Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1, 3-7 in the reply filed on 11/26/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purves (US 2018/0214050 A1 – cited by Applicant) in view of Attariwala et al. (US 2019/0307396 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Attariwala, further in view of Obrien (US 8347688 B2 – cited by Applicant), as evidenced by Extorr (Residual Gas Analyzer Introduction; https://www.extorr.com/Misc/ResidualGasAnalyzerIntroductionMay21-2020.pdf; 2020).
Regarding Claim 1, Purves teaches: A breath capture and analysis system (abstract) comprising:
a breath inlet coupled to a cylinder (gas inlet 4; paragraph 0033; figure 1; coupled to collection chamber 22);
a piston disposed in the cylinder (piston 24), the piston being actuated by an actuator (paragraph 0042; figure 3A; drive mechanism 26);
a flow path coupled to the cylinder (gas collection line Lc; figure 1);
a selective media exposed to the flow path, the selective media allowing passage of volatile organic compounds therethrough (paragraph 0045);
a vacuum chamber coupled to the selective media (paragraph 0039; actively draw in, store, and force out gas samples), and a pump coupled to the vacuum chamber (pump 7).
Purves does not mention a detection mechanism disposed in the vacuum chamber.
Attariwala teaches a detection mechanism disposed in the vacuum chamber (paragraph 0055; element 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include a detection mechanism disposed in the vacuum chamber in order to detect isolated samples and avoid contaminants.
Purves in view of Attariwala fail to mention wherein the detection mechanism is a residual gas analyzer comprising: an ionizer; a quadrapole; a signal multiplier; and a signal detector.
Obrien teaches the use of an Extorr residual gas analyzer comprising an ionizer; a quadrapole (col 81, lines 26-38); a signal multiplier; and a signal detector (ionizer, quadrupole mass filter, detector; as evidenced by Extorr page 1 paragraph 1; and electron multiplier, i.e. signal multiplier – Extorr page 4 paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include wherein the detection mechanism is a residual gas analyzer comprising: an ionizer; a quadrapole; a signal multiplier; and a signal detector as the substitution of one detector for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 4, Purves in view of Attariwala, further in view of Obrien, as evidenced by Extorr teach: The breath capture and analysis system of claim 1, comprising:
a long retention time flow path coupled to the vacuum chamber (Purves - element 35 connected to device 30); and
a three-way valve (Purves - LC where valve 2 and 27 are) selectively coupling the long retention time flow path to the cylinder and to an alternative inlet port (Purves - figure 1; couples element 35 to element 22 and element 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Purves in view of Attariwala, further in view of Obrien, as evidenced by Extorr teach: The breath capture and analysis system of claim 4, comprising:
a bypass flow line bypassing the long retention time flow path; and a bypass valve disposed in the bypass flow line (Purves - figure 3A and 4A; bypass line 34 and bypass valve 39).
Regarding Claim 7, Purves in view of Attariwala, further in view of Obrien, as evidenced by Extorr teach: The breath capture and analysis system of claim 1, wherein the breath inlet and the cylinder are heated (paragraph 0063).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purves in view of Attariwala, further in view of Obrien, as evidenced by Extorr, further in view of Cormier et al. (US 9918661 B2 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Cormier.
Regarding Claim 3, Purves in view of Attariwala in view of Obrien as evidenced by Extorr teach: The breath capture and analysis system of claim 1, but fail to mention
a sampling pump fluidly coupled to the flow path and to the cylinder; and
a bypass exhaust coupled to the sampling pump.
Cormier teaches a sampling pump fluidly coupled to the flow path and to the cylinder (figure 1; pump 114); and
a bypass exhaust coupled to the sampling pump (figure 1; bypass line includes valves 119 and 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include a sampling pump fluidly coupled to the flow path and to the cylinder; and a bypass exhaust coupled to the sampling pump in order to increase the efficient of gas sampling and analysis.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purves in view of Attariwala, further in view of Obrien, as evidenced by Extorr, further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0034854 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 6 Purves in view of Attariwala, further in view of Obrien, as evidenced by Extorr teach: The breath capture and analysis system of claim 1, but fail to mention wherein the breath inlet is constructed of copper.
Chen teaches inlet tubing can be made of copper (paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system wherein the breath inlet is constructed of copper due to copper’s high thermal conductivity and anti-microbial properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791