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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-22, drawn to system for locating volatile compound source , classified in G01N27/3275.
Claims 23-29, drawn to a method of locating a source for a volatile compound, classified in C02F 2101/322.
Claims 30-32, drawn to method of mitigating pest damage to crops, classified in A01P 17/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions 1 and 2 are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the system for detecting volatile compounds in claims 1-22 can be used to detect other biomolecules such as lipids.
Inventions 1 and 3 are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the system for detecting volatile compounds in claims 1-22 can be used to detect other biomolecules such as lipids.
Inventions 2 and 3 are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed in Group 2 recites a computer-implemented method of detecting volatile compound while the instant invention in Group 3 can be done by hand or operator. This shows the inventions have different mode of operation and scopes. Group 3 includes applying a pesticide while Group 2 does not include anything about applying. Thus, Group 2 and 3 are not obvious variants of one another. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
- the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Erik Ericksen on 05/14/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 23-32 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2024 was considered, however, Document 4 of the non-patent literature documents was not considered because there is no date associated with it. All other references provided in the IDS were considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: source locating module in claim 1. A “ module” does not connate any particular structure. The specification describes the “ source locating module” to be a processor.
Under the 3-prong analysis, the limitation should be interpreted under § 112(f) for the following reasons:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder. The word “module” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”.
The term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language. The generic placeholder term “module” is modified by functional language “for receiving.”
The term “means” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See MPEP § 2181(I). The generic placeholder term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 10502724 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims and the patented claims encompass a similar sensor which require similar components and accomplish identical results.
Claim 1 recites all the components of Claim 1 of the patented invention. Claim 1 recites a “chemical sensor”, however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “chemically-selective percolation switch” in the patented invention is a type of chemical sensor that is used to target specific chemical compounds. Claim 1 also recites “target volatile compound”, however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “target chemical compound” includes volatile compounds because it can used for analyzing environmental impacts. The patented application recites a chemical sensor that is used in this instant application with the same elements. Claim 7 recites all the component of Claim 4 in the patented invention. Claim 8 recites all the components of Claim 5 in the patented invention. Claim 13 recites all the components of Claim 6 in the patented application.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , and 21. are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180231514 A1), and further in view of Sunshine et al. (US 6422061 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an individual chemical sensor comprising a positive electrode (para 0004), a negative electrode separated from the positive electrode by a switch gap (para 0004), and a binding agent located at a plurality of binding sites in the switch gap (para 0004), wherein the binding agent is selective for binding to a target volatile compound based on size (para 0004), wherein the plurality of binding sites are distributed in the switch gap such that the plurality of binding sites are capable of binding molecules of the target chemical compound to form an electrically conductive pathway between the positive electrode and the negative electrode when the chemical sensor is exposed to a threshold concentration of the target chemical compound (para 0004).
Kim does not teach a volatile compound source locating system with an array of chemical sensors distributed in a detection volume and with a source locating module in electronic communication with the array of chemical sensors, wherein the source locating module is configured to estimate a location of a source of the target volatile compound based on electronic signals from the array of chemical sensors.
However, Sunshine teaches a vapor sensing device related to detection and transmission of sensory data of chemical analytes (column 1, lines 18- 36). Sunshine teaches a volatile compound source locating system (column 24, line 47- 48) with an array of chemical sensors distributed in a detection volume (column 1, line 23-31) and with a source locating module in electronic communication with the array of chemical sensors, wherein the source locating module is configured to estimate a location of a source of the target volatile compound based on electronic signals from the array of chemical sensors (column 7, lines 40-48) for the benefit of increasing utility and enhancing performance (column 7, line 43-48). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim with an array of chemical sensors and a source locating system as taught by Sunshine for the benefit of increasing utility and enhancing performance (column 7, line 43-48). Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4 which recite the types of volatile compounds that are targeted. These claims only define what the system works on and does not have structural limitations as well as does not further define the system itself, thus does not hold any patentable weight. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the plurality of binding sites are distributed to operate the switch gap via percolation wherein a plurality of electrically conductive structures are oriented in the switch gap (para 0005 and 0058).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the plurality of electrically conductive structures are planar islands, vertical pillars or horizontal parallel plates formed in the switch gap (para 0068).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the planar islands, vertical pillars or horizontal parallel plates have a shape selected from circular, hexagonal, square, rectangular, and triangular (para 0069).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the vertical pillars have a width from 5 nanometers to 100 micrometers and the horizontal parallel plates have a width from 1 micrometer to 1 millimeter (para 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the plurality of electrically conductive structures are planar islands having the binding agent attached to surrounding edges of the planar islands (para 0110, Claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the plurality of electrically conductive structures are vertical pillars having the binding agent attached to vertical surfaces of the vertical pillars (para 0084).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches the plurality of electrically conductive structures are horizontal parallel plates having the binding agent attached to horizontal surfaces of the horizontal parallel plates (para 0084).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the plurality of electrically conductive structures are separated one from another by structure gaps having a structure gap distance from 0.3 nanometer to 100 micrometers (para 0066).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the binding agent includes a thiol-functional-group to bind hexanal-functional- group chemicals (para 0081).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Sunshine teaches the system of chemical sensors in an array to detect volatile compounds.
However, Kim is view of Sunshine does not teach that the chemical sensors are spaced apart one from another at an array spacing from about 1 meter to about 1,000 meters.
Although the Sunshine reference does not include the array of chemical sensors being spaced out in the range as taught by the instant invention, it is not inventive to discover the optimum distance between chemical sensors in an array. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a suitable distance between chemical sensors in an array for determining the location of volatile compounds across a wide area such a field of crops.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a chemical sensor.
Kim does not teach the individual chemical sensors further comprise an amplifier.
However, Sunshine teaches an amplifier (column 13, lines 55-63) that can used for the benefit of improving the digital signal (column 4, lines 14-19). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before ethe effective filing date to modify Kim with the chemical sensor with an amplifier as taught by Sunshine for the benefit of improving the digital signal (column 4, lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a chemical sensor.
Kim does not teach a chemical sensor with a microcontroller.
However, Sunshine teaches a microcontroller (column 24, lines 10-15) for the benefit of operators being notified of state of charge for the battery (column 24, lines 5-10). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Kim with a microcontroller as taught by Sunshine for the benefit of operators being notified of state of charge for the battery (column 24, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the individual chemical sensors further comprise a battery (para 0055).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches a chemical sensor.
Kim does not teach the source locating module is in electronic communication with the array of chemical sensors through wireless data transmission.
However, Sunshine teaches the source locating module is in electronic communication with the array of chemical sensors through wireless data transmission (column 28, lines 52-65) for the benefit of convenient instant communication (column 28, 45-65). Thus, it would be obvious to modify Kim with the source locating module which is in electronic communication with the array of chemical sensors through wireless data transmission as taught by Sunshine for the benefit of convenient instant communication (column 28, 45-65).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180231514 A1) in view of Sunshine et al. (US 6422061 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Sensors for Stress Management in Crops" by Rohatgi et al.
Regarding Claim 19, Kim in view of Sunshine teaches a volatile compound locating system with chemical sensors and a source locating module.
Kim in view of Sunshine does not teach the detection volume contains a field of crops and wherein the array of chemical sensors is located such that at least one of the chemical sensors is exposed to the target volatile compound when released from the crops.
However, Rohatgi teaches nano-based sensors are being developed as emerging devices for early detection of volatile compounds for monitoring of plant health. Rohatgi teaches the detection of volatile compounds from crops in a field of crops for the benefit of analyzing the site-specific crop management needs (pg. 86, Section: Nanosensors for Detection of Plant VOCs). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the volatile compound locating system taught by Kim in view of Sunshine with the target volatile compound being released from crops in a field as taught by Rohatgi for the benefit of analyzing the site-specific crop management needs (pg. 86, Section: Nanosensors for Detection of Plant VOCs).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Sunshine teaches a volatile compound locating system with chemical sensors and a source locating module.
Kim in view of Sunshine does not teach wherein a field of detection is within a field of crops comprising sorghum, wheat, corn, soybean, potatoes, rice, nuts, cotton, vegetables, and fruits, or a combination thereof.
However, Rohatgi teaches a sensor being used to detect volatile compound in soybeans plants for the benefit of detecting pathogen and pest attacks (pg 90, paragraph 2). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the volatile compound locating system taught by Kim in view of Sunshine with the target compound being soybeans in a field of crops as taught by Rohatgi for the benefit of detecting pathogen and pest attacks (pg 90, paragraph 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180231514 A1) in view of Sunshine et al. (US 6422061 B1) as applied to claim 1, 5, 6 , and 11 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "Characterization of the volatile organic compounds present in the headspace of decomposing animal remains, and compared with human remains" by Cablk et al.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim in view of Sunshine teaches a volatile compound locating system with chemical sensors and a source locating module. Kim teaches that preferred structure gap distance of the switch gap to detect a particular molecule varies depending on the size of the target molecule (para 0066).
Kim does not teach wherein the target volatile compound is hexanal and wherein the horizontal parallel plates are separated one from another by structure gaps having a structure gap distance from 5 nanometers to 6 nanometers.
However, Cablk teaches detection of volatile organic compounds in animals and humans. Cablk teaches the volatile organic compound hexanal which is found in humans and could be used for detecting human burial site (pg 118, Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to modify the volatile locating system taught by Kim in view of Sunshine with the gap between parallel plates being adjusted to detect hexanal as taught by Cablk for the benefit of using hexanal to detect human burial sites.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180231514 A1) in view of Sunshine et al. (US 6422061 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsi et al. (US 20180080910 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Kim in view of Sunshine teaches a volatile compound locating system with chemical sensors and a source locating module.
Kim in view of Sunshine does not teach a wind sensor in electronic communication with the source locating module.
However, Hsi teaches a methods for determining the presence of an unmeasured chemical in an environment including receiving a plurality of chemical sensor readings (Abstract). Hsi teaches a sensor could detect environmental condition such as wind speed and wind direction (para 0028) as well as chemical sensor for detecting volatile compounds for the benefit of more sensitive detection (para 0030). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the volatile compound locating system taught by Kim in view of Sunshine with a wind sensor as taught by Hsi for the benefit of more sensitive detection (para 0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/H.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights