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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 07/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 43-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “Shekarriz does not disclose a thin film transistor”, the examiner agrees. However, in view of the current claim amendments, the combination of Shkarriz and Dartnell teaches the thin film transistor gas sensor.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekarriz et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0159084) (hereafter Shekarriz) in view of Dartnell et al. (Pub No. US 2020/0271621) (hereafter Dartnell).
Regarding claim 43, Shekarriz teaches a method of determining a presence, a concentration or a change in concentration of a target material in an environment, the method comprising:
measuring a rate of change in drain current or resistance of a sensor (i.e., the presence (and in preferred embodiments, the concentration) of the target organic molecule in the sampled portion of the gas produces a current, which can be used directly or indirectly as a control signal) (see paragraph section [0095]) upon exposure to the environment for a time period (i.e., A sample of the gas is directed into sensor 72) (see paragraph section [0095]); and
determining, from the rate of change, a presence, a concentration or a change in concentration of the target material at a point during the time period (i.e., the target organic molecule is present in the sampled gas (as indicate by the production of an electrical current by the sensor)) (see paragraph section [0095]); but does not explicitly teach a thin film transistor sensor.
Regarding the sensor, Dartnell teaches a thin film transistor sensor (i.e., one or more further gas sensors, optionally one or more organic thin film transistors) (see paragraph sections [0027]-[0028]). In view of the teaching of Dartnell, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor sensor in order to compare the performance of the different sensors.
Regarding claim 44, Shekarriz teaches determining dI/dt for the time period wherein I is drain current and t is time; identifying dI/dt peaks; and determining, from the dI/dt peaks, a presence, a concentration or a change in concentration of the target material at the point during the time period (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 45, Shekarriz teaches that the target material is 1- methylcyclopropene (i.e., a target organic molecule such as ethylene or 1-methylcyclopropene) (see paragraph section [0095]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 20, 22, 35-37 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the primary reason for allowance is that the prior arts, either alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest the particulars of a method for determining a presence, concentration, or change in concentration of a target material in a gaseous environment, comprising a valve arrangement, a dehumidification stage, a filter material, a rehumidification stage, and the method steps of dehumidifying gas and rehumidifying as, measuring a first response and a second response of the sensor of the sensor system, and subtracting a first sensor measurement or a derivative thereof from a second sensor measurement or a derivative thereof. Furthermore, the examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments in the Remarks dated 07/27/2026.
The best prior arts of record:
Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) teaches a system for normalized detection of gas emanating from a fluid source, which comprises: a sensor for detection of a select gas species; a trap for said gas species or for one or more unwanted gas species; a pump for inducing gas-flow in said system; a plurality of valve assemblies, each said valve assembly being interconnected with said sensor; said plurality of valve assemblies including a first valve assembly also interconnected with said trap, which trap is interconnected with said fluid source, said first valve assembly being variable between a first position in which it affords a path between the sensor and the trap and a second position in which it affords a path between the trap and the pump circumventing the sensor; and said plurality of valve assemblies including a second valve assembly also interconnected with said fluid source, said second valve assembly being variable between a first position in which it affords a path between the sensor and said fluid source and a second position in which it affords a path between the pump and said fluid source circumventing the sensor. Wohltjen does not teach the sensor system including the dehumidification stage, the rehumidification stage, the valve arrangement
Shekarriz et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0159084) teaches an electrochemical sensor for organic molecules such as ethylene includes an electrochemical cell, gas sample inlet means and means for detecting current produced by the oxidation of the organic molecule at the anode of the cell. The sensor is capable of sensing multiple organic molecules in some embodiments. A voltage is applied to the anode of the cell to provide energy to drive the oxidation reaction and produce a corresponding current. Shekarriz does not teach the sensor system including the dehumidification stage, the rehumidification stage, the valve arrangement.
Furthermore, in the examiner’s opinion, the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant.
Hence, the best prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 18, 20, 22, 35-37, and the examiner can find no teaching of the specific, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on her own to combine the elements of these references, other than the applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims. In addition, see applicant’s reasoning in amendment/response filed 07/27/2026.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
