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 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. Claim s 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bather – US 20160327532 . As to claim 1, Bather teaches a gas monitoring system 10 , comprising a gas command circuitry and a decision logic configured to perform at least one of self-cleaning or decontamination for an electrochemical gas sensor communicating with the gas command circuitry ([ 0019- 0022]: because switching between a measuring mode and a regeneration mode is controlled by a control unit, it inherently means that the control unit (or a gas command circuitry) includes decision logic to decide which mode to switch to and then perform that switch, require logic operations; during regeneration mode, receptor of an electrochemical gas sensor is cleaned by heating the receptor of the gas sensor an d the desorbed ambient air and analyte present in measuring channel pumped out of the measuring channel, as a result of which the receptor is cleaned and prepared for the next detection of the gas; thus “a gas monitoring system, comprising a gas command circuitry and a decision logic configured to perform at least one of self-cleaning or decontamination for an electrochemical gas sensor communicating with the gas command circuitry” ). As to claim 11, Bather teaches the gas sensor 10 comprises an electrochemical gas sensor 10 having a detector element 15 disposed in a measuring chamber 11 (fig.2; [0005, 0020]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. In an alternative , claim s 1 -3 , 16-19, and 22-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Warratz – US 20150316522 and further in view of Kamiyama – Translate_JP2001305034A . As to claim 1, Warratz teaches a gas monitoring system (fig.2) includes an electrochemical gas sensor 1 ([0017]). Warratz further teaches cleaning/flushing electrochemical gas sensor with clean air or flushing medium 3 ( clean air can also come from a pressurized or supplied air respirator or be supplied to the gas detector across a line. The flushing medium 3 should be free of target substances 10 that are being measured by the sensor 1 ([0049-0050] and fig.2 ; fig.2 and [0016-0017]: ammonia gas (which is a toxic/contaminant gas) is monitored in an environment by electrochemical gas sensor 1 ). Warratz does not explicitly teach a gas command circuitry and a decision logic configured to perform at least one of self-cleaning or decontamination for an electrochemical gas sensor communicating with the gas command circuitry. Kamiyama teaches a gas monitoring system (fig.6), comprising a gas command circuitry and a decision logic configured to perform at least one of self-cleaning or decontamination for a gas sensor 11 communicating with the gas command circuitry ([0011, 0048 , 0057 ]: a device for switching between ambient air and purified /clean air (or desorption gas i.e. nitrogen gas) , for example, an electromagnetic four-way valve (cock) 18 is provided, and ambient air or purified air flows to the gas sensor 11 according to a command from the computer 14; computer 14 corresponds to “a gas command circuitry and a decision logic” because computer 14 decides which mode to switch to and then perform that switch, require logic operations; cleaning air used for gas sensor is for cleaning/flushing the gas sensor from residual target gas and other background gases that can cause false readings or poisoning; thus “a gas monitoring system, comprising a gas command circuitry and a decision logic configured to perform at least one of self-cleaning or decontamination for a gas sensor communicating with the gas command circuitry” ) . It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas monitoring system of Warratz with Kamiyama to include a gas monitoring system, comprising a gas command circuitry and a decision logic configured to perform at least one of self-cleaning or decontamination for an electrochemical gas sensor communicating with the gas command circuitry, for switching between ambient air and purified/cleaned/flushing air, for example, with a provided electromagnetic four-way valve (cock) 18, and ambient air or purified air flows to the gas sensor 11 according to a instructed command from computer 14 ([0051]). As to claim 2, Warrats further teaches perform the flushing/cleaning on demand when the measured values of the gas sensor are no longer correct (“when the measured values of the gas sensor are no longer correct” corresponds to “a first parameter is met”). Duration of the flushing and defined intervals during which the flushing occurs corresponds to “ a second parameter ” . Warrats further teaches a first predefined time period for flushing the gas sensor ([0012]) and a second predefined time period for measuring concentration of gaseous target substance 10 ([0048]). Warrats does not explicitly teach a decision logic configured to switch the sample input stream from the gas sample to the air after a first parameter is met and to switch sample input stream from the air to the gas sample after a second parameter is met. Kamiyama further teaches a decision logic 14 configured to switch at least one selector valve 18 configured to select between a gas sample inlet and an air inlet to provide a sample input stream selectively comprising the gas sample or air; at least one gas sensor 11 receiving the sample input stream (see described fig.6). It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas monitoring system of Warratz with Kamiyama to include a decision logic configured to switch the sample input stream from the gas sample to the air after a first parameter is met and to switch sample input stream from the air to the gas sample after a second parameter is met (as recited in claim 2) ; the first parameter is a first predefined time period and the second parameter is a second predefined time period (as recited in claim 3) ; the first parameter is a user defined first time period and the second parameter is a second time period corresponding to the