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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 32-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I (claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 14-17, 20-21, 26-27, 29-31) and II (claims 32-35) are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because claim 1 does not require a hood or disinfecting filter of claim 32. The subcombination has separate utility such as removing target virus molecules before delivering a filtrate of a sample to atmosphere.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 32-35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 14-17, 20-21, 26-27, and 29-35 remain pending in the application. Claims 32-35 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 5-7, 10-11, 14, 20-21, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (EP 1869441 B1; cited in the IDS filed 03/28/2022) in view of Steinberg (US 20040031495 A1), Fujita (US 20150108345 A1), and Miyashita et al. (US 20210311087 A1; effectively filed 02/26/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins teaches a system (Fig. 2) configured to process a sample (paragraph [0011] teaches sampled air is drawn through an inlet tube of the system of Fig. 2, thus the system is capable of processing a sample), the system comprising:
an inlet (Fig. 2, inlet tube 22) configured to receive the sample comprising target virus molecules (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0011] teaches a sample air is drawn through the inlet tube and target molecules are drawn through a filter, thus the inlet tube is capable of receiving a sample comprising target virus molecules at a later time);
a filter (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0018], interpreted as filter element 21 that is maintained at an elevated high temperature between 150 and 300 degrees Celsius; claim 1, “heated filter”; note that the instant specification, page 8, lines 11-13 discloses that a catalytic filter comprises a temperature controlled heated platinum filament grid, therefore, a filter element that is heated or temperature controlled reads on the claimed “filter”) in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 2 shows filter element 21 is in fluid communication with inlet tube 22), the filter being structured to break down the target virus molecules in the sample and produce breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0018] teaches the filter element 21 is maintained at an elevated high temperature between 150 and 300 degrees Celsius to rapidly evaporate particles, wherein target molecules are carried to a detector, therefore the filter element is interpreted as structurally capable of breaking down target molecules to produce breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas at a later time; note that the instant specification, page 8, lines 11-20 discloses that a catalytic filter comprises a temperature controlled heated platinum filament grid that breaks down products into detectable fragments that is identified by the ion mobility produced, therefore, Jenkin’s filter element that is heated or temperature controlled is structurally identical to the claimed filter and would be capable of performing the claimed function, see MPEP 2112.01(I));
the filter being assembled onto a heated block (Fig. 2 teaches filter 21 assembled onto housing 34, wherein paragraph [0018] teaches housing 34 maintains the filter at an elevated temperature, thus the housing 34 is interpreted as “heated block”);
a thermal insulation material (Fig. 2 thermal insulation material 33) mounted on the heated block (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0018] teaches the filter housing 34 is insulated by thermal insulation module 33, wherein the thermal insulation module 33 is mounted or attached to element 34; Fig. 2, element 34 is interpreted as a block shaped element); and
an outlet (Fig. 2, short heated tube 32) in fluid communication with the filter (Fig. 2 shows short heated tube 32 provides an outlet in fluid communication with filter element 21), the outlet being configured to deliver the breakdown products to a detector (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0018] teaches target molecules are carried into a detector through a short heated tube),
wherein the filter is a perforated metal foil (paragraphs [0011]-[0012] teaches the filter element is porous, i.e. perforated, and comprise materials such as bronze, stainless steel, or aluminum that is made into discs, i.e. metal foil; paragraph [0013] teaches the filter element is no more than 2-3mm thick, which is interpreted as a relative thin material or “foil”; note that the specific thickness of the foil is not claimed or specified).
While Jenkins teaches the filter is maintained at an elevated high temperature between 150 and 300 degrees Celsius to rapidly evaporate particles (paragraph [0018]), the system uses a ion mobility spectrometer or ion trap mobility spectrometer (paragraph [0005]), a disc shaped cover plate to hold the filters in place (Figs. 4A-4C, element 44; paragraph [0022]) and the filters may be disc shaped (paragraph [0012]), Jenkins fails to explicitly teach: wherein the filter having a catalytic surface and being structured to break down the target molecules in the sample and produce breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas; and a ceramic disc mounted on the heated block, the ceramic disc positioned and arranged to press the filter onto the heated block; and a microphone operably connected to the detector, the microphone configured to capture a sound generated by a person providing the sample and relay a processing start time to the detector responsive to the captured sound; and the perforated metal foil plated with platinum.
Steinberg teaches a vaporizer device for vaporizing compounds (abstract). Steinberg teaches the device comprises a filter being metal and having a relatively high thermal conductivity (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]). Steinberg teaches the metal may be resistant to oxidation or have a protective coating, such as gold or platinum (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]). Steinberg teaches the metal has high thermal conductivity, such as copper (paragraph [0051]), and can be a flat ribbon, i.e. foil (paragraph [0051]). Steinberg teaches the filter can be a series of plates with holes, i.e. perforated metal (paragraph [0050]). Steinberg teaches the filter can have a protective coating (e.g. platinum) to protect it from oxidation and chemical reactions (paragraph [0054]). Steinberg teaches the filter can have a catalytic coating for causing more complete combustion (paragraph [0055]).
Since Steinberg teaches metal filters for vaporizing compounds, similar to Jenkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter of Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of a metal filter comprising a coating or catalytic coating such as platinum of Steinberg (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]) and the teachings of plating the filter element of Jenkins (paragraph [0012]) to provide: wherein the filter having a catalytic surface and being structured to break down the target molecules in the sample and produce breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas; and the perforated metal foil plated with platinum. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving protection of the filter and improve the ability of the filter to breakdown molecules via a catalytic coating or surface as taught by Steinberg (paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
While Jenkins teaches a disc shaped cover plate to hold the filters in place (Figs. 4A-4C, element 44; paragraph [0022]) and the filters may be disc shaped (paragraph [0012]) and a thermal insulation material (Fig. 2 thermal insulation material 33) mounted on the heated block (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0018] teaches the filter housing 34 is insulated by thermal insulation module 33, wherein the thermal insulation module 33 is mounted or attached to element 34), modified Jenkins fails to teach: a ceramic disc mounted on the heated block, the ceramic disc positioned and arranged to press the filter onto the heated block; and a microphone operably connected to the detector, the microphone configured to capture a sound generated by a person providing the sample and relay a processing start time to the detector responsive to the captured sound.
Fujita teaches an ion mobility spectrometer (paragraphs [0001],[0017]) that allows gas to flow through the housing (paragraph [0030]). Fujita teaches a disc shaped members made of metal (Figs. 1-3, elements 21,22; paragraph [0043]) and a disc-shaped insulation sheet member made of an insulator such as ceramic (Figs. 1-3, element 23; paragraph [0043]).
Since Fujita teaches ion mobility spectrometry, similar to Jenkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Jenkins including a thermal insulation material to incorporate the teachings of a ceramic disc as an insulation member of Fujita (paragraph [0043]; Figs. 1-3) and the teachings of a disc shaped cover plate to hold filters in place of Jenkins (Figs. 4A-4C; paragraph [0022]) to provide: a ceramic disc mounted on the heated block, the ceramic disc positioned and arranged to press the filter onto the heated block. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving thermal insulation of the overall system while allowing for the filter to be properly held on the heated block.
While Jenkins teaches an embodiment of sampling the air of as subject within a portal (Fig. 7; paragraph [0031]), sensing a subject on entering the portal (paragraph [0034]), and related air includes equipment available for walkthrough portal security applications (paragraph [0002]), modified Jenkins fails to teach: a microphone operably connected to the detector, the microphone configured to capture a sound generated by a person providing the sample and relay a processing start time to the detector responsive to the captured sound.
Miyashita teaches a scatterer measurement method and apparatus (abstract) that determines the presence or absence, position, type, and concentration of the aerosol particles (paragraph [0102]), wherein aerosol particles can include a virus (paragraph [0112]). Miyashita teaches major routes of infectious diseases include virus contained in droplets that an infected person coughed or sneezed (paragraph [0002]). Miyashita teaches it is known to detect a human cough using a microphone (paragraph [0003]). Miyashita teaches droplets are released from the mouth of a person from coughing, sneezing, or uttering, and the droplets may contain a virus (paragraph [0237]). Miyashita teaches the apparatus includes a microphone to identify when a person coughs or sneezes and identifying and detecting the source and position of the sound, i.e. the position of the mouth of the person (paragraph [0163]). Miyashita teaches the apparatus may start scanning the target space upon detection of a cough or a sneeze (paragraphs [0185],[0196]; Fig. 10). Miyashita teaches the invention makes it possible to accurately identify the position and type of the aerosol particles (paragraph [0277]). Miyashita teaches detecting the position of the head of the person in advance makes it possible to easily detect droplets just released out of the mouth of the person (paragraph [0329]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Jenkins to incorporate Jenkins’ teachings of sampling air of a subject and sensing a subject (Fig. 7; paragraphs [0002], [0031], [0034]) and Miyashita’s teachings of detecting and analyzing a cough or sneeze of a person for a virus, and starting a scan upon detection of a cough or sneeze sound with a microphone (Fig. 10; paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0163],[0185], [0196], [0237]) to provide: a microphone operably connected to the detector, the microphone configured to capture a sound generated by a person providing the sample and relay a processing start time to the detector responsive to the captured sound. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of identification and detection of a sample from a cough or sneeze from a person as taught by Miyashita (paragraphs [0277],[0329]).
Note that “a sample”, “target virus molecules”, and “breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“a sample”, “target virus molecules”, “breakdown products”) worked upon by a structure (system) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Note that 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 functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Jenkins is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Jenkins discloses the claimed filter having a catalytic surface as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Moreover, the prior art of Jenkins teaches the filter is maintained at an elevated high temperature between 150 and 300 degrees Celsius to rapidly evaporate particles (paragraph [0018]) and the evaporated particles are detected using a ion mobility spectrometer or ion trap mobility spectrometer (paragraph [0005]). Thus, the structure of the filter is structurally capable of being heated to break target virus molecules to a submicron size to be analyzed by the ion mobility spectrometer.
Regarding claim 5, note that “a carrier gas” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (carrier gas) worked upon by a structure (catalytic filter) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Thus, Jenkins teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Jenkin’s system with a structural inlet (Fig. 2, inlet tube 22) and filter (Fig. 2, filter element 21) are capable of performing the functional limitations, e.g. producing breakdown products in a carrier gas from a sample, at a later time.
However, for compact prosecution purposes, Jenkins further teaches wherein the carrier gas comprises nitrogen (paragraph [0018] teaches a sample air stream is directed through the filter, and target molecules are carried to the detector, wherein air inherently comprise nitrogen since it is known that environmental/atmospheric air comprises nitrogen).
Regarding claim 6, note that “a carrier gas” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (carrier gas) worked upon by a structure (catalytic filter) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Thus, Jenkins teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Jenkin’s system with a structural inlet (Fig. 2, inlet tube 22) and filter (Fig. 2, filter element 21) are capable of performing the functional limitations, e.g. producing breakdown products in a carrier gas from a sample, at a later time.
However, for compact prosecution purposes, Jenkins further teaches the carrier gas is air (paragraph [0018] teaches a sample air stream is directed through the filter, and target molecules are carried to the detector, therefore, air carries the target molecules to the detector).
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins further teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a bypass (Fig. 2, concentric tube 24) in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 2 shows concentric tube 24 in fluid communication with inlet tube 22), with a first portion of the sample being delivered to the filter (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 shows a first portion of a sample from inlet 22 capable of being delivered to filter 21) and a second portion of the sample being delivered to the bypass (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 shows a second portion of the sample from inlet 22 capable of being delivered to concentric tube 24), wherein the first portion of the sample delivered to the filter is fluidly connected to the bypass downstream from the filter to produce a combined flow (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 teaches the portion of the sample delivered to filter 21 is in fluid connection to the concentric tube 24, therefore is structurally capable of producing a combined flow; Fig. 2 teaches fluid connection between elements 21, 32, 29, 26, 30, 27, 25, and 24, therefore a sample delivered to filter 21 is capable of flowing downstream to element 29, then to element 30, and then to element 25 to connect to the bypass 24 to form a combined flow).
Regarding claim 10, Jenkins further teaches wherein the bypass (Fig. 2, concentric tube 24 that connects to pump 23) further includes a restrictor (Fig. 2, interpreted as the portion of the concentric tube 24 that is narrower than the initial size of the concentric tube 24 near the sample inlet 22; see below annotated Fig. 2) configured to control a ratio of the first portion of the sample to the second portion of the sample (Fig. 2, the narrowed part of concentric tube 24 is structurally capable of controlling a ratio of the first portion of the sample to the second portion of the sample at a later time).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Jenkins: Arrow and box pointing to the claimed “restrictor” of the “bypass”, i.e. concentric tube 24.
Regarding claim 11, Jenkins fails to explicitly teach the system of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a hood configured to direct the sample to the inlet and prevent the target virus molecules from escaping to atmosphere.
Jenkins teaches an embodiment (Fig. 7; paragraph [0031]), wherein sample inlets of a detection system are connected to a short tube (Fig. 7, element 71). Jenkins teaches the short tube is in fluid communication with a hood (Fig. 7, paragraph [0031], “portal” 70), wherein air is allowed to pass over a subject to allow the subject to be sampled by the detection system (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Jenkins (see above claim 1; Fig. 2) to incorporate the embodiment and teachings of a portal or hood for sample collection of Jenkins (Fig. 7, paragraph [0031]), to provide the system of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a hood configured to direct the sample to the inlet and prevent the target virus molecules from escaping to atmosphere. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving containment and collection of an air sample from a subject (Jenkins, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Jenkins further teaches wherein the detector (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0010] teaches a detector 29, which is an ion mobility spectrometer or ion trap mobility spectrometer) is configured to collect spectral data from the breakdown products over several seconds and produce a detector signal output (paragraph [0010] teaches the detector is an ion mobility spectrometer or ion trap mobility spectrometer, which is structurally capable of performing the functional limitations of collecting spectral data from breakdown products over several seconds and produce a detector signal output; note that the instant specification, page 11, lines 1-5 discloses an ion mobility detector and page 13, lines 9-12 discloses an ion mobility spectrometer; thus, since the detector of Jenkins is the same as the detector of the instant invention, the detector of Jenkins is structurally capable of performing the functional limitations as claimed, see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jenkins fails to teach wherein the ceramic disc comprises radial grooves contacting the filter and the heated block, the radial grooves positioned and arranged to provide radial flow of hot dry air across the filter.
Jenkins teaches a cover plate arranged in line with incoming sampled air streams, and around each hole in the cover plate, a radial array of grooves is engineered to provide an air curtain in the housing (paragraph [0022]).
Fujita teaches a disc shaped insulation sheet member made of ceramic (paragraph [0043],[0046]) comprising a radial array of ventilation holes (Fig. 1, element 234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ceramic disc of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of a cover plate with a radial array of grooves of Jenkins (paragraph [0022]) and the teachings of a radial array of ventilation holes of Fujita (Fig. 1; paragraph [0046]) to provide wherein the ceramic disc comprises radial grooves contacting the filter and the heated block, the radial grooves positioned and arranged to provide radial flow of hot dry air across the filter. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing proper air flow through the ceramic disc and towards the filter as discussed by Jenkins (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 21, Jenkins further teaches wherein the heated block (Fig. 2, housing 34 is interpreted as “heated block”) comprises a shallow cavity positioned adjacent the filter (Fig. 2 shows a shallow cavity in element 34 to the right of element 21 in Fig. 2) dimensioned to allow hot dry air flowing through the filter to pass onto the detector (interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed heated block, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 shows a shallow cavity in element 34 to the right of element 21, which is structurally dimensioned and capable of allowing hot dry air to flow through filter 21 to pass onto detector 29 at a later time).
Regarding claim 29, Jenkins further teaches wherein the shallow cavity (Fig. 2 shows a shallow cavity in element 34 to the right of element 21 in Fig. 2) is a circular dish (paragraph [0012] teaches the filter has a disc or cylindrical shape; therefore, the shallow cavity in element 34 to the right of filter 21 in Fig. 2 is a circular dish shape), and a depth of the circular dish is designed to ensure heating of the filter while still allowing the air to flow to the detector (interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed shallow cavity, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 shows the shallow cavity in element 34 to the right of filter 21, which has a depth designed to be capable of ensure heating of the filter while still allowing hot dry air to flow through filter 21 to pass onto detector 29 at a later time).
Regarding claim 30, modified Jenkins fails to explicitly teach wherein the depth of the circular dish is less than one millimeter.
Jenkins teaches the filter is no more than 2 or 3 mm thick (paragraph [0013]) and it appears that the depth of the circular dish is less than the thickness of the filter (Fig. 2).
Since Jenkins teaches the filter is no more than 2-3mm thick and the depth of the circular dish is less than the thickness of the filter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circular dish of modified Jenkins to provide: wherein the depth of the circular dish is less than one millimeter through routine experimentation in order to optimize the size of the circular dish in relation to the filter (MPEP 2144.05 (II); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”) Furthermore, since Jenkins is silent on the specific depth of the circular dish, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a problem or need to design the circular dish appropriately in relation to the filter as shown in Jenkins (Fig. 2). Additionally, since Jenkins teaches the filter is no more than 2-3mm thick and the depth of the circular dish is less than the thickness of the filter (paragraph [0013]; Fig. 2), there is a finite number of identified, predictable dimensions to the depth of the circular dish, which can include dimensions less than 2mm thick, such as less than 1 mm thick. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the circular dish of modified Jenkins to provide: wherein the depth of the circular dish is less than one millimeter through routine experimentation in order to optimize the size of the circular dish in relation to the filter with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31, Jenkins further teaches wherein the filter is structured to break down the target virus molecules in the sample and produce the breakdown products comprising viral protein fragments (interpreted as a functional limitation of the filter, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0018] teaches the filter element 21 is maintained at an elevated high temperature between 150 and 300 degrees Celsius to rapidly evaporate particles, wherein target molecules are carried to a detector, therefore the filter element is interpreted as structurally capable of breaking down target virus molecules to produce breakdown products as claimed at a later time; note that the instant specification, page 8, lines 11-20 discloses that a catalytic filter comprises a temperature controlled heated platinum filament grid that breaks down products into detectable fragments that is identified by the ion mobility produced, therefore, Jenkin’s filter element that is heated or temperature controlled is structurally identical to the claimed filter and would be capable of performing the claimed function, see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
In an alternative interpretation, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Miyashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jenkins (US 3942357 A, cited in the IDS filed 03/28/2022; herein, “Patent ‘357”). In this alternative interpretation, Jenkins is interpreted as failing to teach: wherein the first portion of the sample delivered to the filter is fluidly connected to the bypass downstream from the filter to produce a combined flow.
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins further teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 2), further comprising a bypass (Fig. 2, concentric tube 24) in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 2 shows concentric tube 24 in fluid communication with inlet tube 22), with a first portion of the sample being delivered to the filter (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 shows a first portion of a sample from inlet 22 capable of being delivered to filter 21) and a second portion of the sample being delivered to the bypass (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2 shows a second portion of the sample from inlet 22 capable of being delivered to concentric tube 24).
Modified Jenkins fails to teach wherein the first portion of the sample delivered to the filter is fluidly connected to the bypass downstream from the filter to produce a combined flow.
Patent ‘357 teaches an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1; abstract) for checking gaseous content (column 1, lines 4-6). Jenkins teaches the apparatus comprises an inlet (Fig. 1, element 4), a detector (28), and bypass (branch 20) in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 1 shows branch 20 is in fluid communication with element 4), with a first portion of the sample being delivered to a sampling probe (Fig. 1, arrow towards element 23) and a second portion of the sample being delivered to the bypass (Fig. 1 shows an arrow towards element 20), and the bypass further includes a restrictor (valve 7). Patent ‘357 teaches wherein the first portion of the sample delivered to the sampling probe (23) is fluidly connected to the bypass downstream from the sampling probe to produce a combined flow (Fig. 1 shows a sample is fluidly connected to element 20 via element 10 to produce a combined flow towards element 6). Patent ‘357 teaches that during evacuation a reduction in pressure at the front of a membrane can damage the membrane, therefore the detector exhaust is connected to passageway 10 to ensure equalized pressures during operation (column 3, lines 31-41). Patent ‘357 teaches a chamber 22 is connected through passageway 10 to branch 20 upstream of a pump (column 1, lines 62-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of a portion of the sample delivered to the sampling probe is fluidly connected to the bypass downstream from the sampling probe to produce a combined flow of Patent ‘357 (Fig. 1) to provide: wherein the first portion of the sample delivered to the filter is fluidly connected to the bypass downstream from the filter to produce a combined flow. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving pressure management and flow of the sample through the system.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the claimed fluidic connections of the bypass downstream the filter) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. directing sample flow), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. adding a fluidic connection to the bypass downstream the filter would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling sample flow and pressure equalization). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Miyashita, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Carnahan et al. (US 5723861 A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jenkins fails to teach wherein the combined flow is fluidly connected to a second filter and a pump configured to deliver a filtrate of the combined flow to atmosphere.
Carnahan teaches a recirculating filtration system for use with a transportable ion mobility spectrometer for analysis of a sample stream (abstract). Carnahan teaches a pump is connected with a set of filters (abstract), wherein and outlet flow is cleaned by filters and recirculated back to a sensor (abstract). Carnahan teaches a portion of cleaned outlet flow is removed as exhaust to maintain a constant total flow volume as a sample is being taken (column 5, lines 20-24). Carnahan teaches combined flows are connected to filters and pumps and configured to deliver cleaned outlet flow to an exhaust (Fig. 1 and column 5, lines 20-24 teach flow from two of elements 50 are combined to element 6, directed through filters 22a and 22b via pump 21 and through exhaust 8.
Since Carnahan teaches directing air flow to a ion spectrometer, similar to Jenkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of pumps and filters to clean combined air to an exhaust of Carnahan (Fig. 1 and column 5, lines 20-24) to provide herein the combined flow is fluidly connected to a second filter and a pump configured to deliver a filtrate of the combined flow to atmosphere. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control of sample flow to an exhaust or atmosphere while cleaning or ensuring proper filtering of sampled air prior to returning the sampled air to the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. a pump and filters to clean air prior to delivering air to an atmosphere via an exhaust) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. directing and filtering sample flow), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. adding a filter and pump would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling improved filtering of a sample prior to exhaust to an atmosphere). See MPEP 2143(A).
In an alternative interpretation, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Miyashita as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jenkins (US 3942357 A, cited in the IDS filed 03/28/2022; herein, “Patent ‘357”).
Regarding claim 10, if it is determined that Jenkins fails to teach teaches wherein the bypass (Fig. 2, concentric tube 24 that connects to pump 23) further includes a restrictor configured to control a ratio of the first portion of the sample to the second portion of the sample, Patent ‘357 teaches an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1; abstract) for checking gaseous content (column 1, lines 4-6). Patent ‘357 teaches the apparatus comprises an inlet (Fig. 1, element 4), a detector (28), and bypass (branch 20) in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 1 shows branch 20 is in fluid communication with element 4), with a first portion of the sample being delivered to a sampling probe (Fig. 1, arrow towards element 23) and a second portion of the sample being delivered to the bypass (Fig. 1 shows an arrow towards element 20), and the bypass further includes a restrictor (valve 7). Patent ‘357 teaches the restrictor (valve 7) allows for adjustment of flow and pressure along branch 8 or 20 (column 3, lines 6-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bypass of Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of a restrictor (valve) of Patent ‘357 to provide wherein the bypass of Jenkins (Fig. 2, concentric tube 24 that connects to pump 23) further includes a restrictor configured to control a ratio of the first portion of the sample to the second portion of the sample. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and adjustment of flow direction and pressure as taught by Patent ‘357 (column 3, lines 6-30).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Miyashita as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 20130109592 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jenkins fails to teach the system of claim 14, further comprising a processor operably connected to the detector signal output, the processor comprising a memory storage device and configured to apply the collected spectral data to an artificial neural network trained on a first set of historical spectral data produced by samples known to have a detectable concentration of the target virus molecules and a second set of historical spectral data produced by samples known to have a non- detectable concentration of the target virus molecules to produce a result.
Fan teaches methods to determine absence or presence of cancer using a spectrometry system (abstract). Fan teaches obtaining spectral data to determine and identify lipids in a sample (paragraph [0081]). Fan teaches a predicable model comprise any suitable model for determining the presence or absence of one or more cancer types, including artificial neural networks (paragraph [0084]). Fan teaches the predictive model can be developed using a set of training data that can include positive control data and negative control data (paragraph [0084]). Fan teaches spectral data includes observed peaks (paragraph [0090]).
Since Fan teaches using spectrometry for detecting molecules, similar to Jenkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of using predictive models including artificial neural networks and training the model using negative and positive control data of Fan (paragraph [0084]) to provide the system of claim 14, further comprising a processor operably connected to the detector signal output, the processor comprising a memory storage device and configured to apply the collected spectral data to an artificial neural network trained on a first set of historical spectral data produced by samples known to have a detectable concentration of the target virus molecules and a second set of historical spectral data produced by samples known to have a non- detectable concentration of the target virus molecules to produce a result. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving analysis of spectrometric data and to improve determination of a desired target virus molecule in a sample to be analyzed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, Miyashita, and Fan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gavin et al. (US 20040159783 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jenkins fails to explicitly teach wherein the spectral data includes one or more parameter for each peak selected from peak position, peak size, ratio of peak size to a reference peak size, drift time, appearance time, and change of peak size over time, and the memory storage device is configured to record the spectral data.
Gavin teaches a method of processing a plurality of spectra (abstract). Gavin teaches ion mobility spectroscopy can be used (paragraph [0049]). Gavin teaches a central server computer and database to store values and annotated and unannotated mass spectra is advantageous (paragraph [0071]). Gavin teaches peak identification processes to automate detection of peaks (paragraph [0083]). Gavin teaches analysis of peaks at specific positions (paragraph [0099]). Gavin teaches classification models can be used to process spectral data (paragraphs [0091]-[0093]), including artificial neural networks (paragraph [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spectral data of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of storing and analyzing spectral data including peak positions of Gavin (paragraphs [0071], [0083], [0091]-[0093], [0099]) to provide wherein the spectral data includes one or more parameter for each peak selected from peak position, peak size, ratio of peak size to a reference peak size, drift time, appearance time, and change of peak size over time, and the memory storage device is configured to record the spectral data. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for pertinent spectral data, e.g. peak positions, from the detector to be stored and analyzed.
Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Miyashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 6422830 B1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jenkins fails to teach wherein the filter is mounted on a metal ring.
Yamada teaches a fluid machine comprising a step of mounting a filter on a flow passage way that can be easily automated and the latitude of the filter arrangement is improved (abstract). Yamada teaches a mounting recess for mounting a filter (column 10, lines 34-37), a filter (Fig. 3) includes a filter member (73) made of a woven wire that and mounted to metal support rings (74) (column 10, lines 43-55). Yamada teaches a support ring is secured to a mounting recess (abstract). Yamada teaches the support ring of the filter can be adjusted so that the latitude of the design of a gas feed passageway can be improved (column 11, lines 40-45).
Since Yamada teaches a filter, similar to modified Jenkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of a metal support ring to secure a filter of Yamada (Fig. 3; column 10, lines 34-55) to provide wherein the filter is mounted on a metal ring. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving mounting and positioning of the filter as taught by Yamada (abstract; column 11, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 26, modified Jenkins fails to teach: the filter is formed of copper plated with platinum.
Steinberg teaches a vaporizer device for vaporizing compounds (abstract). Steinberg teaches the device comprises a filter being metal and having a relatively high thermal conductivity (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]). Steinberg teaches the metal may be resistant to oxidation or have a protective coating, such as gold or platinum (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]). Steinberg teaches the metal has high thermal conductivity, such as copper (paragraph [0051]), and can be a flat ribbon, i.e. foil (paragraph [0051]). Steinberg teaches the filter can be a series of plates with holes, i.e. perforated metal (paragraph [0050]). Steinberg teaches the filter can have a protective coating (e.g. platinum) to protect it from oxidation and chemical reactions (paragraph [0054]). Steinberg teaches the filter can have a catalytic coating for causing more complete combustion (paragraph [0055]).
Since Steinberg teaches metal filters for vaporizing compounds, similar to Jenkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and filter of Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of a metal filter comprising a coating or catalytic coating such as platinum of Steinberg (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]), the teachings of a filter having a high thermal conductivity, such as copper (paragraph [0051]) and the teachings of plating the filter element of Jenkins (paragraph [0012]) to provide: the filter is formed of copper plated with platinum. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving protection of the filter and improve the ability of the filter to breakdown molecules via a catalytic coating or surface as taught by Steinberg (paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. a filter being copper and plating a filter with platinum) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. filtering a sample and protecting a filter), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the perforated metal foil is formed of copper plated with platinum would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling the filter to have a high thermal conductivity and protection of the filter). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Miyashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Godula-Jopek et al. (US 20180164283 A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Jenkins fails to teach wherein the inlet is detachable from the heated block to allow for replacement of the filter.
Godula-Jopek teaches a handheld air sampler device comprising a filter element (abstract). Godula-Jopek teaches the inlet and the outlet are configured removable from each other for inserting, removing or replacing the filter element; thereby, additional portions or elements of the device may be arranged between the inlet and the outlet; and in this way, by removing the inlet and the outlet from each other, the filter element can be easily accessed and replaced, inserted or removed (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inlet of modified Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of removable parts for inserting, removing, or replacing a filter element of Godula-Jopek (paragraph [0042]) to provide wherein the inlet is detachable from the heated block to allow for replacement of the filter. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving access, replacement, insertion, and removing of the filter as taught by Godula-Jopek (paragraph [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of 11/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of: Jenkins (EP 1869441 B1; cited in the IDS filed 03/28/2022) in view of Steinberg (US 20040031495 A1), Fujita (US 20150108345 A1), and Miyashita et al. (US 20210311087 A1; effectively filed 02/26/2019).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the arguments against Kim, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Kim for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “microphone is configured to define the start of the analysis very accurately and trigger the start time of the spectral scan”, Remarks, page 7; “captures the coughing sound”, Remarks, pages 7-8) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to Jenkins I, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jenkins is “silent regarding any filter structured to break down target virus molecules” since Jenkins is silent on any filter breaking down particles (Remarks, page 8) and the filter of Jenkins is not capable of breaking down target virus molecules (Remarks, page 8), the examiner disagrees. A recitation of the intended use or functional limitation 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 or functional limitation, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114. Note that “a sample”, “target virus molecules”, and “breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“a sample”, “target virus molecules”, “breakdown products”) worked upon by a structure (inlet; filter) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Additionally the apparatus of modified Jenkins is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Jenkins discloses the claimed filter having a catalytic surface and the filter is a perforated metal foil plated with platinum as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Moreover, the prior art of Jenkins teaches the filter is maintained at an elevated high temperature between 150 and 300 degrees Celsius to rapidly evaporate particles (paragraph [0018]) and the evaporated particles are detected using a ion mobility spectrometer or ion trap mobility spectrometer (paragraph [0005]). Thus, the structure of the filter is structurally capable of being heated to break down target virus molecules to a submicron size as claimed to be analyzed by the ion mobility spectrometer at a later time.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dimensions of the perforated metal foil and platinum plating…viral capsid to break down into detectable amino acid fragments”, Remarks, page 8) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Note that the claim does not specify the dimensions of the perforated metal foil or the dimensions of the platinum plating. Additionally, the claim does not specify any specific temperature required to break down the target virus molecules. Additionally, the claim does not require a specific target virus molecule or breakdown products.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jenkin’s “metal foil” having a thickness of 2-3 mm is not a metal foil since metal foils typically have a thickness of between 0.0025 mm and 0.15 mm (Remarks, page 9), the examiner disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 9, “a thickness of between 0.0025 mm and 0.15 mm”; “foil has a thickness in the range of between 0.0025 mm and 0.15 mm”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Note that the disclosure does not establish any special definitions for “metal foil”, rather the specification of the instant invention appears to merely provide examples and embodiments of the thickness of the metal foil. The BRI of “metal foil” includes the interpretation of a relatively thin sheet of metal, which includes Jenkin’s sheet of metal having a thickness of 2-3 mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakayama et al. (US 20200163505 A1) teaches a detection system to detect a virus (abstract). Nakayama teaches a microphone to detect a cough or sneeze sound generated by a human (paragraph [0159]), and when the coughing or sneezing sound is detected, the autonomous collection device starts collection of the object to detect an analyte more efficiently (paragraph [0162]).
Schmidt (US 20150025417 A1) teaches a cough detection, analysis, and communication platform, including a microphone (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights