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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claimed, “the detected concentration” (lines 10 and 11) should be amended to recite, –the determined concentration– to correct the improper antecedent basis issues.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed, “hydrogren” should be amended to recite, –hydrogen–.
Regarding claim 9, the claim should be amended to end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 9, and 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" (“e.g.”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1–15, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuzelka (US Pub. # 20210146076).
Regarding claim 1, Kuzelka teaches, “A system for detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in a medical facility (para. [0015, 0016]), the system comprising: at least one VOC sensor configured to sense VOCs in ambient air of the medical facility (para. [0015, 0016]); and a controller electrically connected to the at least one VOC sensor (para. [0029]; ref. # 140) configured to: receive and process signals from the at least one VOC sensor (para. [0029]); determine a concentration of at least one VOC in ambient air proximate to the at least one VOC sensor based on the received and processed signals (para. [0025, 0029]); compare the determined concentration of the at least one VOC to a threshold value to determine when the detected concentration exceeds the threshold value (para. [0016, 0072]); and provide an alarm when the detected concentration of the at least one VOC exceeds the threshold value (para. [0016, 0072]).”
Regarding claim 2, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the medical facility comprises at least one of a hospital, operating room, recovery room, intensive care unit, out-patient medical office, dental office, ambulance, or veterinary clinic (para. [0015]).”
Regarding claim 3, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the at least one VOC sensed by the at least one VOC sensor comprises a halogenated hydrocarbon (para. [0035]).”
Regarding claim 4, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the at least one VOC sensed by the at least one VOC sensor comprises at least one of sevoflurane, enflurane, desflurane, halothane, isoflurane, nitrous oxide, indole, methanol, undecene, ethylacetate, 2,4-dimethyl-1-heptane, butanone, benzaldehyde, dimethylcyclohexanol, isovaleric acid, 2-pentanol, methylquinazoline, or methyl butyraldehyde (para. [0020]).”
Regarding claim 5, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the at least one VOC sensed by the at least one VOC sensor is a sterilization gas, such as ethylene oxide (EtO) or hydrogren peroxide (para. [0020]).”
Regarding claim 6, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the at least one VOC sensed by the at least one VOC sensor comprises VOCs emitted from hazardous drugs to be delivered to a patient, such as chemotherapy drugs (para. [0034]).”
Regarding claim 7, Kuzelka teaches, “a housing, wherein the at least one VOC sensor and the controller are enclosed within and/or mounted to the housing (para. [0019, 0029]; one or more VOC sensors and controller 140 enclosed within frame 102).”
Regarding claim 8, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the housing comprises a clip for mounting the housing to at least one of a patient bed, surgical curtain or drape, medical cart or stand, medical device (e.g., anesthesia gas equipment), an anesthesia waste gas scavenger, pharmaceutical workstation, ventilated hood, or pharmaceutical storage area (para. [0019, 0020]; frame 102 includes lock (clip) mounting the frame to anesthesia gas equipment).”
Regarding claim 9, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the housing is a wearable housing or is configured to be mounted to a portable electronic device, such as a smart phone or computer tablet (para. [0089])”
Regarding claim 10, Kuzelka teaches, “an audio/visual feedback device electrically connected to the controller (para. [0035, 0049]), wherein the controller is configured to cause the feedback device to emit the alarm to a user (para. [0049]).”
Regarding claim 11, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the audio/visual feedback device comprises at least one of a speaker, visual display, or light emitter (para. [0049]).”
Regarding claim 12, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the controller is further configured to cause the audio/visual feedback device to display an indication of the concentration of the at least one VOC on a visual display of the audio/visual feedback device (para. [0025, 0049]).”
Regarding claim 13, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the indication comprises a numerical value for the determined concentration displayed on the visual display (para. [0025, 0049, 0072]).”
Regarding claim 14, Kuzelka teaches, “a wireless transmitter electrically coupled to the controller (para. [0028]), wherein the controller is configured to cause the wireless transmitter to transmit the alarm and/or information sensed by the at least one VOC sensor to a remote device, system, or computer network (para. [0028]).”
Regarding claim 15, Kuzelka teaches, “wherein the at least one VOC sensor comprises at least one of a metal oxide-based sensor, a sensor comprising graphene or a graphene derivative, or an infrared detector (para. [0048]).”
Regarding claim 18, Kuzelka teaches, “a humidity and/or temperature sensor (para. [0049]), and wherein processing the signals from the at least one VOC sensor comprises normalizing the received signals for at least one of humidity or temperature based at least in part in information sensed by the humidity and/or temperature sensor (para. [0049, 0087]; controller inputting the operating conditions such as an internal temperature of the anesthetic vaporizer thus based on processing the signals from the one or more VOC sensors includes normalizing the received signals for at least one temperature based at least in part on information sensed by the temperature sensor).”
Regarding claim 22, Kuzelka teaches, “an anesthesia machine (100), wherein the at least one VOC sensor is positioned to detect ambient air proximate to an exhalation portion of the anesthesia machine (para. [0019, 0022]; the one or more VOC sensor is positioned to detect surrounding environment proximate to an expiratory port 120 of the anesthesia machine 100), wherein the anesthesia machine comprises: at least one gas cylinder (para. [0021]; 148), at least one gas pressure and/or flow regulator (para. [0021]; “oxygen flow control”), a vaporizer (para. [0020]; 114), a delivery/breathing circuit (para. [0020]; 112), at least one of a pressure sensor, airflow sensor, temperature sensor, oxygen sensor, or CO2 sensor fluidly connected to the delivery / breathing circuit for monitoring air inhaled or exhaled by a patient (para. [0022]), a scavenging system (para. [0021]; 132), and a face mask (para. [0026]).”
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.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzelka (US Pub. # 20210146076) in view of Melker et al. (WO 2004/066839 A1), hereinafter referred to as Melker.
Regarding claim 17, Kuzelka does not appear to teach, “wherein the at least one VOC sensor comprises a biosensor configured to detect peptide molecules based on optical properties of the molecules.” However, Melker teaches the deficiencies of Kuzelka (para. [0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuzelka’s invention to include wherein the at least one VOC sensor comprises a biosensor configured to detect peptide molecules based on optical properties of the molecules.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kuzelka’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring a sensor is provided which has been shown to increase sensitivity and specificity (see para. [0043] of Melker).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzelka (US Pub. # 20210146076) in view of Liu et al. (CN 208049687 U), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 20, Kuzelka does not appear to teach, “wherein processing the received signals comprises distinguishing between signals representative of the at least one VOC and signals representative of cleaning chemicals (such as isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, or bleach) used during medical procedures. However, Liu teaches the deficiencies of Kuzelka (see para. [0007,0018, 0031, 0048]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuzelka’s invention to include wherein processing the received signals comprises distinguishing between signals representative of the at least one VOC and signals representative of cleaning chemicals (such as isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, or bleach) used during medical procedures.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kuzelka’s invention for at least the purpose of providing an applicable organic exhaust gas concentration range with a wide integrated operation cost that is relatively low, with a process that safely cleans equipment for waste organic gas (see para. [0002–0004] of Liu).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzelka (US Pub. # 20210146076) in view of Stark et al. (US Pub. # 20210220602), hereinafter referred to as Stark.
Regarding claim 24, Kuzelka does not appear to teach, “wherein the controller is further configured to compare the determined concentration of the at least one VOC to a normal value for the patient prior to commencing anesthesia treatment; and provide an indication that the patient's breathing has returned to normal when the concentration is below or within a predetermined amount of the normal value for the patient.” However, Stark teaches the deficiencies of Kuzelka (see para. [0019–0021]; determining a difference between a first parameter to a second parameter relateing to the fresh gas fed as breathing gas, e.g., the ratio of oxygen to laughing gas which relates to a normal value for the patient prior to the anesthesia treatment; providing information (indication) that the breathing gas is at the first parameter when the ratio is within a predetermined amount of the first parameter of the patient). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuzelka’s invention to include wherein the controller is further configured to compare the determined concentration of the at least one VOC to a normal value for the patient prior to commencing anesthesia treatment; and provide an indication that the patient's breathing has returned to normal when the concentration is below or within a predetermined amount of the normal value for the patient.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kuzelka’s invention for at least the purpose of providing calibration information which relates to the patient’s breathing concentrations during anesthesia.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach systems and methods for detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights