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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are pending with claims 1-5 being examined and claims 8-10 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 3/18/2026, has been entered. The claim amendments do not overcome the previous prior art rejection, and Applicants' arguments are 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 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)(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(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skinner et al (US 20230127982 A1; hereinafter “Skinner”; priority filed 3/18/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Skinner teaches a carbon dioxide detector (Skinner; para [83, 84, 86]; indicator material which comprises carbon dioxide dye) comprising a carrier impregnated with an ink composition comprising a pH indicator, an alkaline agent, a water retention agent, and water, the carbon dioxide detector having a water content of 30 to 40 mass% (Skinner; see Table 3), and a spreading agent wherein the carrier is a porous particle (Skinner; para [95]; the particulate inorganic substrate may be hydrophilic, e.g. hydrophilic silica, such as Syloid® 244; examiner notes that Skinner teaches the composition comprising both inorganic materials), the spreading agent is hydrophobic silica (Skinner; see Table 3), and the spreading agent adheres to the outer surface of the carrier impregnated with the ink composition (Skinner; para [94]; particulate inorganic substrate which has been modified, e.g. surface-modified, to render it hydrophobic, e.g. by incorporating hydrophobic chemical groups such as alkyl groups on the surface of the particulate inorganic substrate). Examiner notes Skinner teaches the following based on Table 3: tetrabutylammonium hydroxide interpreted as the alkaline agent (see instant specification para [42]), m-Cresol Purple interpreted as pH indicator, Joncryl FLX 5010 interpreted as a water retention agent (see instant specification para [48]). The examiner notes the water total water content is between 30 to 40%, as Skinner teaches 27% water, 18.5% tetrabutylammonium hydroxide which is 40% water, and as previously argued by Applicant on 3/18/2026 m-Cresol Purple is 99.9% water. Thus, the total water content is 27% + 18.5(0.4)% + 3.5% = 37.9% water.
Regarding claim 2, modified Moretti teaches the carbon dioxide detector according to claim 1, wherein the pH indicator is metacresol purple (Skinner; see Table 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Moretti teaches the carbon dioxide detector according to claim 1, wherein the water retention agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyhydric alcohol, a polyalkylene glycol, an acrylic polymer and cellulose (Skinner; see Table 3)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner.
Regarding claim 4, Skinner teaches the carbon dioxide detector according to claim 1, wherein the mass ratio of water to the carrier (water/carrier) is 0.7 to 1.0 (Skinner; see Table 2). In the alternative embodiment, Skinner teaches a total water composition of (water + tetrabutylammonium hydroxide + cresol red) 29.4% and a carrier composition of (hydrophilic silica + titatnium dioxide) 24.5% resulting in a ratio of 1.2. In re Boesch (205 USPQ 215) teaches the optimization of a result effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. A result effective variable is one that has well known and predictable results. The choice of the mass ratio of water to the water retention agent is a result effective variable that gives the well-known and expected results of binding the dye (Skinner; para [91]. In the absence of a showing of unexpected results, the Office maintains the mass ratio of water to the water retention agent would have been within the skill of the art as optimization of a results effective variable. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substitute the compositions of Table 3 with the compositions of Table 2 as taught by Skinner as this is a known and suitable substitution for detecting carbon dioxide in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B).
Regarding claim 5, Skinner teaches the carbon dioxide detector according to claim 1, wherein the mass ratio of water to the water retention agent (water/water retention agent) is 1.2 to 1.9 (Skinner; see Table 3). Skinner teaches a water composition of 37.9 as described above in claim 1 and a water retention agent composition of 40, which results in a ratio of 0.95. In re Boesch (205 USPQ 215) teaches the optimization of a result effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. A result effective variable is one that has well known and predictable results. The choice of the mass ratio of water to the water retention agent is a result effective variable that gives the well-known and expected results of protecting the indicator material (Skinner; para [103]. In the absence of a showing of unexpected results, the Office maintains the mass ratio of water to the water retention agent would have been within the skill of the art as optimization of a results effective variable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, 3/18/2026, have been considered and some of the arguments are found to be persuasive. However, those arguments are directed towards the claim amendments. The examiner notes that the previous prior art rejection is withdrawn and a new prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights