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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “the application discloses that a pump is located to the right of sensor 150 in order to draw gas out in the direction of the arrow emerging from the sensor 150” because “the phrase "draw[ing] into" implies that the pump is located to the right of sensor 150 to draw (rather than push) gas through the system”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. However, the examiner agrees with the applicant’s statement that “there are two ways of producing this flow of gas: (1) a pump to the left of the system pushes gas through the system, or (2) a pump to the right of sensor 150 draws gas through the system” based on the interpretation of the directional arrows in Fig. 1. The examiner respectfully submits that the phrases “drawing gas into” and “pushing gas through” do not define the positioning of the pump with respect to the flow arrangement 100 as presented in Fig. 1. In this case, the written specification does not really define the position of the pump, as being to the right of the system/sensor or to the left of the system/sensor, nor explicitly discuss the distinction between “drawing gas into” and “pushing gas through”. The examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s assertion does not appear to have clear written support from the specification or illustrative support from the figures. Accordingly, the applicant’s assertion of “there are no valves between the filter material 130 and the pump” does not appear to have clear support from the disclosure.
Double Patenting
Claims 46 and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,228,556 to Tobjork et al.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose substantially overlapping subject matter.
The reference claims are presented below:
A gas sensor apparatus comprising a gas inlet configured to draw gas from an environment into the gas sensor apparatus;
a first gas sensor; (instant claim 52)
a first gas flow path between the inlet and the gas sensor;
a humidifier disposed between the gas inlet and the gas sensor in the first gas flow path of the gas sensor apparatus, wherein the humidifier is configured to form a humidifier-treated gas having a predetermined humidity level by humidification of the gas drawn from the external environment; and (instant claim 52)
a dehumidifier disposed between the humidifier and the first gas sensor in the first gas flow path, wherein the dehumidifier is configured to dehumidify the humidifier-treated gas having the predetermined humidity level and (instant claim 52)
wherein the first gas sensor is configured to detect the presence or concentration of a target gas in the environment, the target gas being an organic compound.
13. A method of detecting the presence or concentration of a target gas in a sample environmental gas, the method comprising:
forming a humidifier-treated environmental gas having a predetermined humidity level comprising exposing the sample environmental gas to a humidifier; (instant claim 46)
forming a dehumidifier-treated gas comprising exposing the humidifier-treated environmental gas having the predetermined humidity level to a dehumidifier; and (instant claim 46)
measuring a response of a gas sensor to the dehumidifier-treated environmental gas, wherein the target gas is an organic compound. (instant claim 46)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 18, 20, 22, 35-37, 41-52 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 18, the specification, dated 09/14/2021, does not explicitly mention whether the filter material is configured to be “continuously exposed to the pump.” In particular, the written specification appears to only disclose that “gas from an atmosphere is drawn into the apparatus by any method known to the skilled person, e.g. by use of one or more pumps (not shown)” (see page 10 of the specification dated 09/14/2021), that “gas in the apparatus may be removed therefrom, e.g. by a pump or by displacement with a gas that the gas sensor is not responsive to, between the first state and the second state” (see page 12), and especially that “electrochemical sensors may provide more stable signals and/or have longer lifetime if exposed non-continuously to a target gas as described herein” (see page 18). The originally written specification does not appear to disclose the claimed limitations of a pump configured to draw gas “through the sensor system” and “the filter is continuously exposed to the pump” as recited in the currently amended claims 1 and 18.
None of the figures seem to illustrate the claimed limitation of the filter material configured to be “continuously exposed to the pump”. All the diagrams seem to show that the filter material 130 is exposed to the sensor 150 (see Fig. 1) or to the reservoir 14 (see Fig. 4-5).
