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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 1, the sensors are metal oxide sensitive; yet the apparatus refers to detecting with spectrographic profile. Three is no description of any connection between metal oxide sensors and spectrometry in any manner. There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 2, the claim calls for “active” and “passive” measurements, but does not provide for any way to distinguish one measurement from the other. As such, how may one of ordinary skill recognize if any 2 measurements include one that’s active and another that is passive among sensors 11-13? The claim calls for a distinction that is not defined. There are no examples. No manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 2, the distinction between “active and passive” sensors 11-13, with that of sensor 10 is unclear because Par 83 (Pub) states that sensors 11-13 are “active and passive” “instead” (line 2 from last, Para 83 of Publication) of whatever sensor 10 might be in reference channel. As such, what is sensor 10 if it is neither active nor passive? There are no examples. No manner of experimentation is apparent? The term “instead” (line from last, Para 38 of Pub) is triggering this issue.
As to claim 7, what might “the goal” (step H) be? There are no examples, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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.
As to claim 1, what does "MEMS" dimensionally limit any structure to, if any? Consider that different publications/patents provide different dimensional ranges for (different) structural elements in "MEMS" for their particular publications/patents, but no such description (i.e., range and identified structural component) is provided in the instant application. What structural and dimensional limitation(s) would one of ordinary skill attach to any particular claimed structure to account for "MEMS"? The term "MEMS" resides in claim 1, but the meaning of such is undefined. Consider, that different patents/publications provide different ranges for the same term micromechanical/MEMS. (For examples, note that Pat Pub 2009/0108193 relates (Para 43) micromechanical/MEMS structures to a range of 0.1 um - Imm, Pat Pub 2006/0261032 relates (Para 40) micromechanical/MEMS structures in the range of 0.01 microns to a few millimeters", Pat 6,679,055 relates (lines 39-43, col. 1) micromechanical/MEMS to 0.1 micron to 1000 microns" and Pat Pub 2014/0264900 GMBh relates (Para 3) micromechanical/MEMS to components of 1 - 100 micrometers (0.001 to 0.1 mm), all collectively providing for different distinct ranges. None of those ranges corresponds to Applicant’s “MEMS”, and there is so suggestion providing such. How is the public to recognize what range Applicant's claimed limitation "MEMSl" might relate to? Different publications provide those different ranges. Understand, the difficulty here is in the lack of any dimensional meaning (range?) of the claimed term "MEMS in Applicant's specification, or even the lack of relating such range to a single particular structural component. What is Applicant's range? (Is there support for such?? Does Applicant have a dimension for 1 component? The prior art has different ranges for the same term, yet it appears the instant application provides none. The limitation “MEMS” is in the claim, and it MUST means something.
As to claim 1, “in particular” (lines 5, 13) is indefinite. Is such a limitation, or not?
As to claim 1, “preferably” (line 10) is indefinite. Is such a limitation, or not?
At to claim 1, “for instance” (line 11) is indefinite. Is the claim so limited, or not?
As to clam 1, “after undergoing the following calibration and stabilization process” (lines 17-18) adds a time element to this apparatus claim provides indefiniteness. How does any earlier calibration and stabilization provide for an additional structural limitation? Such does not seem to be found in lines 19-last.
As to claim 1, which of ALL of the items listed in lines 20 to last are one of the plurality of “families” (line 20)? Does “families” refer only to “(alcohols …compounds” (lines 20-22)?
As to claim 1, is each of the list of items within “(alcohols …nitrogen organic compounds)” (lines 20-22) a separate/individual family?
As to claim 1, how is “”detecting” (line 19) to be associated with “spectrographic profile grouped according to” (lines 19-20) families? Is the apparatus limited such at it can detect each and every item listed in lines 20-last, or in the alternative, is the apparatus limited such that the apparatus is limited to detect of the many families (whatever each of the families might be).
As to claim 1, “downstream” (line 9) is confusing. It would appear that the flow is from the top of the cartridge 100 down in Figure 1, suggestive that the filter 50 is upstream (not downstream) of membrane.
As to claim 2, the distinction between “active and passive” measurements of 11-13, and those of sensor 10 is unclear because Par 83 (Pub) states that the sensors 11-13 with “instead” be “active and passive” (Para 82). As such, what is sensor 10 if it is not either active or passive? Is there something in-between? There are no examples. No manner of experiment is apparent in this instance.
As to claim 3, “like for example” is indefinite. Is it, or is it not a limitation?
As to claim 3, “in the order of preference” (line 8) is confusing. Whose preference is involved. Is there an order, or not.
As to claim 3, “if available” is indefinite.
As to claim 3 “possible” (line 9) is indefinite.
As to claim 3, A, B and C (lines 8-10) is confusing because it’s not apparent how such correspond to untagged/unlabeled lines 11-last which may or may not be A, B and/or C.
As to claim 3, “the heater” (lines 12, 14) was never introduced. Should there be - - a heater - - in claim 1?
As to claim 3, “defined” (lines 14,20) are each indefinite. Is the claim somehow limited to the quoted passages following each term “defined”, or is it not? Is the apparatus somehow so configured?
As to claim 3, “the heater” (line 19) of B (?), which relates to “the heater” (line 12) of A (?) is confusing because there is a possibility (“possibly”, line 9) of “C” and B. which would exclude A’s “the heater”.
As to claim 4, the preamble calls for a device. However, lines 4-last are refer to steps It’s unclear how steps may narrow an apparatus claim? (After all, an apparatus claim is limited to combinations of structure and function, they include elements configured in some way or another; again, they are not limited to steps) This claim is confusingly combining actual steps with structure, result in this claim being neither apparatus nor method?
As to claim 4, the preamble calls for a device. However, lines 3-last are possibly entirely directed to an intended use, as “as managed” is not clearly suggestive of carrying out steps in a process. What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 5, the preamble calls for a device. However, the last 3 lines appear as a step. (Note: the introduction “are read” appears as a step; certainly, does not suggest a configuration of structure) Is one of ordinary skill to recognize such as a mere intended use? What is one of ordinary skill to make of this claim?
As to claim 5, it’s not clear was “a dedicated software” (italics added, line 6) might be. Note that no software was structurally introduced in this claim. Also, how does “dedicated” describe software.
As to claim 5, “convenience” (line 6) and “complexity” (line 7) are confusing as they lack any references.
As to claim 5, “the purpose” (line 8) is confusing as it does not define “identifying and distinguishing”, and does not suggest is identifying and actually takes place.
As to claim 5, ““the chemical signature”” was not introduced. Is claim 1 missing such, or is such somehow inherent in claim 1?
As to claim 5, what might the signature be distinguished (“distinguishing”, line 8) from, if anything?
As to claim 6, are the “microclimate chambers” the same as the chambers of claim 1? Are the same chambers twice claimed? How many chambers are in this claim?
As to claim 6, what defines “certified” cylinders/tanks?
As to claim 6, how many does “some” (line 7) include? Is “some” include one? Many steps A-Q have overlapping material, so how can “one” be correct? How is “one” a “sequence” (line 6)?
As to claim 6, what does “the first step” (line 14) relate back to? Is it step A, or does “combination of some” (italics added, line 7) mean it can by any of steps B-Q?
As to claim 6, how is “C)a. if” (line 15) a limitation in a method claim? The term “if” is inherently indefinite in a method step.
As to claim 6, “the procedure” (line 14) was not introduced. Is the procedure the “method” (line 1), resulting is an undeterminable number of otherwise “continued” (line 16) steps being meaningless? If so, what steps might be left, if any?
As to claim 6, “subsequent” (line 16) to what? Note that “subsequent” is especially confusing, as lines 6-7 expressly call for a “combination of some”, which excludes “sequence”.
As to claim 6, why is material in parentheses on lines 17-18? It looks entirely out of place, and is possibly an undeleted afterthought on the part of the writer.
As to 6, “the chamber” (line 26) is confusing in view of the claim including 2 chambers. Is “the chamber” one of the two?
As to claim 6, “the sensor surface” is problematic because there are at least 5 different sensor surfaces. Is surface of one intended?
As to claim 6, “let” (line 29) to - - left - -? Otherwise, what can “let” mean?
As to claim 6, step H is indefinite, as it’s not expressed that even one elements does not have the required value, suggestive that step H is empty. Should “the elements” (line 33) have been - - one or more elements - - ?
As to step H, is this step repeating step F, or in the alternative, does step H’s “do not have the required resistance value” comprise step F?
As to claim 6, “the required resistance value” (line 33) was never initially introduced. Is such somehow inherent in claim 1?
As to claim 6, “a possible” (line 37) is indefinite. What is anything triggers repetition of step G? The term “possible” per se triggers a step J that never takes place. What is to be made of step J?
As to claim 6, how much of “the procedure” (line 41) does such relate to? No procedure is defined in the claim. Could be the “method” (line 1) in its entirety, but then it could be all of step D which is the only reference to “decontaminate” (line 26). What is Applicant’s position?
As to claim 6, “in particular” (line 42) is indefinite.
As to claim 6, what qualifies as “certified” (line 52)?
Prior Art cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potyrailo 11567020 teach (Fig. 4) an array of sensors (line 42, col. 5), each being a metal oxide sensor 114 that is protected from particles and chemicals via filter materials including charcoal, Teflon. /chemical gas permeable filter material, by charcoal filter. The sensor is metal oxide layer film 308 on a substrate302.
“(28) In one or more embodiments, the gas sensing assembly may include a gas-permeable filter material separating a sensing material of the sensor 114 and the fluid sample. The use of filter materials that protect the surface of the sensor can be utilized to protect the sensor material from mechanical and chemical irreversible damage. Known types of filter materials include zeolites, metal-oxide film filters, charcoal filters, polymeric filters, nanoporous filters, and many others. Polymeric filter materials, such as polymers of Hyflon, Cytop, Teflon AF, can be utilized to protect the sensing film. Perfluorinated polymers that have the ability to prevent condensed liquid water droplets from affecting the surface of the sensing element by preventing water from being diffused through the polymer film and not to interact with the metal oxide sensing material. In operation, the MOS sensor operates at the desired operation temperature that does not exceed the glass transition temperature or degradation temperature of the polymer filter material” (Reference)
Debnath et al 20190376940 teach (Figure 44) a housing 4404 that retains a sensor 4407 on a substrate, the top portin 4402 having a selective membrane 4406.
Allen 9823211 teach (Figure 5A) a cavity 201 that retains preconcentrators 204 and metal oxide sensors 206 on a surface 202, with reference to bundle 230 on a printed circuit board (PCB). Figure 5B illustrates a measuring chamber 201/209/280 that retains preconcentrators and sensors 206. Figure 8 illustrates an air filtering Teflon/silicon membrane 106 upstream of a preconcentrator 110/sensor 116.
Wang et al CN 102353701 teach a 10 (metal oxide) sensor array 2.1 within a housing. Such housing receives sample air from an air filter 4 and active carbon filter 5.
Yu et al CN 120294273 teach (Figure 3) an array of MOS sensors 4 in a chamber, the chamber of which has Teflon hydrophobic filter membrane and active carbon layer filter.
Bhat et al 20170336343 teach (Figure 1) a sensor module 290 that has body 300, lid 301 with an inlet 306 that is fluidly connected to a selective carbon filter 307 at the inlet. The scheme also employs metal oxide gas sensors (Para 88)
Bhat et al 2019/0227024 teach 4 sensor electrodes 334-336, one (i.e. 335) of which is sealed 380 from the remaining 3, suggestive of 2 measuring chambers.
IDS
IDS filed 9/25/24: The NPL was crossed out because it was not in the electronic record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights