www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/612,349
`
`11/08/2019
`
`Yosuke HANAI
`
`071025-0117
`
`3547
`
`Rimon PC - Pansonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`NIA, FATEMEH ESFANDIARI
`
`2855
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/24/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOmail@rimonlaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6,9-11 and 13-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6,9-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [[] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240116
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/612,349
`HANAI etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`Fatemeh E Nia
`2855
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/18/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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. 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`and 103)is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered
`
`a new ground ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
`
`would be the same undereither status.
`
`Response to Amendment/ Arguments
`
`The response and amendments, filed 12/18/2023, has been entered. Claims 1-6, 9-11,
`
`and 13-16 are pending. Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have
`
`been fully considered:
`
`- On pages 3-4 of Remarks, Applicant argues Bazemoreis not qualified as prior art
`
`and therefore the limitation specifying a component contained in the sample gas by
`
`conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles”
`
`-
`
`Examiner response:
`
`Bazemore’s provisional application 62/489062filed on April 24, 2017 is qualified as
`
`prior art because paragraphs 3 and 4 describe machine learning and the machine
`
`learning portion of the claim was all Bazemore wasused to describe.
`
`The ’peaks of which shapes and positions are different from each other; and specifying
`
`a componentcontainedin the sample gas” are taught by the combination of Nakano and Park.
`
`Therefore, Bazemoreis only relied upon for teaching “using machine learning”,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 3
`
`Underlined portions of Bazemore’s provisional application 62/489062 (paragraphs 3
`
`and 4) provided below explicitly discloses using machinelearning in presence of
`
`certain markers for various profiles:
`
`e database can “learn” disease patterns of the volatile markers and could
`
`categorizeththemandlabelthembaseduponintegratedartificialintelligence. As
`
`diseases andvolatiie/semivolatiie biomarkersor others are confirmed in patients or
`through new discovery ChosecanDeaddedtothedatabase. This information can
`thenbe utilized to lock through thehistorical database and evaluatesignsofdisease
`indication tn individuals for notification to the individuals through an unknown
`mumber of communication channels available. (Meaning as more conumunications
`with individuals develop these can be addedtothe distribution of information ta a
`consunier or their physician}
`
`The database has algorithms that “study” the volatile profiles and as they are added
`toUhedatabasecancreateanoliicationofindicationolthepresenceelcentany
`to the
`databasecan create a noliiication of
`indication of
`oresence of certa
`disease markersJorVariousdiseaseproies,Anotificationmaybeinfatedtoany
`platfarm of communication. The ability for Interaction from the subject with the
`database to allowfor ease of updates of disease diagnoses and stage ofdisease
`including from other methods can be incorporated, The database wil allowfor
`correlation ta the patients volatile profiles stored historically and stucly thoseto
`establish correlation to any GQnce the new “markers” are understood and confirmed
`the entire database can be evaluated for those patterns with notifications to
`consumers through multiple communication channels. Anautomatedprompt fora
`breath collection of those that want to have on-going breath assessments will be
`eneratedanappropriate device may be distributed forthe collection.
`BENEraceG
`SRA
`
`Therefore, the office action is relying on Bazemore ONLYfor teaching using “Integrated
`
`artificial intelligence“ which is computer software that mimics the ways that humans think in
`
`orderto perform complex tasks, such as analyzing, reasoning, and learning. Machine learning,
`
`meanwhile, is a subset of Al that uses algorithms trained on data to produce models that can
`
`perform such complex tasks. The newer version of Bazemoreis only for ease of citation
`
`regarding common disclosure.
`
`Finally: Examiner notes that regarding using machine learning that is automating a
`
`manualactivity, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means
`
`to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 4
`
`overthe prior art. See MPEP 2144.04III (‘Automating A Manual Activity”). Furthermore, based
`
`on MPEP 2114.IV, broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manualfunction to
`
`accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
`
`Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`In this case, combination of Nankana and Park ascited in the previous office action and
`
`cited here, at least teaches the limitation without using artificial intelligence reads on the
`
`limitation.
`
`- On page 5 of remarks, Applicant argues that Park’s adsorbent is carbon nanotube-
`
`metal nanocomplex andis different from inorganic oxides, therefore one of ordinary
`
`skill would not arrive in the method of claim 1.
`
`-
`
`Examiner response:
`
`The test for obviousnessis not whether the features of a secondary reference may
`
`be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the
`
`claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
`
`Rather, the test is what the combined teachingsof the references would have
`
`suggestedto those of ordinary skill in the art. See /n re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
`
`208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
`
`In this case, Park teaches peaks of which shapes andpositions are different
`
`from each other; and specifying a component contained in the sample gas, and
`
`Kenji teaches using adsorbents which contain an inorganic oxide. The motivation can
`
`be desorption in lower temperatures of inorganic oxides as Nakano (combined with
`
`Park and Bazemore)’s adsorbents.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 5
`
`On page 6, Applicant argues that office did not commentonthe limitation” peaks of
`
`which shapes and positions are different from each other; and specifying a component
`
`contained in the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption
`
`profiles,” of claim 9.
`
`-
`
`Examiner response:
`
`The rejection for this limitation that is same/similarlimitation recited in claim 1, is based
`
`on combination of Park and Bazemore, but because of the typo error and removing these parts
`
`from the previous action, the previous action is withdrawn and this second non-final action is
`
`submitted accordingly.
`
`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 effectivefiling
`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.
`
`Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP
`
`2001013120 A, prior art of record) in view of Park (US 20120216597 A1,” Park “), Bazemore (US
`
`provisional application 62/489062), and Kenji (JP 2014083488 A, “Kenji”).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses a method for analyzing a gas,
`
`comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 6
`
`allowing a sample gas (1- sample gas flow path 1) to be adsorbed by each ofa plurality
`
`of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) respectively (e.g.,f0012, 40025 and
`
`0027 three way valves makesthe arrangementfor respectively conducting gas to each
`
`collection tube) having compositions that are different from each other (0008, odor sensor 3
`
`can detect six type odor);
`
`allowing the sample gas to be desorbedindividually (e.g.,f0012, ¥0025 and 40027 three
`
`way valves makesthe arrangementfor individually and respectively conducting gas to each
`
`collection tube) from the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) while detecting
`
`(odor sensor 3) individually the sample gas desorbed (e.g.,f0016 and §0017) from each of the
`
`adsorbents so as to acquire desorption profiles (Fig.2A, 2B and e.g., (0017) of the sample gas
`
`that are respectively unique to the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) and
`
`respectively define peaks (peaks shownin Fig.2A/Fig.2B ).
`
`Nakano doesnot specifically disclose:
`
`1) peaks of which shapes and positions are different from each other; and
`
`specifying a componentcontained in the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the
`
`group of the desorption profiles, and
`
`2) each of adsorbents contains an inorganic oxide
`
`Regarding
`
`limitation 1
`
`In similar field of endeavor, Park in e.g., Figs.1 and 5-8 teaches: allowing the sample gas
`
`(VOCsshownin table below Fig.5 from injection port 200 of Fig.1) to be desorbed from the
`
`adsorbents (110/114 e.g., VOCslisted in table of Fig.5 as CNT-Co,CNT-Ni,CNT-Cu ) while
`
`detecting (using analyzer 400 shownin Fig.1) individually the sample gas (VOCs) desorbed
`
`(with desorption profiles in Fig.5-8) from each of the adsorbents (CNT-Co,CNT-Ni,CNT-Cu) so
`
`as to acquire desorption profiles (Figs.5-8) and respectively define peaks of which shapes and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 7
`
`positions are different from each other (e.g., peaks shown on Figs.6-8 that are different for
`
`different adsorbents and sample gases 40088); and
`
`specifying a component (VOCs)contained in the sample gas (from port 200).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Park’s desorption profiles and peaks of which shapes and
`
`positions are different from each other and specifying a component contained in Nakano’s
`
`sample gas as taught by Park. One ofordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`makethis modification in order to improve the ability of gas sensor or analyzer (Park-§0090).
`
`Nakano and Parkdo not specifically disclose and specifying a component containedin
`
`the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles.
`
`In similar field of endeavor, Bazemore, teaches specifying a component(volatile, semi-
`
`volatile, and non-volatile organic compoundsin breathe, e.g., first para) contained in the sample
`
`gas (e.g., breath) by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles (e.g.,
`
`underlined portions by the office).
`
`Therefore,
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Bazemore’s machine learning techniques for Nakano
`
`combined with Park’s method of gas analyzing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to make this modification in order to improve the system performance.
`
`Regarding
`
`limitation 2
`
`Kenji teaches using copper oxide, zinc oxide as a carbon dioxide adsorbent/desorbent or
`
`recovery device becauseof possibility of recovery in low temperatures (at least Abstract), and in
`
`Table 9 showsthe results of adsorbed CO2 by copperoxide, zinc oxide , in Table 10 shows the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 8
`
`results of adsorbed CO2 by copper oxide, zinc oxide and plus activated carbon increases the
`
`amount of adsorbed Co2.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kenji’s inorganic oxides (copper oxide, zinc
`
`oxide) for Nakano combined with Park and Bazemore’s adsorbents. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art knows they can be desorbed in lower temperatures and would use them for energy cost
`
`effective purposes.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teacheslimitations
`
`claim 1, Nakano further discloses the acquiring of the desorption profiles is carried out by
`
`detecting, individually and over time, the sample gas desorbed from eachof the adsorbents,
`
`and eachof the desorption profiles is an over-time data created from a detection signal
`
`reflecting a quantity of the sample gas (Fig.2A, 2B and e.g., 40017).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teacheslimitations
`
`claim 1, Nakano further discloses wherein the acquiring of the desorption profiles is carried out
`
`by heating (not shownheaters but disclosed at e.g., (0009) each of the adsorbents so as to
`
`desorb the sample gas from the adsorbentsindividually ({0016-90017), and each of the
`
`desorption profiles is a data obtained by associating a detection signal reflecting a quantity of
`
`the sample gas with a temperature change in each of the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C
`
`in view of 40026).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teacheslimitations
`
`claim 3, Nakano further discloses the heating of each of the adsorbentsis carried out with a
`
`heater (not shown but described in e.g., JO009).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding claim 5, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teacheslimitations
`
`claim 1, Nakano further discloses a detector (odor sensor 3) that detects the sample gas
`
`desorbed from each of the adsorbents is used in common with the adsorbents (Carbotrap /
`
`Carbotrap C in view of 40026).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teacheslimitations
`
`claim 5, Nakano further discloses the adsorbentsincludea first adsorbent and a second
`
`adsorbent, the second adsorbent is, among the adsorbents, an adsorbent from which the
`
`sample gasis to be desorbed subsequently after being desorbed from the first adsorbent, the
`
`sample gas desorbed from the first adsorbent is fed into the detector in a first period and the
`
`sample gas desorbed from the second adsorbent is fed into the detector in a second period, and
`
`the first period and the second period are apart from each other. (e.g., 0013- The time for
`
`introducing the sample gasinto the collection tubes 7 and 9 can bearbitrarily set for each
`
`sample gas by switching the electromagnetic valves V1, V2, V3, and V4 and e.g. in §0014- Step
`
`(C) only adsorbentin flow path of 7 is connected to detector to detect the desorbed from the first
`
`adsorbent e.g., Carbotrap while in step (D), meaning the next period, as disclosed in 40016
`
`adsorbent in flow path of 9 is connected to detector 3 to detect the desorbed from the second
`
`adsorbent e.g., Carbotrap C).
`
`Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano
`
`(JP 2001013120 A, prior art of record) in view of Park (US 20120216597 A1,” Park “), and Kenji
`
`(JP 2014083488 A, “Kenji”).
`
`Regarding independentclaim 9,
`
`Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses a device for analyzing a gas, comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 10
`
`a plurality of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of §0026) respectively
`
`(e.g.,f0012, 0025 and 40027 three way valves makes the arrangementfor respectively
`
`conducting gas to each collection tube) having compositions that are different from each other
`
`(¥0008, odor sensor 3 can detect six type odor);
`
`a plurality of housing parts ({0026 pipes or collection tubes 7 and 9 that can be even
`
`more than two collection pipes) individually storing the adsorbents(Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in
`
`view of 40026);
`
`a plurality of gas-guiding passages (FIG. 1A and FIG 1B - passage from V2to 7;
`
`passage from V2 to 9) that guide a sample gas to be analyzed to each of the housing parts (7,9)
`
`a detector (3) that detects the sample gas(from line 1) desorbed from each of the
`
`adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026);
`
`a plurality of desorbed-gas passages (FIG. 1C and FIG. 1D - passage from V2to 7;
`
`passage from V2 to 9) connecting (e.g., flow path 5) the housing parts (7,9) to the detector (3);
`
`and
`
`an identifier (e.g.,0008 The odor sensor 3 is provided with six types of oxide
`
`semiconductor gas sensors having different response characteristics, and the response patterns
`
`of these gas sensors are integrated to identify the odor) that acquires a detection signal from the
`
`detector so as to create desorption profiles (figs, 2A/2B) of the sample gas that are respectively
`
`unique to the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026), and respectively define
`
`peaks (peaks shown on figs.2A/2B).
