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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a first and a second detector unit of claim 51 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 27, 31, 34-35, 37, 41-42, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruznov et al. (“Determination of Explosive Vapor Concentrations with Remote Sampling in the Control of Objects”, J. Anal. Chem., vol. 72, no. 11, (2017), pp 1155-1160; IDS dated 05/11/2023 NPL Cite No. 1; hereinafter Gruznov) in view of Calio, Jr et al. (US Publication 2015/0268139; hereinafter Calio), and further in view of Moriya et al. (US Publication 2008/0017105; hereinafter Moriya).
With regards to claim 27, Gruznov teaches a storage device (automatic luggage locker (ALL); FIG. 1) comprising a compartment assembly having a plurality of compartments and
wherein each of the plurality of compartments has an access door for placing one or more objects in the compartment (page 1155, Experimental section; FIG. 1),
wherein the storage device comprises a substance detection system (2-4 of FIG. 1) configured for detecting a presence of one or more tracer substances (e.g. TNT) in one or more of the plurality of compartments, the substance detection system comprising:
a gas detector (EKHO-IMIS GC 4; FIG. 1) configured for detecting a presence of the one or more tracer substances within a volume of air (page 1156, left column, second paragraph),
an air sampling system (air duct system 2 and automated sample collection and injection system 3; FIG. 1) configured for sequentially sampling and transporting air from the plurality of compartments to the gas detector such that the gas detector is sequentially exposed with sampled air originating from different compartments of the plurality of compartments (page 1156, left column, first paragraph), and
a control system coupled to said gas detector and configured for:
i) receiving a detection signal from the gas detector (page 1156, left column, paragraph 3 to right column, paragraph 2),
wherein said air sampling system comprises:
one or more pumps (“collection and injection”) configured for pumping air from the compartments (ALL 1; FIG. 1) to the gas detector (Experimental section, page 1155 right column to page 1156, left column);
a plurality of air transportation tubes connecting each of the plurality of compartments with the gas detector (Experimental section, pages 1155-1156; FIG. 1; Gruznov).
However, Gruznov is silent regarding a control system coupled to said gas detector and configured for: ii) signaling a presence of a first tracer substance in one of said plurality of compartments; and iii) identifying in what compartment of the plurality of compartments the first tracer substance is detected.
Calio teaches a system and method for air sampling in a controlled environment comprising a control system coupled to a detector and configured for: ii) signaling an anomaly in one of plurality of air samples ([0077]); and iii) identifying in what sample of the plurality of air sample the anomaly is detected ([0077, 0080]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the configuration of the controller to identify the anomaly and source as taught by Calio to the system as taught by Gruznov to broadcast the anomaly to the user ([0077]; Calio). Thus, the combination of Gruznov and Calio would teach a control system coupled to said gas detector and configured for: ii) signaling (see Claim Objections above) a presence of a first tracer substance (page 1156, left column, paragraph 3 to right column, paragraph 2; Gruznov) in one of said plurality ([0077]) of compartments (ALL 1; Figure 1; Gruznov); and iii) identifying ([0077]; Calio) in what compartment of the plurality of compartments (ALL 1; Figure 1; Gruznov) the first tracer substance is detected ([0077, 0080]; Calio).
Furthermore, Gruznov, as combined with Calio, is silent regarding a valve system coupled with the plurality of air transportation tubes and wherein the valve system comprises valves configured for selectively enabling and disabling air transportation between each compartment and the gas detector; and wherein the valves of the valve system are grouped for forming one or more valve islands,.
Moriya further teaches a valve system (including 12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1) coupled with the plurality of air transportation tubes (see lines connecting with 12-14) and wherein the valve system comprises valves configured for selectively enabling and disabling air transportation between each source (12-14) and processing chamber (11; [0029-0032]); and wherein the valves of the valve system are grouped for forming one or more valve islands (see FIG. 1 for island of valves 12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1; [0029-0032]; Moriya), each valve island being a combination of valves grouped together in the same location (see FIG. 1; 12b, 13b, 14b forming an island at the entrance sides of chamber 11; 12d, 13d, 14d forming an island at the entrance sides of chamber 11, [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the valve system as taught by Moriya to the air transportation tubes as taught by Gruznov, as combined with Calio, to direct the air flow as required ([0013]; Moriya).
In addition, although Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the valves (12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; see Moriya FIG. 1 of locations of groups of valves) are located near one another in the block diagram), Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, does not teach each valve island being a combination of valves grouped together in the same location.
When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious (Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [189 USPQ 449] (1976)). In this particular case, rearranging the position of the valves (12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1; Moriya) such that each island having a combination of valves in the same location would yield no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the locations of the valves as taught by Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, including the locations as claimed with reasonable expectation of performing the same function as originally intended.
With regards to claim 31, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches (citations to Gruznov unless specified otherwise) the storage device according to claim 27, wherein said sampling system (including air duct system 2) comprises a common air transportation tube (duct from 2 to 3 in FIG. 1) and a plurality of primary air transportation tubes (duct from each individual automatic luggage locker 1; FIG. 1), and
wherein each of the primary air transportation tubes has a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end of each of the primary air transportation tubes is fluidly coupled to one of the compartments, and wherein the second end of each of the primary air transportation tubes is fluidly coupled with the common air transportation tube (FIG. 1), and
wherein the gas input of the gas detector is fluidly coupled with the common air transportation tube, and wherein said one or more pumps are configured such that when sequentially sampling and transporting air from the compartments to the detector, a flow of sampled air is generated flowing from the common air transportation tube to the gas input of the gas detector and further flowing from the gas input to the gas output of the gas detector (Experimental section, page 1156).
With regards to claim 34, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 327, wherein the gas detector comprises a gas input and a gas output, and wherein said air sampling system (including air duct system 2; Gruznov) is configured such that when the valve system (including 12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1; [0029-0032]; Moriya) is selectively enabling air transportation from a first compartment to the gas detector, sampled air is flowing from the first compartment to the gas input of the gas detector and further flowing from the gas input to the gas output of the gas detector such that a continuous flow of sampled air is generated from the first compartment to the gas output of the gas detector (Experimental section, page 1156).
With regards to claim 35, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 27, wherein the control system is further configured for synchronizing operation of the valves (including 12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1; [0029-0032]; Moriya) with operation of the gas detector such that the gas detector is sequentially exposed with sampled air originating from different compartments (Experimental section, page 1156, left column).
With regards to claim 37, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 27, wherein each valve island comprises: a plurality of valves (see FIG. 1 for island of valves 12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1; [0029-0032]; Moriya), each valve having a valve input side and a valve output side (see one of 12(b, d), 13(b, d, g, h), 14(b, d, g, h), 20; FIG. 1), a plurality of gas entrances and a single gas exit, and wherein each of the gas entrances is coupled to the valve input side of one of the plurality of valves and wherein the valve output side of each of the plurality of valves is coupled to the single gas exit (17; FIG. 1; [0032]).
With regards to claim 41, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches (citations to Gruznov unless specified otherwise) the storage device according to claim 27, wherein said gas detector (EKHO-IMIS GC; FIG. 1) comprises a housing and one or more gas sensors, and wherein said housing is enclosing said one or more gas sensors and wherein said gas input and said gas output of the gas detector correspond to respectively an entrance opening and an exit opening of said housing (Experimental section; page 1156).
With regards to claim 42, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches (citations to Gruznov unless specified otherwise) the storage device according to claim 27, wherein said air sampling system is configured for heating sampled air before the sampled air reaches the gas detector (page 1157, left column, second paragraph).
With regards to claim 45, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches (citations to Gruznov unless specified otherwise) the storage device according to claim 27, wherein said control system comprises one or more computer-readable storage media comprising a reference data set (Experimental Section, page 1156, right column) and a computer program, and wherein the computer program comprises an algorithm, when executed, to compare the detection signals acquired with the gas detector with said reference data (FIG. 3) and to signal a presence of the first tracer substance if a match (FIG. 3; Gruznov)) is found between the detection signals acquired and reference data of the reference data set that are indicative of a presence of the tracer substance (i.e. if the detection is a match with the signals in FIG. 3, then there is a detection of similar compound).
With regards to claim 46, Gruznov, as currently combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 27. However, Gruznov, as currently combined with Calio and Moriya, is silent regarding wherein said air sampling system comprises a bypass for bypassing said gas input of the gas detector, said bypass comprising a bypass tube portion.
Moriya further teaches a piping system comprises a bypass (18) for bypassing said processing unit (11), said bypass comprising a bypass tube portion (18; [0032]; FIG. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bypass as taught by Moriya to the air transportation tubes as taught by Gruznov, as currently combined with Calio and Moriya, to additionally direct the air flow as desired ([0013, 0032]; Moriya).
With regards to claim 47, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches (citations to Gruznov unless specified otherwise) the storage device according to claim 27, wherein said control system is configured for signaling a presence of a second tracer substance different from the first tracer substance (it is noted that the gas chromatograph of Gruznov is capable of detecting/signaling other substance that is different from the first tracer substance; page 1156, left column; Gruznov).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruznov et al. (“Determination of Explosive Vapor Concentrations with Remote Sampling in the Control of Objects”, J. Anal. Chem., vol. 72, no. 11, (2017), pp 1155-1160; IDS dated 05/11/2023 NPL Cite No. 1; hereinafter Gruznov) in view of Calio, Jr et al. (US Publication 2015/0268139; hereinafter Calio) and Moriya et al. (US Publication 2008/0017105; hereinafter Moriya) as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Grossenbacher (US Patent 7,992,424).
With regards to claim 32, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 27 However, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, is silent regarding wherein at least one of the pumps is located downstream from the gas output of the gas detector and/or wherein at least one of the pumps is an internal pump located inside the gas detector and configured for pumping air from the gas input to the gas output of the gas detector.
Grossenbacher teaches a gas chromatography system similar to Gruznov comprising at least one of the pumps is an internal pump located inside the gas detector and configured for pumping air from the gas input to the gas output of the gas detector (col. 7, line 62 to col. 8, line 15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pump as taught by Grossenbacher as a part of the gas chromatography system as taught by Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, to direct the gas through the detector as desired (col. 7, line 62 to col. 8, line 15; Grossenbacher).
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruznov et al. (“Determination of Explosive Vapor Concentrations with Remote Sampling in the Control of Objects”, J. Anal. Chem., vol. 72, no. 11, (2017), pp 1155-1160; IDS dated 05/11/2023 NPL Cite No. 1; hereinafter Gruznov) in view of Calio, Jr et al. (US Publication 2015/0268139; hereinafter Calio) and Moriya et al. (US Publication 2008/0017105; hereinafter Moriya) as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Zang et al. (US Publication 2014/0235493; hereinafter Zang).
With regards to claim 39, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 27. However, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, wherein said gas detector comprises a multi-pixel sensor comprising multiple pixels wherein each pixel has an electrode pair covered with a sensing material, said sensing material is an organic nanofiber.
Zang teaches a gas sensor comprises a multi-pixel sensor (FIG. 1) comprising multiple pixels (104) wherein each pixel has an electrode pair (106) covered with a sensing material (108), said sensing material is an organic nanofiber (108; FIG. 1; [0060]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one type of detector as taught by Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, with another type of detector as taught by Zang with reasonable expectation of detecting explosives as originally intended ([0004-0005]; Zang).
With regards to claim 40, Gruznov, as combined with Calio, Moriya, and Zang, teaches (citations to Zang unless specified otherwise) the storage device according to claim 39, wherein said multi-pixel detector comprises at least a first pixel (104) or a first pixel group for detecting the first tracer substance and a second pixel (another one of 104) or a second pixel group for detecting a second tracer substance different from the first tracer substance ([0034-0035]).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruznov et al. (“Determination of Explosive Vapor Concentrations with Remote Sampling in the Control of Objects”, J. Anal. Chem., vol. 72, no. 11, (2017), pp 1155-1160; IDS dated 05/11/2023 NPL Cite No. 1; hereinafter Gruznov) in view of Calio, Jr et al. (US Publication 2015/0268139; hereinafter Calio) and Moriya et al. (US Publication 2008/0017105; hereinafter Moriya) as applied to claim 42, and further in view of Sacks et al. (US Patent 5,141,532; hereinafter Sacks).
With regards to claim 43, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 42. However, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, is silent regarding the storage device comprising a first heating device configured for heating a tube portion between the valve system and an air input of the gas detector, said tube portion is a copper tube portion.
Sacks teaches a gas chromatography system, similar to the system used by Gruznov, comprising a first heating device (10) configured for heating a tube portion (18) prior to an air input of the gas detector (including 24, 26), said tube portion is a copper tube portion (col. 4, lines 54-65; FIG. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the heating device as taught by Sacks to the gas chromatography of Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, to narrow the sample plug for subsequent detection (abstract; Sacks).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruznov et al. (“Determination of Explosive Vapor Concentrations with Remote Sampling in the Control of Objects”, J. Anal. Chem., vol. 72, no. 11, (2017), pp 1155-1160; IDS dated 05/11/2023 NPL Cite No. 1; hereinafter Gruznov) in view of Calio, Jr et al. (US Publication 2015/0268139; hereinafter Calio) and Moriya et al. (US Publication 2008/0017105; hereinafter Moriya) as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Rubey et al. (US Publication 2009/0211436; hereinafter Rubey).
With regards to claim 44, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, teaches the storage device according to claim 27. However, Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, is silent regarding the storage device comprising a climate box configured to maintain a cavity of the climate box at a constant temperature or within a predefined temperature range, and wherein said gas detector is placed inside said cavity, the climate box comprises insulating walls forming the cavity.
Rubey teaches a gas chromatograph (similar to the EKHO-IMIS GC of Gruznov) comprising a climate box (65; FIG. 2) configured to maintain a cavity (64) of the climate box at a constant temperature or within a predefined temperature range ([0027]), and wherein said gas detector (32; [0032]) is placed inside said cavity (64), the climate box comprises insulating walls (65) forming the cavity ([0027-0032]; FIG. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of providing a climate box enclosing the gas chromatograph as taught by Rubey to the gas chromatograph of Gruznov, as combined with Calio and Moriya, to insulate the chamber at desired temperature ([0027]; Rubey).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48-52 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:
The prior arts on record fail to anticipate and/or suggest the combination of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach, inter alia, the combination of the limitations of claims 48-52. The closest prior art, Gruznov, teaches the storage device according to claim 27, see above. However, Gruznov does not specify the additional structural features and their control method as required by claims 48-52. Thus, Gruznov does not teach the claimed inventions. Furthermore, no other prior arts were found to teach the additional limitations that would be combinable into the storage device of Gruznov.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 15-16, Applicant argues that Calio is concerned with devices for collecting air samples in indoor environments-in particular clean rooms-in order to monitor clean room conditions from a remote location. This is an entirely different purpose than the monitoring of trace substances in lockers-which are not a priori controlled atmospheres-in a compact detection system, according to the Applicant's disclosed and claimed invention of the present application. The content of Calio is therefore non-analogous art, which Applicant respectfully submits one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider to modify Gruznov with.
In response to applicant's argument that Calio is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Calio is considered as analogous art to Gruznov because both prior arts are in the same field of the inventors’ endeavor, which is a system and method for sampling air (see abstract of Gruznov and Calio). Thus, the teaching of Calio is relevant and would be combinable to the teaching of Gruznov.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 16-17, Applicant argues that valve system of Moriya is intended to switch the flow of process gas between conduits leading to a substrate and bypass conduits leading to a flow meter. (Moriya, Abstract and paras. [0008]). By comparison, the valve system according to claim 27 is intended to obtain samples from different compartments of a locker assembly. Due to these significant differences between the valve system of claim 27 and Moriya, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to nor would be motivated to apply the teaching of Moriya to a storage device according to Gruznov as modified by Calio.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to apply the teaching of Moriya to the teaching of Gruznov and Calio. As presented above, Moriya teaches a method of controlling gas flow from one source to a processing chamber (abstract). Thus, based on FIG. 1 showing the locations of where to place valves and the cited paragraphs (see above), one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing the valve in the necessary locations of Gruznov to arrive at the claimed invention.
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. 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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853