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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 February 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-18 and 20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 04 February 2026, have overcome the specification objection. The specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 04 February 2026, have overcome the objections to the claims. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 04 February 2026, have not overcome the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below, the limitation “at least one of an electrical and an optical property” remains unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-18 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and the rejection of claims 7, 10, 13-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the response, applicant argues:
However, Falk's optical measurements are directed to characterizing the FET device itself, but not to detecting gas composition through optical properties of the functionalized region. Specifically, Falk paragraph [0039]-[0040] states…
Thus, in Falk, the optical measurement characterizes the physical/structural properties of the FET device, but it does not generate an optical response signal indicative of a target gas composition. The optical properties measured by Falk's FTIR spectrometer relate to the transistor device's (i.e., DUT 300) material characteristics, rather than changes induced by gas adsorption at the functionalized region. In contrast, Applicant's claim 1 requires that the functionalized region itself exhibit an optical property indicative of the target gas composition, such that the optical property changes in response to gas exposure and that change is used to detect the gas. Falk does not teach this feature.
In response, the examiner argues that the optical measurements of Falk do generate an optical response signal indicative of a target gas composition. Falk recites that the optical sensor measures infrared absorption wavelength bands of molecules that are adsorbed onto the surface of a sample or device under test, the device under test being a hybrid field effect transistor comprising channel 310 which was equated to applicant’s “functionalized region” (see Falk paragraphs 0025, 0041; see also paragraph 29 of the non-final office action dated 04 November 2025). Paragraph 0039 of Falk similarly recites “The detector 210 measures a range of wavelengths in the infrared region that are absorbed by the DUT 300, identifying whether an analyte is present in the DUT 300”. Since molecules that are adsorbed onto the device under test have their own unique optical absorption characteristics, the optical properties of the device under test change when a target gas composition is adsorbed to channel 310 (see Falk paragraphs 0025-0026, 0039, 0041). Thus, the signals output by the detector circuitry of Falk are indicative of whether an analyte has been adsorbed onto channel 310 or not, and, if an analyte has been adsorbed onto channel 310, the analyte can be identified based on the absorption wavelengths detected by detector 210. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the detection circuitry of Falk is configured for generating an optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the functionalized region.
On page 11 of the response, applicant argues:
Further, Falk does not teach signal processing circuitry using both optical and electrical response signals to determine gas presence/characteristics. Paragraph [0080], cited by the Examiner to in attempt to show Applicant's processing circuitry, merely recites a boilerplate computing device and fails to discuss any computer apparatus configured for or capable of gas detection based on processing both optical and electrical response signals to determine a target gas composition. Examples of such processing are provided in the Application As-Filed, such as at paras. [0008], [0040], and [0055].
In response, the examiner argues that Falk does teach signal processing circuitry that uses both optical and electrical response signals to determine gas presence/characteristics. Paragraphs 0024 and 0032-0038 of Falk describe the sensing and generation of an electrical response signal indicative of a target gas composition. Figure 1 shows a generated graph that depicts the generated electrical response signal of when an analyte is adsorbed to channel 310. Paragraphs 0078-0083 describes a computing device with signal processing circuitry that is configured to, among other things, store instructions for performing flow 700 of Fig. 7. The flow of Fig. 7 includes the steps of determining the presence and concentration of a specific analyte through optical and electrical testing. Furthermore, paragraphs 0111-0118 describe how the computing device is configured to both perform the steps of flow 700, but also to perform data analysis (e.g. see Falk paragraphs 0115-0117). Thus, since Fig. 1 shows an output of an exemplary electrical response signal and Fig. 7 describes a step of determining the presence and concentration of a specific analyte through optical and electrical testing, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the computing device of Falk is configured for using both the optical and electrical response signals to determine gas presence and characteristics.
On page 11 of the response, applicant argues:
For at least similar reasons to those given above for claim 1, Falk fails to disclose each and every element of independent claims 19 and 20. Specifically regarding claim 20, Falk does not teach the second region providing spectral response data in response to gas exposure. Falk paragraph [0051] discusses that different FETs (300A, 300B, 300C) may be configured to sense different analytes through electrical property changes. Paragraph [0051] of Falk states…
This describes electrical sensing selectivity, not optical response differentiation. Falk fails to disclose that FET 300B (or any FET) includes a functionalization material selected to provide spectral response data in response to being exposed to the ambient gas.
In response, the examiner argues that each FET of Falk inherently provides spectral response data in response to being exposed to the ambient gas. In paragraph 0051, Falk recites that each of the FETs shown in Fig. 4A are configured to be a sensor for a different analyte. To achieve this, each of the FETs need to be functionalized in a specific manner, using different materials and/or properties, such that they are capable of adsorbing different analytes onto each of their channels 310. The use of different materials and/or properties for different FETs inherently give variance to the optical/spectral response data that is collected from each of the FETs. This effect becomes especially apparent when different analytes are adsorbed onto the surfaces of the FETs through each of their channels 310, as different analytes will absorb different infrared wavelength bands to produce unique spectral outputs to be detected (see Falk paragraphs 0024-0026, 0030, 0047). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that each FET shown in Fig. 4A of Falk, that is functionalized to adsorb a different type of analyte, inherently provides its own unique optical and spectral response data. Thus, Falk teaches a second region including a second functionalization material selected to provide optical response data including spectral response data representing a spectral characteristic of the functionalized region in response to being exposed to ambient gas.
Finally, on page 11 of the response, applicant argues:
Further, Falk does not teach evaluation circuitry using both measured conductivity and measured spectral response for gas concentration determination.
In response, the examiner argues that Falk does teach evaluation circuitry using both the measured conductivity and measured spectral response for gas concentration determination. Namely, see the arguments presented above with regards to Falk’s teaching of the claimed signal processing circuitry in claim 1. In summation, Falk teaches a computing device configured to perform the steps of flow 700 shown in Fig. 7 and described in paragraphs 0073-0077, with step 708 being directed to determining the presence and concentration of a specific analyte adsorbed onto the surface of a gas chemical detector device using both the signals gathered from electrical sensing and optical sensing. Further, paragraphs 0111-0118 describe how the computing device is configured to both perform the steps of flow 700, but also to perform data analysis (e.g. see Falk paragraphs 0115-0117). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the computing device of Falk is configured for generating an indication of a concentration of a target gas composition of an ambient gas in an environment based on measured conductivity from electrical testing and measured spectral response from optical testing. Thus, Falk teaches evaluation circuitry configured for using both measured conductivity and measured spectral response for gas concentration determination.
Thus, for the reasons outlined above, the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is maintained. Since it is the examiner’s position that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the independent claims, the rejections of dependent claims 2-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also maintained in the absence of persuasive arguments to the contrary.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 5 recites the limitation “at least one of an electrical and an optical property”. It is unclear if applicant intends to recite that the functionalized region is configured to include both an electrical and optical property indicative of the target gas composition, if the claim is intended to recite that the functionalized region includes at least one electrical property and at least one optical property, or if the claim is intended to recite the functionalized region includes either an electrical property or an optical property. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes line 5 of claim 1 is supposed to recite ‘an electrical and an optical property’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falk et al. (US 2021/0181098 A1, of record), hereinafter Falk.
Regarding claim 1, Falk teaches a gas chemical detector device (abstract, Fig. 2-6 and 8; see also paragraph 0022, 0030, 0037) for detecting a presence or other characteristic of a target gas composition within ambient gas in an environment (paragraph 0024-0025, 0032-0036, 0050), the gas chemical detector device comprising:
a functionalized region (Fig. 3A-B channel 310, paragraph 0036), configured to be exposed to the ambient gas (see paragraph 0050 and Fig. 3A, and Fig. 7 step 704), wherein the functionalized region is configured to include an electrical and an optical property indicative of the target gas composition (paragraph 0024-0030, 0036);
detector circuitry (Fig. 2 FTIR spectrometer 200 including detector 210), configured for generating an optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (paragraph 0039-0040, see steps 706-708 of Fig. 7) using the functionalized region (paragraph 0039-0040, Fig. 2; light is emitted through DUT 300 which comprises channel 310 (see Fig. 3A-B));
an electrochemical transducer (Fig. 3A-B DUT 300 paragraph 0041-0050) for transducing an electrical property indicative of the target gas composition into an electrical response signal (paragraph 0030-0037, 0046, 0050; see also Fig. 1); and
signal processing circuitry (Fig. 2 detector 210 and paragraph 0039 “detector 210 may include a computing device”; see also paragraph 0078-0080 and Fig. 8) configured for using both the optical response signal and the electrical response signal to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (paragraph 0019, 0028-0029, 0080 “For example, the flow 700 for sensing a presence and a concentration of an analyte, may be stored on the one or more of the computer readable storage media 808”; see also Fig. 7 and paragraph 0073-0077).
Regarding claim 2, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches a sensor including the functionalized region (Fig. 2 FTIR spectrometer 200 having DUT 300), the sensor including at least one of the electrochemical transducer, a photodetector, or a colorimetric imaging sensor (see Fig. 2-3 and paragraph 0041, the DUT 300 having a FET which is a electrochemical transducer).
Regarding claim 3, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches the sensor is located facing an opposing illuminator (Fig. 2 the elements light source 202, beam splitter 204, and mirrors 206 and 208 together are equivalent to the claimed illuminator as they emit a beam in a direction that faces opposite the DUT 300), and arranged to permit the ambient gas from the environment to enter a space between the sensor and the illuminator (see Fig. 3A wherein top layer 320 is an open air environment (paragraph 0050); since the top layer 320 abuts the ambient environment, and the channel 310 is shown to protrude into top layer 320, the ambient gas enters a space between the sensor and the illuminator).
Regarding claim 4, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches the sensor includes an array of carbon nanotube field-effect transistors (CNFETs) (paragraph 0028-0030, 0051-0057, see also Fig. 4A-B); and individual ones of the CNFETs in the array of CNFETS correspond to different functionalized regions corresponding to different target gas compositions (paragraph 0028-0030, 0036, 0051-0057).
Regarding claim 5, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches the individual ones of the CNFETs include respective gate regions (paragraph 0046; the channels 310 serve as a gate region) that are coated with different functionalized region material coatings to include at least one different electrical or optical property indicative of a particular target gas composition (paragraph 0051-0054 which discuss that each of the different FETs shown in Fig. 4A-B are configured to sense different analytes; since each of the FETs sense a different analyte, it is implicit that each of the FETs are coated with different functionalized region material coatings to provide different electrical and/or optical properties).
Regarding claim 6, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the functionalized region includes at least one of an oligonucleotide, a metal coordination complex, a porphyrin, a self-assembled monolayer (SAM), a polymer, a pyrrole derivative, a phthalocyanine, or a nanomaterial decoration (paragraph 0047 reciting the use of graphene or carbon nanotubes which are nanomaterial decorations).
Regarding claim 8, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches an illuminator (Fig. 2 the elements light source 202, beam splitter 204, and mirrors 206 and 208 together are equivalent to the claimed illuminator), including at least one of a broadband or tunable wavelength light source (Fig. 2 light source 202 is broadband, see paragraph 0039), arranged to illuminate with electromagnetic energy the functionalized region exposed to the ambient gas (see Fig. 2, paragraph 0039); wherein the detector circuitry is configured for generating at least a portion of the optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the functionalized region, in response to the illuminating (paragraph 0039-0040; see also paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 9, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches the functionalized region is arranged to, in response to the illumination, provide optical response data including spectral response data representing a spectral characteristic of the functionalized region exposed to the ambient gas (paragraph 0025-0026, 0039, 0050), the spectral characteristic including at least one of absorption, reflection, fluorescence, elastic scattering, or inelastic (Raman) scattering (paragraph 0025-0026, 0039 - absorption) indicative of the presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment at the illumination (paragraph 0025-0026, 0039-0040, 0050).
Regarding claim 11, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the electrochemical transducer includes or is coupled to the same or a different functionalized region of the gas chemical detector device to use the electrical property of the functionalized region to transduce the electrical response signal (Fig. 3A-B the electrochemical transducer (DUT 300) is coupled to the same functionalized region (channel 310) of the gas chemical detector device and uses the electrical property of the channel 310 to transduce the electrical response signal, see paragraph 0036, 0046, 0048).
Regarding claim 12, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the detector circuitry includes a Field Effect Transistor (FET) (Fig. 2 FTIR spectrometer 200 having DUT 300 which is a FET, see paragraph 0041), including or coupled to the functionalized region (see Fig. 3A-B showing components of the FET (source 302, drain 304, etc.) coupled to channel 310), wherein the FET is configured for generating the optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (see Fig. 2, paragraph 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 15, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches the functionalized region is configured to change an electrical property of the FET in response to the functionalized region being exposed to ambient gas including the target gas composition (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0029-0030, 0036, 0046, 0048, 0050).
Regarding claim 16, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 15, as outlined above, and further teaches the functionalized region is configured to change an electrical property of the FET including at least one of an effective gate voltage of the FET, an effective channel resistance of the FET, an effective channel conductance of the FET, a transconductance of the FET, or at least one gate-body, gate-drain, or gate-source interface parameter of the FET (see paragraph 0024, 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches the functionalized region is configured to vary a gate voltage of the FET as a function of the presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0032-0035).
Regarding claim 19, Falk teaches a method (abstract, paragraph 0018-0019, 0073-0076, Fig. 7) for detecting a target gas composition (paragraph 0022, 0024-0025, 0030, 0037), within ambient gas in an environment (paragraph 0050), using a gas chemical detector (see step 702 of Fig. 7; see also Fig. 2-3 and paragraph 0019), the method comprising:
exposing a functionalized region of the gas chemical detector to the ambient gas (Fig. 7 step 704, paragraph 0025-0030, 0036, 0050), wherein the functionalized region is configured to include an optical property indicative of the target gas composition (paragraph 0025, 0030, 0039-0048, 0050);
receiving electromagnetic energy at the functionalized region (see Fig. 2, paragraph 0039, paragraph 0075);
generating an optical response signal based on the optical property (paragraph 0039-0040) and indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the functionalized region (paragraph 0039-0040, 0050, Fig. 7 steps 706-708);
electrochemically transducing an electrical property indicative of the target gas composition into an electrical response signal (paragraph 0030-0037, 0041-0048, 0050; see also Fig. 1); and
processing using both the optical response signal and the electrical response signal to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (paragraph 0019, 0028-0029, 0080 “For example, the flow 700 for sensing a presence and a concentration of an analyte, may be stored on the one or more of the computer readable storage media 808”; see also Fig. 7 and paragraph 0073-0077).
Regarding claim 20, Falk teaches a gas chemical sensing device (see Fig. 2-8, abstract, paragraph 0019) comprising:
an illumination source (Fig. 2 broadband light source 202), arranged to provide an electromagnetic energy illumination (Fig. 2, paragraph 0039);
a gas chemical detector (Fig. 2 DUT 300, mounting surface 212, and detector 210; see also DUT 400 in Fig. 4A; see also paragraph 0022, 0030, 0037, 0050), including one or more functionalized gas chemical detector regions (Fig. 2 DUT 300 having channels 310 (Fig. 4A)) arranged to receive the illumination from the illumination source (see Fig. 2, paragraph 0039, 0051) and to be exposed to an ambient gas from an environment to be sensed (see paragraph 0050), the one or more functionalized gas chemical detector regions functionalized to modulate at least one of an electrical conductivity or a spectral optical response characteristic (paragraph 0024-0030, 0036), the gas chemical detector including:
a functionalized semiconductor gas chemical detector first region (Fig. 4A the channel 310 corresponding to FET 300A; see also abstract and paragraph 0047), including a first functionalization material selected to modulate a conductivity of the first region (paragraph 0036, 0046-0048, 0051), responsive to a concentration of a first specified gas composition (paragraph 0036, 0046-0048, 0051); and
a functionalized semiconductor gas chemical detector second region (Fig. 4A the channel 310 corresponding to FET 300B), including a second functionalization material (paragraph 0051 discusses the differences between FETs 300A-C, which correspond to different functionalization materials selected for channel 310) selected to provide optical response data including spectral response data representing a spectral characteristic of the functionalized region in response to being exposed to the ambient gas (see paragraph 0025, 0030, 0039-0040, 0050), the spectral characteristic including at least one of absorption, reflection, fluorescence, elastic scattering, or inelastic (Raman) scattering (paragraph 0025-0026, 0039 - absorption) indicative of a presence or other characteristic of a target gas composition within ambient gas in an environment at the illumination (paragraph 0025-0026, 0039-0040, 0050); and
signal processing circuitry (Fig. 2 detector 210 and paragraph 0039 “detector 210 may include a computing device”; see also paragraph 0078-0080 and Fig. 8), including conductivity measurement circuitry (Fig. 3A source 302 and drain 304 with dielectrics 314 and 316; see also paragraph 0051 explaining the relationship between Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A) electrically coupled to the first region (see Fig. 3A) to measure the conductivity of the first region (paragraph 0036, 0046, 0048), and spectral response measurement circuitry (Fig. 2 detector 210) using the second region to measure the spectral response characteristic of the second region (see Fig. 2, 3A, and 4A; in Fig. 2 detector 210 detects light from DUT 300 (see paragraph 0039), DUT 300 relating to DUT 400 in that DUT 300 shows a singular FET and DUT 400 shows an array of FETs; the FET 300B having channel 310 would produce a spectral response in the manner described in paragraph 0039), and evaluation circuitry (paragraph 0078-0080 recite processors that function as evaluation circuitry) generating an indication of a concentration of the target gas composition of the ambient gas in the environment based on the measured conductivity and the measured spectral response (see paragraph 0078-0080, namely paragraph 0080 “the flow 700 for sensing a presence and a concentration of an analyte, may be stored on the one or more of the computer readable storage media 808”, and Fig. 7, paragraph 0073-0076, namely paragraph 0076).
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 2021/0181098 A1, of record) in view of Chen et al. ("Combined optical and electronic paper-nose for detection of volatile gases." Analytica chimica acta 1034 (2018): 128-136., of record), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a camera or other imager, arranged for imaging the functionalized region to produce an image-readable characteristic indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the functionalized region; wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for image-processing an image of the functionalized region to detect the image-readable characteristic and, using the image-readable characteristic from the image-processing of the image of the functionalized region, generating at least a portion of the optical response signal indicative of the presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment.
Chen, which relates to combined electrical and optical gas detection devices, teaches a camera or other imager (see Chen Fig. 2, pg. 132 right col. 2nd paragraph), arranged for imaging a functionalized region (see Chen Fig. 2-3) to produce an image-readable characteristic indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the functionalized region (see Chen Fig. 2-3 and 5, all of section 2.5 Test setup and data acquisition); wherein signal processing circuitry is configured for image-processing an image of the functionalized region to detect the image-readable characteristic (see Chen pg. 132 right col. 2nd-3rd paragraphs, pg. 133, section 3.3 Classification of paper-nose responses) and, using the image-readable characteristic from the image-processing of the image of the functionalized region, generating at least a portion of the optical response signal indicative of the presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (see Chen Fig. 2-3 and 5, sections 2.5 Test setup and data acquisition and 3.3 Classification of paper-nose responses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the gas chemical detector device of Falk to include a camera or other imager, arranged for imaging the functionalized region to produce an image-readable characteristic indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the functionalized region; wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for image-processing an image of the functionalized region to detect the image-readable characteristic and, using the image-readable characteristic from the image-processing of the image of the functionalized region, generating at least a portion of the optical response signal indicative of the presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment, as taught by Chen, for the benefit of improving the sensitivity of detection of the gas chemical detector device (see Chen pg. 129 right col. 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the signal processing circuitry includes or is coupled to at least one of a library template or a trained model, wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for processing using the optical response signal to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the at least one of a library template or the trained model.
Chen, which relates to combined electrical and optical gas detection devices, teaches signal processing circuitry includes or is coupled to at least one of a library template or a trained model (see Chen abstract, section 3.3 Classification of paper-nose responses; signal processing circuitry of Chen is implicit via the use of a support-vector machine algorithm), wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for processing using the optical response signal to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the at least one of a library template or the trained model (see Chen section 3.3 Classification of paper-nose responses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the signal processing circuitry of Falk to include or be coupled to at least one of a library template or a trained model, wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for processing using the optical response signal to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment using the at least one of a library template or the trained model, as taught by Chen, for the benefit of reducing the error rate of identifying the target gas composition (see Chen section 3.3 Classification of paper-nose responses).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 2021/0181098 A1, of record) in view of Shaw (WO 2009/024774 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 8, as outlined above, but does not teach illumination controller circuitry, configured for varying the illumination between a plurality of different illuminations; wherein the functionalized region is configured for generating at least a portion of the optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment in response to the different illuminations; and wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for processing the optical response signal at the different illuminations to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment.
Shaw, which relates to gas sensor devices, teaches illumination controller circuitry (Shaw: Fig. 1 control unit 8, Fig. 9 circuit block 40, see also pg. 26 lines 21-25, and pg. 30 lines 23-26), configured for varying the illumination between a plurality of different illuminations (Shaw: pg. 8 lines 15-20, pg. 11 lines 10-11). Shaw additionally teaches a functionalized region (Shaw: Fig. 1 and 9 sensitive material 2, see also pg. 3 line 22-pg. 4 line 9) configured for generating at least a portion of an optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment in response to the different illuminations (Shaw: pg. 30 line 30-pg. 31 line 7), and wherein signal processing circuitry (Shaw: Fig. 9 circuit block 40) is configured for processing the optical response signal at the different illuminations to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment (Shaw: pg. 31 lines 1-13; since Shaw teaches varying the output of the energy source 9, the signal processing circuitry processes optical response signals of different illuminations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the gas chemical detector device of Falk to include illumination controller circuitry, configured for varying the illumination between a plurality of different illuminations, wherein the functionalized region is configured for generating at least a portion of the optical response signal indicative of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment in response to the different illuminations, and wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured for processing the optical response signal at the different illuminations to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment, as taught by Shaw, for the benefit of broadening the detection range of gas chemicals by enabling modification of the light being emitted towards the gas chemical detector (see Shaw pg. 11 lines 10-21).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 2021/0181098 A1, of record) in view of Andersson et al. (US 2014/0070170 A1), hereinafter Andersson.
Regarding claim 13, Falk teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 12, as outlined above, but does not teach bias circuitry arranged for biasing the FET at a specified bias level, corresponding to the target gas composition, to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment.
Andersson, which relates to gas chemical detectors using field effect transducers, teaches bias circuitry arranged for biasing a FET at a specified bias level (Andersson: paragraph 0023, 0039, 0049), corresponding to a target gas composition (Andersson: paragraph 0023, 0039, 0049; see also paragraph 0004), to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in an environment (Andersson: paragraph 0039, 0049; see also paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the gas chemical detector device of Falk to include bias circuitry arranged for biasing the FET at a specified bias level, corresponding to the target gas composition, to determine a presence or other characteristic of the target gas composition within the ambient gas in the environment, as taught by Andersson, for the benefit of enabling the FET to produce different chemical indicative signals (see Andersson paragraph 0049).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk in view of Andersson as applied to claims 1 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Shaw (WO 2009/024774 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Falk, as modified by Andersson, teaches the gas chemical detector device of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the bias circuitry is configured to change an electrical bias applied to the FET (see Andersson paragraph 0049 “a field effect transistor for gas sensing may be biased and controlled in different ways, which may provide different chemical indicative signals”), but does not teach an illumination controller operatively coupled to an illuminator configured to change illumination among a plurality of different illuminations.
Shaw, which relates to gas sensor devices, teaches an illumination controller (Shaw: Fig. 1 control unit 8, Fig. 9 circuit block 40, see also pg. 26 lines 21-25, and pg. 30 lines 23-26) operatively coupled to an illuminator (Shaw: Fig. 9 energy source 9, pg. 30 lines 30-31) configured to emit and change illumination among a plurality of different illuminations (Shaw: see Fig. 9, pg. 8 lines 15-20, pg. 11 lines 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the gas chemical detector device of Falk (as modified by Andersson) to include an illumination controller operatively coupled to an illuminator configured to emit and change illumination among a plurality of different illuminations, as taught by Shaw, for the benefit of broadening the detection range of gas chemicals by enabling modification of the light being emitted towards the gas chemical detector (see Shaw pg. 11 lines 10-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shaw (US 2008/0030352 A1), Khosravi-Far et al. (US Patent No. 11,541,393 B2), and Tao et al. (US Patent No. 9,581,561 B2) all relate to gas sensors that combine electrical sensing with optical sensing to make determinations of gas chemical compositions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights