www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/612,349
`
`11/08/2019
`
`Yosuke HANAI
`
`071025-0117
`
`3547
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`NIA, FATEMEH ESFANDIARI
`
`2855
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/12/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime 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):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`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 STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of 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 02/28/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 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)\0) 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.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6 and 9-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-16 is/are rejected.
`1) Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* 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://Awww.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)1) 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... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived 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)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230504
`
`

`

`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 underthe
`
`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 02/28/2023, has been entered. Claims 1-6, 9-11,
`
`and 13-16 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the
`
`prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered:
`
`1- On pages 2-3 of Remarks the Applicant argues that Nakano does not teach
`
`“identifying the sample gas by using a group of the desorption profiles” Nakano
`
`merely teaches the molecular weight of the component can be obtained by using
`
`Carbotrap and Carbotrap C.
`
`The examiner response:
`
`Nakano in 40006 teaches sample gasis identified based on the multiple response
`
`patterns of the gas sensor, in 40007 , the odor componentthat is dominant in odor
`
`discrimination is collected in one of the collection tubes, and the response pattern of the gas
`
`sensor when the odor component is detected is analyzed to further improve the identifiability,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 3
`
`40008the odor is identified by integrating the response patterns of these gas sensors 40025
`
`0027 teachesin addition to odor identification based on the difference in adsorption
`
`characteristics of these collection tubes 7 and 9, the odor components desorbed from each
`
`collection tube are identified and it improves the discrimination of odor components, by
`
`analyzing the responsepattern of the gas sensor when detecting the odor components
`
`collected in the collection tube, the distinquishability can be further improved.
`
`Chosen paragraphs bythe applicant, i.e., JQ009 and 40017 teach howdifferent
`
`collection/adsorption tubes are reacting to the samples based on their molecular weight, and
`
`does not teaching away from this fact that Nakano teaches“identifying the sample gas by using
`
`a group of the desorption profiles”. In no means, these teachings of Nakanolimit Nakanoto just
`
`merely obtaining the molecular weight of the component by using Carbotrap and Carbotrap C as
`
`cited by the applicant nor doesinvalidate the teachings of Nakano to teachidentifying the
`
`sample gas by using a group of the desorption profiles.
`
`Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
`
`2- On page 3 of remarks, the applicant argues that Prior art does not teach “the
`
`identifying of the sample gas includes specifying a component containedin the
`
`sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption
`
`profiles,”
`
`The examiner response:
`
`First one cannot show nonobviousnessbyattacking referencesindividually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ
`
`871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375(Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 4
`
`Second: Based on a national standard, since it has been held to be within the general skill
`
`of a workerin the art to combine prior art elements according to known methodsto yield
`
`predictable results. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398,82 USPQ2d 1385
`
`(2007).
`
`in this case, Nakano teachesthe identifying of the sample gas includes specifying a
`
`component contained in the sample gas on the group of the desorption profiles. Nakano does
`
`not teach using machine learning techniques. Kuckin e.g., Fig.1C teaches a gas sensor 20 to
`
`specify and measuring concentration of a gaseous agent (e.g., 000790035), Kuck further
`
`teaches the methods and system can employ Artificial Intelligence techniques such as machine
`
`learning (0077). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kuck’s machinelearning technique for
`
`Nakano’s methodto identifying of the sample gas includes specifying a component containedin
`
`the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles and
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to
`
`significantly reducing errors and increasing accuracy and precision. Therefore, the argument is
`
`not persuasive.
`
`3- On pages 2 and 4 of Remarks, the applicant argues that The limitation “each of the
`
`adsorbents contains an inorganic oxide” is not taught by the prior art because Kenji
`
`is used for adsorbing odor free gas (CO2), while the adsorbents in Nakano
`
`(Carbotrap and Carbotrap C) are used for adsorbing odor gas (see, claim 1 of
`
`Nakano). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not refer to the odor free
`
`adsorbent of Kenji for an odor gas adsorbent of Nakano.