`
`Nakano fails to disclose:
`
`1) peaks of which shapes and positions are different from each other; and
`
`specifying a componentcontained in the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the
`
`group of the desorption profiles, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 11
`
`2) wherein, each of adsorbents contains an inorganic oxide
`
`Regarding
`
`limitation 1
`
`In similar field of endeavor, Park in e.g., Figs.1 and 5-8 teaches: allowing the sample gas
`
`(VOCs shownin table below Fig.5 from injection port 200 of Fig.1) to be desorbed from the
`
`adsorbents (110/114 e.g., VOCslisted in table of Fig.5 as CNT-Co,CNT-Ni,CNT-Cu ) while
`
`detecting (using analyzer 400 shownin Fig.1) individually the sample gas (VOCs) desorbed
`
`(with desorption profiles in Fig.5-8) from each of the adsorbents (CNT-Co,CNT-Ni,CNT-Cu) so
`
`as to acquire desorption profiles (Figs.5-8) and respectively define peaks of which shapes and
`
`positions are different from each other (e.g., peaks shown on Figs.6-8 that are different for
`
`different adsorbents and sample gases 40088); and
`
`specifying a component (VOCs)contained in the sample gas (from port 200).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Park’s desorption profiles and peaks of which shapes and
`
`positions are different from each other and specifying a component contained in Nakano’s
`
`sample gas as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`makethis modification in order to improve the ability of gas sensor or analyzer (Park-§0090).
`
`Nakano and Parkdo not specifically disclose and specifying a component containedin
`
`the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles.
`
`In similar field of endeavor, Bazemore, teaches specifying a component(volatile, semi-
`
`volatile, and non-volatile organic compoundsin breathe, e.g., first para) contained in the sample
`
`gas (e.g., breath) by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles (e.g.,
`
`underlined portions by the office).
`
`Therefore,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 12
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Bazemore’s machine learning techniques for Nakano
`
`combined with Park’s method of gas analyzing. Oneof ordinary skill in the art would know use
`
`of machine learning algorithms allows the possibility of establishing correlations that are
`
`counterintuitive and multidimensional, and are not plausible by traditional methods (Bazemore
`
`40014) have been motivated to makethis modification in order to improve the system
`
`performance.
`
`Regarding
`
`limitation 2
`
`Kenji teaches using copper oxide, zinc oxide as a carbon dioxide adsorbent/desorbent or
`
`recovery device becauseof possibility of recovery in low temperatures (at least Abstract), and in
`
`Table 9 showsthe results of adsorbed CO2 by copperoxide, zinc oxide , in Table 10 shows the
`
`results of adsorbed CO2 by copper oxide, zinc oxide and plus activated carbon increases the
`
`amount of adsorbed Co2.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to use Kenji’s inorganic oxides (copper oxide, zinc
`
`oxide) for Nakano combined with Park and Bazemore’s adsorbents. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art knows they can be desorbed in lower temperatures and would use them for energy cost
`
`effective purposes.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Nakano in view of Park and Kenji teaches claim 9, Nakano further
`
`discloses the plurality of housing parts (7,8) includesinlets (inlets of 7 and 9 connected to
`
`valves V1, V2) and outlets (outlets of 7 and 9 connected to valves V3) opposite to the inlets,
`
`respectively, the plurality of gas-guiding passages (the gas passages that conducts gas from
`
`e.g., V1,V2 to the inlets of 5 and 7) are coupledto the inlets, respectively, and the plurality of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 13
`
`desorbed-gas passagesare coupledto the outlets (the gas passages that conducts gas from
`
`e.g., V3 to the outlets of 5 and 7), respectively.
`
`Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Park, and
`
`Kenji as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Yoshida (JP-2014228485-A, “Yoshida’).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Nakano in view of Park and Kenji teacheslimitations claim 9,
`
`Nakano further disclosesa plurality of heaters ({0009) and that heat the adsorbents so as to
`
`desorb the sample gas from eachof the adsorbents, wherein the heaters can be energized
`
`individually ({0009, 40014, 40016).
`
`Nakano combined with Park and Kenji fail to disclose heaters disposed in the housing
`
`parts.
`
`Yoshida teachesin figures 1 and 3 a gas sensor (X) with adsorbent (21) that heater (22)
`
`is disposed in the housing part (40).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to dispose Nakano (combined with Park and Kenji)’s heaters in a
`
`housing as taught by Yoshida. One of ordinary skill in the art knows the measurement systems
`
`are maintained in a housing to not only make them more convenient andreliable and lasting,
`
`specifically disposing heaters in the housing manage the heat to be applied more for creating
`
`desorption profiles with less waste of heat.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 14
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Park,
`
`Kenji, and Yoshida as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of KIM, (KR20090024515A,
`
`“KIM’).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Nakano in view of Park, Kenji and Yoshida teachesclaim 10,
`
`Nakano further discloses the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of §0026) include a
`
`first adsorbent (e.g., in collection tube 7) and a second adsorbent(e.g., in collection tube 9), the
`
`heaters (not shown heaters but disclosed at e.g., (O009) include a first heater that heats the first
`
`adsorbent and a second heater that heats the second adsorbent (§0017-0017), in the case
`
`where the second adsorbent is, among the adsorbents, an adsorbent from which the sample
`
`gas is to be desorbed subsequently after being desorbed from the first adsorbent, so that the
`
`sample gas is desorbed from the first adsorbent and fed into the detector in a first period and
`
`the sample gas is desorbed from the second adsorbent and fed into the detector in a second
`
`period, and the first period and the secondperiod are apart from each other(e.g., (0013- The
`
`time for introducing the sample gas into the collection tubes 7 and 9 can be arbitrarily set for
`
`each sample gas by switching the electromagnetic valves V1, V2, V3, and V4 and e.g. in 40014-
`
`Step (C) only adsorbentin flow path of 7 is connected to detector to detect the desorbed from
`
`the first adsorbent e.g., Carbotrap while in step (D), meaning the next period, as disclosed in
`
`40016 adsorbentin flow path of 9 is connected to detector 3 to detect the desorbed from the
`
`second adsorbent e.g., Carbotrap C).
`
`Nakano combined with Park, Kenji and Yoshida fail to disclose a controller that controls
`
`electric power supply to the heaters.
`
`Kim in figures 1-3, (page 3 lines 100-102) teaches controller (controllers 132) that
`
`controls electric power supply to the heaters (130).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 15
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Kim’s controller and control electric power supply to Nakano
`
`(combined with Park and Kenji)’s heaters. One of ordinary skill in the art knows managing and
`
`controlling any of heaters to heat adsorbents and providing desorption profiles needs a
`
`controller to control temperature related to the desorption profiles for each adsorbent.
`
`Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Park
`
`and Kenji as applied to claim 9, in view of Yamanaka’, (JP 2002035601 A, “Yamanaka’).
`
`Regarding claim 13, Nakano in view of Park and Kenji teaches claim 9, Nakano
`
`combined with Park and Kenji fail to disclose the inorganic oxide contains at least one selected
`
`from the group consisting of a tungsten oxide, a tantalum oxide, a titanium oxide, a tin oxide, a
`
`copper oxide, a zinc oxide and a nickel oxide.
`
`Yamanaka teaches the inorganic oxide contains a zinc oxide (40011).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Yamanaka’s inorganic oxides for Nakano (combined with
`
`Park and Kenji)’s adsorbents. Oneof ordinary skill in the art would know they are excellent in
`
`adsorption capability of hydrophilic substance.
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Park, and
`
`Kenji as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Yamanaka, and Shiono, (KR 20070027549 A,”
`
`Shiono”).
`
`' Provided by office attached to the previous action
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 16
`
`Regarding claim 14, Nakano combined with Park and Kenji fail to disclose each of the
`
`adsorbents includes a nanowire covered with an inorganic oxide film, and the inorganic oxide
`
`film is composedof the inorganic oxide.
`
`Yamanakain figs. 1-4 teaches of the adsorbents includes a nanowire (at e.g., 0016 and
`
`in 40013 and 40015 Yamanaka teaches the shape/dimensions can be selected according to
`
`what is wanted) covered with an inorganic oxide film (e.g., 00174), and the inorganic oxide film
`
`is composed of the inorganic oxide (titanium oxide).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use wired covered with an inorganic oxide film as taught by
`
`Yamanaka for Nakano (combined with Park and Kenji)’s adsorbents. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would knowthat these wire shape makes a more sorption surface and inorganic oxide films
`
`have great adsorption capacity for some hydrophilic substances.
`
`Shiono in fig.1 teaches adsorbent in nano order (page 23 line 958 using CNT as
`
`adsorbent and in page 26-line 1056 teachesit is in nano order).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Shiono’s Nano scale for Nakano (combined with Park and
`
`Kenji)’s adsorbents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to makethis
`
`modification in order to increase the sorption surface and the preference for being in nano size
`
`scale in any application.
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of
`
`Park and Bazemore.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 17
`
`Regarding independentclaim 16,
`
`Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses a method for analyzing a gas, comprising:
`
`allowing a sample gas (1- sample gas flow path 1) to be adsorbed by eachofa plurality
`
`of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) respectively (e.g., 0012, 0025 and
`
`40027 three-way valves makesthe arrangementfor respectively conducting gas to each
`
`collection tube) having compositions that are different from each other ({0008, odor sensor 3
`
`can detect six type odor);
`
`allowing the sample gas (1- sample gas flow path 1) to be desorbedindividually from the
`
`adsorbents (c while detecting individually (e.g. Figs. 1C/1D) the sam