time for cleaning the gas sensor with the cleaning air stream (as recited in claim 23) , so that flushing of the sensor and/or performing gas measurement may, for example, be initiated automatically. As to claim 3, claim 3 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 2. As to claim 22, Warratz further teaches a gas sensor cleaning kit for retrofitting an existing gas monitoring system having a gas sensor 1 receiving a sample input stream from a contaminated gas source of a gas (fig.2 and [0016-0017]: ammonia gas (which is a toxic gas) is monitored in an environment by electrochemical gas sensor 1 ; hence, “a gas sensor 1 receiving a sample input stream from a contaminated gas source of a gas”; gas shielding device 2 corresponds to “a gas sensor cleaning kit” for cleaning sensor 1 as in [0049-0051]; thus “a gas sensor cleaning kit for retrofitting an existing gas monitoring system having a gas sensor receiving a sample input stream from a contaminated gas source of a gas”) . Limitations of “a selector valve configured to be disposed in the sample stream to selectively switch between the gas sample stream and a cleaning air stream; and a decision logic configured to switch the selector valve from the gas sample input stream to the air input stream after a first parameter is met and to switch the air input stream to the gas sample input stream after a second parameter is met” are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claims 1-2. As to claim 23, claim 23 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 2. As to claim 24, Kamiyama teaches a gas pump 16 configured to be disposed in the gas sample stream downstream of the selector valve 18 (fig.6). As to claim 25, Kamiyama teaches a cleaning air inlet and at least sufficient piping to connect the cleaning air inlet to the selector valve 18 (see described figure 6). As to claims 16-18, claims 16-18 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claims 1-3. As to claim 19, Kamiyama teaches providing an input stream comprises providing a first input stream to a first gas sensor and providing a second input stream to a second gas sensor (see described fig.7). C laim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Warratz , Kamiyama , and further in view of Bather – US 20160327532. As to claim 11, modified Kamiyama does not explicitly teach the gas sensor comprises an electrochemical gas sensor having a detector element disposed in a measuring chamber. Bather teaches the gas sensor 10 comprises an electrochemical gas sensor 10 having a detector element 15 disposed in a measuring channel/ chamber 11 (fig.2; [0005, 0020]). It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify electrochemical gas sensor of modified Warratz with teachings of Bather to include the gas sensor comprises an electrochemical gas sensor having a detector element disposed in a measuring chamber, because small type of construction can be obtained, for example, with a bent measuring channel/chamber ([0015]). C laim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Warratz , Kamiyama , and further in view of Hellgren – US 20190041317. As to claim 4, modified Kamiyama does not explicitly teach a pump disposed in the sample input stream between the selector valve and gas sensor. Hellgren teaches a concept of a pump 26 disposed in sample input stream 22 between selector valve 16 and gas sensor 24 (fig.5) . It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pump 16 of the gas monitoring system of modified Warratz with teachings of Hellgren to include a pump disposed in sample input stream between selector valve and gas sensor, because the advantage of locating pump between the gas inlet and the gas analyzer is that pressure drops in cuvette/measuring chamber/channel due to varying restrictions in sampling probes (gas probes/sensors/detectors) are avoided ([0077]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-10 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 5 , claim 5 includes the gas sample inlet is disposed in at least one of a source piping or outlet piping of a gas treatment unit operatively controlled by a treatment system controller , when in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 5 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts. As to claims 6-10, claims 6-10 are also objected due to their dependency on the objected claim 5. As to claim 20, claim 20 includes selectively switching comprises providing the gas sample stream to one said input stream while providing the cleaning air stream the other said input stream, when in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 20 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts. As to claim 21, claim 21 includes controlling operation of the gas treatment system at least in part based on a differential between the detected gas contaminant level in the contaminated gas source and the detected gas contaminant level in the treated gas output, when in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 21 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts. Claims 12-15 are allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 12 , claim 12 includes a gas treatment unit communicating with a contaminated gas source and outputting a treated gas ; at least first and second sample gas streams receiving a gas sample from at least one of the contaminated gas source and the treated gas output , when in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 12 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts. As to claims 13-15, claims 13-15 are also allowable due to their dependency on the allowable claim 12. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8883 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-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, John Breene can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4107 . 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. /TRUONG D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855 /JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855