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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on August 27, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 2-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 27, 2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Linden (US 2021/0208062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Linden discloses a detection apparatus (abstract, Figs. 5, 11) comprising: a detector (ref 1116, paragraph [0079]) configured to detect a virus (paragraph [0078]) in a specimen containing an exhaled breath of a user (paragraph [0078]).
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.
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoh et al. (US 2022/0136975 A1), hereinafter “Yoh”, and Yang, Jun-Ho, et al. "Onsite real-time detection of covid-like-virus transmission through air using spark-induced plasma spectroscopy." Science of the Total Environment 770 (2021): 144725, hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claim 11, Linden is silent regarding wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen, a sensor is provided to detect relaxation energy in the receiving space by wavelength, and the detector detects the virus by using a wavelength and an intensity value at which the relaxation energy is detected, or detects the virus by using a ratio between intensity values by wavelength of the detected relaxation energy of multiple wavelengths.
However, teaches Yoh teaches an optical sample measurement device (abstract, Fig. 2) including wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen (paragraph [0046]),
a sensor is provided to detect relaxation energy in the receiving space by wavelength (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0056], [0063]-[0064]), and
the detector detects the sample by using a wavelength and an intensity value at which the relaxation energy is detected (paragraphs [0051]-[0055], [0083]-[0085]).
Furthermore, teaches Yang teaches an optical sample measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen (page 3, Sec. 2.2, Chamber configuration; Sec. 2.3 Spark-induced plasma (SIP) device),
the detector detects the virus by using a wavelength and an intensity value at which the relaxation energy is detected (Fig. 5, pages 3-5. Sec 3.1 and Sec. 3.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Linden with the teaching of Yoh and Yang by including wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen, a sensor is provided to detect relaxation energy in the receiving space by wavelength, and the detector detects the virus by using a wavelength and an intensity value at which the relaxation energy is detected, or detects the virus by using a ratio between intensity values by wavelength of the detected relaxation energy of multiple wavelengths in order to provide real-time detection of a virus, using a sample that is ionized between electrodes by plasma.
Regarding claim 13, Linden is silent regarding wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen, a detection electrode is provided in the receiving space, the detection electrode creates a spark that produces plasma targeting the specimen, the detector detects relaxation energy of the specimen decomposed by the spark, and the detector detects the virus using a wavelength or an intensity value of the detected relaxation energy, or detects the virus using a ratio between intensity values by wavelength of the detected relaxation energy of multiple wavelengths.
However, teaches Yoh teaches an optical sample measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen (paragraph [0046]),
the detector detects relaxation energy of the specimen decomposed by the spark (paragraphs [0051]-[0055], [0083]-[0085]); and
the detector detects the sample using a wavelength or an intensity value of the detected relaxation energy (paragraphs [0051]-[0055], [0083]-[0085]).
Furthermore, Yang teaches an optical sample measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen (page 3, Sec. 2.2, Chamber configuration; Sec. 2.3 Spark-induced plasma (SIP) device),
a detection electrode is provided in the receiving space (page 3, Sec. 2.2, Chamber configuration; Sec. 2.3 Spark-induced plasma (SIP) device),
the detection electrode creates a spark that produces plasma targeting the specimen (page 3, Sec. 2.3 Spark-induced plasma (SIP) device),
the detector detects the virus using a wavelength or an intensity value of the detected relaxation energy (Fig. 5, pages 3-5. Sec 3.1 and Sec. 3.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Linden with the teaching of Yoh and Yang by including wherein an inspection box is provided with a receiving space for accommodating the specimen, a detection electrode is provided in the receiving space, the detection electrode creates a spark that produces plasma targeting the specimen, the detector detects relaxation energy of the specimen decomposed by the spark, and the detector detects the virus using a wavelength or an intensity value of the detected relaxation energy, or detects the virus using a ratio between intensity values by wavelength of the detected relaxation energy of multiple wavelengths in order to provide real-time detection of a virus, using a sample that is ionized between electrodes by plasma.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a detection apparatus, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, a discharge electrode is provided at a first position in the receiving space, a ground electrode is provided at a second position in the receiving space, and an optical device is provided that focuses on a set position closer to the second position than the first position on a virtual straight line connecting the first position and the second position, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1 and the above claim. Claim 10 is dependent from claim 9 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a detection apparatus, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, a first optical device installed on a first surface of a plurality of surfaces constituting the inspection box is provided, a second optical device installed on a second surface that is distinct from the first surface among the plurality of surfaces constituting the inspection box is provided, when a normal line of the first surface is defined as a first normal line and a normal line of the second surface is defined as a second normal line, the first surface and the second surface are formed so that the first normal line and the second normal line intersect at a set position, the first surface and the second surface have a same distance to the set position, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1 and the above claim.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a detection apparatus, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, wherein a sterilizer is provided to disinfect the receiving space when a virus detection process of the detector targeting a specific user is completed, the sterilizer outputs disinfected water containing an oxygen compound toward the detection electrode, the detection electrode electrolyzes the disinfected water to generate oxygen, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 and the above claim.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a detection apparatus, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, an optical tube connected to the inspection box is provided, the optical tube is equipped with a lens, a multi-filter, and a multi-sensor, the lens creates an optical path through which inspection light corresponding to relaxation energy formed by the plasma propagates, the multi-filter divides the inspection light by wavelength so that when the inspection light is input, the inspection light is output toward different locations for each wavelength, the multi-sensor receives the inspection light output from the multi-filter at different locations, the multi-sensor outputs information about a location where the inspection light is received, the detector extracts a combination of information about a location where the inspection light is received from a lookup table obtained through experiment, and the detector outputs information on a virus matching the extracted combination, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1 and the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thagard (US 20150110932) teaches an electrode to sterilize liquids, but does not use the same electrode as the plasma, as claimed. No motivation exists to modify Thagard to render the claims obvious.
Cole (US20220317012A1) teaches an optical virus detection method, including using lookup tables.
Cho (WO2022260271A1) teaches an optical device including a multi-filter, detector, spatial mapping, but no reason exists, other than impermissible hindsight, to combine with prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights