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 - Panasonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`NIA, FATEMEH ESFANDIARI
`
`2855
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/04/2024
`
`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
`
`eofficeaction @appcoll.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 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 04/24/2024.
`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) 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.
`
`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 20240529
`
`

`

`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
`
`anew ground ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
`
`would be the same under either status.
`
`Response to Amendment/ Arguments
`
`The response and amendments, filed 04/24/2024, 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:
`
`- Onpage 7 of Remarks, Applicant argues Park does not teach “specifying a
`
`component’ and Park only discloses the result obtained by measuring the ability of
`
`desorbing specific compounds from adsorbents and fails to disclose that this result
`
`can be used for specifying the component contained in the sample gas.
`
`-
`
`Examiner response:
`
`One cannot show nonobviousnessby attacking references individually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP§ 2143.01.
`
`In this case, the rejection of the limitation is based on the combination of Nakano and
`
`Park. Nakano is for identifying an odor (e.g.,§000190006) and also teaches the peaksin Figs 2A
`
`/2B, Nakano’s sensor 3 teaches detecting/specifying individually the sample gas desorbed from
`
`each of the adsorbents; desorption profiles of the sample gas that are respectively unique to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 3
`
`adsorbents and respectively define peaks (see Nakano:§0016 -§0017/40025-90027/Figs.2A/2B
`
`),Nakano does not specifically teach acquiring desorption profiles and respectively define peaks
`
`of which shapes andpositions are different from each other, Park is relied upon to teachthat,
`
`Park at least teaches allowing the sample gas to be desorbed fromthe adsorbents while
`
`acquiring desorption profiles and respectively define peaks of which shapes and positions are
`
`different from each other (see Park:Figs.5-8 and §0088), and the combination makes the
`
`limitation obvious and a motivation is given (to improvethe ability of gas sensor or analyzer as
`
`suggested by Park-§0090), and neither reference provides any indication that their combination
`
`would not have yielded a predictable result. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
`
`- Onpages 7 of Remarks, Applicant argues Bazemoreis not teaching the machine
`
`learning and only disclosesalgorithms for studying volatile profiles andit is not
`
`obvious to combine the machine learning with Park to specify the component in the
`
`sample gas.
`
`-
`
`Examiner response:
`
`Broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the
`
`same result does notdistinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2114.IV, also: Leapfrog
`
`Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007)
`
`First, the instant application has not disclosed any detail of specific algorithms and
`
`processfor machine learning to specify acomponentin the sample gas, it is just broadly
`
`disclosing the use of machine learning to specify the component in asample gas, and second:
`
`Examiner notes that regarding using machine learning that is automating a manual activity, the
`
`courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual
`
`activity which accomplished the sameresult is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 4
`
`MPEP 2144.04 III (“Automating A Manual Activity”).
`
`In this case, combination of Nankana and
`
`Park as cited in the previous office action and cited her reads on the limitation. Therefore, the
`
`argumentis not persuasive.
`
`- On page 7 of remarks, Applicant argues that Park’s adsorbent is carbon nanotube-
`
`metal nanocomplexthat is completely different from inorganic oxides of Kenji, simply
`
`combining Park’s desorption profiles and Kenji’s adsorbent in Nakano would not
`
`obtain the desorption profiles of Park in Nakano. Therefore, such acombination
`
`would not achieve the Office Action’s intended modification.
`
`-
`
`Examiner response:
`
`The test for obviousnessis not whether the features of asecondary 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, Park teaches peaks of which shapes and positions are different from each
`
`other; and combination of Nakano and Park teaches specifying different components from
`
`shape of peaks, Kenji teaches using adsorbents which contain an inorganic oxide. The
`
`motivation can be ability of inorganic oxides for desorption in lower temperatures as Nakano
`
`(combined with Park and Bazemore)’s adsorbents and neither reference provides anyindication
`
`that their combination would not haveyielded a predictable result. Therefore, the argument is
`
`not persuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 5
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthe basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forthin this Office action:
`
`A patent for aclaimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
`claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
`differences betweenthe 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 ordinaryskill 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
`
`2001013120A,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 amethod for analyzing agas,
`
`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, YO025 and
`
`40027 three way valves makes the arrangement for respectively conducting gas to each
`
`collection tube) having compositions that are different from each other (40008, odor sensor 3
`
`can detectsix type odor);
`
`allowing the sample gas to be desorbedindividually (e.g.,f0012, (0025 and 40027 three
`
`way valves makes the arrangement for 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 4001 7) from eachof the
`
`adsorbents so as to acquire desorption profiles (Fig.2A, 2B and e.g., (0017) of the sample gas
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 6
`
`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 acomponent contained in the sample gas by conducting amachine learning on the
`
`group of the desorption profiles, and
`
`2) each of adsorbents contains an inorganic oxide
`
`
`
`Regardinglimitation1)
`
`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., VOCs listed 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 differentfor
`
`different adsorbents and sample gases 40088); and
`
`specifying acomponent (VOCs) contained in the sample gas (from port 200).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill 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 differentfrom 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
`
`make this modification in order to improvethe ability of gas sensor or analyzer (Park-§0090).
`
`Nakano and Park do not specifically disclose and specifying acomponent containedin
`
`the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 7
`
`In similar field of endeavor, Bazemore, teaches specifying acomponent (volatile, semi-
`
`volatile, and non-volatile organic compounds in breath, 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 ordinaryskill 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 because of possibility of recovery in low temperatures (at least Abstract), and in
`
`Table 9 showsthe results of adsorbed CO2 by copper oxide,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 (copper oxide, zinc
`
`oxide) for Nakano combined with Park and Bazemore’s adsorbents. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art knowsthey can be desorbedin lower temperatures and would use them for energy cost
`
`effective purposes.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teaches limitations
`
`claim 1, Nakano further discloses the acquiring of the desorption profiles is carried out by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 8
`
`detecting, individually and over time, the sample gas desorbed from eachof the adsorbents,
`
`and each of the desorption profiles is an over-time data created from a detection signal
`
`reflecting aquantity of the sample gas (Fig.2A, 2B and e.g., 40017).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teaches limitations
`
`claim 1, Nakano further discloses 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 adsorbentsindividually (0016-40017), and each of the
`
`desorption profiles is adata 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 70026).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teaches limitations
`
`claim 3, Nakano further discloses the heating of each of the adsorbentsis carried out witha
`
`heater (not shown but describedin e.g., JO009).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teaches limitations
`
`claim 1, Nakano further discloses a detector (odor sensor 3) that detects the sample gas
`
`desorbed from eachof the adsorbents is used in common with the adsorbents (Carbotrap /
`
`Carbotrap C in view of 70026).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Nakano in view of Park, Bazemore and Kenji teaches limitations
`
`claim 5, Nakano further discloses the adsorbents include afirst 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 desorbedfrom the first adsorbent is fed into the detectorin afirst period and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 9
`
`sample gas desorbed from the second adsorbent is fed into the detector in asecond 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 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 connectedto detector to detect the desorbed from the first
`
`adsorbent e.g., Carbotrap while in step (D), meaning the next period, as disclosed in 70016
`
`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 2014083488A, “Kenji’).
`
`Regarding independentclaim 9,
`
`Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses adevice for analyzing agas, comprising:
`
`a plurality of adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of §0026) respectively
`
`(e.g.,f0012, 0025 and 40027 three way valves makes the arrangement for 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 pipesor collection tubes 7 and 9 that can be even
`
`more than twocollection pipes) individually storing the adsorbents(Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in
`
`view of 70026);
`
`a plurality of gas-guiding passages (FIG. 1A and FIG 1B - passage from V2to 7;
`
`passage from V2to 9) that guide a sample gasto 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 70026);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 10
`
`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 identifier (e.g.,§0008 The odor sensor3 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 (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 shownon figs.2A/2B).
`
`Nakano fails to disclose:
`
`1) peaks of which shapes and positions are differentfrom each other; and
`
`specifying acomponent contained in the sample gas by conducting amachine learning on the
`
`group of the desorption profiles, and
`
`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 acomponent (VOCs) contained in the sample gas (from port 200).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 11
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill 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 differentfrom each other and specifying a componentcontained in Nakano’s
`
`sample gas as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`make this modification in order to improvethe ability of gas sensor or analyzer (Park-§0090).
`
`Nakano and Park do not specifically disclose and specifying acomponent containedin
`
`the sample gas by conducting a machine learning on the group of the desorption profiles.
`
`In similar field of endeavor, Bazemore, teaches specifying acomponent (volatile, semi-
`
`volatile, and non-volatile organic compounds in breath, 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 ordinaryskill 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 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 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 because of possibility of recovery in low temperatures (at least Abstract), and in
`
`Table 9 showsthe results of adsorbed CO2 by copper oxide,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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 12
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill 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 knowsthey 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
`
`disclosesthe 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) oppositeto 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 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 teaches limitations claim 9,
`
`Nakano further discloses a plurality of heaters ((O009) and that heat the adsorbents so as to
`
`desorb the sample gas from eachof the adsorbents, wherein the heaters can be energized
`
`individually (0009, 0014, 40016).
`
`Nakano combined with Park and Kenji fail to disclose heaters disposed in the housing
`
`parts.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 13
`
`Yoshida teachesin figures 1 and 3 a gas sensor (X) with adsorbent (21) that heater (22)
`
`is disposedin the housing part (40).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`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 convenientand reliable and lasting,
`
`specifically disposing heaters in the housing manage the heat to be applied morefor creating
`
`desorption profiles with less waste of heat.
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Park,
`
`Kenji, and Yoshidaas applied to claim 10 above, further in view of KIM, (KR20090024515A,
`
`“KIM”).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Nakano in view of Park, Kenji and Yoshida teaches claim 10,
`
`Nakano further discloses the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 0026) include a
`
`first adsorbent (e.g., in collection tube 7) and asecond adsorbent(e.g., in collection tube 9), the
`
`heaters (not shown heaters but disclosed at e.g., YO009) include afirst heater that heats the first
`
`adsorbent and a second heater that heats the second adsorbent (0017 -§001 7), in the case
`
`wherethe 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 afirst period and
`
`the sample gas is desorbed from the second adsorbent and fed into the detector ina 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 40014-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 14
`
`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).
`
`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).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill 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 atungsten oxide, a tantalum oxide, a titanium oxide, a tin oxide, a
`
`copper oxide, azinc oxide and a nickel oxide.
`
`Yamanaka teaches the inorganic oxide contains azinc oxide (40011).
`
`' Providedbyoffice attached to the previous action
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 15
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill 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. One of 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’).
`
`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 composed of the inorganic oxide.
`
`Yamanaka in 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 composedof 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 ofordinary skill in the
`
`art would knowthat these wire shape makes a moresorption surface and inorganic oxide films
`
`have great adsorption capacity for some hydrophilic substances.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 16
`
`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 ordinaryskill 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 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
`
`Park and Bazemore.
`
`Regarding independentclaim 16,
`
`Nakano in figures 1-3 discloses amethod for analyzing agas, 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, YO025 and
`
`40027 three-way valves makes the arrangement for respectively conducting gas to each
`
`collection tube) having compositions that are different from each other (40008, odor sensor 3
`
`can detectsix 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 sample gas (1) desorbed from
`
`each of the adsorbents (Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) so as to acquire desorption
`
`profiles (Fig.2A/2B) of the sample gas (1) that are respectively unique to the adsorbents
`
`(Carbotrap / Carbotrap C in view of 40026) and respectively define peaks (peaks shownin Figs.
`
`2A/2B).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/612,349
`Art Unit: 2855
`
`Page 17
`
`Nakano fails to disclose peaks of which shapes and positions are different from each
`
`other; and specifying acomponent containedin the sample gas by conducting a machine
`
`learning on the group of the desorption profiles.
`
`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., VOCs listed 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., beaks shown on Figs.6-8 thatare different for
`