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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
In a preliminary amendment filed April 20, 2025, claims 1-20 and 22-27 are cancelled, claim 21 is amended, claims 28-34 are new and claims 21 and 28-34 are pending.
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(s) is/are: “identifying device” and “evaluating device” in claims 31-34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and recites the same limitations as claim 29 verbatim. The limitations of claim 30 neither alter nor add any new elements to the scope of claim 29. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 is a method that recites calculating a specific elapsed time until the number of fine particles decreases to a predetermined number based on a relationship between the elapsed time from the end of the releasing step and the number of fine particles measured at each elapsed time, and identifying a reduction capacity to reduce a plurality of fine particles in the space from the specific elapsed time; and an evaluation step of evaluating that there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space.
In the context of the claims, the steps of calculating and evaluating encompasses mathematical calculations and relations to perform the steps and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim elements of a release step of releasing a plurality of fine particles into a space having a predetermined volume; an identifying a step of measuring a number of fine particles of the plurality of fine particles in the space a plurality of times after the releasing step. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality, without adding any specificity or meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, such that they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. As such, the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As disclosed above, the additional claim elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the prior art, e.g. to Huan et al. pg. 4-7, establishes that releasing a plurality of fine particles and measuring a number of fine particles are part of what is known in the art by one of ordinary skill. Thus, these claim elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 28-30 depend from claim 21 and recite the same abstract idea as claim 21. The additional claim elements of evaluating recited in claim 28 encompasses mathematical calculations and relations to perform the steps and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The claim limitations extend the recited abstract idea. The additional claim elements recited in claims 29-30 do not add any meaningful limits to how the fine particles are released or measured, thus they are part of the extra-solution activity. Additionally, the prior art, e.g. to Huan et al. pg. 4-7, establishes that releasing a plurality of fine particles and measuring a number of fine particles are part of what is known in the art by one of ordinary skill. Thus, these claim elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 31 is a method that recites (2) deriving a specific elapsed time until the number of the plurality of fine particles decreases to a predetermined number from the relationship between the elapsed time from the end of the release of the plurality of fine particles and the measured number of the plurality of fine particles; and(3) identifying the reduction capacity of the plurality of fine particles in the space from the specific elapsed time; and an evaluating device evaluating that there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than a standard reduction capacity required for the space.
In the context of the claims, the steps of deriving and evaluating encompasses mathematical calculations and relations to perform the steps and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. In the context of the claims, the step of identifying encompasses the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. Although the claim recites both a mental process and a mathematical concept, they are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 II.B. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim elements of an identifying device for (1) measuring the number of fine particles of a plurality of fine particles released into a space having a specified volume multiple times and an evaluating device. The additional limitation of measuring is recited at a high level of generality, without adding any specificity or meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, such that it amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. As such, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional claim elements of an identifying device and an evaluating device are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than generic components on a generic computer performing generic computer functions. The limitations are merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As disclosed above, the additional claim elements merely invoking a computer as a tool or are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g). Additionally, the prior art, e.g. to Huan et al. pg. 4-7, establishes that measuring the number of fine particles are part of what is known in the art by one of ordinary skill. Thus, these claim elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 32-34 depend from claim 31 and recite the same abstract idea as claim 31. The additional claim elements of evaluating recited in claim 32 encompasses the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The claim limitations extend the recited abstract idea. The additional claim elements recited in claims 33-34 do not add any meaningful limits to how the fine particles are released, thus they are part of the extra-solution activity. Additionally, the prior art, e.g. to Huan et al. pg. 4-7, establishes that releasing a plurality of fine particles is part of what is known in the art by one of ordinary skill. Thus, these claim elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 28 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somsen et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Measurement of small droplet aerosol concentrations in public spaces using handheld particle counters”.
Regarding claim 21, Somsen et al. teaches:
a release step of releasing a plurality of fine particles into a space having a predetermined volume (see “coughing leads to the generation of an amount of aerosol particles…”, p. 2 Validation ¶ 1; see “aerosols resulting from breathing, speaking, coughing and sneezing…generating a known quantity of artificial aerosols…”, p. 2-3 Application to Public Spaces; see Table 1 col. Of Aerosol origin);
an identifying step of measuring a number of fine particles of the plurality of fine particles in the space a plurality of times after the releasing step (see “handheld particle counter”, p. 1 Methods ¶ 1; see “aerosol concentrations can be measured”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 1; Table 1), calculating a specific elapsed time until the number of fine particles decreases to a predetermined number based on a relationship between the elapsed time from the end of the releasing step and the number of fine particles measured at each elapsed time (see “measured droplet concentration half-times…characteristic times for a 50% decrease in aerosol concentration…”, p. 3 Application to Public Spaces; see Table 1 col. 50% decrease; see “Using the half-times…we calculate that the decrease in the number of aerosol particles after these 6 min…”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 2), and identifying a reduction capacity to reduce a plurality of fine particles in the space from the specific elapsed time (see “103 microdroplets (corresponding to…100 RNA copies)”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 3; Table 1 col RNA copies/l); and
an evaluation step of evaluating that there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space (see “…translate our findings to a practical risk assessments…”, p 3 Discussion ¶ 2; Table 1 col Covid-19 infection risk).
Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it does not teach there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space, however, Somsen et al. teaches there is no aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space (see “less than 103 microdroplets (corresponding to less than 100 RNA copies) imposes a low risk…”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 3; Table 1 col Covid-19 infection risk). That is, Somsen et al. teaches implementing a comparison between a measurement and a threshold in order to implement risk assessment. The assignment of risk or no risk to either the lesser than or greater than the threshold is merely the reversal of parts or rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art. The Courts have held the merely the reversal of parts to be an obvious modification and rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. such that there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space with a reasonable expectation that selecting a threshold such that when the value is less than would facilitate risk assessment in scenarios where low values indicate hazardous situations. Such a modification would amount to no more than an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 28, Somsen et al. teaches the limitations as disclosed above. Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that does not teach wherein, in the evaluation step, evaluating that there is no aerosol infection risk in the space when the reduction capacity is equal to or higher than the standard reduction capacity. However, Somsen et al. teaches wherein, in the evaluation step, evaluating that there is aerosol infection risk in the space when the reduction capacity is equal to or higher than the standard reduction capacity (see “…more than 105 microdroplets…imposes a high risk of transmission”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 3; Table 1 col Covid-19 infection risk). That is, Somsen et al. teaches implementing a comparison between a measurement and a threshold in order to implement risk assessment. The assignment of risk or no risk to either the lesser than or greater than the threshold is merely the reversal of parts or rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art. The Courts have held the merely the reversal of parts to be an obvious modification and rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. such that there is no an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is equal to or higher than the standard reduction capacity required for the space with a reasonable expectation that selecting a threshold such that when the value is less than would facilitate risk assessment in scenarios where low values indicate hazardous situations. Such a modification would amount to no more than an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 31, Somsen et al. teaches:
an identifying device (see “handheld particle counter”, p. 1 Introduction) for
(1) measuring the number of fine particles of a plurality of fine particles released into a space having a specified volume multiple times (see “handheld particle counter”, p. 1 Methods ¶ 1; see “aerosol concentrations can be measured”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 1; Table 1);
(2) deriving a specific elapsed time until the number of the plurality of fine particles decreases to a predetermined number from the relationship between the elapsed time from the end of the release of the plurality of fine particles and the measured number of the plurality of fine particles (see “measured droplet concentration half-times…characteristic times for a 50% decrease in aerosol concentration…”, p. 3 Application to Public Spaces; see Table 1 col. 50% decrease; see “Using the half-times…we calculate that the decrease in the number of aerosol particles after these 6 min…”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 2); and
(3) identifying the reduction capacity of the plurality of fine particles in the space from the specific elapsed time (see “103 microdroplets (corresponding to…100 RNA copies)”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 3; Table 1 col RNA copies/l); and
an evaluating device (see “handheld particle counter”, p. 1 Introduction) evaluating that there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space (see “…translate our findings to a practical risk assessments…”, p 3 Discussion ¶ 2; Table 1 col Covid-19 infection risk).
Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it does not teach there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space, however, Somsen et al. teaches there is no aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space (see “less than 103 microdroplets (corresponding to less than 100 RNA copies) imposes a low risk…”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 3; Table 1 col Covid-19 infection risk). That is, Somsen et al. teaches implementing a comparison between a measurement and a threshold in order to implement risk assessment. The assignment of risk or no risk to either the lesser than or greater than the threshold is merely the reversal of parts or rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art. The Courts have held the merely the reversal of parts to be an obvious modification and rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. such that there is an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is less than the standard reduction capacity required for the space with a reasonable expectation that selecting a threshold such that when the value is less than would facilitate risk assessment in scenarios where low values indicate hazardous situations. Such a modification would amount to no more than an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 32, Somsen et al. teaches the limitations as disclosed above. Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that does not teach wherein, in the evaluation step, evaluating that there is no aerosol infection risk in the space when the reduction capacity is equal to or higher than the standard reduction capacity. However, Somsen et al. teaches wherein, in the evaluation step, evaluating that there is aerosol infection risk in the space when the reduction capacity is equal to or higher than the standard reduction capacity (see “…more than 105 microdroplets…imposes a high risk of transmission”, p. 3 Discussion ¶ 3; Table 1 col Covid-19 infection risk). That is, Somsen et al. teaches implementing a comparison between a measurement and a threshold in order to implement risk assessment. The assignment of risk or no risk to either the lesser than or greater than the threshold is merely the reversal of parts or rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art. The Courts have held the merely the reversal of parts to be an obvious modification and rearrangement of parts disclosed in the prior art to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. such that there is no an aerosol infection risk or a dust damage risk in the space when the reduction capacity is equal to or higher than the standard reduction capacity required for the space with a reasonable expectation that selecting a threshold such that when the value is less than would facilitate risk assessment in scenarios where low values indicate hazardous situations. Such a modification would amount to no more than an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 29-30 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somsen et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Measurement of small droplet aerosol concentrations in public spaces using handheld particle counters” as applied to claims 21 and 31-32 above, and further in view of Lichtenstein et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Upper Respiratory Tract and Its Relation to Breath Volatile Organic Compounds”.
Regarding claim 29, Somsen et al. teaches the limitations as disclosed above. Further, Somsen et al. teaches measuring aerosol concentration (p. 1 Methods). Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it does not teach wherein the plurality of fine particles released in the release step contains polyhydric alcohol or is composed of a volatile organic compound.
Lichtenstein et al. teaches “Among the many products of metabolic processes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In the airways, these volatile metabolites are emitted through breathing and thus are easily sampled for analysis. Recent work has connected the functions and structure of the human microbiome with health and disease. Alteration in microbial function in this context can result in differences in metabolite composition, including that of VOCs, presenting the possibility of a new noninvasive method for clinical diagnosis. Screening methods that assess VOCs arising from changes in the airway microbiome could be highly useful in diagnosing viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), e.g., COVID-19, which are highly contagious and have an enormous public health impact worldwide.” (Abstract volatile organic compound) and “Breath analysis focuses on the detection and, when possible, identification of vola tile compounds in the air emitted in the human breath. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been shown to be useful as biomarkers for the identification of various conditions and diseases” (p. 1, fine particles released in the breath containing volatile organic compound; see also p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. to include measurement of fine particles composed of volatile organic compounds as taught in Lichtenstein et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would facilitate the identification of hazardous situation thereby improving the function of risk assessment.
Regarding claim 30, Somsen et al. and Lichtenstein et al. teach the limitations as disclosed above. Further, Lichtenstein et al. teaches “Among the many products of metabolic processes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In the airways, these volatile metabolites are emitted through breathing and thus are easily sampled for analysis. Recent work has connected the functions and structure of the human microbiome with health and disease. Alteration in microbial function in this context can result in differences in metabolite composition, including that of VOCs, presenting the possibility of a new noninvasive method for clinical diagnosis. Screening methods that assess VOCs arising from changes in the airway microbiome could be highly useful in diagnosing viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), e.g., COVID-19, which are highly contagious and have an enormous public health impact worldwide.” (Abstract volatile organic compound) and “Breath analysis focuses on the detection and, when possible, identification of vola tile compounds in the air emitted in the human breath. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been shown to be useful as biomarkers for the identification of various conditions and diseases” (p. 1, fine particles released in the breath containing volatile organic compound; see also p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. and Lichtenstein et al. to include measurement of fine particles composed of volatile organic compounds as taught in Lichtenstein et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would facilitate the identification of hazardous situation thereby improving the function of risk assessment.
Regarding claim 33, Somsen et al. teaches the limitations as disclosed above. Further, Somsen et al. teaches measuring aerosol concentration (p. 1 Methods). Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it does not teach wherein the plurality of fine particles released in the release step contains polyhydric alcohol or is composed of a volatile organic compound.
Lichtenstein et al. teaches “Among the many products of metabolic processes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In the airways, these volatile metabolites are emitted through breathing and thus are easily sampled for analysis. Recent work has connected the functions and structure of the human microbiome with health and disease. Alteration in microbial function in this context can result in differences in metabolite composition, including that of VOCs, presenting the possibility of a new noninvasive method for clinical diagnosis. Screening methods that assess VOCs arising from changes in the airway microbiome could be highly useful in diagnosing viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), e.g., COVID-19, which are highly contagious and have an enormous public health impact worldwide.” (Abstract volatile organic compound) and “Breath analysis focuses on the detection and, when possible, identification of vola tile compounds in the air emitted in the human breath. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been shown to be useful as biomarkers for the identification of various conditions and diseases” (p. 1, fine particles released in the breath containing volatile organic compound; see also p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. to include measurement of fine particles composed of volatile organic compounds as taught in Lichtenstein et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would facilitate the identification of hazardous situation thereby improving the function of risk assessment.
Regarding claim 34, Somsen et al. teaches the limitations as disclosed above. Further, Somsen et al. teaches measuring aerosol concentration (p. 1 Methods). Somsen et al. differs from the claimed invention in that it does not teach wherein the plurality of fine particles released in the release step contains polyhydric alcohol or is composed of a volatile organic compound.
Lichtenstein et al. teaches “Among the many products of metabolic processes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In the airways, these volatile metabolites are emitted through breathing and thus are easily sampled for analysis. Recent work has connected the functions and structure of the human microbiome with health and disease. Alteration in microbial function in this context can result in differences in metabolite composition, including that of VOCs, presenting the possibility of a new noninvasive method for clinical diagnosis. Screening methods that assess VOCs arising from changes in the airway microbiome could be highly useful in diagnosing viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), e.g., COVID-19, which are highly contagious and have an enormous public health impact worldwide.” (Abstract volatile organic compound) and “Breath analysis focuses on the detection and, when possible, identification of vola tile compounds in the air emitted in the human breath. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been shown to be useful as biomarkers for the identification of various conditions and diseases” (p. 1, fine particles released in the breath containing volatile organic compound; see also p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Somsen et al. to include measurement of fine particles composed of volatile organic compounds as taught in Lichtenstein et al. with a reasonable expectation that it would facilitate the identification of hazardous situation thereby improving the function of risk assessment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huan et al. in NPL “Experimental Study on Ultrafine Particle Removal Performance of Portable Air Cleaners with Different Filters in an Office Room” teaches “Size- and time-dependent aerodynamic behaviors of indoor particles, including PM1.0, were evaluated in a school office in order to test the performance of air-cleaning devices using different filters” (Abstract).
Duill et al. in NPL “The Impact of Large Mobile Air Purifiers on Aerosol Concentration in Classrooms and the Reduction of Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2” teaches “Here, the aerosol concentration is reduced by natural ventilation. In this context, we are investigating the effect of large mobile air purifiers (AP) with HEPA filters on particle concentration and their suitability for classroom use in a primary school in Germany. The three tested APs differ significantly in their air outlet characteristics. Measurements of the number of particles, the particle size distribution, and the CO2 concentration were carried out in the classroom with students (April/May 2021) and with an aerosol generator without students. In this regard, the use of APs leads to a substantial reduction of aerosol particles in the considered particle size range of 0.178–17.78 _m.” (Abstract).
Miller et al. in NPL “Ultrafine and Fine Particulate Matter Inside and Outside of Mechanically Ventilated Buildings” teaches “measure levels of particulate matter (PM) in mechanically ventilated buildings and to improve understanding of filtration requirements to reduce exposure. With the use of an Ultra High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer and an Aerodyne Mass Spectrometer, ultrafine (0.055–0.1 _m) and fine (0.1–0.7 _m) indoor and outdoor PM was measured as a function of time in an office, a university building, and two elementary schools. Indoor particle levels were highly correlated with outdoor levels.” (Abstract).
Hendriks et al. in Foreign Patent Document CN 111067525A Machine Translation teaches “method and system for determining the amount of air contamination risk of the object. to calculate the level by the dose of air pollutant received by the object within a predetermined time period and obtains history information about the historical dosage of air pollutants. Then, the usage and history information to calculate the level, thereby the level associated with the accumulated deposition part of respiratory air pollutants in a subject” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISCHITA HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/MI'SCHITA' HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights