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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, and species A.1 asthma, B.21 N,N-dimethyl-1-nonanamine in the reply filed on 09/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4 and 17-19 are being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2010/0137733 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches:
4. A method of selecting a subject (e.g., 125) for treatment with a therapeutic agent or composition for a cardiorespiratory disease, the method comprising:
detecting the presence of one or more cardiorespiratory disease-VOC biomarkers in a sample of exhaled air (e.g., 130) from the subject (see ¶ 0046, 0051, 0053+),
wherein the presence of one or more of the VOC biomarkers in the sample suggests the subject has a cardiorespiratory disease (see ¶ 0045-0046, 0051+), and
selecting the subject for treatment with a therapeutic agent or composition for the cardiorespiratory disease (see ¶ 0059, 0066-0067+).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches: 17. The method according to claim 4, wherein the subject is experiencing breathlessness (e.g., asthma ¶ 0045).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2010/0137733 A1) in view of Wilde et al. (Journal of Chromatography A, 1594 (2019) 160–172).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches: 18. The method according to claim 4, wherein a gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry is used to detect the presence of the one or more VOC biomarkers in the sample (e.g., GC/MS ¶ 0050-0051). However, Wang does not explicitly teach: a two-dimensional gas chromatography.
Wilde teaches: analysis of exhaled breath VOCs by a two-dimensional gas chromatography (Abstract, 1. Introduction+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Wilde’s two-dimensional gas chromatography technique to detect Wang’s exhaled VOC biomarkers for the purpose of optimizing comprehensive clinical exhaled breath VOC analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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: Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches various VOC biomarkers selected from the group of 4-methyloctane, 2,4-dimethylheptane, isopropanol, toluene, isoprene, alkane, acetic acid, acetone, 2,6,11-trimethyl dodecane, 3,7-dimethyl undecane, 2,3-dimethyl heptane or a combination thereof (¶ 0051).
However, the prior art fail to teach or fairly suggest the Applicants’ claimed method according to claim 4, wherein the one or more cardiorespiratory disease-VOC biomarkers is N,N-dimethyl-1-nonanamine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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, LUAN VAN can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights