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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 10 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,541,272 B1 to Mitra (hereinafter “Mitra”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0322518 A1 to Addleman et al. (hereinafter “Addleman”).
Regarding Claim 10, Mitra teaches a rapid passive sampling kit (see abstract, see Col. 1, lines 10 – 16 describing an apparatus and method for separating and analyzing a component of fluid sample such as ground water that is considered to be contaminant), comprising:
a substantially uniform polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) film (see Col. 6, lines 37 – 59 describing the membrane comprising a nonporous hydrophobic membrane disposed on the second surface of the porous membrane and further states the nonporous hydrophobic membrane as comprising polydimethylsiloxane) disposed on a semi-flexible substrate (see Col. 6, lines 25 – 59, describing the nonporous hydrophobic membrane (i.e., polydimethylsiloxane) disposed on the porous membrane which can be any of the numerous materials including polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) etc. which are all flexible materials, see arrangement of the apparatus at Fig. 1 which includes the hollow fiber membrane 1 and at Fig. 2 with the cross sectional view illustrating the nonporous hydrophobic material 15 (i.e., PDMS material) disposed on the porous membrane 16 as described at Col. 19, lines 33 – Col. 20, line 14, with the hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Mitra teaches general size of the nonporous hydrophobic material (i.e., PDMS) material at Col. 19, lines 33 - 57, Mitra does not explicitly teach the PDMS film comprising a thickness of about 2 micrometers (µm) to about 10 µm. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PDMS film of a thickness of about 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Addleman, in the field of multi-component material for capturing and separating species of interest, teaches that it is known to use PDMS film comprising a thickness of about 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers (see paragraph [0002] and claims 1 and 16 describing a composite material comprising a substrate and a composite thin film formed by combining a porous polymer such as PDMS with a nanostructured material coupled to the substrate, see also paragraphs [0009] and [0017] describing the thickness of the thin film being in the rage of about 0.1 µm to about 100 µm, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thin film comprising the porous polymer (PDMS) having the specific thickness range of Addleman into Mitra, in order to enable access of the surface area to the chemical species of interest (see also additional advantages at paragraph [0006]).
Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above further teaches;
the semi-flexible substrate operable to be rolled and unrolled between a tube shape and a substantially planar shape (see Col. 6, lines 25 – 59, Col. 19, line 58 – Col. 20 line 6 of Mitra describing the material of the porous membrane 16 (i.e., substrate as claimed) as comprising materials including polyethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) materials which are flexible materials and hence can be rolled as a tube shape as illustrated at Fig. 2 of Mitra and unrolled to a substantially planar shape depending on user’s need or desire as claimed since the material property is a flexible material, hence reading on the invention as claimed); and
a vessel (see shell 14, Fig. 1, see Col. 19, lines 50 – 53 of Mitra) operable to contain a sample and the semi-flexible substrate (see arrangement at Fig. 1, see Col. 20, lines 6 – 27 of Mitra describing the shell which surrounds the hollow membrane 1 forming the feed chamber 13 and the exit chamber 2 in which the sample is contained and being fed into and out of the shell, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 16, Mitra teaches a rapid passive sampling kit (see abstract, see Col. 1, lines 10 – 16 describing an apparatus and method for separating and analyzing a component of fluid sample such as ground water that is considered to be contaminant), comprising:
a substantially uniform polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) film (see Col. 6, lines 37 – 59 describing the membrane comprising a nonporous hydrophobic membrane disposed on the second surface of the porous membrane and further states the nonporous hydrophobic membrane as comprising polydimethylsiloxane) disposed on a semi-flexible substrate (see Col. 6, lines 25 – 59, describing the nonporous hydrophobic membrane (i.e., polydimethylsiloxane) disposed on the porous membrane which can be any of the numerous materials including polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) etc. which are all flexible materials, see arrangement of the apparatus at Fig. 1 which includes the hollow fiber membrane 1 and at Fig. 2 with the cross sectional view illustrating the nonporous hydrophobic material 15 (i.e., PDMS material) disposed on the porous membrane 16 as described at Col. 19, lines 33 – Col. 20, line 14, with the hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Mitra teaches general size of the nonporous hydrophobic material (i.e., PDMS) material at Col. 19, lines 33 - 57, Mitra does not explicitly teach the PDMS film comprising a thickness of about 2 micrometers (µm) to about 10 µm. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PDMS film of a thickness of about 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Addleman, in the field of multi-component material for capturing and separating species of interest, teaches that it is known to use PDMS film comprising a thickness of about 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers (see paragraph [0002] and claims 1 and 16 describing a composite material comprising a substrate and a composite thin film formed by combining a porous polymer such as PDMS with a nanostructured material coupled to the substrate, see also paragraphs [0009] and [0017] describing the thickness of the thin film being in the rage of about 0.1 µm to about 100 µm, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thin film comprising the porous polymer (PDMS) having the specific thickness range of Addleman into Mitra, in order to enable access of the surface area to the chemical species of interest (see also additional advantages at paragraph [0006]).
Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above further teaches;
the semi-flexible substrate operable to be rolled and unrolled between a tube shape and a substantially planar shape (see Col. 6, lines 25 – 59, Col. 19, line 58 – Col. 20 line 6 of Mitra describing the material of the porous membrane 16 (i.e., substrate as claimed) as comprising materials including polyethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) materials which are flexible materials and hence can be rolled as a tube shape as illustrated at Fig. 2 of Mitra and unrolled to a substantially planar shape depending on user’s need or desire as claimed since the material property is a flexible material, hence reading on the invention as claimed); and
a means (see shell 14, Fig. 1, see Col. 19, lines 50 – 53 of Mitra) for a sample to be tested with the semi-flexible substrate (see arrangement at Fig. 1, see Col. 20, lines 6 – 27 of Mitra describing the shell which surrounds the hollow membrane 1 forming the feed chamber 13 and the exit chamber 2 in which the sample is contained and being fed into and out of the shell, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches the claimed invention including thickness of thin films, weight percentages of the coating etc. as described above except for wherein the semi-flexible substrate comprises a surface area of about 10 square centimeters (cm2) to about 220 cm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a substrate comprising a surface area as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches the claimed invention but is silent regarding the semi-flexible substrate comprising aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a substrate comprising aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The modification provides high mechanical robustness and enhanced corrosion resistance.
Regarding Claim 12, Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches the claimed invention including thickness of thin films, weight percentages of the coating etc. except for wherein the semi-flexible substrate comprises a surface area of about 10 square centimeters (cm2) to about 220 cm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a substrate comprising a surface area as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 13, Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches wherein the substantially uniform PDMS film comprises a mass of about 20 mg to about 210 mg (see paragraphs [0009], [0020] [0069] – [0070] and Table 2 of Addleman describing weight percentage of the porous polymer (i.e., PDMS) in the composite thin film is in a range from about 5% wt. to about 40% wt. or other ranges as mentioned in paragraph [0070]).
Even though Mitra in view of Addleman teach the percentage weight of substantially uniform PDMS in the range as described above, Mitra in view of Addleman may be construed as not explicitly stating the mass being about 20 mg to about 210 mg. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed mass ranges, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 14, Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches including thickness of thin films, weight percentages of the coating etc. as described above except for wherein a ratio of the thickness of the substantially uniform PDMS film to a surface area of the semi-flexible substrate is about 1:44 to about 4:44. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use material having a ratio of the thickness of the substantially uniform PDMS film to a surface area of the semi-flexible substrate in the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches wherein the vessel is operable to contain a mass ratio of a mass of the sample to the mass of the substantially uniform PDMS film (see arrangement at Fig. 1 of Mitra illustrating the shell 14 which contains the sample and/or see paragraphs [0037] – [0038], [0069] – [0070], Table 2 of Addleman describing use of a sampling device for either gas or liquid phase materials with the thin film composition as described above).
Even though Mitra in view of Addleman teach the invention as described above, Mitra in view of Addleman is silent regarding the mass ratio is about 1000:1. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use material having the claimed mass ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17, Mitra as modified above teaches wherein the means for the sample to be tested is a vessel (see shell 14, Fig. 1 of Mitra) operable to contain a sample and the semi-flexible substrate (see arrangement at Fig. 1, see Col. 20, lines 6 – 27 of Mitra describing the shell which surrounds the hollow membrane 1 forming the feed chamber 13 and the exit chamber 2 in which the sample is contained and being fed into and out of the shell, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Claim(s) 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra in view of Addleman and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,546 B2 to St. Germain (hereinafter “Germain”).
Regarding Claim 19, Mitra in view of Addleman as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the means for the sample to be tested is an in-situ passive sampler wherein a plurality of substrates are coupled to the in-situ passive sampler.
Germain, in the field of method and apparatus for sediment characterization, teaches wherein the means for the sample to be tested is an in-situ passive sampler wherein a plurality of substrates are coupled to the in-situ passive sampler (see for instance Figs. 2 – 5 and Col. 3, line 55 – Col. 4, line 6, Col. 4, line 58 – Col. 5, line 3, describing the sampler 100 comprising a support 102 and an absorbent material 104 such as PDMS, the length of the sampler segments in use varying from a short length as about a meter to hundreds or even thousands of meters, thus comprising multiple substrates as claimed, see also Fig. 5 which illustrates PDMS sampler 200 strung through jars 202 for sampling as described at Col. 8, lines 54 – 67, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use arrangement of Germain into Mitra in view of Addleman, in order to obtain an accurate contaminant distribution at a sampling site including contaminant level versus depth or horizontal position. The modification allows for a quick data gathering at multiple locations.
Regarding Claim 20, Mitra in view of Addleman in view of Germain as modified above teaches wherein each substrate of the plurality of substrates is at least partially disposed into sediment or soil for about 1 to 2 days for equilibration (see Col. 3, lines 35 – 53, Col. 8, lines 54 – 67 of Germain).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Paull et al. (U.S. 2021/0213418 A1) teaches sorbent and sorption device comprising PDMS material which can be prepared in various forms including that of rod shaped, hollow rods, disk shaped etc. as described at paragraphs [0105] – [0106] and illustrated at Figs. 4, 5 (thus teaching PDMS material which can be rolled and unrolled).
Potkay (U.S. 11,759,558 B2) teaches microfluidic diffusion devices and systems comprising silicone tubing substrate having been bonded to an edge of PDMS sheet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights