DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure (specification) is objected to because it is unclear. Going forward with examination, the following specification paragraphs are interpreted to be (Note that in applicant’s response, where a change is requested in the specification, an entire paragraph of the specification containing the change will be needed):
--[0002] In Patent Literature 1, a chemical sensor device that detects a concentration or an amount of a chemical substance emitted from a generation source, based on [[the]] an amount of change in a resonant frequency of an oscillator of the chemical sensor device chemical substance is adsorbed on the oscillator or detached from the oscillator is disclosed.--
--[0004] In the above-described chemical sensor device, there is an inconvenience that a detection result of the concentration or amount of the chemical substance varies depending on a distance between [[a]] the generation source of the chemical substance and the chemical sensor device. Suppressing the variation therefore would lead to stabilization of precision of a detection result of the chemical sensor.--
--[0005] The present disclosure has been made in consideration of the above-described circumstances, and an objective of the present disclosure is to provide a substance detection system capable of stabilizing precision of a detection result. In the present disclosure, “detect a substance” or an equivalent thereof includes detect a concentration or an amount of a substance.--
--[0007] In this case, the substance detection system may include a notifier to notify that a substance can be accurately detected by the substance sensor when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls within the range.--
--[0008] The notifier of the substance detection system may notify that a substance cannot be accurately detected by the substance sensor when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls outside the range.--
--[0053] The notifier 22 notifies that the substance 3 can be accurately detected by the substance sensor 10 when the determiner 21 determines that the distance L detected by the distance sensor 11 falls within the range from L1 to L2. The notification is referred to as a detection enabled notification. Further, the notifier 22 notifies that the substance 3 cannot be detected by the substance sensor 10 when the determiner 21 determines that the distance L detected by the distance sensor 11 falls outside the range from L1 to L2. The notification is referred to as detection disabled notification.
--[0060] The input/output device 33 is an interface through which data input and output to and from the substance sensor 10 and the distance sensor 11 are performed. Information about the substance 3 [[(]], an adsorption film the vibration frequency of which changes [[(]] with the type of the substance 3[[)]],
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because they are unclear. Going forward with examination, the claims are interpreted to be:
--2. The substance detection system according to claim 1, comprising:
a notifier to notify that [[a]] the substance sensor can accurately detect the substance
--3. The substance detection system according to claim 2, wherein the notifier notifies that [[a]] the substance sensor cannot accurately detect the substance
--4. The substance detection system according to claim 1, comprising:
a controller controlling the substance sensor to start detecting
--5. The substance detection system according to claim 4, wherein the controller controls the substance sensor to suspend detection
--6. The substance detection system according to claim 1, comprising:
a range storage to store the range with respect to the detection target among distance ranges of a plurality of detection targets, wherein the determiner determines whether or not distance detected by the distance sensor falls within the range with respect to the detection target by reading the distance ranges of the plurality of detection targets
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. (US 4,580,443; hereinafter “Marshall”). Marshall teaches:
1. A substance detection system, comprising (See figs. 1, 4, 2, reproduced below):
a substance sensor 1 (comprising a gas probe 1) to detect a substance (e.g., Helium serving as a signal/test gas; Col. 2, line 3: “helium”) emitted from a detection target 3 (which may be an enclosure 3 containing the signal gas at a pressure slightly in excess of ambient; Col. 1, lines 63 – Col. 2, lines 8);
a distance sensor (4) to detect a distance (e.g., a height) between the detection target (3) and the substance sensor 1 (Col. 2, lines 9-36); and
a determiner (processor) to determine whether or not distance (height) detected by the distance sensor (4) falls within a range (e.g., 2-25mm; Col. 1, line 65; Col. 2, line 15-16) where a detection result by the substance sensor (1) is determined to be valid (as the system corrects the detection result to take account of the distance/height of the substance sensor 1 from the detection target 3 within the range 2-25mm; Abstract; Col. 1, lines 18-24; Col. 2, lines 9-36; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
466
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7. The substance detection system according to claim 1, comprising:
a detection result storage (= memory; Col. 1, lines 29-35) to store a detection result by the substance sensor (1) and a detection result by the distance sensor (4) in association with each other (as is evident from at least fig. 2).
8. A substance detection system, comprising:
a substance sensor (comprising a gas probe 1) to detect a substance (e.g., Helium serving as a signal/test gas; Col. 2, line 311) emitted from a detection target 3 (which may be an enclosure 3 containing the signal gas at a pressure slightly in excess of ambient; Col. 1, lines 63 – Col. 2, lines 8);
a distance sensor (4) to detect a distance (e.g., a height) between the detection target (3) and the substance sensor (1); and
a first corrector (processor) to correct a detection result by the substance sensor (1), based on a detection result by the distance sensor 4 (so as to take account of the distance/height of the substance sensor 1 from the detection target 3; Abstract; Col. 1, lines 18-24; Col. 2, lines 9-36; Fig. 2).
10. The substance detection system according to claim 1, wherein the substance sensor and the distance sensor are integrated with each other (as is evident from at least fig. 4).
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (US 4,749,553; hereinafter “Lopez”). Lopez teaches:
8. A substance detection system (10), comprising (See figs. 1, 2, reproduced below):
a substance sensor (comprising a gas inlet port 18) to detect a substance (e.g., Alcohol) emitted from a detection target (which may be a mouth of a person exhaling breath/gas containing the alcohol; Abstract; Col. 2, lines 22-55);
a distance sensor (26) to detect a distance between the detection target and the substance sensor (18); and
a first corrector (= processor 36) to correct a detection result by the substance sensor (18), based on a detection result by the distance sensor 26 (so as to take account of the distance of the substance sensor 18 from the detection target; Abstract; Col. 2, lines 22-55; Col. 11, lines 38-50; Lopez claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
415
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1207
943
media_image4.png
Greyscale
16. The substance detection system according to claim 8, comprising:
an environment sensor (which may be a temperature sensor 32, and/or a pressure sensor 28; Fig. 2) to detect information about an ambient environment (e.g., a temperature, pressure); and
a second corrector (which may be integrated with the processor 36) to correct a detection result by the substance sensor (18), based on a detection result by the environment sensor (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 22-55; Col. 11, line 38 – Col. 12, line 3; Lopez claim 1).
17. The substance detection system according to claim 16, wherein the substance sensor (18), the distance sensor (26), and the environment sensor (32, 28) are integrated with one another (as is evident from at least figs. 1, 2).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall.
Marshall teaches the substance detection system according to claim 1, wherein a range storage (= a memory) stores the distance/height range with respect to the detection target 3 (Fig. 2, reproduced again below; Col. 1, lines 29-35)
PNG
media_image2.png
466
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Marshall is silent about: the range storage (memory) stores the range with respect to the detection target (3) among distance ranges of a plurality of detection targets, wherein the determiner determines whether or not distance detected by the distance sensor (1) falls within the range with respect to the detection target (3) by reading the distance ranges of the plurality of detection targets from the range storage.
However, it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation is an obvious variation of a known structure, thus uninventive and unpatentable. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As for the present case, it appears that one can perform routine experimentation to determine a suitable distance/height range with respect to any particular detection target, and have the range storage (memory) store such a suitable distance/height range to be used for detecting a substance emitted from the particular detection target (as illustrated in Marshall fig. 2 for example). The memory thus may store a plurality of suitable distance/height ranges with respect to a plurality of detection targets to be used for detecting a substance emitted from any detection target among the plurality of detection targets, including but not just the detection target (3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to perform routine experimentation to determine a suitable distance/height range with respect to any particular detection target, and have the range storage (memory) store such a suitable distance/height range to be used for detecting a substance emitted from the particular detection target. The memory thus may store a plurality of suitable distance/height ranges with respect to a plurality of detection targets to be used for detecting a substance emitted from any detection target among the plurality of detection targets, including but not just the detection target (3). In other words, the range storage (memory) may store the range with respect to the detection target (3) among distance ranges of a plurality of detection targets, wherein the determiner determines whether or not distance detected by the distance sensor (1) falls within the range with respect to the detection target (3) by reading the distance ranges of the plurality of detection targets from the range storage, so as to detect the substance emitted from the detection target 3 (as claimed).
Claims 2-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Bley (US 2008/0000288 A1).
2. Marshall teaches the substance detection system according to claim 1, but is silent about: the system comprising a notifier to notify that the substance sensor (1) can accurately detect the substance when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls within the range (2-25mm).
Bley teaches a substance detection system, comprising (See figs. 1, 2, reproduced below):
a substance sensor (comprising a gas probe 12) to detect a substance (e.g., Helium serving as a signal/test gas) emitted from a detection target 41 (which may be an enclosure 41 containing the signal gas; Par. 0002);
a distance sensor (being an optical distance detector 40) to detect a distance (a) between the detection target (41) and the substance sensor 12 (Par. 0022); and
a determiner (= a control device; Par. 0019) to determine whether or not distance (a) detected by the distance sensor (40) falls within a range (Par. 0024) where the substance sensor (12) can initiate a measurement/detection, thereby avoiding measurement/detection errors due to wrong positioning of the substance sensor 12 (Abstract; Pars. 0007, 0024),
wherein, as soon as the range is reached, measurement/detection is enabled either automatically by the system itself, or manually by a user pressing a key switch 32, to start accurately detecting the substance (Fig. 1; Par. 0024: “When the sniffer tip 12 approaches a test object 41, the measurement is enabled as soon as a certain distance a or a distance range is reached. Either the measurement is now started automatically, or the user starts it by pressing the key switch 32.” Clearly, the substance sensor (1/12) starts detecting when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls within the range).
Inherently, the system must comprise a notifier to notify that the substance sensor (12) can accurately detect the substance when the determiner determines that distance (a) detected by the distance sensor (40) falls within the range (The notification may be in a form of an electronic signal within the system itself to enable the system to automatically start accurately detecting the substance, and/or a signal that can be physically detected by the user to prompt the user to press the key switch 32 to manually start accurately detecting the substance).
PNG
media_image5.png
578
786
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Bley teaching to Marshall system by provide the system with a notifier to notify that the substance sensor (1) can accurately detect the substance when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls within the range (2-25mm), so as to automatically or manually start accurately detecting the substance (The substance sensor 1 would not be able to correctly detect the substance when the substance sensor 1 is not within the range 2-25mm, since the substance sensor 1 would not be able to correct the detection result. See discussion above in claim 1, 102 rejections).
3. Marshall as modified teaches the substance detection system according to claim 2, wherein the notifier notifies that the substance sensor (1/12) cannot accurately detect the substance when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls outside the range (2-25mm), so as to avoid obtaining an inaccurate measurement (as is obvious from the discussion above in claim 2).
4. Marshall as modified teaches the substance detection system according to claim 1, comprising a controller controlling the substance sensor (1/12) to start detecting when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls within the range 2-25mm (as discussed above in claim 2).
5. Marshall as modified teaches the substance detection system according to claim 4, wherein the controller controls the substance sensor (1/12) to suspend detection when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls outside the range (2-25mm); simply because the user may release (or not pressing) the key switch (32), for example, thereby suspending detection when the determiner determines that distance detected by the distance sensor falls outside the range (2-25mm) thus may not notify that the substance sensor (1/12) can accurately detect the substance.
11. Marshall teaches the substance detection system according to claim 10, but is silent about: the system comprising a main body; and an adapter attachable and detachable to and from the main body, wherein the substance sensor (1) and the distance sensor (4) are installed in the adapter.
Bley teaches a substance detection system comprising a main body; and an adapter
PNG
media_image6.png
299
786
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to apply Bley teaching to Marshall system by providing the system with a main body; and an adapter
Marshall as modified silent about: the adapter being attachable and detachable to and from the main body.
However, it has been held that making a known structure to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Wolf, 251 F.2d 854, 855, 116 USPQ 443, 444 (CCPA 1958). As for the present case, it appears that the adapter and the body may be made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system. In essence, because the adapter and the body may be made to be multiple parts, the adapter may also be made attachable and detachable to and from the main body.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to have the adapter and the body made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system, for ease of manufacturing process for example. In essence, because the adapter and the body may be made to be multiple parts, the adapter may also be made attachable and detachable to and from the main body (as claimed).
12. Marshall teaches the substance detection system according to claim 10, but is silent about: wherein the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) are separable from each other.
However, as discussed above, it has been held that making a known structure to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. As for the present case, it appears that the adapter and the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) may be made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system. In essence, because the adapter and the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) may be made to be multiple parts, the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) may be made separable from each other.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to have the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system, for ease of manufacturing process for example. In essence, because the adapter and the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) may be made to be multiple parts, the substance sensor (1/12) and the distance sensor (4/40) may also be made separable from each other (as claimed).
Claims 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lopez.
9. Marshall teaches the substance detection system according to claim 1, but is silent about:
an environment sensor to detect information about an ambient environment; and
a second corrector to correct a detection result by the substance sensor (1), based on a detection result by the environment sensor.
Lopez teaches substance detection system comprising an environment sensor (which may be a temperature sensor 32, and/or a pressure sensor 28; Fig. 2) to detect information (e.g., a temperature, pressure) about an ambient environment; and
a second corrector (= processor 36) to correct a detection result by a substance sensor 18 (Fig. 1), based on a detection result by the environment sensor, so as to compensate for variations in the detection result due to variations in the ambient environment (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 22-55; Col. 11, line 38 – Col. 12, line 3; Lopez claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Lopez teaching to Marshall system by providing the system with an environment sensor to detect information about an ambient environment; and a second corrector to correct a detection result by the substance sensor (1), based on a detection result by the environment sensor, so as to compensate for variations in the detection result due to variations in the ambient environment (best of all when the detected distance between the detection target 3 and the substance sensor 1 is large such as 25mm for example).
13. Marshall as modified teaches the substance detection system according to claim 9, wherein the substance sensor (1/18), the distance sensor (4/26), and the environment sensor (32, 28) are integrated with one another (as is evident from at least Lopez figs. 1, 2).
15. Marshall as modified teaches the substance detection system according to claim 13, but is silent about: wherein at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor are separable from each other.
However, as discussed above, it has been held that making a known structure to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. As for the present case, it appears that at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor may be made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system. In essence, because the at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor may be made to be multiple parts, the at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor may also be made separable from each other.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to have at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system, for ease of manufacturing process for example. In essence, because the at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor may be made to be multiple parts, the at least two of the substance sensor, the distance sensor, or the environment sensor may also be made separable from each other (as claimed).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lopez as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bley.
Marshall as modified teaches the substance detection system according to claim 13, comprising:
a main body 12 (Lopez fig. 1); and
Marshall as modified is silent about: an adapter attachable and detachable to and from the main body (12), wherein the substance sensor (1/18), the distance sensor (4/26), and the environment sensor (32, 28) are installed in the adapter.
Bley teaches a substance detection system comprising a main body; and an adapter
PNG
media_image6.png
299
786
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to apply Bley teaching to Marshall system by providing the system with a main body; and an adapter
Marshall as modified silent about: the adapter being attachable and detachable to and from the main body.
However, as discussed above, it has been held that making a known structure to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. As for the present case, it appears that the adapter and the body may be made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system. In essence, because the adapter and the body may be made to be multiple parts, the adapter may also be made attachable and detachable to and from the main body.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to have the adapter and the body made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system, for ease of manufacturing process for example. In essence, because the adapter and the body may be made to be multiple parts, the adapter may also be made attachable and detachable to and from the main body (as claimed).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of Bley.
Lopez teaches the substance detection system according to claim 17, comprising (See figs. 1, 2):
a main body (12); and
Lopez is silent about: an adapter attachable and detachable to and from the main body, wherein the substance sensor (18), the distance sensor (26), and the environment sensor (32, 28) are installed in the adapter (as recited in claim 18), and wherein at least two of the substance sensor (18), the distance sensor (26), or the environment sensor (3, 28) are separable from each other (as recited in claim 19).
Bley teaches a substance detection system comprising a main body; and an adapter
PNG
media_image6.png
299
786
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to apply Bley teaching to Lopez system by providing the system with a main body; and an adapter environment sensor (32, 28) installed in the adapter as well, so as to enable accurate detection of information about the ambient environment between the substance sensor (18) and the detection target.
Marshall as modified silent about: the adapter being attachable and detachable to and from the main body.
However, as discussed above, it has been held that making a known structure to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. As for the present case, it appears that the adapter and the body may be made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system. In essence, because the adapter and the body may be made to be multiple parts, the adapter may also be made attachable and detachable to and from the main body.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the present application to have the adapter and the body made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, without affect any function of the system, for ease of manufacturing process for example. In essence, because the adapter and the body may be made to be multiple parts, the adapter may also be made attachable and detachable to and from the main body (as claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 February 2, 2026