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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) and specie c. (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 11-20 (non-elected) have been cancelled. Claims 21-30, directed to the invention of Group I, have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-10, and 21-30 are currently under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “at least detector” should instead read –at least one detector--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “power source” in claims in claims 4, 24, and 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e.g. for “power source,” a battery as in claim 5).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 26, antecedent basis for “a nostril of a user” is unclear since this has already been recited in claim 21. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as referring to the nostril of the user of claim 21.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2013/0231540 (“Inoue”) and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0169418 (“Shreim”).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches [a] nasal device to measure an aspect of gas flowing through a user's nasal passage (Fig. 1, Abstract, interfacing with the nostrils to measure gas flowing through the nasal passage), the nasal device comprising: a body having a first interior side and a second interior side, opposing the first interior side (Figs. 1 and 2, airway adapter 2, having a first interior side on the right side of the confluent portion 36 and a second interior side on the left side of the confluent portion 36), the body forming a lumen between the first interior side and the second interior side through which the gas flows into and out of the user's nasal passage (Fig. 2, confluent portion 36 being a lumen – also see ¶¶s 0033, 0034, etc.); an emitter coupled to the first interior side and configured to emit emitted energy (Fig. 2, light-emitting element 51); a detector coupled to the second interior side and configured to receive detected energy that was emitted from the emitter (Fig. 2, light-receiving element 52); … .
Inoue does not appear to explicitly teach a wireless transceiver coupled to the body of the nasal device, the wireless transceiver configured to transmit data corresponding to at least the detected energy (although Fig. 4 does show wired communication of data to a processing/control apparatus).
Shreim teaches using a transceiver to communicate data from a nose sensor device to a remote location (¶ 0056).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wireless transceiver into the device of Inoue as in Ferren, for the purpose of communicating sensor data to a display or stand-alone device (Shreim: ¶ 0056).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue-Shreim in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0283770 (“Hok”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Inoue-Shreim teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the emitted energy comprises light having a wavelength between 4.0 and 4.5 micrometers, wherein the wavelength is between 4.20 and 4.30 micrometers (although Inoue does contemplate emitting infrared light, and specifically light absorbed by carbon dioxide, at ¶¶s 0004 and 0038).
Hok teaches detecting carbon dioxide by targeting its absorption band in the 4.2-4.3 µm range (¶¶s 0030 and 0031 – the emitter emits this wavelength because the wavelength is able to be detected by the detector).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wavelengths identified in Hok in the combination as well, since these are the wavelengths that enable light-based carbon dioxide detection (Hok: ¶¶s 0030 and 0031).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Inoue-Shreim-Hok teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim further teaches a processor, a memory device, …, wherein the processor is electrically connected to the wireless transceiver, the emitter, and the detector, and wherein the memory device is electrically connected to the processor and configured to store information related to the emitted energy and the detected energy (Shreim: Fig. 1, memory device 122 comprising a microcontroller, as described in ¶¶s 0048 and 0049. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these elements into the device of Inoue, in addition to the transceiver, thereby electrically coupling all of them, for the purpose of storing relevant information for device operation, including independent device operation (Shreim: ¶¶s 0048 and 0049), but does not appear to explicitly teach a power source configured to power the processor, wherein the power source is a battery.
Hok teaches incorporating its sensor into a hand unit powered by a rechargeable battery (¶ 0039, Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a battery to power the device of the combination, as in Hok, for the purpose of enabling portability as well as independent and convenient device operation (Hok: ¶¶s 0039 and 0040).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue-Shreim-Hok teaches all the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-Hok further teaches wherein the gas comprises carbon dioxide, and wherein the emitted energy from the emitter is configured to be blocked by the carbon dioxide (Inoue: ¶¶s 0039-0041; Hok: ¶ 0013).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue-Shreim in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0078175 (“Patel”).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue-Shreim teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the emitter is a first emitter, wherein the nasal device further comprises a second emitter coupled to the first interior side and configured to emit an amount of emitted energy different than an amount of the emitted energy emitted from the first emitter.
Patel teaches using multiple IR emitters, emitting at different wavelengths, to be able to detect the presence of different gases (¶ 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate another emitter (emitting at a different wavelength) into the combination, as in Patel, for the purpose of sampling different gases (Patel: ¶ 0039).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue-Shreim in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0273626 (“MacDonald”).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue-Shreim teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the body further has an exterior surface having a number of adhesive grips disposed thereon in order to allow the nasal device to adhere to an interior of the user's nasal passage.
MacDonald teaches a nasal device having an exterior surface with a number of adhesive grips that allows the device to adhere to an interior of the nasal passage (¶ 0109, tabs 22, Figs. 10A, 4A, 4B, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a number of adhesive grips onto an exterior surface of the device of the combination, as in MacDonald, for the purpose of helping secure the device with respect to the nasal passages (MacDonald: ¶ 0109).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue-Shreim teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the body further has a number of flexible bands extending parallel to the lumen.
MacDonald teaches a nasal device having a body with a number of flexible bands extending parallel to a lumen (Fig. 1, the portions between passageways 18, ¶¶s 0147 (flexible polymer) and 0029 (resilient), etc. – also see Fig. 13 and ¶ 0123, a break that increases flexibility of the device, Fig. 18 and ¶ 0127, a thinned or webbed portion that increases flexibility, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a number of flexible bands that extend parallel to the lumen in the combination as in MacDonald, for the purpose of helping the device fit into different-sized areas while maintaining a secure attachment therein, and for the purpose of being resistant to motion effects (MacDonald: ¶¶s 0123, 0127, 0147, etc.).
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Shreim and MacDonald.
Regarding claim 21, Inoue teaches [a] nasal device to measure an aspect of gas flowing through one or more of a user's nasal passages (Fig. 1, Abstract, interfacing with the nostrils to measure gas flowing through the nasal passage), the nasal device comprising: a body comprising: an exterior surface configured to be received within a nostril of a user (Fig. 2, as shown); a first interior side and a second interior side opposing the first interior side (Figs. 1 and 2, airway adapter 2, having a first interior side on the right side of the confluent portion 36 and a second interior side on the left side of the confluent portion 36), …, wherein the body forms a lumen between the first interior side and the second interior side … through which the gas flows into and out of the nostril of the user (Fig. 2, confluent portion 36 being a lumen – also see ¶¶s 0033, 0034, etc.); an emitter coupled to the first interior side and configured to emit emitted energy (Fig. 2, light-emitting element 51); a detector coupled to the second interior side and configured to receive detected energy that was emitted from the emitter (Fig. 2, light-receiving element 52); … .
Inoue does not appear to explicitly teach a wireless transceiver coupled to the body of the nasal device, the wireless transceiver configured to transmit data corresponding to at least the detected energy (although Fig. 4 does show wired communication of data to a processing/control apparatus).
Shreim teaches using a transceiver to communicate data from a nose sensor device to a remote location (¶ 0056).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wireless transceiver into the device of Inoue as in Ferren, for the purpose of communicating sensor data to a display or stand-alone device (Shreim: ¶ 0056).
Inoue-Shreim does not appear to explicitly teach the body comprising a first flexible band and a second flexible band, wherein the first flexible band and the second flexible band extend between the first interior side and the second interior side, to form a lumen therebetween.
MacDonald teaches a nasal device having a body with a number of flexible bands extending parallel to a lumen (Fig. 1, the portions between passageways 18, ¶¶s 0147 (flexible polymer) and 0029 (resilient), etc. – also see Fig. 13 and ¶ 0123, a break that increases flexibility of the device, Fig. 18 and ¶ 0127, a thinned or webbed portion that increases flexibility, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a number of flexible bands in the combination as in MacDonald, forming a lumen together with the interior sides, for the purpose of helping the device fit into different-sized areas while maintaining a secure attachment therein, and for the purpose of being resistant to motion effects (MacDonald: ¶¶s 0123, 0127, 0147, etc.).
Regarding claim 29, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald further teaches wherein the exterior surface comprises a number of adhesive grips disposed thereon in order to allow the nasal device to adhere to an interior of the nostril of the user (MacDonald teaches a nasal device having an exterior surface with a number of adhesive grips that allows the device to adhere to an interior of the nasal passage (¶ 0109, tabs 22, Figs. 10A, 4A, 4B, etc.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a number of adhesive grips onto an exterior surface of the device of the combination, as in MacDonald, for the purpose of helping secure the device with respect to the nasal passages (MacDonald: ¶ 0109)).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald in view of Hok.
Regarding claim 22, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the emitted energy comprises light having a wavelength between 4.0 and 4.5 micrometers (although Inoue does contemplate emitting infrared light, and specifically light absorbed by carbon dioxide, at ¶¶s 0004 and 0038).
Hok teaches detecting carbon dioxide by targeting its absorption band in the 4.2-4.3 µm range (¶¶s 0030 and 0031 – the emitter emits this wavelength because the wavelength is able to be detected by the detector).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wavelengths identified in Hok in the combination as well, since these are the wavelengths that enable light-based carbon dioxide detection (Hok: ¶¶s 0030 and 0031).
Regarding claim 23, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok teaches all the features with respect to claim 22, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok further teaches wherein the gas comprises carbon dioxide, and wherein the emitted energy from the emitter is configured to be blocked by the carbon dioxide (Inoue: ¶¶s 0039-0041; Hok: ¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 24, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald further teaches a processor, a memory device, …, wherein the processor is electrically connected to the wireless transceiver, the emitter, and the detector, and wherein the memory device is electrically connected to the processor and configured to store information related to the emitted energy and the detected energy (Shreim: Fig. 1, memory device 122 comprising a microcontroller, as described in ¶¶s 0048 and 0049. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these elements into the device of Inoue, in addition to the transceiver, thereby electrically coupling all of them, for the purpose of storing relevant information for device operation, including independent device operation (Shreim: ¶¶s 0048 and 0049), but does not appear to explicitly teach a power source configured to power the processor.
Hok teaches incorporating its sensor into a hand unit powered by a rechargeable battery (¶ 0039, Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a battery to power the device of the combination, as in Hok, for the purpose of enabling portability as well as independent and convenient device operation (Hok: ¶¶s 0039 and 0040).
Regarding claim 25, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok teaches all the features with respect to claim 24, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok further teaches wherein the processor, the memory device, the power source, and the wireless transceiver are disposed within the body (as generally defined by the structure of Inoue, e.g. configured as a hand unit according to Hok).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0069481 (“Ahnblad”).
Regarding claim 26, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok teaches all the features with respect to claim 25, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald-Hok does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the body is configured to be fully received within a nostril of a user (although MacDonald: Abstract does contemplate incorporating a number of sensors into its nasal insert device).
Ahnblad teaches incorporating a carbon dioxide sensor inside a nasal insert (¶ 0072).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the body, including sensor portions, to be fully received within a nostril, as in Ahnblad, for the purpose of miniaturizing the device and easily providing notifications with respect to detected gases (Ahnblad: ¶ 0072).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald in view of Patel.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the emitter is a first emitter, wherein the nasal device further comprises a second emitter coupled to the first interior side and configured to emit an amount of emitted energy different than an amount of the emitted energy emitted from the first emitter, wherein the first emitter is configured to measure a first type of gas, wherein the second emitter is configured to measure a second type of gas, different from the first type of gas.
Patel teaches using multiple IR emitters, emitting at different wavelengths, to be able to detect the presence of different gases (¶ 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate another emitter (emitting at a different wavelength) into the combination, as in Patel, for the purpose of sampling different gases (Patel: ¶ 0039).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Shreim, MacDonald, and Patel.
Regarding claim 30, Inoue teaches [a] nasal device to measure an aspect of gas flowing through one or more of a user's nasal passages (Fig. 1, Abstract, interfacing with the nostrils to measure gas flowing through the nasal passage), the nasal device comprising: a body comprising: an exterior surface configured to be received within a nostril of a user (Fig. 2, as shown); a first interior side and a second interior side opposing the first interior side (Figs. 1 and 2, airway adapter 2, having a first interior side on the right side of the confluent portion 36 and a second interior side on the left side of the confluent portion 36), …, wherein the body forms a lumen between the first interior side and the second interior side … through which the gas flows into and out of the nostril of the user (Fig. 2, confluent portion 36 being a lumen – also see ¶¶s 0033, 0034, etc.); [an] emitter coupled to the first interior side and configured to emit [] emitted energy (Fig. 2, light-emitting element 51); …; at least detector coupled to the second interior side and configured to receive detected energy that was emitted from [the] emitter (Fig. 2, light-receiving element 52); … .
Inoue does not appear to explicitly teach a wireless transceiver coupled to the body of the nasal device, the wireless transceiver configured to transmit data corresponding to at least the detected energy (although Fig. 4 does show wired communication of data to a processing/control apparatus).
Shreim teaches using a transceiver to communicate data from a nose sensor device to a remote location (¶ 0056).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wireless transceiver into the device of Inoue as in Ferren, for the purpose of communicating sensor data to a display or stand-alone device (Shreim: ¶ 0056).
Inoue-Shreim does not appear to explicitly teach the body comprising a first flexible band and a second flexible band, wherein the first flexible band and the second flexible band extend between the first interior side and the second interior side, to form a lumen therebetween.
MacDonald teaches a nasal device having a body with a number of flexible bands extending parallel to a lumen (Fig. 1, the portions between passageways 18, ¶¶s 0147 (flexible polymer) and 0029 (resilient), etc. – also see Fig. 13 and ¶ 0123, a break that increases flexibility of the device, Fig. 18 and ¶ 0127, a thinned or webbed portion that increases flexibility, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a number of flexible bands in the combination as in MacDonald, forming a lumen together with the interior sides, for the purpose of helping the device fit into different-sized areas while maintaining a secure attachment therein, and for the purpose of being resistant to motion effects (MacDonald: ¶¶s 0123, 0127, 0147, etc.).
Inoue-Shreim-MacDonald does not appear to explicitly teach a second emitter coupled to the first interior side and configured to emit a second amount of emitted energy, wherein the first emitter is configured to measure a first type of gas, wherein the second emitter is configured to measure a second type of gas, different from the first type of gas.
Patel teaches using a plurality of emitters, centered at different wavelengths, to sample different gases (¶ 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one emitter in the combination as in Patel, for the purpose of being able to sample different gases (Patel: ¶ 0039).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights