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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 and 12-15 (group I) in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims do have unity and no additional search burden would be present. This is not found persuasive because searching for a porous metal zinc oxide nanosheet of group I would require a completely different search from group II which is directed to manufacturing a porous metal zinc oxide nanosheet. Manufacturing products/methods has its own distinct class as there are various ways to manufacture a product/method. Furthermore, group II requires searching for specific manufacturing methods steps as the group requires searching for preparing a nanosheet, searching for heat-treating processes/method steps, searching for forming mixtures, searching for metal precursors and searching for irradiating method steps. These steps are not required in searching for group I and therefore would require its own distinct search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Examiner suggests cancelling the withdrawn claims of group II (claims 10-11).
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/04/2026.
Claims
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are elected for examination.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a single paragraph in the word range of 50 to 150 words in length describing the technical disclosure of the patent and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Gas Sensor Including Porous Metal-Zinc Oxide Nanosheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shenzhen Technology University WO2022233225 (hereinafter “Shenzhen”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shenzhen discloses a porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet comprising metal nanoparticles formed on the surface (nano-gold modified nano-tetrapod zinc oxide gas sensor includes nano-tetrapod zinc oxide layer with nano precious metals such as gold formed on its surface; Paragraphs 0062-0070).
Regarding claim 2, Shenzhen discloses a diameter of the metal nanoparticles is 0.1 nm to 5 nm, and a ratio of the metal nanoparticles on the surface of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet is 1.0 wt% or more (Paragraphs 0062-0070).
Regarding claim 3, Shenzhen discloses the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet (nano-tetrapod zinc oxide layer) comprises oxygen defects (oxygen inlet ends) on the surface, and a molar ratio of the oxygen defects is 5% to 30% (Paragraphs 0062-0070).
Regarding claim 4, Shenzhen discloses an electron depletion layer (Paragraphs 062-070).
Regarding claim 5, Shenzhen discloses a thickness ratio of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet and the electron depletion layer is 1 : 1 to 8 : 1 (Paragraphs 0062-0070).
Regarding claim 7, Shenzhen discloses the metal nanoparticles on the surface of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet are disposed at intervals of 0 nm to 10 nm (Paragraphs 0062-0070, See Figs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Shenzhen discloses the metal nanoparticles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of Pt, Pd, Rh, Ru, Ni, Co, Cr, Ir, Au, Ag, Pb, Fe, Cu, Al, Ti, Ce, and Cd. (nano precious metals such as gold, platinum, silver and palladium formed on its surface; Paragraphs 0062-0070, 0083-0085).
Regarding claim 9, Shenzhen discloses pores of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet are comprised in 5 vol% to 30 vol% of the total volume of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet (Paragraphs 0062-0070, See Figs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Shenzhen discloses a gas sensor comprising a chip and the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet of any one of claims 1 to 9 formed on the chip surface (nano-gold modified nano-tetrapod zinc oxide gas sensor includes a gas sensor substrate and nano-tetrapod zinc oxide layer with nano precious metals such as gold formed on its surface; paragraphs 62-70).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenzhen Technology University WO2022233225 (hereinafter “Shenzhen”) in view of Miao et al US20220099643 (hereinafter “Miao”).
Regarding claim 6, Shenzhen discloses the nanosheet according to claim 1.
However, Shenzhen fails to disclose the metal nanoparticles are formed in an area with a depth corresponding to 0% to 10% from the surface of a distance from the surface to the center of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet. Miao discloses the metal nanoparticles (noble metal nanoparticles) are formed in an area with a depth corresponding to 0% to 10% from the surface of a distance from the surface to the center of the porous metal-zinc oxide nanosheet (Paragraph 0033-0034, 0055-0059 discloses noble metal nanoparticles stabilized on and at the surface of ZnO nanostructures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Miao into Shenzhen for the purpose of increasing particle collection. The modification would allow for increased surface interaction with gas molecules.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenzhen Technology University WO2022233225 (hereinafter “Shenzhen”) in view of Patel US10823690.
Regarding claim 13, Shenzhen discloses the gas sensor according to claim 12.
However, Shenzhen fails to disclose the gas sensor senses at least one selected from the group consisting of a blister agent (HD), 2-CEES, H2S, CH4, CO2, CO, SO2, NO2, NH3, Benzene, Toluene, Xylene, DMMP and 2-CEEC. Patel discloses the gas sensor senses at least one selected from the group consisting of a blister agent (HD 2-CEES, H2S, CH4, CO2, CO, SO2, NO2, NH3, Benzene, Toluene, Xylene, DMMP and 2-CEEC; Col 1 line 41-63, Col 9 line 28-61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Patel into Shenzhen for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow ensuring an area of interest is safe to occupy.
Regarding claim 14, Shenzhen discloses the gas sensor according to claim 12.
However, Shenzhen fails to disclose the gas sensor senses gas at a limit concentration of 0.1ppm at 300
℃
500
℃
and comprises a recovery time of 5 sec to 60 sec. Patel discloses the gas sensor senses gas at a limit concentration of 0.1ppm at 300
℃
500
℃
and comprises a recovery time of 5 sec to 60 sec (Col 10 line 9—Col 11 line 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Patel into Shenzhen for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow increasing sensor performance and quicker detection analysis.
Regarding claim 15, Shenzhen discloses the gas sensor according to claim 12.
However, Shenzhen fails to disclose the gas sensor has responsivity of 50 or more at 20% humidity, and responsivity of 30 or more at 80% humidity. Patel discloses the gas sensor has responsivity of 50 or more at 20% humidity, and responsivity of 30 or more at 80% humidity (Col 9 line 17—Col 11 line 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Patel into Shenzhen for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow increasing sensor performance and quicker detection analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brockway et al US20200165461 discloses liquid-repellent coatings, and in particular, to porous liquid-repellent coatings, a method of preparing the porous liquid-repellent coatings, and a method of characterizing a porous surface for the liquid-repellent coatings. The invention further relates to a porous liquid-repellent coating comprising a porous layer of a transition metal oxide and/or hydroxide and a layer of a liquid-repellent compound deposited onto the porous layer of the transition metal oxide and/or hydroxide, wherein the porous layer of the transition metal oxide and/or hydroxide is comprised of a plurality of surface pores of varying angles with an average angle that is re-entrant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights