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
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office action based on the 18/639371 election response filed 08/07/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-19 have been elected and fully examined.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from prosecution.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/07/2026.
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 non-obviousness.
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) 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIYAMA in US 20110086429 in view of HAUSER in Specific Spectrophotometric Determination of Ozone in the Atmosphere Using 1,2-Di(4-pyridyl)ethylene (as cited on IDS dated 08/22/2025).
With respect to Claims 1 & 11, UCHIYAMA teaches of a method for detecting the presence of both ozone and carbonyl compounds in air samples. This comprises contacting the air sample with an ozone reactive adsorbent (abstract).
UCHIYAMA teaches mores specifically of contacting the air sample to a first bed comprising 1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethylene (BPE) -coated silica particles(this compound is an alkene), wherein ozone present in the air sample is trapped by reacting with the 1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethylene (this compound is an alkene) to form pyridine-4-aldehyde (paragraph 0018).
UCHIYAMA then further teaches of contacting the air sample with a compound that can react with the carbonyls, which can be formed through oxidation of hydrocarbons by ozone, and the compound which the air sample is contacted with is 3-methyl-2-benzothiazolinonehydrazone MBTH (paragraph 0064, 0004). UCHIYAMA specifically teaches that carbonyls like pyridine-4-aldehyde can be formed by the reaction of ozone with the 1,2-bis-(4-pyridyl)ethylene (BPE) cartridge (paragraph 0128), and further that other hydrozone (imine) products are formed (abstract, paragraph 0101).
Even further, UCHIYAMA teaches of performing UV- visible absorption spectroscopy of the reaction and that the analysis is performed between wavelengths of 250nm to 500 nm, which reads on “using a wavelength between 420nm and 660 nm. This can be considered colorimetric analysis through broadest reasonable interpretation, since UV-vis measures light in the visible range, especially between 400-700nm which is the visible range (paragraph 0042, 0121, Figure 4).
UCHIYAMA does not teach of adding an oxidant (which though not claimed for claim 1 is ferric chloride).
HAUSER is used to remedy this and more specifically teaches of a method for measuring ozone in a sample (cf. the title), comprising: introducing at least one alkene to a sample (1,2-di-(4-pyri- dyl)ethylene, (abtract - the compound used in Figs. 3 and 7-10 of the present application), wherein the alkene in the presence of an amount of ozone produces a carbonyl solution (pyridine-4-aldehyde, cf. the first line on p. 1530); adding 3-methyl-2-benzothiazolinonehydrazone hydrochloride (MBTH) to the carbonyl solution, and measuring, using a colorimetric technique, the amount of ozone ("...the pyridine-4-aldehyde reacts with 3-MBTH to form a yellow product", I. 10-12 on p. 1530, and the title: "Specific Spectrophotometric Determination of Ozone...").
HAUSER further teaches of the addition of the oxidant ferric chloride to the sample (after MBTH addition) and that two distinct colors are produced when the pyridine-4-aldehyde is subjected to the originally reported 3-MBTH proce-dure. Unlike other water-soluble aliphatic aldehydes the pyridine-4-aldehyde reacts with 3-MBTH to form a yellow product which, like the aliphatic aldehydes, forms a blue color when oxidized by ferric chloride (FeCl3 as the oxidant) (cf. p. 1530, left-hand col.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to use an oxidant after MBTH as is done in HAUSER in the method of UCHIYAMA due to the advantage this has in giving a very clear blue colorimetric change to shown the presence of ozone (HAUSER, Page 1530, column 2, paragraph 2, lines 7-9).
With respect to Claims 2 & 12, UCHIYAMA teaches of using an alkene as claimed but does not call out that a specifically symmetric amine is used. HAUSER is used to remedy this and teaches of using 1,2-Di(4-pyridyl)ethylene which is centro symmetric along its ethylene bond with two pyridyl group positioned in a mirrored fashion across the C=C bond It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the symmetrical amine as the alkene as is done in HAUSER in the method of UCHIYAMA due to the effectiveness it has shown in enabling collection of ozone (HAUSER, abstract).
With respect to Claims 4 & 14, UCHIYAMA teaches of the invention above but do not teach of heating the sample. HAUSER is used to remedy this and teaches of heating the samples (Page 1531, middle column, paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to heat the sample as is done in HAUSER in the method of UCHIYAMA due to the advantage it has for enhancing final color development (Page 1531, middle column, paragraph 4).
With respect to Claims 7 & 17, UCHIYAMA teach of performing UV- visible absorption spectroscopy of the reaction and that the analysis is performed between wavelengths of 250nm to 500 nm, which reads on “using a wavelength between 420nm and 660 nm. This can be considered colorimetric analysis through broadest reasonable interpretation, since UV-vis measures light in the visible range, especially between 400-700nm which is the visible range (paragraph 0042, 0121, Figure 4 Table 1). UCHIYAMA does not teach of using the intensity of the absorption spectra to calculate concentration.
HAUSER however teaches of using Beers law for calculation of concentration by absorption intensities (Page 1531, column 2, paragraph 2, also see figure 2) (absorbance =molar absorptivity times path length times concentration of the absorbing species).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to detect concentration from absorbances as is done in HAUSER in the method of UCHIYAMA due to the advantage it has shown for calculation of ozone concentrations(Page 1531, column 2, paragraph 2) since it is a law and known to be accurate.
With respect to Claims 8 & 18, UCHIYAMA teach of performing UV- visible absorption spectroscopy of the reaction and that the analysis is performed between wavelengths of 250nm to 500 nm, which reads on “using a wavelength between 420nm and 660 nm. This can be considered colorimetric analysis through broadest reasonable interpretation, since UV-vis measures light in the visible range, especially between 400-700nm which is the visible range (paragraph 0042, 0121, Figure 4).
With respect to Claims 9 & 19, UCHIYAMA teaches of the device for detecting presence of ozone and carbonyl containing compounds being moveable/portable (paragraphs 0034-0040 and Figures 1A-2C, paragraphs 0078-0082). Figure 1 C, clearly shows that the device is portable/moveable since the caps are removed from the end portions of the device and it is shown in a second mode of action, interacting with other devices. The device can be considered a parallel analyzer since it analyzes for the presence of two compounds, ozone and carbonyls together, or in parallel.
With respect to Claim 10, UCHIYAMA teaches the above, but does not teach of adding an oxidant ferric chloride with an acid.
HAUSER is used to remedy this and more specifically teaches of a method for measuring ozone in a sample (cf. the title), comprising: introducing at least one alkene to a sample (1,2-di-(4-pyri- dyl)ethylene, (abtract - the compound used in Figs. 3 and 7-10 of the present application), wherein the alkene in the presence of an amount of ozone produces a carbonyl solution (pyridine-4-aldehyde, cf. the first line on p. 1530); adding 3-methyl-2-benzothiazolinonehydrazone hydrochloride (MBTH) to the carbonyl solution, and measuring, using a colorimetric technique, the amount of ozone ("...the pyridine-4-aldehyde reacts with 3-MBTH to form a yellow product", I. 10-12 on p. 1530, and the title: "Specific Spectrophotometric Determination of Ozone...").
HAUSER further teaches of the addition of the oxidant ferric chloride to the sample (after MBTH addition) and that two distinct colors are produced when the pyridine-4-aldehyde is subjected to the originally reported 3-MBTH procedure. Unlike other water-soluble aliphatic aldehydes the pyridine-4-aldehyde reacts with 3-MBTH to form a yellow product which, like the aliphatic aldehydes, forms a blue color when oxidized by ferric chloride (FeCl3 as the oxidant) (cf. p. 1530, left-hand col.). HAUSER further teaches of using acetic acid(Page 1531,column 1, paragraph 4) , so it is in the presence of an acid as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to use an oxidant after MBTH as is done in HAUSER in the method of UCHIYAMA due to the advantage this has in giving a very clear blue colorimetric change to shown the presence of ozone (HAUSER, Page 1530, column 2, paragraph 2, lines 7-9).
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIYAMA in US 20110086429 in view of HAUSER in Specific Spectrophotometric Determination of Ozone in the Atmosphere Using 1,2-Di(4-pyridyl)ethylene (as cited on IDS dated 08/22/2025) and further in view of MARUO in US 20070134129.
With respect to Claims 3 & 13 UCHIYAMA and HAUSER teach of the above but do not teach of adjusting the pH to 7 or less using a phosphate buffer with the alkene.
MARUO is used to remedy this and teaches of a sensing element which detects ozone (abstract and paragraph 0011) and wherein the sensing element using ethylene glycol (an alkene) and a pH buffering element (paragraph 0018). MARUO further teaches of using a phosphate buffer (paragraph 0080) and of using the buffer to preferably get the pH between 1 and 4, which falls in the claimed range of under 7(paragraph 0179, 0209).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the pH buffer as is done in MARUO to get the pH in a specific range as claimed due to the advantage using a buffering agent has for holding a constant pH(MARUO, paragraph 0179).
With respect to Claims 5 & 15, UCHIYAMA and HAUSER teach of the abovem but do not teach of adjusting the pH to 7 or less using a phosphate buffer with the alkene.
MARUO is used to remedy this and teaches of a sensing element which detects ozone (abstract and paragraph 0011) and wherein the sensing element using ethylene glycol (an alkene) and a pH buffering element (paragraph 0018). MARUO further teaches of using a phosphate buffer (paragraph 0080) and of using the buffer to preferably get the pH between 1 and 4, which falls in the claimed range of under 7(paragraph 0179, 0209).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the pH buffer as is done in MARUO to get the pH in a specific range as claimed due to the advantage using a buffering agent has for holding a constant ph (MARUO, paragraph 0179).
With respect to Claims 6 & 16 UCHIYAMA and HAUSER teach of the invention as shown above but do not teach of the claimed ppm ozone.
MARUO is used to remedy this and teaches of what is shown above for MARUO and further that ozone is detected up to 120ppm (paragraph 0086) which falls in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detect ozone in the claimed ppm range as is done in MARUO in the methods of UCHIYAMA and HAUSER due to the advantage that detection in this range shows for atmospheric ozone (MARUO, paragraph 0086).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenawalt in US 20230375514 teaches of method for measuring ozone in a sample (abstract) which comprises using a phosphate buffer (paragraph 0021, 0028), and alkene (paragraph 0029) and an indicator which can be colorimetric (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights