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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 4/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cooling section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each thermoelectric module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 15 and 16-22 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "therewith" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if therewith refers to the cooling section, the thermoelectric module or the condenser units. The examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that therewith refers to the cooling section.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "therewith" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if therewith refers to the heating section or the thermoelectric module. The examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that therewith refers to the heating section.
Claims 5, 7-9, 15 and 16-22 depend on claim 4 and are rejected for inheriting the same problems.
The term “significant” in line 4 of claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and is rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-15 and 17-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below.
As for claim 1, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims a sensor system for detecting at least one analyte in an environment, comprising:
a dehumidifier system comprising at least one of a condenser unit and a desiccant unit (claim 1); and
a sensor which is responsive to the analyte in fluid connection with the dehumidifier system (claim 1).
As for claim 2, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the condenser unit comprises a thermoelectric module having a cooling section positioned within a condensing chamber of the condenser unit, wherein the condensing chamber is in fluid connection with the environment and with the sensor, and the desiccant unit comprises a desiccant material positioned in fluid connection with a flow channel of the desiccant unit (claim 1).
As for claim 3, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the dehumidifier system comprises a plurality of condenser units, each condenser unit comprising a thermoelectric module, wherein the plurality of condenser units are arranged in series or are arranged in parallel (claim 3).
As for claim 4, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims a plurality of condenser units wherein the cooling section of each thermoelectric module of the plurality of condenser units comprises a first heatsink in operative connection therewith and a heating section of the thermoelectric module comprises a second heatsink in operative connection therewith (claim 1).
As for claim 5, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the heating section of each thermoelectric module is positioned outside of the condensing chamber and the first heatsink comprises an extending member which extends into the condensing chamber (claim 15).
As for claim 6, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the condensing chamber further includes a desiccant material (claim 1).
As for claim 7, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the first heatsink comprises a plurality of spaced plates or fins and the second heatsink comprises a plurality of spaced plates or fins (claim 1).
As for claim 8, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the system further comprises a fan in fluid connection with the second heatsink (claim 17).
As for claim 9, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the first heatsink comprises a plurality of spaced plates or fins which define microchannels therebetween (claim 1).
As for claim 10, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the dehumidifier system comprises a desiccant unit comprising a desiccant material and a quantity of the desiccant material is selected to limit removal of the at least one analyte for a given range of flow rate SO that a sample reaching the sensor includes a concentration of analyte at or above a detection limit of the sensor (claim 18).
As for claim 11, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the desiccant material comprises calcium chloride (claim 19).
As for claim 14, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims a drying system to remove at least a portion of at least one of condensate water or water adsorbed on the desiccant material (claim 20).
As for claim 15, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the at least one analyte is acetone (claim 6).
As for claim 16, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the sensor comprises a substrate and a sensor medium on the substrate, the sensor medium comprising at least one nanostructure, wherein at least one property of the sensor medium is dependent upon the presence of the at least one analyte, and electronic circuitry comprising at least one measurement system in operative connection with the sensor to measure a variable providing a measure of change in at least one property of the sensor medium which is dependent upon the presence of the at least one analyte (claim 7).
As for claim 17, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the sensor medium comprises a plurality of nanostructures in contact with titanium dioxide, and the sensor system further comprises at least one energy source to apply electromagnetic radiation to the sensor medium for a period of time (claim 8).
As for claim 18, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the plurality of nanostructures comprise carbon nanostructures (claim 9).
As for claim 19, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the titanium dioxide is mixed with the plurality of nanostructures, immobilized upon the plurality of nanostructures, or covalently attached to the plurality of nanostructures (claim 10).
As for claim 20, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the plurality of nanostructures comprises a network of oxidized single-walled carbon nanotubes (claim 12).
As for claim 21, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the energy source is a source of UV light (claim 13).
As for claim 22, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to establish a baseline for detection of the at least one analyte after application of the UV light for the period of time (claim 14).
As for claim 23, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims a method of detecting an analyte in an environment, comprising:
passing a sample from the environment through a dehumidifier system comprising at least one of a condenser unit and a desiccant unit (claim 21); and
contacting the sample with a sensor in fluid connection with the dehumidifier system after the sample exits the dehumidifier system (claim 21).
As for claim 24, U.S. Patent 12,203,830 claims a sensor system for detecting an analyte in an environment, comprising:
a sensor which is responsive to the analyte (claim 1) comprising a substrate and a sensor medium on the substrate, the sensor medium comprising at least one nanostructure, wherein at least one property of the sensor medium is dependent upon the presence of the at least one analyte (claim 7);
a dehumidifier system in fluid connection with the environment and with the sensor responsive to the analyte, the dehumidifier system comprising at least one of (i) a condenser unit and (2) a desiccant unit comprising a desiccant material (claim 1); and
electronic circuitry comprising at least one measurement system in operative connection with the sensor to measure a response of the sensor (claim 1).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/189546 by Atsalakis (“Atsalakis”).
As for claim 1, Atsalakis discloses a sensor system (Atsalakis: Fig. 1) for detecting at least one analyte in an environment, comprising:
a dehumidifier system (Atsalakis: 110) comprising at least one of a condenser unit and a desiccant unit (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9); and
a which is sensor (Atsalakis: 106-108) which is responsive to the analyte in fluid connection with the dehumidifier system.
As for claim 2, Atsalakis discloses that the condenser unit comprises a thermoelectric module having a cooling section positioned within a condensing chamber of the condenser unit, wherein the condensing chamber is in fluid connection with the environment and with the sensor (the thermoelectric module and condensing chamber describe structures that are optional since Atsalakis already discloses the desiccant unit option of claim 1), and the desiccant unit comprises a desiccant material positioned in fluid connection with a flow channel of the desiccant unit (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9).
As for claim 6, the examiner notes that the claim recites that the condensing chamber further includes a desiccant material. However, this limitation is optional since Atsalakis already discloses the desiccant unit option of claim 1.
As for claim 10, Atsalakis disclose that the dehumidifier system comprises a desiccant unit comprising a desiccant material (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9) and a quantity of the desiccant material is selected to limit removal of the at least one analyte for a given range of flow rate (Atsalakis: page 7, lines 18-21) so that a sample reaching the sensor includes a concentration of analyte at or above a detection limit of the sensor (Atsalakis: a sample that is detected by the sensor inherently has a concentration above the detection limit; this sample has an analyte that has not been removed by the selected quantity of desiccant material).
As for claim 11, Atsalakis discloses that the desiccant material comprises calcium chloride (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9).
As for claim 12, Atsalakis discloses that the desiccant system comprises a volume of the desiccant material positioned in a conduit so that a sample from the environment must pass through the desiccant material (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9) and the desiccant material is chosen so that the at least one analyte elutes through the desiccant material before significant water elutes therethrough over a range of time (Atsalakis: the significant amount is an amount that that causes unacceptable accuracy during the measurement; page 16, lines 13-16).
As for claim 13, the examiner notes that the claim recites the intended use of the sensor system (i.e. a user times a measurement of a response). Atsalakis discloses all the claimed structures, therefore claim 19 does not distinguish over the prior art.
As for claim 23, Atsalakis discloses (Fig. 1):
passing a sample from the environment through a dehumidifier system (Atsalakis: 110) comprising at least one of a condenser unit and a desiccant unit (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9); and
contacting the sample with a sensor (Atsalakis: page 6, lines 5-18) in fluid connection with the dehumidifier system after the sample exits the dehumidifier system (Atsalakis: page 16, lines 9-12).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/189546 by Atsalakis (“Atsalakis”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,586,342 issued to Morishita et al. (“Morishita”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0065535 by Abraham-Fuchs et al. (“Abraham-Fuchs”).
As for claim 3, Atsalakis discloses the sensor system of claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Although Atsalakis discloses that multiple dehumidifiers of different types can be used (Atsalakis: page 16, lines 17-21 and page 16, lines 28-29), Atsalakis does not explicitly disclose that the dehumidifier system comprises a plurality of condenser units, in part, because Atsalakis does not disclose using a condenser unit along with a desiccant. Instead, Atsalakis discloses that a Nafion tube can be used along with a desiccant (Atsalakis: page 16, line 28 – page 17, line 9). Atsalakis also suggests that a plurality of Nafion tubes can be used (Atsalakis: page 16, lines 17-27).
However, Morishita discloses a condenser unit (Fig. 1; Abstract). Abraham-Fuchs discloses that an electrical drying means similar to a condenser unit (Claim 15) can be used along with a desiccant (Claim 13).
Because Morishita and Atsalakis both disclose drying means, and Abraham-Fuchs suggests that the drying means of Morishita can be used along with a desiccant, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute a plurality of condenser units of Morishita for the plurality of the Nafion tubes of Atsalakis to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that can be used along with a desiccant to dry a gaseous sample.
Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses that each condenser unit (Morishita: Fig. 1) comprises a thermoelectric module (7-15), wherein the plurality of condenser units are arranged in series or are arranged in parallel (Atsalakis: see Fig. 1, where drying means must be at least one of in series or in parallel).
As for claim 4, Atsalakis discloses the sensor system of claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Atsalakis does not disclose a plurality of condenser units, in part, because Atsalakis does not disclose using a condenser unit along with a desiccant. Instead, Atsalakis discloses that a Nafion tube can be used as a drying means along with a desiccant (Atsalakis: page 16, line 28 – page 17, line 9). Atsalakis also suggests that a plurality of Nafion tubes can be used (Atsalakis: page 16, lines 17-27).
However, Morishita discloses a condenser unit (Fig. 1; Abstract). Abraham-Fuchs discloses that an electrical drying means similar to a condenser unit (Claim 15) can be used along with a desiccant (Claim 13).
Because Morishita and Atsalakis both disclose drying means, and Abraham-Fuchs suggests that the drying means of Morishita can be used along with a desiccant, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute a plurality of condenser units of Morishita for the plurality of the Nafion tubes of Atsalakis to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that can be used along with a desiccant to dry a gaseous sample.
Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses that [[the]] a cooling section (Morishita: 9) of each thermoelectric module (Morishita: Fig. 1) of the plurality of condenser units comprises a first heatsink (Morishita: 9) in operative connection therewith and a heating section (Morishita: 7, 12, 15) of the thermoelectric module comprises a second heatsink (Morishita: 15) in operative connection therewith.
As for claim 5, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses that the heating 5ection (Morishita: 7, 12, 15) of each thermoelectric module is positioned outside of the condensing chamber (Morishita: 6) and the first heatsink (Morishita: 9) comprises an extending member (Morishita: 9) which extends into the condensing chamber.
As for claim 7, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses that the first heatsink (Morishita: 9) comprises a plurality of spaced plates (Morishita: 9) or fins and the second heatsink comprises a plurality of spaced plates or fins (Morishita; 15) .
As for claim 13, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses that the first heatsink (Morishita: 9) comprises a plurality of spaced plates (Morishita: 9) or fins which define microchannels therebetween.
As for claim 15, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses that the at least one analyte is acetone (Atsalakis: page 20, lines 26-28).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/189546 by Atsalakis (“Atsalakis”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,586,342 issued to Morishita et al. (“Morishita”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0065535 by Abraham-Fuchs et al. (“Abraham-Fuchs”) as applied to claim 10, further in view of U.S. Patent 8,739,558 issued to Enayati (“Enayati”).
As for clam 8, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses the sensor system of claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above).
Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs does not disclose a fan in fluid connection with the second heatsink.
However, Enayati discloses a fan (134) in fluid connection with a second heatsink (132).
Enayati and the Atsalakis-Morishita-Abraham-Fuchs combination include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the fan of Enayati and the second heatsink of the Atsalakis-Morishita-Abraham-Fuchs combination by locating the fan of Enayati near the second heatsink of the Atsalakis-Morishita-Abraham-Fuchs combination as suggested by Fig. 2 of Enayati, and that in combination, the fan and the second heatsink merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the sensor system of Atsalakis, Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs to include the fan as disclosed by Enayati in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a structure to cool the second heatsink.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/189546 by Atsalakis (“Atsalakis”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,264,224 issued to Chhabra et al. (“Chhabra”).
As for claim 14, Atsalakis discloses the sensor system of claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
Atsalakis does not disclose a drying system to remove at least a portion of at least one of condensate water or water adsorbed on the desiccant material.
However, Chhabra discloses a drying system (400) to remove at least a portion of at least one of condensate water or water adsorbed on a desiccant material (col. 8, lines 48-57).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the sensor system of Atsalakis to include the drying system as disclosed by Chhabra so that a user can regenerate and reuse the desiccant material.
Claims 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/189546 by Atsalakis (“Atsalakis”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,586,342 issued to Morishita et al. (“Morishita”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0065535 by Abraham-Fuchs et al. (“Abraham-Fuchs”) as applied to claim 13, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0073290 by Star et al. (“Star”).
As for claim 16, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs discloses the sensor system of claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Atsalakis as modified by Morishita and Abraham-Fuchs does not disclose that the sensor comprises a substrate and a sensor medium as recited. Instead, Atsalakis discloses an acetone sensor with an undescribed structure (Atsalakis: page 20, lines 26-28).
However, Star discloses a sensor (10) that comprises a substrate (30) and a sensor medium (20) on the substrate, the sensor medium comprising at least one nanostructure (paragraph [0040]), wherein at least one property of the sensor medium is dependent upon the presence of the at least one analyte (paragraph [0043]), and electronic circuitry comprising at least one measurement system in operative connection with the sensor to measure a variable providing a measure of change in at least one property of the sensor medium which is dependent upon the presence of the at least one analyte (“Control/Processing” in Fig. 1; the circuitry is also implied by Fig. 4 and paragraph [0048]). Star discloses that the sensor is an acetone sensor (see the title).
Because Star and Atsalakis both disclose acetone sensors, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the acetone sensor of Star for the acetone sensor of Atsalakis to achieve the predictable result of providing a sensor to sense acetone.
As for claim 17, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita, Abraham-Fuchs and Star discloses that the sensor medium comprises a plurality of nanostructures in contact with titanium dioxide (Star: Abstract), and the sensor system further comprises at least one energy source (Star: 40) to apply electromagnetic radiation to the sensor medium for a period of time.
As for claim 18, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita, Abraham-Fuchs and Star discloses that the plurality of nanostructures comprise carbon nanostructures (Star: paragraph [0039]).
As for claim 19, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita, Abraham-Fuchs and Star discloses that the titanium dioxide is mixed with the plurality of nanostructures, immobilized upon the plurality of nanostructures, or covalently attached to the plurality of nanostructures (Star: paragraph [0010]).
As for claim 20, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita, Abraham-Fuchs and Star discloses that the plurality of nanostructures comprises a network of oxidized single-walled carbon nanotubes (Star: paragraph [0007]).
As for claim 21, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita, Abraham-Fuchs and Star discloses that the electromagnetic radiation energy source is a source of UV light (Star: paragraph [0041]).
As for claim 22, Atsalakis as modified by Morishita, Abraham-Fuchs and Star discloses that the electronic circuitry is configured to establish a baseline for detection of the at least one analyte after application of the UV light for the period of time (Star: paragraph [0012]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/189546 by Atsalakis (“Atsalakis”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0073290 by Star et al. (“Star”).
As for claim 24, Atsalakis discloses a sensor system (Atsalakis: Fig. 1) for detecting an analyte in an environment, comprising:
a sensor (Atsalakis: 106-108) which is responsive to the analyte;
a dehumidifier system (Atsalakis: 110) in fluid connection with the environment and with the sensor responsive to the analyte, the dehumidifier system comprising at least one of (1) a condenser unit and (2) a desiccant unit comprising a desiccant material (Atsalakis: page 16, line 27 – page 17, line 9); and
electronic circuitry (Atsalakis: 109) comprising at least one measurement system in operative connection with the sensor to measure a response of the sensor.
Atsalakis does not disclose that the sensor comprises a substrate and a sensor medium as recited. Instead, Atsalakis discloses an acetone sensor with an undescribed structure (Atsalakis: page 20, lines 26-28).
However, Star discloses a sensor (10) which is responsive to the analyte comprising a substrate (30) and a sensor medium (20) on the substrate, the sensor medium comprising at least one nanostructure (paragraph [0040]), wherein at least one property of the sensor medium is dependent upon the presence of the at least one analyte (paragraph [0043]). Star discloses that the sensor is an acetone sensor (see the title).
Because Star and Atsalakis both disclose acetone sensors, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the acetone sensor of Star for the acetone sensor of Atsalakis to achieve the predictable result of providing a sensor to sense acetone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0277612 by Li (“Li”) is cited for all that it discloses including a gas sensor with one or more dehumidifiers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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 on (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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights