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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 14-16 and 19-20 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. Specifically applicant argues Lin et al (US20210190744 (hereinafter “Lin”) does not disclose the sensing architecture of “wherein of the first unit, the second unit, the third unit, and the fourth unit, two are reference resistors, and the other two are a first sensing unit and a second sensing unit configured to capture volatile organic compounds (VOCs)”. However this limitation is addressed in the rejection below by Starling US2009007636.
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.
Claims 1, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starling US20090007636 in view of Giedd et al US10352726 (hereinafter “Giedd”).
Regarding claim 1, Starling discloses a sensing device (system-10), comprising:
a substrate (Fig 1);
a first unit (first resistor-41) disposed on the substrate;
a second unit (second resistor-42) disposed on the substrate;
a third unit (third resistor-43) disposed on the substrate and connected in series with the first unit (See Fig 3, Paragraph 0033 and 0035); and
a fourth unit (fourth resistor-41) disposed on the substrate and connected in series with the second unit (See Fig 3, Paragraph 0033 and 0035), wherein of the first unit, the second unit, the third unit, and the fourth unit, two are reference resistors (resistors 43 and 44), and the other two are a first sensing unit (resistor-41) and a second sensing unit (resistor-42) configured to capture volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (chemical compositions or flammable vapors-18).
However, Starling discloses at least one of the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds; and/or, at least one of the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit has different capture degrees for protic gas and aprotic gas of the volatile organic compounds. Giedd discloses at least one of the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds; and/or, at least one of the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit has different capture degrees for protic gas and aprotic gas of the volatile organic compounds. (Col 11 line 25-37, Col 18 line 60-Col 19 line 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Giedd into Starling for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improved environmental monitoring and accurate detection in complex mixtures.
Regarding claim 14, Starling in view of Giedd discloses the sensing device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Starling discloses the second unit and the fourth unit are reference resistors, and the first unit and the third unit respectively are the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit. (Paragraphs 0033-0040 discloses changing the configuration of the resistors.)
Regarding claim 15, Starling in view of Giedd discloses the sensing device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Starling discloses the second unit and the third unit are reference resistors, and the first unit and the fourth unit respectively are the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit. (Paragraphs 0033-0040 discloses changing the configuration of the resistors.)
Regarding claim 16, Starling in view of Giedd discloses the sensing device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Starling discloses the first unit and the second unit are reference resistors, and the third unit and the fourth unit respectively are the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit. (Paragraphs 0033-0040 discloses changing the configuration of the resistors.)
Regarding claim 19, Starling discloses a sensing method (system-10 implements the method), comprising:
providing a sensing device (probe-12), wherein the sensing device comprises a substrate (Fig 1), a first sensing unit (first resistor-41), a second sensing unit (second resistor-42), and two reference resistors (resistors-43 and 44), wherein the first sensing unit, the second sensing unit, and the two reference resistors are disposed on the substrate (Fig 1), wherein of the first sensing unit, the second sensing unit, and the two reference resistors, two are connected in series (Paragraphs 0033 and 0035), and the other two are connected in series (Paragraphs 033 and 035);
capturing volatile organic compounds using the first sensing unit (chemical compositions or flammable vapors-18);
capturing the volatile organic compounds using the second sensing unit (Paragraphs 0033-0040); and
determining index of gas compound (Indexgas) of the volatile organic compounds using voltage change of the sensing device. (Paragraph 0033-0040)
However, Starling discloses the first sensing unit has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds, and/or the first sensing unit has different capture degrees for protic gas and aprotic gas of the volatile organic compounds. Giedd discloses the first sensing unit has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds, and/or the first sensing unit has different capture degrees for protic gas and aprotic gas of the volatile organic compounds. (Col 11 line 25-37, Col 18 line 60-Col 19 line 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Giedd into Starling for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy.
The modification would allow for improved environmental monitoring and accurate detection in complex mixtures.
Regarding claim 20, Starling in view of Giedd discloses the sensing device according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Starling discloses the first sensing unit (first resistor-41) is connected in series with one of the two reference resistors (third resistor-43), the second sensing unit (second resistor-42) is connected in series with the other of the two reference resistors (fourth resistor-44), and the sensing method further comprises: determining gas type (control unit-14 processes the data and sends the information to a user interface-16) of the volatile organic compounds using voltage change of the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit. (Paragraph 0021-0023 and 0033-0040)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starling US20090007636 in view of Giedd et al US10352726 (hereinafter “Giedd”) in further view of Lin et al US20210190744 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 2, Starling discloses the sensing device according to claim 1.
However, Starling fails to disclose the first sensing unit comprises a first sensing layer, and the second sensing unit comprises a second sensing layer and a polar gas selective layer disposed on the second sensing layer, wherein the polar gas selective layer has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds.
Giedd discloses the gas is specifically a polar gas. (Col 11 line 25-37, Col 18 line 60-Col 19 line 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Giedd into Starling for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improved environmental monitoring.
However, the combination of Starling and Giedd fails to disclose the first sensing unit comprises a first sensing layer, and the second sensing unit comprises a second sensing layer and a gas selective layer disposed on the second sensing layer, wherein the gas selective layer has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds.
Lin discloses the first sensing unit (sensing portion-40) comprises a first sensing layer (sensing layer-401), and the second sensing unit (sensing portion-60) comprises a second sensing layer (sensing layer-601) and a gas selective layer (sensing layers include conductive layers-403 and 603) disposed on the second sensing layer, wherein the gas selective layer has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds. (Paragraphs 0035-0036, 0064-0065)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Lin into the combination of Starling and Giedd for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improved environmental monitoring and accurate detection in complex mixtures.
Regarding claim 3, Starling discloses the sensing device according to claim 2.
However, Starling fails to disclose a capture degree of the first sensing unit for nonpolar gas is greater than a capture degree of the second sensing unit for nonpolar gas. Giedd discloses the gas is specifically a nonpolar gas. (Col 11 line 25-37, Col 18 line 60-Col 19 line 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Giedd into Starling for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improved environmental monitoring.
However, the combination of Starling and Giedd fails to disclose a capture degree of the first sensing unit for gas is greater than a capture degree of the second sensing unit for gas. Lin discloses a capture degree of the first sensing unit (sensing portion-40) for gas is greater than a capture degree of the second sensing unit (sensing portion-60) for gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Lin into the combination of Starling and Giedd for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improved environmental monitoring and accurate detection in complex mixtures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 and 17-18 are 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: Prior arts such as the first sensing unit comprises a first sensing layer and a polar gas selective layer disposed on the first sensing layer, and the second sensing unit comprises a second sensing layer, the polar gas selective layer disposed on the second sensing layer, and a protic gas selective layer disposed on the polar gas selective layer, wherein the polar gas selective layers have different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds, and the protic gas selective layer has different capture degrees for protic gas and aprotic gas of the volatile organic compounds as recited in claim 11, the first sensing unit has different capture degrees for polar gas and nonpolar gas of the volatile organic compounds, and the first sensing unit has a material having an acetyloxy group (−OAc) and a material having a hydroxyl (−OH), wherein a molar ratio of acetyloxy group (−OAc): hydroxyl (−OH) is 100~10:0~90 as disclosed in claim 17 or the first sensing unit has different capture degrees for protic gas and aprotic gas of the volatile organic compounds, and the first sensing unit has a material having an acetyloxy group (−OAc) and a material having a hydroxyl (−OH), wherein a molar ratio of acetyloxy group (−OAc):hydroxyl (−OH) is 0~20:100~80 as disclosed in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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). The 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 NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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 advised 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights