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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/1/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/23 was acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GAO et al. (“GAO,” WO 2019218395 A1).
As to claim 1, GAO teaches a method for analyzing a gas, the method comprising: providing a chamber comprising an inlet, an outlet and a sensor (annular working chamber I-1 including a malodorous gas inlet in fig. 9, an outlet in fig. 9, and a gas sensor array I-1); introducing the gas into the chamber (automatic sample introduction system I); controlling a concentration of the gas in the chamber according to a sniffing recipe, wherein the sniffing recipe comprises a sequence of actions and the sniffing recipe is either pre-defined, optimized or determined through machine learning (see figs. 6-7 which describes “in the cyclic sampling period T, the two-position two-way solenoid valve I-5 for controlling the air-to-opening of the ambient air is controlled, and the two-position two-way solenoid valve I-8 for controlling the flow of malodorous gas into the annular working chamber of the gas sensor array is controlled. The two-position two-way solenoid valve I-13 for controlling the clean air on and off is turned on and off 10 times, and the two-position two-way solenoid valve I-10 for controlling the flow conversion is turned on and off 20 times”), wherein the sniffing recipe comprises: (1) inhale, wherein inhale comprises introducing the gas into the chamber (malodorous gas into the annual working chamber); and at least one of the following actions: (2) exhale, wherein exhale comprises cleansing the sensor (fig. 7 describes how “the gas sensor array is annular working chamber I-1, but is directly discharged to the outside by an external vacuum pump III. This 175 second period can be further divided into 2 segments: (b1) 155 seconds of initial recovery of the gas sensor array; (b2) 20 seconds of gas sensor array flushing. In the second stage, the two-position two-way solenoid valve I-13 is disconnected, and the two-position two-way solenoid valves I-5 and I-10 are turned on, and are cleaned by the device IV under the suction of the built-in micro vacuum pump I-14”); (3) wait, wherein wait comprises allowing a concentration of the gas to decrease slowly; and detecting, over time and by the sensor, a characteristic indicative of a compound or compounds present in the gas (see fig. 3 of the malodorous electronic nose instrument 1; also see fig. 5, which describes the machine learning cascade model determines the concentration of inorganic components such as H .sub.2 S, NH .sub.3 , SO .sub.2 and CS .sub.2 according to the responses of 11 MOS types and 4 EC type gas sensors; according to 11 MOS types and 1 PID type gas The response of the sensitive sensor collectively determines the TVOC concentration of malodorous gas and the concentration of organic components such as C .sub.3 H .sub.9 N, C .sub.8 H .sub.8 , CH .sub.4 S, C .sub.2 H .sub.6 S, C .sub.2 H .sub.6 S .sub.2 ; according to all 16 gas sensors The responses together determine the olfactory concentration OU value).
As to claims 2 and 3, GAO teaches the sniffing recipe comprises a pattern of actions, which comprises a specified length of time for each action in the sequence in e.g., fig. 7.
As to claim 4, GAO teaches in fig. 2 et seq. how the gas flows through the annular working chamber.
As to claim 5, GAO teaches the sniffing recipe comprises a plurality of inhale actions alternating with a plurality of hold actions. See abstract et seq. and fig. 7.
As to claim 6, GAO teaches the sniffing recipe comprises a pattern of actions and a specified length of time for each action in the pattern, wherein the sequence of actions and specified length of time are pre-defined. See abstract and fig. 7.
As to claim 7, GAO teaches the pre-defined pattern of actions is based on the gas being analyzed. See abstract et seq.
As to claim 8, GAO teaches the sniffing recipe comprises a first recipe followed by a second recipe, wherein said first recipe is pre-defined and said second recipe is determined based on machine learning from measurements resulting from the first recipe. See abstract et seq.
As to claim 9, GAO teaches comprising priming the chamber with a known compound prior to introducing the gas being analyzed. See e.g., calibration step.
As to claim 10, GAO teaches comprising introducing a known compound simultaneously with the gas being analyzed. See e.g., calibration step, or simultaneous online monitoring of multiple observation points in a specific area.
As to claim 11, GAO teaches introducing a known compound after introducing the gas being analyzed. See “clean ambient air flushing after malodorous gas headspace sampling.”
As to claims 14-15, GAO teaches exhale comprises flushing the chamber with another fluid, wherein flushing the chamber with another fluid comprises injecting the fluid through the inlet, to remove the gas being analyzed. See “malodorous gas headspace sampling (30 seconds), clean ambient air flushing (20 seconds) a total of 5 stages.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAO in view of Smolka et al. (“Smolka,” Highly efficient fluorescence sensing with hollow core photonic crystal fibers,” 2007, cited in IDS).
See GAO above.
As to claim 12, GAO does not specifically teach a photonic crystal. Smolka teaches a hollow core photonic crystal fibers in the abstract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include hollow core photonic crystal fibers because they have promising sensing applications due to the confinement of the light in the hollow core. See section 1. Introduction section of Smolka.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAO in view of Setayesh et al. (“Setayesh,” US Pub. No. 2009/0267057).
See GAO above.
As to claim 13, GAO does not specifically teach a field-effect transistor. Setayesh teaches a method for detecting analytes comprising a field-effect transistor according to the present invention. In this, during operation of the field-effect transistor, the capacitance of the assembly gate electrode layer-first dielectric layer is lower than the capacitance of the second dielectric layer. The advantages of this operational characteristic have already been discussed above. See e.g., [0037] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a field-effect transistor because it has enhanced sensitivity that is capable of performing under adverse conditions. See [0009] of Setayesh.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights