DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on February 26, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1 and 8 were amended. The current action is FINAL. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladhani et al. (Electrostatic Sampling of Patient Breath for Pathogen Detection: A Pilot Study, Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering, June 2020, Volume 6, Article 40, pgs. 1-7) (hereinafter “Ladhani”).
With respect to Claim 1, Ladhani teaches an air-borne pathogen detection device (see title, pg. 1 “Electrostatic Sampling of Patient Breath for Pathogen Detection: A Pilot Study”), the device comprising: a testing chamber in which a sensor arrangement is located (breath electrostatic sampler, BESS, in Fig. 1; see pg. 2 “The BESS Electrostatic Sampler”), a conduit linking an air inlet and the testing chamber so an incoming air is directed toward the sensor arrangement (Sample Type II/III in Fig. 1 shows a mouthpiece that directs incoming air, having been exhaled by the patient, toward BESS), a return conduit to direct outgoing air toward an air outlet (Sample Type II/III in Fig. 1 conduit immediately downstream of BESS directs outgoing air, via channel, towards an outlet that is downstream of the final HEPA filter; see pg. 2), and the return conduit being separate from the conduit for the incoming air (Sample Type II/III in Fig. 1 shows channel immediately downstream of BESS is separate from the upstream mouthpiece; see Fig. 2); wherein the conduit and return conduit are configured such that a blowing force applied at the air inlet delivers the incoming air towards the sensor arrangement (Sample Type II/III in Fig. 1 shows subject blows air into the mouthpiece, which delivers the air towards the BESS see pg. 2) and drives the outgoing air through the air outlet via the return conduit (Sample Type II/III in Fig. 1 shows exhaled air proceeds downstream of BESS, and ultimately leaves the conduit via outlet that is downstream of the final HEPA filter; see Fig. 2); wherein an electrical quantity across the sensor arrangement varies in dependence of a quantity of airborne pathogens captured in the sensor arrangement (see pgs. 2-3 “The BESS Electrostatic Sampler… Airborne particles traveling through this ion stream become electrically charged by collision with the charged ions” see also Tables 1 & 2 on pgs. 4-5, which shows detection of various exhaled pathogens).
Although Ladhani does not explicitly teach the air outlet provided adjacent the air inlet; and a processor to estimate a quantity of pathogen in the incoming air; further modification to include these features would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) when the invention filed for at least the following reasons. First, Ladhani’s experimental setup, as depicted in Fig. 1, shows air inlet (mouthpiece) near the air outlet (outlet that is downstream of the final HEPA filter). As the claims do not provide any added structural specificity with respect to “adjacent”, Examiner argues that modifying Ladhani’s experimental setup such that the outlet is arranged adjacent/closer to the mouthpiece would involve mere routine skill in the art1. Additionally, modifying Ladhani to incorporate a processor/computer in the manner recited would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed as it is widely known in the art to utilize a processing component for the purpose of aiding in performing various calculations, displaying the final result, etc.
With respect to claim 2, Ladhani teaches wherein the conduit has a smaller cross- section than the air inlet (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Ladhani does not explicitly teach wherein the conduit is of a smaller cross section than the return conduit. However, such a modification of Rigas would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4, Ladhani teaches wherein the sensing arrangement is located in an air corridor connecting the conduit and an adjacent chamber (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Ladhani teaches an air escape cavity in communication with the adjacent chamber, the escape cavity being adjacent a return wall, wherein air entering into the escape cavity will be guided by the return wall and exit the cavity (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Ladhani suggests wherein an exit opening for the escape cavity aligns with the return conduit (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Ladhani teaches wherein in use, the sensor arrangement is positioned above the exit opening (Fig. 2 shows BESS is positioned above the exit opening, depending on the viewing angle of the user; see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 9, Ladhani teaches a filter provided at the exit opening for filtering outgoing airflow into the return conduit (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 10, Ladhani teaches wherein the electrical quantity is an electrical impedance across the sensor arrangement (pgs. 2-3).
With respect to claim 11, Ladhani teaches wherein the conduit, testing chamber, and return conduit are located in a removable assembly (pg. 3 “disposable”).
With respect to claim 12, Ladhani does not explicitly teach provide output from the sensor arrangement to a processing means located away from the removable assembly, wherein the processing means receives electrical signals from a sensing circuit which comprises the sensor arrangement. However, modifying Ladhani to incorporate a processor/computer in the manner recited would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed as it is widely known in the art to utilize a processing component for the purpose of aiding in performing various calculations, displaying the final result, etc.
With respect to claim 13, Ladhani does not explicitly teach wherein engagement between the removable assembly and a body assembly enables an electrical connection between the sensor arrangement and the processing means. However, modifying Ladhani to incorporate a processor/computer in the manner recited would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed as it is widely known in the art to utilize a processing component for the purpose of aiding in performing various calculations, displaying the final result, etc.
With respect to claim 14, Ladhani teaches wherein the removable assembly is a replaceable mouthpiece assembly (pg. 3 “disposable mouthpiece”).
With respect to claim 15, Ladhani teaches wherein the body assembly comprise a handle portion and a main body portion (Fig. 2; pgs. 2-4).
With respect to claim 16, Ladhani teaches wherein the handle portion is angled from the main body portion (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 17, Ladhani does not explicitly teach wherein the body assembly comprises trigger, wherein pressing the trigger will cause a disengagement of the mouthpiece assembly from the body assembly. However, such a modification would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed for at least the follow reasons. First, Ladhani discloses a disposable/removable mouthpiece (pg. 2). Examiner argues that utilizing a conventional disengagement trigger as the mechanism to remove/dispose Ladhani’s mouthpiece would have been obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed as a mere substitution of parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim interpretation issues (35 USC 112F) and 35 USC 112B rejections raised in the previous office action were persuasive in view of amendment. Therefore, these issues/rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see prior art section above for more detail, updated citations (new Ladhani reference), and updated obviousness rationale.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 “rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art”
Prosecution Insights