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 § 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 1-13 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. In claim 1, on line 8, “its” is unclear as to what “its” is referring to. Further, in step c, it would appear that the “sample” in the “device” or “tube” is analyzed, not the device itself. Also, on line 6, the recitation of “capable of” is indefinite as to whether it is an actual limitation of the claim. In claims 2 and 3, the recitation of “such as” and “advantageously” and “possibly” is unclear and indefinite since it recites a broad range followed by a narrower range such that the metes and bounds of the claim is not clear. In claim 4, it is unclear since there is reference to “a suction means” but is that in addition to the extraction means of claim 1? Also, is the “collection device” and “hollow tube” different from that of claim 1 as implied by the “a”? On line 5, again “its” is unclear. On line 6, “the collection device” lacks clear antecedent basis. Further, all other instances of “said collection device” lacks clear antecedent basis in the dependent claims. In addition, the preamble of the claim 4 recites an extraction device for implementing the method of claim 1 but that is only found in the preamble as “for implementing” such that it is not clear if the method is a limitation of the claim since it could be used for the method of claim 1. Perhaps the claim should be drawn to the method and further define the extraction device. Further, all the dependent claims 5-13 are unclear if the method steps are included or not since they are only drawn to the device. It appears these dependent claims do not include the method steps. In claim 9, the recitation of “capable of” is unclear. In claim 9, the recitation “capable of” is unclear. Regarding claim 11, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In claim 12, the recitation “it is transportable” is not clear and does not provide a limitation to the device but recites a function. Claim 13 appears to be the same claim as claim 4 in that it does not further limit the claim 4 device with any limitations and only the preamble recites a robot. Note all of claims 1-13 are replete with indefinite and possible limitations and repeated limitations. Please clarify the claim language as the claims are unduly broad and replete with possible claim language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-100631487, see translation in view of WO99/38015 (Andersen). As to claim 1, KR-100631487 discloses a sample collection device and associated method dynamic for detecting actual odorous molecules (contaminants) of interest contained in the atmosphere (air) or in direct proximity to the atmosphere present in an enclosure (atmosphere) including the following steps: a) Absorbing a sample of the atmosphere (introducing contaminants present in soil, water or air), present in or proximate to said enclosure (unit 4 and unit 8) by means of an extraction device (air pump 50/60); b) Making said sample circulate/pass (sample flows through switching valve 6 and collects the sample) through and/or over a collection device (tube 14/26) capable of absorbing the actual odorous molecules of interest, said device being in the form of a hollow tube (glass tube 14/26) open at each of its ends; and c) Having said device analyzed (the port 20d is coupled) by a detection animal and/or an analysis machine (sample analyzer 40), see translation and figs 2-4. It is noted that the method is not described as “dynamic” or in an enclosure, per se. However, the device is described as an “automatic analyzer” for sampling atmospheric air which would not be a static sampling since air would require dynamic collection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have indicated that the collection method as “dynamic” since the air collection would require real-time collection. Further, in a related prior art device, Andersen disclose the detection of narcotics in closed containers by collecting a sample and detection with trained dogs or chemical analysis, see Abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have indicated that the “atmosphere” being collected by KR-100631487 is within an “enclosure” such as a container since it is known to collect the atmosphere of containers for odorous substances as is disclosed by Andersen for analysis by dogs or analyzers. As to claim 2, the sample is described as odorous substance and volatile organic compounds and harmful gases which are known to include those of claim 2 and also note that Andersen discloses detection of narcotics specifically. As to claim 3, again note that detection from a cargo container is disclosed by Andersen. As to claim 4, as best understood, a suction means (air pump 50/60) for collecting the sample; a collection device (sample collecting unit 8 with tube 26) capable of absorbing (with adsorbent trap 30) the actual odorous molecules of interest, the device being in the form of a hollow tube (26) open at each of its ends, see fig 4. Further, it is noted that KR-100631487 lacks disclosure of a means for fastening the collection device to the suction means, per se. However, given the depictions it is evident that some form of fastening is required for the air pump 60 and the collecting unit 8 tuber 26 to secure the air pump to the tube to create the suction required to draw a sample into the tube. As to claim 5, note that KR-100631487 includes disclosure of silica gel 208 as the adsorbent layer of the collecting device. As to claim 12, as best understood, any part of the device of KR-100631487 is “transportable” as it is not disclosed as fixed anywhere. As to claim 13, as best understood, it appears that the features of claim 4 are found in KR-100631487. Note that the preamble of a motorized robot has not been afforded the effect as a distinguishing limitation as the body of the claim fails to refer back to or draw life or breadth from the preamble.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allsworth et al-US Patent # 10,952,640. As to claim 1, as best understood, Allsworth et al disclose a method for collecting breath for detecting actual odorous molecules of interest contained in the atmosphere or in direct proximity to the atmosphere present in an enclosure (mask 30) comprising the following steps: a) Absorbing a sample (breath) of the atmosphere present in or proximate to said enclosure (mask 30) by means of an extraction device (pump 28); b) Making said sample circulate/pass through and/or over a collection device (tubes 20) capable of absorbing the actual odorous molecules of interest, said device being in the form of a hollow tube open at each of its ends; and c) Having said device analyzed (by analyzer 12) by a detection animal and/or an analysis machine, see fig. 2B and col. 13, lines 7 et seq. It is noted that Allsworth et al lack a teaching for odorous molecule collection but do indicate volatile biomarkers in the breath, see background. However, it is well known that the breath is odorous such that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized that breath has an odor and therefore the biomarkers being collected would have an odor. As to claim 2, the molecules come from living organisms. As to claim 3, the mask can be considered a container. As to claim 4, as best understood, note suction means (pump 28), collection device hollow tube (20) and a means for fastening (within device 10), see fig. 2B. As to claim 5, usage of sorbent tubes 20 including a polymer is considered a matter of design choice based on the type of particles being collected. As to claim 6, note the device 10 includes a wall with an open end near arrow indicating breath flow in and second open end (near the bottom of tubes 20 for connection to pump 28), and retaining means (seen in fig. 2A/2B at the bottom of tubes 20)l. As to claim 7, note the device 10 opening at the arrow is connected to a mask which is of a flexible tube type. As to claim 8, note the bottom of tubes 20 appears to be of a male female type (appearing as a comb like element) which then cooperates with the suction means 28. As to claim 9, note the cross-section appears to be frustoconical housing(outer perimeter of device 10) for the device 10 near the bottom. As to claim 10, note the housing (outer perimeter of device 10) has walls in the cross section with a recess (near the tubes 20). As to claim 11,as best understood, note the depiction of fig. 2B seems to illustrate a comb like structure having “fins” for connecting the tubes 20. As to claim 12, as best understood, the device 10 appears to be transportable. As to claim 13, as best understood, note the preamble has not been afforded the effect of a distinguishing limitation and therefore claim 4 limitations have been met as indicated above.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land, III-US2009/0199621. As to claim 1, as best understood, Land discloses an enhanced sampling device including a method for detecting actual molecules (analytes) of interest contained in the atmosphere or in direct proximity to the atmosphere present in an enclosure (luggage or building, par[45]) comprising the following steps: a) Absorbing a sample of the atmosphere present in or proximate to said enclosure (sample vessel/luggage/building) by means of an extraction device (plunger 50); b) Making said sample circulate/pass through and/or over a collection device (fiber 30) capable of absorbing the actual odorous molecules of interest, said device being in the form of a hollow tube (sheath 60 for fiber 30) open at each of its ends; and c) Having said device analyzed by a detection animal and/or an analysis machine (analyzer, see par[15]), see figs. 1-8 and par[34] et seq. Further, it is noted that Land does not recite odorous molecules are collected. However, they are indicated as volatile and diffuse and suggest testing luggage which would be known to referring to explosives which would have odors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have indicated that the analytes being collected are odorous since volatile chemicals are known to have odors. As to claim 2, since it is indicated luggage is being tested, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have indicated that the volatiles found in luggage would be explosives or narcotics. As to claim 3, note par[45] indicating a building. As to claim 4, note the suction means (cylinder 70 and plunger 50), the collection device (sheath 60 with fiber 30) where sheath is in the form of a hollow tube, and a means for fastening (holder 80). As to claim 5, the polymeric material of the collection device appears to be a matter of design choice based on the type of material being collected. As to claim 6, note the wall of the holder sleeve 80 with a first open end (with septum 90) and second open end (connected to the cylinder 70) and retaining means (seal 91 or ribbed alignment cone 260 for retaining body 210). As to claim 7, note the means for connection (ribbed alignment cone 260). As to claim 8, note the seal 91 which can be clipped on and can be considered of the male female type to cooperate with the plunger 50 and cylinder 70. As to claim 9, note the retaining means (cone 260 or body 210) can be considered generally frustoconical housing capable of fastening the collection device by insertion into main body 210, see fig 6A. As to claim 10, note the body 210 includes a recess at end 230. As to claim 11, note that the retaining means (cone 260 or body 210) is held at the center of the sleeve 80 with ribbed cone 260 where the ribs can be considered fins. As to claim 12, the device appears to be transportable to different locations. As to claim 13, note the preamble has not been afforded the effect of a distinguishing limitation as the body of the claim fails to refer back to or draw life or breadth and essentially has been treated as claim 4. Therefore, please see discussion above with regard to claim 4. In the alternative, to motorize the plunger is considered a known means of creating suction such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have motorized the plunger action.
Conclusion
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/SPE, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights