DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 12/31/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 10-14, 16-18 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered:
On pages 6-7 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Lewis does not disclose :
(i) A combination of a sensor selected from the list of first sensors with a second sensor which is a field effect transistor in claim 1; and
(ii) The use of this combination of first and second sensors for detection of ethylene or 1- methylenecyclopropane (1-MCP). Because Lewis does not specifically disclose (i) and the combination based on Shekarriz is based on hindsight and there is no disclosure or suggestion that the specific combination of first and second sensors in claim 1 can provide the necessary different selectivities.
Response:
Regarding limitation (i):
"[W]hether a generic disclosure necessarily anticipates everything within the genus … depends on the factual aspects of the specific disclosure and the particular products at issue." Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083, 89 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also Osram Sylvania Inc. v. American Induction Tech. Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706, 105 USPQ2d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relative size of a genus or species in a particular technology is of critical importance").see MPEP 2131.02(III).
Therefore, in this case, Lewis disclosure can anticipate the claim limitation when Lewis describes the limitations but "'does not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). Lewis disclosing claimed sensor types and disclosing multiple configurations of sensor types 120,150 in different combinations ,i.e., 55 combinations , provided sufficient evidence that a reasonable mind could find that a person of skill in the art… would immediately envisage to select a field effect transistor sensor as the second sensor from the list of various sensors disclosed therein. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Lewis effectively teaches 55 combinations, of which one anticipates pending claim 1. Though it is true that there is no evidence in Lewis of specific claimed combination, this is not required." Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1383, 114 USPQ2d at 1255 (citations omitted). See also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274, 122 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Regarding limitation (ii):
based on GUIDELINES in MPEP 2141.II and III :
Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art and in this case, neither reference provides any indication that their combination would not have yielded a predictable result, and the combination of arts meet the claimed limitations.
Also:
it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case:
as cited in previous action the prior art (Lewis and Shekarriz) included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference;
one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable;
Both Lewis and Shekarriz are determining presence of different analytes.
Both Lewis and Shekarriz are for using similar sensors.
Applicant has not provided any evidence nor eider reference, provides any indication that their combination would not have yielded a predictable result. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
On page 8 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that There is no disclosure or suggestion in Lewis and Shekarriz that the combination of a first sensor of claim 1 in combination with an organic thin film transistor sensor may be effective in detection of 1-MCP and ethylene.
Response
Although a new art Dartnell, US 20210302365 A1 has been added for rejection of the amended claim 1, however, Examiner add that :
1: The combination of Lewis and Shekarriz teach limitations based on obviousness. In other words, combination of Lewis and Shekarriz teach a combination of a sensor selected from the claimed list of first sensors with a second sensor which is a field effect transistor in claim 1; and the use of this combination of first and second sensors for detection of ethylene or 1- methylenecyclopropane (1-MCP) based on obviousness.
2: based on prior art it is well known that Organic Thin Film Transistor (OTFT) sensors and non-organic thin-film resistors differ significantly in selectivity and sensitivity. OTFTs generally offer higher sensitivity due to built-in signal amplification and better selectivity via molecular engineering, while non-organic resistors are often more stable but less selective.
The prior art supporting this , not limited but are including following list :
Tanese, Maria Cristina, Francesco Marinelli, and Luisa Torsi. "Organic thin film transistors." l’actualité chimique 320-321 (2008): 98.
Lin, Peng, and Feng Yan. "Organic thin‐film transistors for chemical and biological sensing." Advanced materials 24.1 (2012): 34-51.
Tanese, MARIA CRISTINA, et al. "Overview of recent developments in organic thin-film transistor sensor technology." Nuovo Cimento Della Societa Italiana di Fisica C, Geophys. Space Phys 31.4 (2008): 457.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Organic Thin Film Transistor (OTFT) for the modified Lewis‘s Thin Film Transistor and use Organic Thin Film Transistor . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to significantly improve in selectivity and sensitivity. Furthermore, please know that :
based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another (OTFT for TFT) to obtain predictable results (significantly improving in selectivity and sensitivity), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
On page 10 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that the OTFT taught by prior art of record is not a top gate OTFT sensor.
Response
Although in the previous action, the Examiner explained why the prior art1 teaches this limitation, new art Dartnell also teaches this limitation, and based on the search results Examiner concluded that top-gate organic thin-film transistor (OTFT) sensors exist and are highly regarded for their stability and performance. They are used in applications such as biosensors, chemical sensors, and flexible tactile sensors, offering advantages like self-encapsulation, high mobility, and low operating voltages.
Therefore, the argument is moot and also not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1 and Dartnell , US 20210302365 A1.
Claim 1
Lewis in e.g., figs. 1-2 teaches:
A method (200) of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a first or second material (¶0038: combination of analytes in the fluid and e.g., ¶0040¶0041: multiple analytes) in an environment (fluid reservoir 170), the method comprising:
measuring a response of (steps 210,220,230) a first sensor (120/channel 130, ¶0044) to the first and second material (e.g., ¶0040¶0041), wherein the first sensor (120) is a sensor type selected from the group consisting one of a metal oxide sensor, an electrochemical sensor, a quartz crystal microbalance sensor, a surface acoustic wave sensor(e.g., ¶0039);
measuring a response of (step 240) a second sensor (150, channel 140) to the first and second material (multiple analytes e.g., ¶0040¶0041), wherein the second sensor (150) is a field effect transistor sensor (e.g., ¶0020 ¶0043-¶0045and ¶0039 variety of known sensors 120 and 150);
determining from first and second sensor measurements, a presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first or second material (e.g., ¶0038 step 270);
wherein the first sensor is more sensitive and/or faster responding than the second sensor (e.g., ¶0012¶0043¶0044¶0045)2 and has a greater cross-sensitivity3 than the second sensor (e.g.,¶0011¶0013¶0015 ¶0043¶0044¶0045: this function met by the same structure specifically Lewis teaches different sensors 1 and 2 have different cross reactivity and the same structure as claimed is between various configuration for arrangement of sensors 120 and 150);
wherein the first sensor type and the second sensor type are different (e.g., ¶0020: various sensor type for 120 and 150,¶0043-¶0045);
Lewis does not specifically teach wherein :
the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene.
the field effect transistor sensor is an organic thin film transistor sensor;
Regarding limitation 1:
In the similar field of endeavor, Shekarriz teaches wherein the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene (e.g., ¶0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shekarriz’s sample gas for Lewis’s method of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a first or second material in an environment, wherein the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene as taught by Shekarriz. One of ordinary skill in the art knows sample gases that contain both ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene, and also knows if the sample gas comprises different species different sensors with different selectivity are required and would know have been motivated to make this modification in order to use different sensors with different selectivity to simultaneously identify them (¶0079-80 Shekarriz). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (using sensors with different selectivity of Lewis) to a known product (Shekarriz’s 1-methylcyclopropene and ethylene) to yield predictable results (simultaneously determining first and second material), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation 2:
In the similar field of endeavor, Dartnell in e.g., fig.4 teaches an organic thin film transistor sensor (e.g., ¶0023,0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dartnell ‘s organic thin film transistor sensor for the modified Lewis‘s thin film transistor sensor wherein the modified Lewis‘s field effect transistor sensor is an organic thin film transistor sensor as taught by Dartnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to overcome the drawbacks of non-organic sensors.
Claim 5
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, but the modified Lewis as cited above does not teach of wherein the environment is a gaseous environment and gas drawn from the environment is desiccated and the response of the first and/or second sensors is a response to the desiccated gas.
Shekarriz teaches wherein the environment is a gaseous environment and gas drawn from the environment is desiccated (using e.g., silica gel) and the response of the first and/or second sensors is a response to the desiccated gas (¶0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to desiccate Lewis’ gas and the response of the first and/or second sensors is a response to the desiccated gas as taught by Shekarriz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adsorb many of the species that could interfere with the signal except for the target organic molecule itself at room temperature(¶0081) and therefore, eliminating the potential errors.
Claim 10
Lewis in e.g., figs. 1-2 teaches:
A system 100 comprising:
a processor 180;
a first sensor 120 configured to respond to a first and a second material (e.g., ¶0038 to detect and or characterize an analyte or combination of analytes in the fluid (step 270) many or multiple analytes ¶0040) in an environment (fluid), wherein the first sensor 120 is a sensor type selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide sensor, an electrochemical sensor, a quartz crystal microbalance sensor, a surface acoustic wave sensor (e.g., ¶0011¶0039 although not limited to these sensors but at least these sensors are disclosed as sensors that can be used in any variety of combination);
a second sensor 150 configured to respond to a first and a second material in an environment, wherein the second sensor is another sensor type selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide sensor, an electrochemical sensor, a quartz crystal microbalance sensor, a surface acoustic wave sensor, and a field effect transistor sensor (¶0011¶0039), wherein the first sensor 120 is more sensitive and/or faster responding (e.g., ¶0013: response of the first sensor can be greater than the response of the second sensor for an analyte) than the second sensor 150 and has a greater cross-sensitivity (e.g., ¶0011¶0013¶0015 ¶0043¶0044¶0045: this function met by the same structure specifically Lewis teaches different sensors 1 and 2 have different cross reactivity and the same structure as claimed is between various configuration for arrangement of sensors 120 and 150) than the second sensor 150; and
wherein the processor 180 is configured to:
measure a response of the first sensor 120 to the first or second material (¶0011 step 220,230);
measure a response of the second sensor 150 to the first or second material (240); and
determine from first and second sensor measurements 270, a presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first and/or second material (e.g.,¶0038);
wherein the first sensor type and the second sensor type are different (e.g., ¶0043-¶0045);
Lewis does not specifically teach wherein :
the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene.
the field effect transistor sensor is an organic thin film transistor sensor;
Regarding limitation 1:
In the similar field of endeavor, Shekarriz teaches wherein the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene (e.g., ¶0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shekarriz’s sample gas for Lewis’s method of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a first or second material in an environment, wherein the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene as taught by Shekarriz. One of ordinary skill in the art knows sample gases that contain both ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene, and also knows if the sample gas comprises different species different sensors with different selectivity are required and would know have been motivated to make this modification in order to use different sensors with different selectivity to simultaneously identify them (¶0079-80 Shekarriz). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (using sensors with different selectivity of Lewis) to a known product (Shekarriz’s 1-methylcyclopropene and ethylene) to yield predictable results (simultaneously determining first and second material), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation 2:
In the similar field of endeavor, Dartnell in e.g., fig.4 teaches an organic thin film transistor sensor (e.g., ¶0023,0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dartnell ‘s organic thin film transistor sensor for the modified Lewis‘s thin film transistor sensor wherein the modified Lewis‘s field effect transistor sensor is an organic thin film transistor sensor as taught by Dartnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to overcome the drawbacks of non-organic sensors.
Claim 12
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, although Lewis does not further teach wherein the first and second sensor measurements are the only measurements used in determining the presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first or second material. Nonetheless, firstly : Shekarriz teaches the limitation (¶0080) and secondly: the skilled artisan would know too that different first and second sensor or any other sensor and measurements would facilitate measuring different analytes in the sample gas. The specific claimed measurements to only first and second measurements , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” number of detectors disclosed by the modified Lewis that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine considering the desired amount of analysts in the sample gas, and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as only the first and second measurements is used, as already suggested by Lewis. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) and since the limited number of measurements are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to teach a method wherein the first and second sensor measurements are the only measurements used in determining the presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first or second material in the device of Lewis.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed limitation or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen number or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 13
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 10, although Lewis does not further teach wherein the first and second sensor measurements are the only measurements used in determining the presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first or second material. Nonetheless, firstly : Shekarriz teaches the limitation (¶0080) and secondly: the skilled artisan would know too that different first and second sensor or any other sensor and measurements would facilitate measuring different analytes in the sample gas. The specific claimed measurements to only first and second measurements , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” number of detectors disclosed by the modified Lewis that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine considering the desired amount of analysts in the sample gas, and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as only the first and second measurements is used, as already suggested by Lewis. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) and since the limited number of measurements are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to teach a method wherein the first and second sensor measurements are the only measurements used in determining the presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first or second material in the device of Lewis.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed limitation or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen number or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 14
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first sensor 120 is a sensor type selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide sensor, a surface acoustic wave sensor (¶0039).
Claim 16
Lewis in view of Shekarriz Dartnell teaches the method according to claim 1, Dartnell teach wherein the organic thin film transistor sensor is a top gate organic thin film transistor sensor (e.g., ¶0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dartnell ‘s top gate organic thin film transistor sensor for the modified Lewis‘s organic thin film transistor sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for their stability and performance.
Claim 17
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a metal oxide sensor (e.g., ¶0039).
Claim 18
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method according to claim 1, Lewis further teaches wherein the first sensor is a metal oxide sensor (¶0039).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1, and Dartnell, US 20210302365 A1 in view of Brown , US 20190257803 A1.
Claim 3
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, but the modified Lewis does not specifically teach further comprising applying a correction to the first sensor measurement of the first or second material based on the second sensor measurement of the same material. In the similar field of endeavor, Brown in Fig.1 teaches applying a correction to the first sensor (baseline calibration 120¶0015¶0017) measurement of the first or second material (same gas¶0014) based on the second sensor (130 with stable sensitivity¶0017) measurement of the same material (e.g., ¶0014¶0017 baseline calibration of MOS 120 using 130 when same air is passing both sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correct one of the modified Lewis’s sensor measurement by the other more stable sensor as taught by Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure baseline calibration and the best accuracy from the sensors with no need to a known gas (¶0018).
Claim 4
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising applying a correction to the second sensor measurement of the first or second material based on the first sensor measurement of the same material. Brown in Fig.1 teaches comprising applying a correction to the second sensor measurement of the first or second material based on the first sensor measurement of the same material for the same reason and motivation as cited for claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1, and Dartnell, US 20210302365 A1 and Sivavec, US 20040110299 A1.
Claim 6
Lewis combined with Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 5, the modified Lewis as cited above does not teach wherein the desiccated gas is hydrated after desiccation and the response of the first and/or second sensors is a response to the hydrated gas..
In the similar field of endeavor, Sivavec teaches the desiccated gas is hydrated after desiccation and the response of the first and/or second sensors is a response to the hydrated gas (¶0026: “If the humidity in the sample atmosphere is increasing, moisture is removed from the area surrounding the moisture reservoir 14, conversely, the moisture reservoir 14 releases moisture when the humidity of the sampled atmosphere is decreasing; moisture reservoir 14 is used to locally counteract changes in humidity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim ed invention to hydrate the desiccated gas of the modified Lewis after desiccation and the response of the first and/or second sensors is a response to the hydrated gas as taught by Sivavec. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control humidity effects on electrochemical sensor performance(e.g., ¶0008).
Claims 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1, and Dartnell, US 20210302365 A1 and ZINOVEVA RU 2658668 C1.
Claim 7
Lewis in view of Shekarriz and Dartnell teaches the method of claim 1, but the combination as cited above does not teach wherein in response to determining that the first material is below a threshold, the first material concentration in the environment is increased.
ZINOVEVA teaches the first and second material (ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene that have opposite impact on the ripping of the fruits) and also teaches the threshold for first and second material (see at least underlined portions on translation copy provided by the office).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ZINOVEVA ‘s thresholds for the modified Lewis‘s gas samples wherein in response to determining that the first material is below a threshold, the first material concentration in the environment is increased. One of ordinary skill in the art knows 1-MCP and Ethylene have opposite impacts on the fruits and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the level of these two samples.