In addition, the currently amended claim recites that “there are no valves between the filter material and the pump,” but the specification and the figures do not disclose or illustrate the placement of the pump relative to the valves. In fact, the specification appears to disclose that “a material other than the target material, e.g. water, may be removed by a suitable filter material before gas drawn from the environment reaches the valve arrangement” (i.e., implying that the filter material is positioned upstream of the valve arrangement) (see page 15). The applicant asserts, in the Remarks, that “it is self-evident that a pump is located to the right of sensor 150 in order to draw gas out in the direction of the arrow emerging from the sensor 150” because “use of the apparatus gas from an atmosphere is drawn into the apparatus by any method known to the skilled person, e.g. by use of one or more pumps (not shown).” In this case, the specification and the applicant’s statement together describe the valve arrangement in between the filter material and the pump, which does not appear to support the most recent amendment to the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as the valve placement, or lack thereof, in between the filter material and the pump, is an optional design choice.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites “a target material in a gaseous environment”, “withdrawing 1-methylcyclopropene from the gaseous environment comprising contacting the environment with silica gel”, and “to draw gas from an environment” without defining whether “a gaseous environment” and “an environment” refer to the same or different environments. In addition, the method step of “contacting the environment with silica gel” does not appear to actually produce or withdraw any fluid or target material. The method step merely teaches that the environment contacts the silica gel and not that any target material or fluid is withdrawn or extracted from this process. In other words, the claim does not really require that 1-MCP is obtained from the method step of “contacting the environment with silica gel”. In this case, the claim appears to disclose both 1-MCP from the gaseous environment and “fluid drawn from the environment”. The claim does not define whether the 1-MCP would be directed by the valve arrangement as well or only the gas drawn through the inlet from “an environment” would be directed by the valve arrangement.
Regarding claim 42, the method step, as recited, appears to only teach “contacting the environment with silica gel” but does not actually define whether the silica gel is configured to extract the 1-MCP from the gaseous environment or other contaminants in the gaseous environment except the 1-MCP. In other words, the claim does not really require that 1-MCP is obtained from the method step of “contacting the environment with silica gel”. For examination purposes, any amount of silica gel being exposed to an environment would be considered as meeting this limitation in the claim. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 43, the claim recites “a TFT sensor” without defining what the abbreviation “TFT” represents. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 20, 22, 35-37, 44-52 are rejected as depending on the rejected base claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 46-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mottram et al. (Pub. No. US 2001/0027678) (hereafter Mottram).
Regarding claim 46, Mottram teaches a method of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a target material in a gas (i.e., monitoring a number of olfactory parameters of a sample gas or vapour, so as to provide a "finger print" of the odour from the sample) (see paragraph section [0060]), the method comprising:
dehumidifying the gas (i.e., using drying column 13) (see Fig. 1);
rehumidifying the dehumidified gas (i.e., using humidifying means 22) (see Fig. 1); and
measuring a response of a gas sensor configured to detect the target material (i.e., an array of olfactory sensors for measuring various parameters of the gas or vapour from the sample are positioned in chamber 36) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 47, Mottram teaches that the gas is rehumidified to within a predetermined range and wherein a response of the gas sensor to humidity within the predetermined range is subtracted from the measured response (i.e., the relative humidity probe 23 in the mixing chamber measures the humidity of the mixed streams and feeds the result to the microprocessor 25. Any desired set point is set on the microprocessor, using in-house software, and is then fed to the PID controller 27. The PID controller 27 proportions the wet/dry air flows to allow rapid ramping between set humidities without overshoot) (see paragraph section [0056]).
Claims 48-51 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 52, Mottram teaches a gas sensor apparatus (i.e., olfactory sensors) (see paragraph section [0060]) configured to determine a presence, a concentration or a change in concentration of a target material in a gaseous environment (i.e., monitoring a number of olfactory parameters of a sample gas or vapour, so as to provide a "finger print" of the odour from the sample) (see paragraph section [0060]), comprising:
a dehumidification stage configured to dehumidify gas drawn into the apparatus from an inlet (i.e., using drying column 13) (see Fig. 1);
a gas sensor (i.e., an array of olfactory sensors for measuring various parameters of the gas or vapour from the sample are positioned in chamber 36) (see Fig. 2); and
a rehumidification stage disposed between and in fluid communication with the dehumidification stage and the gas sensor, the rehumidification stage being configured to rehumidify the dehumidified gas (i.e., humidifying means 22) (see Fig. 1).
Claim 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shekarriz et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0159084) (hereafter Shekarriz).
Regarding claim 42, Shekarriz teaches a method of withdrawing 1-methylcyclopropene (i.e., a target organic molecule such as ethylene or 1-methylcyclopropene) (see paragraph section [0095]) from a gaseous environment comprising contacting the environment with silica gel (i.e., reactor 75 may contain a packing that adsorbs the target organic molecule from the gas. The packing may be, for example, an inert material such as silica that has a metal coating. The metal is one as described before that adsorbs the target organic molecule. For alkene absorption, gold, silver, platinum and copper are suitable metals. In such an embodiment, after the target organic molecule is adsorbed, the gas is discharged from reactor 75) (see paragraph section [0098]).
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 TFT 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]).
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]).
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 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Shekarriz et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0159084) (hereafter Shekarriz).
Regarding claim 41, Wohltjen teaches a method of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a target material in a gaseous environment, the method comprising:
(ii) measuring, in either order, a first response and a second response of a sensor of a sensor system (i.e., a "zero" measurement is provided by exposing the sensor to the gas sample from the trap. Thereafter, a "target" (or normal) measurement is taken by exposing the sensor to a gas sample not previously contacted with the trap) (see Column 1, lines 54-58) wherein the sensor is configured to respond to the target material (i.e., a sensor for detection of select gas species) (see Column 3, line 60, to Column 4, line 13) and wherein the sensor system comprises:
the sensor (i.e., sensor 13) (see Fig. 1);
an inlet configured to draw gas from an environment into the sensor system (i.e., inlet 11) (see Fig. 1);
a valve arrangement (i.e., valve 16) (see Fig. 1) configured to direct fluid drawn from the environment to a first fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor or to a second fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor (i.e., Upon entering the inlet 11, the "sample" gas, will flow either through the trap 12 or through the direct flow path 15, depending on the position of the valve 16. In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13 while flow through direct flow path 15 is blocked; in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13 while flow from trap 12 to sensor 13 is blocked) (see Column 6, lines 40-58);
wherein the first response is a response of the sensor to fluid from the first flow path which has been treated to remove the target material from the fluid (i.e., In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13) (see Column 6, lines 40-58) and
the second response is a response of the sensor to fluid from the second flow path which has not been treated to remove the target material from the fluid (i.e., in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13) (see Column 6, lines 40-58); and
(iii) subtracting (i.e., applicant explained in the Remarks dated 02/29/2024 that this would be a method known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art: “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand with reasonable certainty that the method for determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a target material can be achieved by measuring two responses followed by determining the difference in the measurements (i.e., by subtracting one measurement from the other measurement)) (see pages 1-2 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 02/29/2024) the first sensor measurement or a derivative thereof from the second sensor measurement or a derivative thereof (i.e., to secure a reference measurement an analyte gas and/or unwanted contaminants are, for example, removed by a trap (often referred to as a "scrubber") through the use of physical and/or chemical means. A "zero" measurement is provided by exposing the sensor to the gas sample from the trap. Thereafter, a "target" (or normal) measurement is taken by exposing the sensor to a gas sample not previously contacted with the trap) (see Column 1, lines 15-67); but does not explicitly teach
(i) withdrawing 1-methylcyclopropene from the gaseous environment comprising contacting the environment with silica gel.
Regarding the silica gel, Shekarriz teaches withdrawing 1-methylcyclopropene (i.e., a target organic molecule such as ethylene or 1-methylcyclopropene) (see paragraph section [0095]) from the gaseous environment comprising contacting the environment with silica gel (i.e., reactor 75 may contain a packing that adsorbs the target organic molecule from the gas. The packing may be, for example, an inert material such as silica that has a metal coating. The metal is one as described before that adsorbs the target organic molecule. For alkene absorption, gold, silver, platinum and copper are suitable metals. In such an embodiment, after the target organic molecule is adsorbed, the gas is discharged from reactor 75) (see paragraph section [0098]). In view of the teaching of Shekarriz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected suitable filter or packing material depending on the target absorption or absorption material. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). In this case, the specification, dated 09/14/2021, states that “the filter material is selected according to the target material” (see page 11), which does not teach any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached on (571)-272-2210. 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