`
`The examiner response:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 5
`
`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 teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
`
`In this case, first: Nakano at least in e.g., 0026 teaches using different gas sensors and
`
`although Nakano chooses Carbotrap and Carbotrap C as adsorption material and identifying
`
`odors in sample gas, thereis notlimitation of adsorbents or gas sensor types and Nakano is not
`
`limited to only detecting odors in the sample gas. Kenji teaches possibility of adsorption
`
`recovery in low temperatures (at least Abstract), while using copper oxide, zinc oxide.
`
`Therefore, on workerof art would have been motivated to use copperoxide, zinc oxide as
`
`adsorbent for gas sensorsif a gas such as CO2is supposedto beidentified at least the benefit
`
`of recovering in lower temperatures and lowering energy costs.
`
`Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive. There is no amendments, therefore the
`
`rejection remains.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 6
`
`Claims 1-6, 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 Kuck (US 20190151584 A1,” Kuck“),
`
`and Kenji (JP 2014083488 A, “Kenji’).
`
`Regarding claim 1, 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 each of a
`
`plurality of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 70026) respectively (e.g.,40012,
`
`40025 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 to be desorbed individually
`
`(e.g.,f0012, YO025 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 §0026) while detecting (odor sensor 3) individually the sample gas desorbed
`
`(e.g.,§0016 and 40017) 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 identifying the sample gas by using a group of
`
`the desorption profiles (e.g.40006).
`
`Nakano fails to disclose:
`
`1) the identifying of the sample gas includes specifying a componentcontained in the
`
`sample gas by conducting machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles, and
`
`2) each of adsorbents contains an inorganic oxide
`
`Regarding
`
`limitation 1
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 7
`
`Kuck in e.g., Fig.1C teaches a gas sensor 20 to specify and measuring concentration of
`
`a gaseous agent (e.g., JO00790035), Kuck further teaches the methods and system can employ
`
`Artificial Intelligence techniques such as machine learning ({0077).
`
`Examinerholds that 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 over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04Ill (“Automating A Manual
`
`Activity’).
`
`Nakano disclosesidentifying the sample gas includes specifying a component contained
`
`in the sample gas by using a group of the desorption profiles (e.g., YOO06: the composition of
`
`the odor components collected by each collection unit is different, and as a result, the response
`
`pattern of the gas sensoris also different, and the information used for identifying the sample
`
`gas. Then, the sample gasis identified based on a plurality of response patterns of the gas
`
`sensor).
`
`Therefore,
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to conducting machine learning as an Artificial Intelligence
`
`technique, as taught by Kuck on Nakano’s group of the desorption profiles in the method of
`
`Nakano to identify the sample gasthat includes specifying a component contained in the
`
`sample gas. One of ordinary skill in the art knowsArtificial Intelligence techniques have the
`
`advantages such asfast performance of repetitive operations that are also more accurate by
`
`reducing the potential humanerrors.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 8
`
`Table 9 showsthe results of adsorbed CO2 by copperoxide, zinc oxide , in Table 10 showsthe
`
`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’s adsorbents. Oneof 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 further discloses the acquiring of the desorption profiles is
`
`carried out by detecting, individually and over time, the sample gas desorbed from each of the
`
`adsorbents, and each of 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 further discloses The method for analyzing a gas according
`
`to claim 1, wherein the acquiring of the desorption profiles is carried out by heating (not shown
`
`heaters but disclosed at e.g.,0009) each of the adsorbents so as to desorb the sample gas
`
`from the adsorbents individually (¢0016-§0017), 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 further discloses the heating of each of the adsorbentsis
`
`carried out with a heater (not shown but described in e.g., JO009).
`
`Regarding claim 5, 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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding claim 6, Nakano further discloses the adsorbents include a first adsorbent
`
`and a second adsorbent, the second adsorbentis, among the adsorbents, an adsorbent from
`
`which the sample gas is to be desorbed subsequently after being desorbed from the first
`
`adsorbent, the sample gas desorbed from the first adsorbent is fed into the detector inafirst
`
`period and the sample gas desorbed from the second adsorbentis fed into the detector in a
`
`second period, andthe first period and the secondperiod are apart from each other.(e.g.,
`
`§0013- The time for introducing the sample gasinto 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 ¥0014- Step (C) only adsorbent in 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 70016 adsorbentin flow path of 9 is connected to detector 3 to detect the
`
`desorbed from the second adsorbent e.g., Carbotrap C).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses a device for analyzing a gas,
`
`comprising: a plurality of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) respectively
`
`(e.g.,f0012, YO025 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); a plurality of housing parts (0026 pipes or
`
`collection tubes 7 and 9 that can be even more than twocollection 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 V2 to 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 V2 to 7; passage
`
`from V2 to 9) connecting (e.g., flow path 5) the housing parts (7,9) to the detector (3); and an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 10
`
`identifier (e.g.,O0008 The odor sensor 3 is provided with six types of oxide semiconductor gas
`
`sensors having different response characteristics, and the responsepatterns of these gas
`
`sensorsare integrated to identify the odor) that acquires a detection signal from the detector so
`
`as to create desorption profiles of the sample gas that are respectively unique to the adsorbents
`
`(Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026), and that identifies (e.g.J0006) the sample gas by
`
`using a group of the desorption profiles of the sample gas that are respectively unique to the
`
`adsorbents, and that specifies a component contained in the sample gas (e.g., ¥0025 and
`
`q0027- By analyzing the response pattern of the gas sensor when the odor componentcollected
`
`in the collection tube is detected, the distinctiveness can be further improved).
`
`Nakano fails to disclose:
`
`1) by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles, wherein
`
`2) each of adsorbents contains an inorganic oxide
`
`Regarding
`
`limitation 1
`
`Kuckin e.g., Fig.1C teaches a gas sensor 20 to specify and measuring concentration of
`
`a gaseous agent (e.g., 000790035) and the methods and system can employArtificial
`
`Intelligence techniques such as machine learning (0077).
`
`Examinerholds that 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 overthe prior art. See MPEP 2144.04Ill (“Automating A Manual
`
`Activity’).
`
`Nakano disclosesidentifying the sample gas includes specifying a component contained
`
`in the sample gas by using a group of the desorption profiles (e.g., YO006: the composition of
`
`the odor components collected by each collection unit is different, and as a result, the response
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 11
`
`pattern of the gas sensoris also different, and the information used for identifying the sample
`
`gas. Then, the sample gasis identified based on a plurality of response patterns of the gas
`
`sensor).
`
`Therefore,
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention to conducting machine learning as an Artificial Intelligence
`
`technique, as taught by Kuck on Nakano’s group of the desorption profiles in the method of
`
`Nakano to identify the sample gasthat includes specifying a component contained in the
`
`sample gas. One of ordinary skill in the art knowsArtificial Intelligence techniques have the
`
`advantages such asfast performance of repetitive operations that are also more accurate by
`
`reducing the potential humanerrors.
`
`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 showsthe
`
`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 (copperoxide, zinc
`
`oxide) for Nakano’s adsorbents. Oneofordinary skill in the art knows they can be desorbedin
`
`lower temperatures and would use them for energy cost effective purposes.
`
`Regarding claim 15, 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 12
`
`connected to valves V3) opposite to the inlets, respectively, the plurality of gas-guiding
`
`passages(the gas passagesthat conducts gas from e.g., V1,V2 to the inlets of 5 and 7) are
`
`coupledto the inlets, respectively, and the plurality of desorbed-gas passages are coupled to
`
`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, Kuck and
`
`Kenji as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Yoshida (JP-2014228485-A, “Yoshida’).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Nakano disclosesa plurality of heaters ({0009) and that heat the
`
`adsorbents so as to desorb the sample gas from each of the adsorbents, wherein the heaters
`
`can be energized individually (0009, 70014, 40016).
`
`Nakano combined with Kuck 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 Kuck 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 and reliable 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 13
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Kuck,
`
`Kenji, and Yoshida as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of KIM, (KR20090024515A,
`
`“KIM’).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Nakano further discloses the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C
`
`in view of 40026) includea 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., YO009) include
`
`a first heater that heats the first adsorbent and a second heater that heats the second adsorbent
`
`(40017-0017), in the case where the second adsorbentis, among the adsorbents, an
`
`adsorbent from which the sample gasis 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 second period are apart from
`
`eachother(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 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 Kuck 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 14
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Kim’s controller and control electric power supply to Nakano
`
`(combined with Kuck 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 adsorbert.
`
`Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Kuck
`
`and Kenji as applied to claim 9, in view of Yamanaka, (JP 2002035601 A, “Yamanaka’).
`
`Regarding claim 13, Nakano combined with Kuck 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.
`
`Yamanakateachesthe inorganic oxide contains a zinc oxide (0011).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Yamanaka’s inorganic oxides for Nakano (combined with
`
`Kuck and Kenji)’s adsorbents. Oneof ordinary skill in the art would know they are excellentin
`
`adsorption capability of hydrophilic substance.
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Kuck,
`
`and Kenji as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Shiono, (KR 20070027549 A,” Shiono”).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Nakano combined with Kuck and Kenji fail to disclose each of the
`
`adsorbents includes a nanowire covered with an inorganic oxide film, and the inorganic oxide
`
`film is composed of the inorganic oxide.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 15
`
`Yamanakain figs. 1-4 teaches of the adsorbents includes a nanowire (at e.g., 0016 and
`
`in ¥0013 and (0015 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 effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to use wired covered with an inorganic oxide film as taught by
`
`Yamanaka for Nakano (combined with Kuck and Kenji)’s adsorbents. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would knowthat these wire shape makes a more sorption surface and inorganic oxidefilms
`
`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 effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to use Shiono’s Nano scale for Nakano (combined with Kuck 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 preferencefor 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
`
`Kuck.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses a method for analyzing a gas,
`
`comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 16
`
`allowing a sample gas (1- sample gasflow path 1) to be adsorbed by eachof a plurality
`
`of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) respectively having compositions that
`
`are different from each other (e.g., Y0012, 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 detectsix type odor);
`
`(e.g., J0012, YO025 and Y0027 three-way valves make the arrangementfor individually
`
`and respectively conducting gas to each collection tube) from each of the adsorbents
`
`(Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) 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
`
`identifying the sample gas by using a group of the desorption profiles (e.g., YOO006: the
`
`composition of the odor components collected by each collection unit is different, and as a
`
`result, the response pattern of the gas sensoris also different, and the information usedfor
`
`identifying the sample gas. Then, the sample gasis identified based on a plurality of response
`
`patterns of the gas sensor).
`
`Nakana fails to disclose wherein the identifying of the sample gas includes conducting a
`
`machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles.
`
`Kuckin e.g., Fig.1C teaches a gas sensor 20 to specify and measuring concentration of
`
`a gaseous agent (e.g., J000790035) and the methods and system can employArtificial
`
`Intelligence techniques such as machine learning (0077).
`
`Examinerholds that 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 over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04Ill (“Automating A Manual
`
`Activity’).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 17
`
`Nakano disclosesidentifying the sample gas includes specifying a component contained
`
`in the sample gas by using a group of the desorption profiles (e.g., YOO06: the composition of
`
`the odor components collected by each collection unit is different, and as a result, the response
`
`pattern of the gas sensoris also different, and the information used for identifying the sample
`
`gas. Then, the sample gasis identified based on a plurality of response patterns of the gas
`
`sensor).
`
`Therefore,
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to conducting machine learning as an Artificial Intelligence
`
`technique, as taught by Kuck on Nakano’s group of the desorption profiles in the method of
`
`Nakano to identify the sample gasthat includes spe