Claims 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1 and US 20210302365 A1 and NAZIR RU 2531604 C2.
Claim 11
Lewis in view of Shekarriz , and Dartnell teaches the system according to claim 10, but the combination as cited above does not specifically teach further comprising a source of the first material; and wherein in response to the first or second material being above or below a threshold the processor is further configured to release the first material into the environment.
ZINOVEVA teaches the first and second material (ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene that have opposite impact on the ripping of the fruits) and also teaches the threshold for first and second material (see at least underlined portions on translation copy provided by the office).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ZINOVEVA ‘s threshold for the modified Lewis‘s gas samples wherein in response to the first or second material being above or below a threshold the processor is further configured to release the first material into the environment. One of ordinary skill in the art knows 1-MCP and Ethylene have opposite impacts on the fruits and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the level of these two samples.
Claims 1 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1 and Tanese , Tanese, Maria Cristina, Francesco Marinelli, and Luisa Torsi. "Organic thin film transistors." l’actualité chimique 320-321 (2008): 98.
Claim 1
Lewis in e.g., figs. 1-2 teaches:
A method (200) of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a first or second material (¶0038: combination of analytes in the fluid and e.g., ¶0040¶0041: multiple analytes) in an environment (fluid reservoir 170), the method comprising:
measuring a response of (steps 210,220,230) a first sensor (120/channel 130, ¶0044) to the first and second material (e.g., ¶0040¶0041), wherein the first sensor (120) is a sensor type selected from the group consisting one of a metal oxide sensor, an electrochemical sensor, a quartz crystal microbalance sensor, a surface acoustic wave sensor(e.g., ¶0039);
measuring a response of (step 240) a second sensor (150, channel 140) to the first and second material (multiple analytes e.g., ¶0040¶0041), wherein the second sensor (150) is a field effect transistor sensor (e.g., ¶0020 ¶0043-¶0045and ¶0039 variety of known sensors 120 and 150);
determining from first and second sensor measurements, a presence, concentration or change in concentration of the first or second material (e.g., ¶0038 step 270);
wherein the first sensor is more sensitive and/or faster responding than the second sensor (e.g., ¶0012¶0043¶0044¶0045)4 and has a greater cross-sensitivity5 than the second sensor (e.g.,¶0011¶0013¶0015 ¶0043¶0044¶0045: this function met by the same structure specifically Lewis teaches different sensors 1 and 2 have different cross reactivity and the same structure as claimed is between various configuration for arrangement of sensors 120 and 150);
wherein the first sensor type and the second sensor type are different (e.g., ¶0020: various sensor type for 120 and 150,¶0043-¶0045);
Lewis does not specifically teach wherein :
the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene.
the field effect transistor sensor is an organic thin film transistor sensor;
Regarding limitation 1:
In the similar field of endeavor, Shekarriz teaches wherein the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene (e.g., ¶0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shekarriz’s sample gas for Lewis’s method of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a first or second material in an environment, wherein the first material is 1-methylcyclopropene; and wherein the second material is ethylene as taught by Shekarriz. One of ordinary skill in the art knows sample gases that contain both ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene, and also knows if the sample gas comprises different species different sensors with different selectivity are required and would know have been motivated to make this modification in order to use different sensors with different selectivity to simultaneously identify them (¶0079-80 Shekarriz). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (using sensors with different selectivity of Lewis) to a known product (Shekarriz’s 1-methylcyclopropene and ethylene) to yield predictable results (simultaneously determining first and second material), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation 2:
In the similar field of endeavor, Tanese teaches an organic thin film transistor sensor (e.g., summary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tanese‘s organic thin film transistor sensor for the modified Lewis‘s sensors wherein the modified Lewis‘s field effect transistor sensor is an organic thin film transistor sensor as taught by Tanese. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to overcome the drawbacks of non-organic sensors (e.g., summary of Tanese).
Claims 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, US 20060088445 A1 in view of Shekarriz, US 20070295203 A1 , Tanese, Maria Cristina, Francesco Marinelli, and Luisa Torsi. "Organic thin film transistors." l’actualité chimique 320-321 (2008): 98. NEWSOME, GB 2561246 A and Fleischer, US 20060278528 A1.
Claim 16
Lewis in view of Shekarriz Tanese teaches the method according to claim 1, the combination does not teach specifically wherein the organic thin film transistor sensor is a top gate organic thin film transistor sensor. In the similar field of endeavor, Fleischer teaches wherein the organic thin film transistor sensor is a top gate organic thin film transistor sensor (e.g., fig.1) and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fleischer‘s top gate organic thin film transistor sensor for the modified Lewis‘s organic thin film transistor sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a low-temperature processing, high mechanical flexibility, and cost-effective fabrication. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 US 20060278528A1
describes a gas-sensitive field-effect transistor (FET) with:
A gate structure located above the channel (not a buried back gate), A gas-sensitive layer associated with the gate, A floating gate / capacitive coupling arrangement separated by an air gap, A readout transistor that senses changes induced at the gate. Functionally: Gas interaction changes the work function / potential at the gas-sensitive gate, That change is capacitively coupled to the transistor channel, The channel current changes accordingly. Even though the patent emphasizes signal readout rather than fabrication novelty, it still implicitly teaches: A top-gate configuration (gate above the channel), A
sensor-type gate, not a conventional insulated CMOS gate, Use of the gate as the sensing interface. So in claim interpretation or prior-art analysis, it is reasonable to say: US 20060278528A 1 implicitly teaches a top-gate field-effect transistor sensor, particularly a gas-sensitive top-gate FET with a floating/capacitively coupled gate. It teaches a sensor-specific top-gate FET architecture, where: The novelty is in how the gate signal is sensed and stabilized, It teaches a sensor-specific top-gate FET architecture.
Bottom line:
"US 20060278528A 1 discloses a gas-sensitive field-effect transistor having a gate disposed above the channel and capacitively coupled thereto, which operates as a top-gate FET sensor." Neither reference provides any indication that their combination would not have yielded a predictable result, the combination of arts meet the claimed limitations.
Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
2 sensor array 110 incorporates a predetermined inter-sensor variation in the chemistry, structure or composition of the sensors 120, 150 between fluid channels 130, 140. The variation may be quantitative and/or qualitative. For example, different channels 130, 140 can be constructed to incorporate sensors of different types, such as incorporating a plurality of nominally identical metal oxide gas sensors in a fluid channel 130, a plurality of conducting polymer sensors in an adjacent fluid channel 140, and so on across array 110. Alternatively, compositional variation can be introduced by varying the concentration of a conductive or semiconductive organic material in a composite sensor across fluid channels. In still another variation, a variety of different organic materials may be used in sensors in different channels. Similar patterns of introducing compositional variation into sensor arrays 110 will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
3 Different cross reactivity disclosed in Lewis implies different cross sensitivity
4 sensor array 110 incorporates a predetermined inter-sensor variation in the chemistry, structure or composition of the sensors 120, 150 between fluid channels 130, 140. The variation may be quantitative and/or qualitative. For example, different channels 130, 140 can be constructed to incorporate sensors of different types, such as incorporating a plurality of nominally identical metal oxide gas sensors in a fluid channel 130, a plurality of conducting polymer sensors in an adjacent fluid channel 140, and so on across array 110. Alternatively, compositional variation can be introduced by varying the concentration of a conductive or semiconductive organic material in a composite sensor across fluid channels. In still another variation, a variety of different organic materials may be used in sensors in different channels. Similar patterns of introducing compositional variation into sensor arrays 110 will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
5 Different cross reactivity disclosed in Lewis implies different cross sensitivity
Prosecution Insights