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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 1-14 being allowed. Claims 15-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/30/2026, along with the amendments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The previous drawing objection is withdrawn. Applicant filed replacement drawings to address the issue.
As to the remarks, the examiner has found the applicant’s arguments not persuasive and will be addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burn et al (US 20180100801 A1; hereinafter “Burn”).
Regarding claim 1, Burn teaches an integrated explosive detector (Burn; fig. 1) for a container, the integrated explosive detector comprising:
a substrate element that couples to the container, the substrate comprising a port and a surround (Burn; [0084]-[0085] “Substrate may take the form of a tube (surround) that has a hole (port)); and
a detection element coupled to the substrate element (Burn; Abstract “triaryl amine compound coating on the substrate”), the detection element comprising:
a visual indicator that provides a visible indication when a subject substance is detected (Burn; [0081]-[0082] “detector (visual indicator) delivers output signal that is indicative of the intensity of the light emitted by the compound) via ambient air flow through at least a portion of the detection element via the port (Burn; fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burn et al (US 20180100801 A1; hereinafter “Burn”).
Regarding claim 5, Burn teaches the integrated explosive detector of claim 1 (see above) to include a substrate element (see above).
Burn fails to teach the substrate element comprises peel-and-stick adhesive.
However, it would have been obvious to modify the substrate element to include a peel and stick adhesive which would allow to attach the substrate element to a container.
Regarding claim 7, Burn teaches the integrated explosive detector of claim 1 (see above) to include a container (see above).
Burn does not teach the container is a cardboard box or paper envelope.
However, it would have been obvious include a container that is a cardboard box or paper envelope as this material is mostly used for shipping materials where explosive material can be mailed.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burn et al (US 20180100801 A1; hereinafter “Burn”) in view of Zhang (US 20130217139 A1; hereinafter “Zhang” previous of record).
Regarding claim 2, Burn teaches the integrated explosive detector of claim 1 (see above) to include a detection element (see above).
Burn does not teach the integrated explosive detector further comprises a rigid protective element coupled to the detection element.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”). Zhang teaches incorporating the explosive detector in a housing for ease of use [0037]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Burn’s detection element to include a rigid protective element as taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”). Zhang teaches incorporating the explosive detector in a housing for ease of use [0037]).
The modification allows to incorporate the explosive detector in a housing for ease of use [0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Burn teaches the integrated explosive detector of claim 1 (see above) to include a visual indicator (see above).
Burn fails to teach wherein the visual indicator comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers that are activated by nitroaromatic explosive particles.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a visual indicator (Zhang; fig. 1. 12”fluorescence sensor”) wherein the visual indicator comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers that are activated by nitroaromatic explosive particles (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and [0031] “fluorescence sensor can include nanofibrils 12”, and [0036] “the nanofibril material exhibits distinct fluorescence changes upon exposure to specific target samples”).
Zhang teaches a fluorescent visual indicator that is activated upon exposure to (2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene) TNT.
Zhang further teaches the visual indicator (nanofibril) comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers is made of nano fibers (Zhang; [0031] “carbazole nanofibers”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Burn’s visual indicator to include photoluminescent polymer fibers that are activated by nitroaromatic explosive particles as taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a visual indicator (Zhang; fig. 1. 12”fluorescence sensor”) wherein the visual indicator comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers that are activated by nitroaromatic explosive particles (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and [0031] “fluorescence sensor can include nanofibrils 12”, and [0036] “the nanofibril material exhibits distinct fluorescence changes upon exposure to specific target samples”).
The modification allows to have a photoluminescence signature that is distinctive of explosives.
Regarding claim 4, Burn teaches the integrated explosive detector of claim 1 (see above) to include a detection element (see above).
Burn fails to teach the detection element is one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a detection element (Zhang; fig. 1. 14) wherein the detection element is one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint (Zhang; [0035] “the nanofibrils can be formed in any suitable shape such as a coating, a film or a thin film through which vapors can be passed”).
Zhang teaches the nanofibrils form a nanoporous film consisting of entangled fibril networks (Zhang; [0050]) which Examiner interprets as a type of screen.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Burn’s detection element to be one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint as taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a detection element (Zhang; fig. 1. 14) wherein the detection element is one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint (Zhang; [0035] “the nanofibrils can be formed in any suitable shape such as a coating, a film or a thin film through which vapors can be passed”).
The modification allows for vapor to permeate the material.
Regarding claim 6, Burn teaches the integrated explosive detector of claim 1 (see above) to include a detection element (see above).
Burn does not teach the detection element at least partially obstructs airflow through a container port in a surface of the container.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of an integrated explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a detection element (Zhang; fig. 1. 14). Zhang teaches to include an opening in the housing for the explosive detector to allow passage of air suspected of containing target sample vapors [0037]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Burn’s detection element to at least partially obstructs airflow through a container port in a surface of the container because Zhang teaches partially obstructing airflow through a port in a surface of the container in order to place the explosive detector in the path of air suspected of containing target sample vapors.
The modification allows to collect air sample.
Claims 8-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornath (US 20150338319 A1; hereinafter; “Ornath” previous of record) in view of Burn et al (US 20180100801 A1; hereinafter “Burn”).
Regarding claim 8, Ornath teaches a container comprising:
an integrated explosive detector comprising (Ornath; fig. 4. 1102, 1103).
