DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-210923609 (Hou et al), see translation. As to claim 1, Hou et al disclose a double air detecting device and method including sucking up a sample (sucking air into the first detecting tube 3 through an air sampling pipe 2) of the atmosphere present in or proximate to said enclosure (office environment) by means of an extraction device (air detection body 1); b) passing said sample through and/or over a collection device (sample pipe 1) capable of absorbing (the air will absorb in the sample tube 2) configured to absorb the actual odorous molecules of interest, said collection device being in the form of a hollow tube (tube 2) open at each of its ends end of the tube; and c) submitting said collection device (the air is sent through detector tubes 3 and 5) to analysis by a detection animal and/or an analysis machine, see translation and fig. 1 and 2. It is noted that Hou et al does not refer to “odorous molecules of interest” as found in the preamble. Firstly, it is noted that such a recitation is only found in the preamble and therefore is not afforded the effect of a distinguishing limitation since the body of the claim fails to draw life or breadth from such a recitation. In the alternative, it is noted that Hou et al indicate detection of air components containing substances harmful to the human body or pollution to detect air quality. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the air pollution as well harmful fumes would have some odorous molecules being detected. As to claim 2, note that the detected air is from furniture etc. containing substances harmful to the human body as well as pollution (which are known to include living organisms and toxins) and contraband products. As to claim 3, the air is collected from a room or furniture or décor. As to claim 4, a suction means (suction fan 10) for collecting a sample (air) of an atmosphere present in or proximate to an enclosure (body 1);- a collection device (pipe 2) configured to absorb (absorbing air) actual odorous molecules of interest, the collection device being in the form of a hollow tube open at each end of the tube; and- a means for fastening the collection device to the suction means (the tail end of the tube 2 is rotatably connected with a suction fan 10), see translation and figures. Please see the above discussion with regard to the odorous molecules of interest which will not be repeated for the sake of brevity. As to claim 5, the type of material used for the tube 2 is not given. However, usage of a polymer is considered a matter design choices of known sampling tube materials and also selected based on the type of sample being collected. As to claim 6, note the “sleeve” formed at the left end of tubes 3/5 including valves 31/51 which appears to have a wall around the valves and a first open end configured to suck in atmosphere sample at the right end of tube 2 (as seen in fig 2) and a second end connected to the suction means (near coupling 10), and a retaining means (rotatable connection at right end of pipe 2, not numbered along with the portion housing valves 31/51 also unnumbered). As to claim 7, note the left end of pipe 2 also has a coupling which can be for connection to a flexible extension as a matter of design choice for sampling directional control. As to claim 8, the connection appears to be screw on rotatable connection but substitution with a clip-on is a known alternative that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as a known alternative means of coupling known in the art. As to claim 9, note the retaining means “housing” of valves 31/51 along with the coupling to pipe 2 appears to be frustoconical tubular housing configured to fasten to the collection device by insertion. As to claim 10, note the “housing” has a wall that appears to include a recess (near coupling 10). As to claim 11, the retaining means appears to include threading for the rotatable connection where the threading can be considered fins or there are fins on either side of the motor 11. As to claim 12, the device appears to be portable. As to claim 13, it appears that the device itself can be designated a motorized robot since it includes a controller 9 and a motorized drive (motor 11) controlled by the controller 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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. It is noted also that the adsorption can also include absorption and the two are not mutually exclusive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art cited on pto-892 include other state of the art sampling tubes including polymer and flexible tubes.
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 NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights