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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-17, 20-21, 26-27, 29-31 remain pending in the application. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-17, 20-21, 26-27, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a temperature control system programmed to control temperature of the filter to a value that enables catalytic breakdown of the target virus molecules” (emphasis added) in lines 9-10. The specifically generally recites a temperature control system (page 9, lines 4-10; page 12, lines 18-19). However, the disclosure is silent on the temperature control system being “programmed” or having programming. Therefore, the disclosure fails to describe, explicitly or inherently, “a temperature control system programmed to control temperature of the filter to a value that enables catalytic breakdown of the target virus molecules” (emphasis added). Thus the claims were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4-17, 20-21, 26-27, 29-31 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 Westerhout et al. (Westerhout et al., “Examination and Evaluation of the Use of Screen Heaters for the Measurement of the High Temperature Pyrolysis Kinetics of Polyethene and Polypropene”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 8, 3360-3368).
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 “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 temperature control system programmed to control temperature of the filter to a value that enables catalytic breakdown of the target virus molecules; 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 temperature control system programmed to control temperature of the filter to a value that enables catalytic breakdown of the target virus molecules.
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 maintaining the filter at an elevated temperature (paragraph [0018]) and the catalytic filter includes high thermal conductivity material such as aluminum, bronze, stainless steel, i.e. metal (paragraphs [0012], [0018]), modified Jenkins fails to teach: a temperature control system programmed to control temperature of the filter to a value that enables catalytic breakdown of the target virus molecules.
Westerhout teaches a system (Figs. 3) comprising a screen heater for studying pyrolysis kinetics of polymers in gas (abstract; Figs. 2-3). Westerhout teaches the system comprises an inlet and outlet for gas stream passing along the stream (page 3362, first paragraph). Westerhout teaches thermocouple wires were welded on one side into the wire mesh screen, while the other ends were attached to the thermocouples connections, which were connected to the temperature control section; and the thermocouple was used to control the screen temperature (page 3362, first paragraph). Westerhout teaches passing a current through the screen via a power source to achieve heating the screen at a set temperature (page 3362, second paragraph). Westerhout teaches an analyzer used to continuously sample the exiting gas flow (page 3362, right column, first full paragraph).
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 wire mesh screen for studying pyrolysis kinetics, wherein the wire mesh screen is connected to a power supply and temperature control system of Westerhout (Figs. 2-3; page 3362, first – second paragraph) and the teachings of maintaining the filter at an elevated temperature of Jenkins (paragraph [0018]) to provide: a temperature control system programmed to control temperature of the filter to a value that enables catalytic breakdown of the target virus molecules. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and automation of heating the filter to achieve a desired temperature as taught by Westerhout (Figs. 2-3; page 3362, first – second paragraph).
Note that “a sample”, “target virus molecules”, “breakdown products having a submicron size in a carrier gas”, and “detector” 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”, and “detector”) worked upon by a structure (inlet; filter) 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 (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 (Fig. 2 shows a second portion of the sample from inlet 22 capable of being delivered to concentric tube 24).
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).
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]).
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 14, note that the “detector” 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 (detector) worked upon by a structure (outlet) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Thus, Jenkins teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Jenkin’s system with a structural outlet is capable of performing the functional limitation of delivering breakdown products to the detector as claimed at a later time.
However, for compact prosecution purposes, 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)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Westerhout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patterson et al. (US 8686355 B2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jenkins fails to teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a membrane disposed between the filter and the outlet.
Patterson teaches a detection system assembly (abstract) comprising a housing having a sample port, a detector assembly in flow communication with the sample port, and a dryer cartridge in flow communication with a pump and the detector assembly (abstract). Patterson teaches detecting a substance from an air flow (column 2, lines 25-35). Patterson teaches a desorber is positioned adjacent to a sample port and is configured to heat a trap (column 4, lines 12-19), wherein the detector assembly can include a filter (wherein a filter is interpreted as a structural membrane or layer) that can be positioned between a desorber and detector (column 5, lines 19-21). Patterson teaches a filter is used to remove particles and/or vapors from air (column 11, lines 56-59).
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 comprising the catalytic filter and outlet of Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of providing a filter (interpreted as a structural membrane or layer) between a desorber that heats a trap and a detector of Patterson (column 5, lines 12-21) to provide the system of claim 1, further comprising a membrane disposed between the filter and the outlet. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enabling desired filtration of a sample to improve specificity of detection by removing undesired particles and/or vapors (Patterson, column 11, lines 56-59).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Westerhout 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 8, 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 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, Westerhout, and Patent ‘357 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Carnahan et al. (US 5723861 A).
Regarding claim 9, while Patent ‘357 teaches a combined flow is fluidly connected to a pump configured to deliver the combined flow to atmosphere (column 2, lines 24-26 and Fig. 1 teach vacuum pump 6 acts as to exhaust combined air flow from elements 20 and 10, thus the exhaust is interpreted as air pumped to an atmosphere), 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) and the teachings of a pump to deliver a combined flow to an atmosphere of Patent ‘357 (column 2, lines 24-26 and Fig. 1) 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 Westerhout 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, Westerhout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thorgersen (US 20130276388 A1).
Regarding claim 12, 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 the system of claim 1, further comprising a temperature sensor to measure a temperature of a person providing the sample.
Thorgersen teaches a system for facilitating flow of persons and items through security check point (abstract; paragraph [0001]), which is in the same field of endeavor as Jenkins which discusses equipment for security applications (paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0031]; Fig. 7). Thorgersen teaches a person walks through a detector and search for explosives or drugs is typically carried out (paragraph [0003]). Thorgersen teaches supplementing security checks with a chemical testing for explosives (paragraph [0026]). Thorgersen teaches the security check of the person at the security check point may comprise the step of the person walking through a metal detector, a manual search, body scan, a body temperature scanning or mapping (paragraph [0027]).
Since Thorgersen teaches analyzing a person related to a walk through security application, 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 Jenkins to incorporate the teachings of security checks including body temperature scanning of Thorgersen (paragraph [0027]), to provide the system of claim 1, further comprising a temperature sensor to measure a temperature of a person providing the sample. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving versatility of security checks and analyze desired parameters such as a person’s body temperature.
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 temperature sensor) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. measuring temperature of a person), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. adding a temperature sensor to the system would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling improved analysis of a person during security checks). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Westerhout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160367138 A1).
Regarding claim 13, 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 the system of claim 1, further comprising a microphone operably connected to the detector, the microphone configured to relay a processing start time to the detector responsive to a captured sound.
Kim teaches an electronic device for measuring biometric information comprising a sensor and processor connected to the sensor (abstract). Kim teaches a user input, such as voice recognition, is received to initiate a measurement of biometric information (paragraph [0128]). Kim teaches an auditory module that includes a microphone (paragraph [0258]). Kim teaches a user input regarding initiation of a measurement is received through a voice input (paragraph [0133]). Kim teaches measurement devices includes body temperature measuring (paragraphs [0048], [0059]). Kim teaches a module includes a gas sensor (paragraph [0080]). Kim teaches checking an environmental factor of biometric information with a sensor (paragraphs [0150]-[0151]).
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 to incorporate the teachings of initiating measurement using voice input and a microphone of Kim (paragraphs [0128], [0258]), to provide the system of claim 1, further comprising a microphone operably connected to the detector, the microphone configured to relay a processing start time to the detector responsive to a captured sound. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving accessibility of the overall system for a user or operator of the system to control and initiate measurement or detection of the system (Kim, paragraph [0128]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Steinberg, Fujita, and Westerhout 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 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, Westerhout, 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 Westerhout 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