Ornath fails to teach the integrated explosive detector comprises a substrate element that couples to the container, the substrate comprising a port and a surround; and, a detection element coupled to the substrate element, the detection element comprising: a visual indicator that provides a visible indication when a subject substance is detected via ambient air flow through at least a portion of the detection element via the port.
However, Burn teaches the analogous art of an integrated explosive detector (Burns; fig. 1), the integrated explosive detector comprising:
a substrate element that couples to the container, the substrate comprising a port and a surround (Burn; [0084]-[0085] “Substrate may take the form of a tube (surround) that has a hole (port)); and
a detection element coupled to the substrate element (Burn; Abstract “triaryl amine compound coating on the substrate”), the detection element comprising:
a visual indicator that provides a visible indication when a subject substance is detected (Burn; [0081]-[0082] “detector (visual indicator) delivers output signal that is indicative of the intensity of the light emitted by the compound) via ambient air flow through at least a portion of the detection element via the port (Burn; fig. 1).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ornath’s integrated explosive detector to include a substrate element that couples to the container, the substrate comprising a port and a surround; and, a detection element coupled to the substrate element, the detection element comprising: a visual indicator that provides a visible indication when a subject substance is detected via ambient air flow through at least a portion of the detection element via the port as taught by Burn because Burn teaches an integrated explosive detector (Burn; fig. 1), the integrated explosive detector comprising: a substrate element that couples to the container, the substrate comprising a port and a surround (Burn; [0084]-[0085] “Substrate may take the form of a tube (surround) that has a hole (port)); and a detection element coupled to the substrate element (Burn; Abstract “triaryl amine compound coating on the substrate”), the detection element comprising: a visual indicator that provides a visible indication when a subject substance is detected (Burn; [0081]-[0082] “detector (visual indicator) delivers output signal that is indicative of the intensity of the light emitted by the compound) via ambient air flow through at least a portion of the detection element via the port (Burn; fig. 1).
The modification allows to detect analytes via luminescence (Burn; Title)
Regarding claim 9, modified Ornath teaches the container of claim 8 (see above).
Modified Ornath teaches a protective element that covers the cargo where the integrated explosive detector would be placed.
Modified Ornath fails to teach the integrated explosive detector further comprising a rigid protective element coupled to the detection element.
It would have been obvious to provide a rigid protective element coupled to the detection element in order to protect the detection element from environmental factors such as rain or debris.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ornath teaches the container of claim 8 (see above) to include a substrate element (see above).
Modified Ornath fails to teach the substrate element comprises peel-and-stick adhesive.
It would have been obvious to include a peel-and-stick adhesive to the substrate element in order to place the substrate element on the container.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ornath teaches the container of claim 8 (see above) wherein the container is a cardboard box or paper envelope (Ornath; [0134] “the goods are in boxes”).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornath (US 20150338319 A1; hereinafter; “Ornath” previous of record) in view of Burn et al (US 20180100801 A1; hereinafter “Burn”), further in view of Zhang (US 20130217139 A1; hereinafter “Zhang” previous of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ornath teaches the container of claim 8 (see above) to include a visual indicator (see above).
Modified Ornath teaches identifying explosives (Ornath; [0109]).
Modified Ornath fails to teach a visual indicator that comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers that are activated by nitroaromatic explosive particles.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of an explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a fluorescent visual indicator that is activated upon exposure to (2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene) TNT.
Zhang further teaches the visual indicator (nanofibril) comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers is made of nano fibers (Zhang; [0031] “carbazole nanofibers”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ornath’s indicator to be a visual indicator that comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers that are activated by nitroaromatic explosive particles as taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches an explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a fluorescent visual indicator that is activated upon exposure to (2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene) TNT wherein the visual indicator (nanofibril) comprises photoluminescent polymer fibers is made of nano fibers (Zhang; [0031] “carbazole nanofibers”).
This modification allows to alert a user when exposure to TNT is detected.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ornath teaches the container of claim 8 (see above) to include a detection element (see above).
Modified Ornath fails to teach the detection element is one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of an explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a detection element (Zhang; fig. 1. 14) wherein the detection element is one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint (Zhang; [0035] “the nanofibrils can be formed in any suitable shape such as a coating, a film or a thin film through which vapors can be passed”).
Zhang teaches the nanofibrils form a nanoporous film consisting of entangled fibril networks (Zhang; [0050]) which Examiner interprets as a type of screen.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ornath’s detection element to be one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint as taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches an explosive detector (Zhang; fig. 1. 12 and Abstract “detection of explosives”) that includes a detection element (Zhang; fig. 1. 14) wherein the detection element is one of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint (Zhang; [0035] “the nanofibrils can be formed in any suitable shape such as a coating, a film or a thin film through which vapors can be passed”).
Having a detection element of felt, fabric, screen, nanowire mesh, or nanowire paint would allow a porous surface to allow gases through for volatile explosive substances to be detected.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ornath teaches the container of claim 8 (see above) to include a detection element (see above).
Modified Ornath does not teach the detection element at least partially obstructs airflow through a port in a surface of the container.
However, Zhang does teach including an opening in the explosive detector housing to allow passage of air suspected of containing target sample vapors [0037].
It would have been obvious to further modify Ornath to partially obstruct airflow through a port in a surface of the container in order to place the explosive detector in the path of air suspected of containing target sample vapors.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798