PNG media_image21.png 140 674 media_image21.png Greyscale Formula (IX) and formula (VI) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 52 or any of the claims that claim 52 depends from. ar) claim 53 is PNG media_image21.png 140 674 media_image21.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (IX) and formula (VII), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). as) claim 54 is PNG media_image22.png 122 696 media_image22.png Greyscale Formula (IX) and formula (VII) are indefinite as these formulas are not set forth in either claim 54 or any of the claims that claim 54 depends from. at) claim 54 is PNG media_image22.png 122 696 media_image22.png Greyscale The scope of the word “corresponding” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforming to – or – having – or does Applicant intend that the first cyclic compound and second cyclic compound do not necessarily have to meet all the specified features of, respectively, formula (IX) and formula (VII), whatever they may be (see previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). au) claim 57 recites PNG media_image23.png 138 692 media_image23.png Greyscale This “providing” step is confusing as it indicates that the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode and the electrolyte are on the one hand part of the claimed electrochemical gas sensor (“providing electrochemical gas sensor”), but, on the other hand, are for any electrochemical gas sensor (“an electrochemical gas sensor” rather than – the provided electrochemical gas sensor --); av) claim 57 recites “wherein the cyclic compound corresponds to formula (I) [(A)R1R2]+[Y]; . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” The scope of the word “corresponds” as used here is not clear. Does Applicant mean – conforms to – or – has – or does Applicant intend that the cyclic compound does not necessarily have to meet all the specified features for A, R1, R2, and Y, but only “correspond” to them? Allowable Subject Matter Claims 28 and 57 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 29-56 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: a) in claim 1 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined feature PNG media_image24.png 440 698 media_image24.png Greyscale a)(i) the International Search report for international application PCT/EP2022/076139 cites a number of “X” and “Y” documents. These documents are labeled documents D1-D9 in the corresponding Written Opinion. The Written Opinion, based on an English language translation obtained by the U.S. Examiner deems claims 1-23, 25, and 27 to have novelty, but deems claims 24 and 26 to lack novelty, and deems claims 1-27 to lack an inventive step. Each of documents D1-D91 will be now be commented upon in turn as it relates to claim 28 of U.S. application 18/693588 - D1 is about alkyl pyridinium dicyanamides and method for the production thereof. See the title and Abstract. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. Claim 9 just mentions, “Process comprising utilizing the alkylpyridinium dicyanamide according to claim 1, if appropriate in a mixture with one or more other ionic liquids, water or organic solvents, as a polar aprotic solvent, as an electrolyte in electrolysis or in electrical components, or for the production of liquid crystals for LCDs or of conductive gels. [italicizing by the Examiner]” D2 is about a purification method of ionic liquids to obtain their purity. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. The Abstract and specification just make passing mention that the ionic liquid “can be used as solvents for organic, inorganic and biochemical reactions or as electrolytic solutions of storage batteries, secondary batteries, or fuel batteries, . . . .” See the Abstract, page 1, lines 4-10; and page 5, lines 21-24. D3 is about ink, ink set, processing solution, recording method, recording medium, ink tank and recording device. See the title and Abstract. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. D4 is about organic salt conditioner, organic salt-containing composition, and uses thereof. See the title and Abstract. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. The Abstract states, “The invention composition may be used for washing (cleaning) and/or conditioning keratin materials, and especially the hair.” D5 (which is the same as US 20040167265 A1) is about a water- and oil-repellent antistatic composition. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. The specification states, “[0002] This invention relates to compositions that exhibit both repellency and antistatic characteristics. This invention further relates to fibers, films, fabrics, coatings, and molded or blown articles comprising the compositions. In other aspects, this invention also relates to a topical treatment composition and to processes for imparting both repellency and antistatic characteristics to substrates.” D6 (based on the English language equivalent US 20230218496 A1) is about ionic liquid as an antiperspirant. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. The Abstract states, “The invention relates to an aluminum salt-free, antiperspirant, deodorizing, cosmetic and/or dermatological composition comprising at least one antiperspirant active ingredient, wherein the antiperspirant active ingredient is selected from the group of ionic liquids.” D7 discloses an electrochemical gas sensor (see the title) comprising at least one first electrode (working electrode; see the Abstract, Figure 1 (noting 101), and paragraph [0023]) and at least one second electrode (counter electrode or reference electrode; see the Abstract, Figure 1 (noting 102 and 103), and paragraph [0023]) and an electrolyte (104 in Figure 1; paragraph [0023]) for an electrochemical gas sensor (see the title, Figure 1, and paragraph [0023]), and a cyclic compound, wherein the cyclic compound corresponds to formula (I) [(A)R1R2]+[Y]; wherein (A) is a ring structure, which is selected from the group comprising pyridinium, piperidinium, pyrrolidinium, pyrrolium; wherein the radical R1 is arranged at the nitrogen atom of the ring structure A; wherein R1 is a hydrocarbon radical with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 C atoms; wherein R2 is a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon radical with 1, 2, 3 or 4 C atoms; and wherein Y is selected from the group comprising halide, cyanide, alkyl sulfonate, halogenated alkyl sulfonate, and acetate. For example, D6 discloses the cyclic compound 1-Butyl-4-methylpyridinium chloride in paragraph [0009]. However, neither this cyclic compound nor any other that is listed in paragraph [0009] and conforms to the formula (I) of claim 28 of the US application is part of the electrolyte. The compounds listed in paragraph [0009], which are ionic liquids, are cast as a solidified coating on the working electrode. See paragraphs [0008], [0009], [0030], [0031], and [0035], and claims 8 and 12. Example electrolytes “. . . . may include a silver salt, for example AgNO3; a gold salt, which may be selected from NaAuCl4, HAuCl4, or combinations thereof; and/or an inert electrolyte, for example an NaNO3 solution, an Na.sub2SO4 solution, or combinations thereof.” See paragraph [0027]. D8 discloses an electrochemical gas sensor (see the title) comprising at least one first electrode (working electrode 3 in Figure 1A. See paragraph [108]. Also see paragraphs [14], [44], and [62].) and at least one second electrode (reference electrode 5 or counter electrode 6 in Figure 1A. See paragraph [108]. Also see paragraphs [14], [44], and [62]) and an electrolyte (see the Abstract) for an electrochemical gas sensor (see the title and Abstract), wherein the electrolyte contains at least one cyclic compound (pyridinium – paragraphs [17] and [18]). However, D8 does not disclose a cyclic compound corresponding to formula (I)( [(A)R1R2]+[Y]) of claim 1 of U.S. application 18/693588. While D8 does disclose A being pyridinium, R2 being a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon radical with 1, 2, 3 or 4 C atoms; and Y being a halide, alkyl sulfonate, halogenated alkyl sulfonate, or acetate, D8 does not disclose “wherein the radical R1 is arranged at the nitrogen atom of the ring structure A; [and] wherein R1 is a hydrocarbon radical with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 C atoms; . . . .” For example, D8 discloses PNG media_image26.png 262 780 media_image26.png Greyscale PNG media_image27.png 116 778 media_image27.png Greyscale PNG media_image28.png 78 726 media_image28.png Greyscale See also D8 claims 9 and 10. Also, D8 does not disclose, as required by clam 1 of the U.S. application, “wherein the electrolyte contains at least one cyclic compound and at least 5 wt. % water, . . . .” D8 only discloses that organic additives, which may contain water, may be included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.05 to 5.0 weight percent. See D8 claim 5 and paragraph [86]. In this regard not the D8 provides a reservoir 7 for absorbing water from hygroscopic electrolyte. See D8 paragraphs [108] and [109]. D9 , based on an EPO machine-generated English language translation, “. . . . relates to agents for dyeing and/or brightening keratinous fibers, i.e. Agents for application to keratin fibers, especially human hair, and their use.” See paragraph [0002]. There is no mention in the document of an electrochemical gas sensor or a sensor of any type, electrochemical or otherwise. a)(ii) the European Search Report for application no. 21198500.7 – 1020 cites eight documents, D1-D8, which correspond, respectively, to documents D1-D8 cited in the Written Opinion and which have already been commented upon in regard to claim 28 in the U.S. application. b) claims 29-56 depend directly or indirectly form allowable claim 28. c) independent claim 57 in the U.S. application is allowable for the same reasons that claim 28 is, as discussed above. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM 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, Luan 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795 1 PNG media_image25.png 360 724 media_image25.png Greyscale
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601702
METHANE SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596113
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CHEMICAL-FREE DETERMINATION OF THE CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (CSB) IN AQUEOUS SAMPLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596092
GAS SENSOR AND CONTROL METHOD OF GAS SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596098
DEVICE FOR VOLUME COUPLING IN EPITACHOPHORESIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596088
ELECTROCHEMICAL PROBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+3.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1522 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month