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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology such as “comprising” and “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite since it is not clear where the reservoir containing the oxidizing agent is located in the apparatus in relation to the cavity defined in the body of the apparatus. Is the reservoir containing the oxidizing agent located inside or outside of the cavity? In addition, it is also not clear where the applicator and the sensor are located in the apparatus in relation to the other components (i.e. the body defining a cavity and the reservoir). Are the applicator and the sensor located inside or outside of the cavity of the body? Claim 1 lacks necessary structural cooperation between the different physical components of the apparatus.
On line 2 of claim 3, the phrase “the initial and oxidized measurements” lacks antecedent basis, and is also indefinite since this phrase refers to method limitations which are not recited in claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, not a method. On lines 3-4 of claim 3, the phrase “the introduction of the oxidizing agent” lacks antecedent basis, and is also indefinite since this phrase refers to a method limitation.
Claim 8 is indefinite since it is not clear whether the cover encloses the cavity at the same time that the cavity is located over a testing location. Or does the cover only serve to enclose the cavity when the cavity is not located over a testing location?
On line 2 of claim 10, the “sample” should be recited as a geological sample since the preamble of claim 10 recites a “method of testing geological samples”. On line 7 of claim 10, the phrase “comparing the initial and oxidized hydrogen sulfide concentrations” lacks antecedent basis since the second hydrogen sulfide concentration has not been positively recited as an “oxidized hydrogen sulfide concentration”. On line 8 of claim 10, the phrase “the presence of a desired mineral” lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested to change this phrase to –a presence of a desired mineral in the sample--.
On line 1 of claim 13, the phase “the oxidized measurement” lacks antecedent basis since the second hydrogen sulfide concentration in claim 10 has not been positively recited as an “oxidized hydrogen sulfide concentration”. See this same problem on line 1 of claim 14.
On line 3 of claim 15, the phrase “the increase in hydrogen sulfide concentration” lacks antecedent basis since independent claim 10 does not positively recite that the second hydrogen sulfide concentration is increased relative to the initial hydrogen sulfide concentration.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub et al (US 4,065,972) in view of Klusman (US 4,993,874, submitted in the IDS filed on August 4, 2023).
With regards to claims 1-2, Holub et al teach of an apparatus for testing geological samples and collecting gases emitted from geological samples in order to determine a presence of underground minerals. In the embodiment of the apparatus depicted in Figures 2 and 15 in Holub et al, the apparatus comprises a frustoconical body 12 (claim 2) sized to be located over a testing region and defining a cavity therein, wherein the testing region comprises a geological bore hole 17, and sensors or gas detectors 110-114 located in the cavity for measuring a concentration of different types of gases emitted from the geological bore hole. See Figure 15 in Holub et al where multiple different gas sensors 111-114 are located in the cavity of the body 12 of the apparatus for measuring different types of gases emitted from the bore hole 17. Holub et al teach that one of the types of gases that can be detected from the bore hole 17 over a certain collection time period comprises hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The concentration of the emitted gases are measured over the collection time period, and a time integrated parameter representative of the gases migrating into the cavity of the body 12 from the geological bore hole 17 is obtained. See Figures 2 and 15, lines 43-63 in column 3, lines 13-46 in column 7, and the claims of Holub et al.
Holub et al fail to teach that the sensor (i.e. one of sensors 111-114) for measuring hydrogen sulfide gas in the body 12 of the apparatus comprises a reservoir containing an oxidizing agent and an applicator for dispensing a quantity of the oxidizing agent from the reservoir to the gas sample located with or under the cavity of the body 12.
Klusman teaches of an apparatus for collecting gases from a geological soil sample for purposes of mineral exploration. The apparatus 2 comprises a reservoir or container 3 having threaded side walls 5 that engage with threads 6 of a cylindrical plug 7. The plug 7 is configured as an inverted cup with a top portion 10 and depending cylindrical side walls through which apertures 9 are drilled to provide gaseous communication between the interior of the cup and the outside environment when the plug is in a partial closed position as depicted in Figures 1 and 4 of Klusman. The inside of the reservoir 3 comprises an oxidizing liquid 14 and a glass wool material 12 for increasing the surface area of the oxidizing liquid 14. The oxidizing liquid comprises one of several known oxidizing agents such as hydrogen peroxide, sodium peroxide, etc. In use, a shallow hole in a soil is dug, the apparatus 2 is located over a soil testing location in the hole for an appropriate collection time, gases such as hydrogen sulfide (see Table 1 in Klusman) are collected from the soil sample over time into the reservoir 3 through the apertures 9 in the plug 7 while the plug 7 is in a partially closed position, the oxidizing liquid in the reservoir 3 serves to oxidize the gases including hydrogen sulfide, and after an appropriate time of gas collection and oxidation, the plug 7 is fully closed over the reservoir 3 and the oxidized gases are stored in the reservoir 3 until the oxidized gases can be measured. Klusman teaches that the presence of substantial, increased concentrations of certain gases including hydrogen sulfide emitted from a soil location over time can allow an investigator to ascertain the existence of a particular natural mineral in an area where the apparatus 2 is placed. Measurements of the oxidized gases in the reservoir 3 taken at different time periods while the apparatus 2 is located over a particular soil area are compared to one another and used to determine whether a mineral such as gold deposits are located in the soil area. See Figures 1, 2, 4 and 6, the abstract, lines 36-45 in column 6, lines 41-68 in column 8, lines 5-15 and 56-68 I column 9, lines 18-68 in column 10, Table I in columns 10-11, lines 32-52 in column 11, and the claims in Klusman.
Based upon a combination of Holub et al and Klusman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include as one of the sensors 111-114 inside the cavity of the body 12 of the apparatus taught by Holub et al a reservoir containing an oxidizing agent and an applicator for dispensing a quantity of the oxidizing agent from the reservoir to the gas sample located with or under the cavity of the body 12 because Holub et al teach that the sensors 111-114 in the cavity of the body 12 are for the purpose of detecting gases such as hydrogen sulfide emitted from a geological sample over time as an indication of possible underground minerals, and Klusman teaches that one known means for sensing gases such as hydrogen sulfide emitted from a geological sample over time in order to detect the existence of a particular natural mineral in an area is to combine the gases with an oxidizing agent in a body of a cavity placed over the area to be tested.
With regards to claims 3-5, the combination of Holub et al and Klusman fails to teach that the apparatus further comprises a processor for recording initial and oxidized measurements of the hydrogen sulfide gas emitted from the geological sample in order to determine an increase in the concentration of hydrogen sulfide over time, and for determining a parameter of the increased H2S concentration such as a mean, median, standard deviation, etc. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such a processor in the apparatus taught by the combination of Holub et al and Klusman that performs the stated functions regarding measuring an increased H2S concentration over time and outputting a parameter such as a mean, median, standard deviation, etc. of multiple, continuous H2S measurements over time because both Holub et al and Klusman teach that concentrations of emitted gases including H2S from a geological sample are measured at multiple times using a cavity of an apparatus located over a testing location of the geological sample and that a time integrated parameter representative of the gases migrating into the cavity is obtained (see claim 5 in Holub et al), and using a processor to record these multiple, continuous H2S measurements over time would allow the process to be automated for a quicker and more efficient analysis method.
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Holub et al and Klusman fails to teach that the apparatus further comprises a GPS locator coupled to a processor configured to indicate a location of the apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such a GPS locator in the apparatus taught by the combination of Holub et al and Klusman because both references teach of devices that can be placed at multiple different geological locations in order to undergo geophysical prospecting for underground minerals, and a GPS locator would allow a specific one of the multiple different locations where gases indicative of a presence of minerals are detected to be specifically identified.
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Holub et al and Klusman fails to teach that the apparatus further comprises an output display operable to display a result to a user. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such an output display in the apparatus taught by the combination of Holub et al and Klusman because such an output display for performing analytical testing is common in the art for easily alerting a user of the results of the testing.
With regards to claims 8-9, Holub et al teach that the cavity of the frustoconical body 12 of the apparatus comprises a cover 15 that is sealable to the base 14 of the body 12. See Figure 1 and lines 43-51 in column 3 of Holub et al. Klusman also teaches that the body of the apparatus used to collect gases emitted from a geological sample has a cover or plug 7 that is sealable to the cavity 3 by threads. See Figures 1, 2 and 4 in Klusman.
With regards to claim 10, Holub et al teach of a method for geological testing of a sample comprising the steps of locating a body defining a cavity therein over a geological sample to be tested, detecting gases such as hydrogen sulfide emitted from the sample at different times during a collection period, and using the measured concentrations to indicate a potential for the presence of a desired mineral. Holub et al fails to teach that the method comprises introducing an oxidizing agent to the sample in the cavity of the body 12 in order to detect the H2S gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a quantity of an oxidizing agent to the gas sample located with or under the cavity of the body 12 of device taught by Holub et al because Holub et al teach that the sensors 111-114 in the cavity of the body 12 are for the purpose of detecting gases such as hydrogen sulfide emitted from a geological sample over time as an indication of possible underground minerals, and Klusman teaches that one known means for sensing gases such as hydrogen sulfide emitted from a geological sample over time in order to detect the existence of a particular natural mineral in an area is to combine the gases with an oxidizing agent in a body of a cavity placed over the area to be tested.
With regards to claims 11-14, both Holub et al and Klusman et al teach of taking multiple, continuous measurements of the gases emitted into the cavities of the devices over time, and comparing the measurements to one another in order to ascertain the existence of a particular mineral at a particular testing location.
With regards to claims 15-16, the combination of Holub et al and Klusman fails to teach that the method further comprises calculating with a processor at least one parameter of an increase in H2S concentration within the cavity after introduction of an oxidizing agent, such as a mean, median, standard deviation, etc. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such a step using a processor in the method taught by the combination of Holub et al and Klusman because both Holub et al and Klusman teach that concentrations of emitted gases including H2S from a geological sample are measured at multiple times using a cavity of an apparatus located over a testing location of the geological sample and that a time integrated parameter representative of the gases migrating into the cavity is obtained (see claim 5 in Holub et al), and using a processor to record these multiple, continuous H2S measurements over time would allow the process to be automated for a quicker and more efficient analysis method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please make note of: Sullivan et al (US 7,214,345) who teach of an apparatus for analyzing reduced inorganic sulfur; Jiang et al (US 2003/0134426) who teach of a hydrogen sulphide detection method and apparatus; and Malmqvist et al (US 4,587,847) who teach of a method for indicating a presence of concealed minerals in prospecting or exploration operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 January 21, 2026