Patent Application 17439380 - INTERFERENT AND BASELINE DRIFT CORRECTING SENSOR

Title: INTERFERENT AND BASELINE DRIFT CORRECTING SENSOR SYSTEM

Application Information

Invention Title: INTERFERENT AND BASELINE DRIFT CORRECTING SENSOR SYSTEM
Application Number: 17439380
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2021-09-14T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2021-09-14T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 073
National Sub-Class: 023200
Examiner Employee Number: 91697
Art Unit: 2855
Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0113984🔗
US 0159084🔗

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “one of ordinary skill in would not have been motivated to combine the disclosure of Groves and Wohltjen with any reasonable expectation of success in achieving a system employing the sensors recited in amended claim 1”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that while Wohltjen does not particularly specify whether the T-junction 11 (see Wohltjen’s Fig. 1) is a diverter, diverter valve, a valve, or otherwise, Groves teaches that the system 50 uses block valves instead of diverter valves to regulate the flow of air through the pre-filter (see Column 5, line 31, to Column 6, line 4). The examiner further submits that the test for obviousness is 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. In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that Groves clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a block valve instead of the T-junction diverter because the block valve would allow for more control of the flow.
The amendment to add the pump and the types of sensor does not overcome the prior arts of record because the primary reference already anticipates these limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an electrochemical sensor” should be corrected to –the electrochemical sensor—if this is the same as “an electrochemical sensor” as defined in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):

(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

Claims 1-10, 12-15, 18, 20, 22, 35-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the phrase “wherein the filter is continuously exposed to the pump” is indefinite because the claims do not clarify whether “the filter” refers to “a filter material” or another filter/filter material. The specification, dated 09/14/2021, does not explicitly mention whether the filter or the filter material is configured to be “continuously exposed to be pump.” In particular, the written specification appears to only disclose that “gas from an atmosphere is drawn into the apparatus by any method known to the skilled person, e.g. by use of one or more pumps (not shown)” (see page 10), that “gas in the apparatus may be removed therefrom, e.g. by a pump or by displacement with a gas that the gas sensor is not responsive to, between the first state and the second state” (see page 12), and especially that “electrochemical sensors may provide more stable signals and/or have longer lifetime if exposed non-continuously to a target gas as described herein” (see page 18). The originally written specification does not appear to disclose the claimed limitations of a pump configured to draw gas “through the sensor system” and “wherein the filter is continuously exposed to the pump” in claims 1 and 16. Further clarification is respectfully requested.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 15, 18, 35-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Groves et al (Pat. No. US 9,377,380) (hereafter Groves).
Regarding claim 1, Wohltjen teaches a sensor system configured to determine a presence, a concentration or a change in concentration of a target material in a gaseous environment (i.e., a conventional apparatus wherein a valve is used to modulate the flow to the gas sensor between two different gas streams) (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a sensor configured to respond to the target material (i.e., sensor 13) (see Fig. 1);
an inlet configured to draw gas from an environment into the sensor system (i.e., inlet 11) (see Fig. 1);
a valve arrangement (i.e., valve 16) (see Fig. 1) configured to direct gas drawn from the environment to only a first fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor or to only a second fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor (i.e., Upon entering the inlet 11, the "sample" gas, will flow either through the trap 12 or through the direct flow path 15, depending on the position of the valve 16. In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13 while flow through direct flow path 15 is blocked; in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13 while flow from trap 12 to sensor 13 is blocked) (see Column 6, lines 40-58);
a filter material for removing the target material from the gas (i.e., trap 12) (see Fig. 1), wherein the filter material is disposed in the first fluid flow path (see Fig. 1); and
a pump configured to draw gas into and through the sensor system (i.e., a pump 14 creates a significant pressure differential causing the "sample" gas to enter at the inlet 11) (see Fig. 1);
wherein, in the case that the valve arrangement is configured to direct gas drawn from the environment to only the second fluid flow path, gas drawn into the sensor is substantially unchanged from gas in the environment (i.e., in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13) (see Column 6, lines 40-58),
wherein the sensor system is configured such that all of the gas drawn from the environment into the sensor system passes through the sensor before it is exhausted from the sensor system (i.e., Upon entering the inlet 11, the "sample" gas, will flow either through the trap 12 or through the direct flow path 15, depending on the position of the valve 16. In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13 while flow through direct flow path 15 is blocked; in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13 while flow from trap 12 to sensor 13 is blocked) (see Column 6, lines 40-58), wherein the sensor is an electrochemical sensor, a thin film transistor sensor, a vertical or horizontal chemiresistor sensor, or a metal oxide semiconductor sensor (i.e., the sensor of the invention can be chosen from a broad spectrum of gas sensor technologies compatible with practice of the invention and the particular application of interest, including without limitation metal oxide semiconductors (MOS), amperometric and voltametric electrochemical cells, coated bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators, coated surface acoustic wave (SAW) resonators, pellistors, thermal conductivity detectors, conductive polymers, chemiresistors, photoionization detectors, chemically sensitive field effect transistors, and optical waveguide sensors) (see Column 6, lines 22-39); and
wherein the filter is continuously exposed to the pump (i.e., trap 12 is exposed to the pump as there is a flow path from the trap 12 to the pump 14) (see Fig. 1); but does not explicitly teach that the valve arrangement is disposed in a flow path between the inlet and the filter material.
Regarding the valve arrangement, Groves teaches that the valve arrangement (i.e., block valve 60) (see Fig. 2) is disposed in a flow path between the inlet and the filter material (i.e., This system 50 uses block valves instead of diverter valves to regulate the flow of air through the pre-filter) (see Column 5, line 31, to Column 6, line 4). In view of the teaching of Groves, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged a valve arrangement in between the inlet and the filter instead of Wohltjen’s T-connector 11. Since the block valves as taught by Groves can be controlled by a triggering signal, using the valve arrangement would provide more control over the flow of gas entering the fluid flow paths.
Regarding claim 2, Wohltjen teaches that the first fluid flow path is disposed between the sensor and a first valve of the valve arrangement and the second fluid flow path is disposed between the sensor and a second valve of the valve arrangement (i.e., fluid flow path between the valve 16 and the sensor 13) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Wohltjen teaches that the first and second fluid flow paths are disposed between the sensor and a three-way valve of the valve arrangement (i.e., the fluid flow path between the three-way valve 16 and the sensor 13) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wohltjen teaches that the system further comprises a third fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor and disposed between a valve of the valve arrangement and the sensor (i.e., the fluid flow path between the valve 16 and the sensor 13) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Wohltjen teaches that the system is a gas sensor system and the sensor is a gas sensor (i.e., a sensor for detection of select gas species) (see Column 3, line 60, to Column 4, line 13).
Regarding claim 18, Wohltjen teaches a method of determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a target material in a gaseous environment (i.e., a conventional apparatus wherein a valve is used to modulate the flow to the gas sensor between two different gas streams) (see Fig. 1), the method comprising:
(i) measuring, in either order, a first response and a second response of a sensor of a sensor system (i.e., a "zero" measurement is provided by exposing the sensor to the gas sample from the trap. Thereafter, a "target" (or normal) measurement is taken by exposing the sensor to a gas sample not previously contacted with the trap) (see Column 1, lines 54-58)
wherein the sensor is configured to respond to the target material (i.e., a sensor for detection of select gas species) (see Column 3, line 60, to Column 4, line 13) and wherein
the sensor system comprises:
the sensor (i.e., sensor 13) (see Fig. 1);
an inlet configured to draw gas from an environment into the sensor system (i.e., inlet 11) (see Fig. 1);
a valve arrangement (i.e., valve 16) (see Fig. 1) having a first and second state and configured in the first state to direct gas drawn from the environment to only a first fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor and configured in the second state to direct gas drawn from the environment to only a second fluid flow path in fluid communication with the sensor (i.e., Upon entering the inlet 11, the "sample" gas, will flow either through the trap 12 or through the direct flow path 15, depending on the position of the valve 16. In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13 while flow through direct flow path 15 is blocked; in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13 while flow from trap 12 to sensor 13 is blocked) (see Column 6, lines 40-58);
a filter material for removing the target material from the gas (i.e., trap 12) (see Fig. 1), wherein the filter material is disposed in the first fluid flow path (see Fig. 1); and
a pump configured to draw gas into and through the sensor system (i.e., a pump 14 creates a significant pressure differential causing the "sample" gas to enter at the inlet 11) (see Fig. 1);
wherein the first response is a response of the sensor to gas from the first fluid flow path which has been treated to remove the target material from the gas (i.e., In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13) (see Column 6, lines 40-58) and the second response is a response of the sensor to gas from the second fluid flow path which has not been treated to remove the target material from the gas and which is substantially unchanged as compared to gas in the environment (i.e., in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13) (see Column 6, lines 40-58); and
(ii) subtracting (i.e., applicant explained in the Remarks dated 02/29/2024 that this would be a method known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art: “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand with reasonable certainty that the method for determining a presence, concentration or change in concentration of a target material can be achieved by measuring two responses followed by determining the difference in the measurements (i.e., by subtracting one measurement from the other measurement)) (see pages 1-2 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 02/29/2024) a first sensor measurement or a derivative thereof from a second sensor measurement or a derivative thereof (i.e., to secure a reference measurement an analyte gas and/or unwanted contaminants are, for example, removed by a trap (often referred to as a "scrubber") through the use of physical and/or chemical means. A "zero" measurement is provided by exposing the sensor to the gas sample from the trap. Thereafter, a "target" (or normal) measurement is taken by exposing the sensor to a gas sample not previously contacted with the trap) (see Column 1, lines 15-67),
wherein the first sensor measurement is a measurement of the first response and the second sensor measurement is a measurement of the second response (i.e., By varying the position of the valve 16, the gas source presented to the sensor 13 can be modulated between a gas source that has passed through the trap 12--the "zero" sample--and a gas source that has passed through the direct flow path--the "target" sample) (see Column 1, lines 15-67),
wherein all of the gas drawn from the environment into the sensor system passes through the sensor before it is exhausted from the sensor system (i.e., Upon entering the inlet 11, the "sample" gas, will flow either through the trap 12 or through the direct flow path 15, depending on the position of the valve 16. In the first position of the valve 16, the sample gas will pass through the trap 12 and to the sensor 13 while flow through direct flow path 15 is blocked; in the second position, the sample gas will pass through the direct flow path 15 and to the sensor 13 while flow from trap 12 to sensor 13 is blocked) (see Column 6, lines 40-58),
wherein the sensor is an electrochemical sensor, a thin film transistor sensor, a vertical or horizontal chemiresistor sensor, or a metal oxide semiconductor sensor (i.e., the sensor of the invention can be chosen from a broad spectrum of gas sensor technologies compatible with practice of the invention and the particular application of interest, including without limitation metal oxide semiconductors (MOS), amperometric and voltametric electrochemical cells, coated bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators, coated surface acoustic wave (SAW) resonators, pellistors, thermal conductivity detectors, conductive polymers, chemiresistors, photoionization detectors, chemically sensitive field effect transistors, and optical waveguide sensors) (see Column 6, lines 22-39); and
wherein the filter is continuously exposed to the pump (i.e., trap 12 is exposed to the pump as there is a flow path from the trap 12 to the pump 14) (see Fig. 1); but does not explicitly teach that the valve arrangement is disposed in a flow path between the inlet and the filter material.
Regarding the valve arrangement, Groves teaches that the valve arrangement (i.e., block valve 60) (see Fig. 2) is disposed in a flow path between the inlet and the filter material (i.e., This system 50 uses block valves instead of diverter valves to regulate the flow of air through the pre-filter) (see Column 5, line 31, to Column 6, line 4). In view of the teaching of Groves, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged a valve arrangement in between the inlet and the filter instead of Wohltjen’s T-connector 11. Since the block valves as taught by Groves can be controlled by a triggering signal, using the valve arrangement would provide more control over the flow of gas entering the fluid flow paths.
Regarding claim 35, Wohltjen teaches that the sensor is an electrochemical sensor (i.e., The sensor of the invention can be chosen from a broad spectrum of gas sensor technologies compatible with practice of the invention and the particular application of interest, including without limitation metal oxide semiconductors (MOS), amperometric and voltametric electrochemical cells, coated bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators, coated surface acoustic wave (SAW) resonators, pellistors, thermal conductivity detectors, conductive polymers, chemiresistors, photoionization detectors, chemically sensitive field effect transistors, and optical waveguide sensors) (see Column 6, lines 22-39).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly or implicitly teach that the sensor system is held in the second state for longer than the first state (claim 36); or the sensor system is held in the first state for longer than the second state (claim 37). Since the claims appear to teach that the sensor system can either have a longer first state or a longer second state, the examiner respectfully submits that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)). In this case, please note that the specification, dated 09/14/2021, has not disclosed that the sensor system should have longer first state over longer second state or vice versa. In fact, the specification explicitly teaches that “the apparatus may be held in a second state for longer than the first state”, “the apparatus is held in the second state for at least 60% or at least 70% of the time during which gas sensor measurement are made,” “the apparatus may be held in a first state for longer than the second state”, “the apparatus is held in the second state for at least 80% or at least 90% of the time during which gas sensor measurement are made”(see line 24, page 11, to line 19, page 12). It would appear that having a longer first state or a longer second state depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would want to make continuous measurements (i.e., longer second state) or to prevent the sensor from degrading rapidly (i.e., longer first state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the sensor to have either a longer second state (claim 36) or a longer first state (claim 37) in order to obtain the desireable performance from the sensor system.
Regarding claim 38, Wohltjen teaches that the first fluid flow path and the second fluid flow path are the only flow paths for the gas entering the sensor system (i.e., inlet 11 is the only inlet for the sensor system and the flow paths between the inlet 11 and the sensor 13 are the only flow paths) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 40, Wohltjen teaches that the sensor is an electrochemical sensor (i.e., the sensor of the invention can be chosen from a broad spectrum of gas sensor technologies compatible with practice of the invention and the particular application of interest, including without limitation metal oxide semiconductors (MOS), amperometric and voltametric electrochemical cells, coated bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators, coated surface acoustic wave (SAW) resonators, pellistors, thermal conductivity detectors, conductive polymers, chemiresistors, photoionization detectors, chemically sensitive field effect transistors, and optical waveguide sensors) (see Column 6, lines 22-39).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Groves et al (Pat. No. US 9,377,380; PTO-892 dated 11/30/2023) (hereafter Groves) and in further view of Gautieri et al. (Pat. No. US 2009/0113984) (hereafter Gautieri)
Regarding claims 5-7, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a water reservoir in fluid communication with the first fluid flow path is disposed in fluid communication with the first fluid flow path between the valve arrangement and the sensor (claim 5); wherein the water reservoir is in fluid communication with the second fluid flow path (claim 6); wherein a saturated salt solution is disposed in the water reservoir (claim 7).
Regarding the water reservoir, Gautieri teaches a water reservoir in fluid communication with the first fluid flow path is disposed in fluid communication with the first fluid flow path between the valve assembly and the sensor (i.e., fluid 33 in container 30, wherein gas 23 may be pushed through the porous plug 34 and cause the gas to bubble through the fluid 33 up into a space 35. The gas may become cleansed or conditioned gas 24 which may fill space 35 and be forced out of filter 31 via tube 22 to sensor 11 for zeroing, baseline correction, and/or calibration) (see paragraph section [0020]) (claim 5); wherein the water reservoir is in fluid communication with the second fluid flow path (i.e., moderate amount of humidity would be an amount sufficient for adequate operation and baseline setting of the sensor and not resulting in condensing issues) (see paragraph section [0021]) (claim 6); wherein a saturated salt solution is disposed in the water reservoir (claim 7) (i.e., filter 31 may contain a fluid 33 such as a saturated salt solution) (see paragraph sections [0020]-[0022]). In view of the teaching of Gautieri, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a filter/water reservoir to cleanse and/or condition a gas for zeroing, baseline correction, and/or calibration. In addition, adding salt to the water may adjust the humidity of water-conditioned gas and eliminate condensing issues in either of the fluid flow paths.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Gautieri et al. (Pat. No. US 2009/0113984) (hereafter Gautieri)
Regarding claim 20, Wohltjen teaches that that the first sensor measurement is generated by exposing the sensor to a sample from the gaseous environment (i.e., gas throughput from trap 22 and line 27 will flow into line 28 to sensor 23) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach that the sample from the gaseous environment has been exposed to a desiccant filter material and rehydrated.
Regarding the sample, Gautieri teaches exposing the sensor to a sample from the gaseous environment, which has been exposed to a desiccant filter material (i.e., conditioner 14 may container a filter 41 having a container 42 filled with a carbon, zeolite, and/or other material 43) (see paragraph section [0022]) and rehydrated (i.e., a moderate amount of humidity would be an amount sufficient for adequate operation and baseline setting of the sensor and not resulting in condensing issues) (see paragraph sections [0020-0021]). In view of the teaching of Gautieri, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the suitable filter/desiccant/water reservoir cleanse and/or condition a gas for zeroing, baseline correction, and/or calibration. In addition, adding salt to the water may adjust the humidity of water-conditioned gas and eliminate condensing issues in either of the fluid flow paths.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Groves et al (Pat. No. US 9,377,380; PTO-892 dated 11/30/2023) (hereafter Groves) and in further view of Abe (Pat. No. US 11,326,988) (hereafter Abe)
Regarding claim 8, Wohltjen teaches that a trap is disposed between the inlet and the valve arrangement (i.e., trap 22 is between in let 21 and the valve 41) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach a desiccant. However, Abe teaches a desiccant is disposed between the inlet and the valve assembly (i.e., the second filter 70b is a member (adsorbent) that adsorbs the noise component; for example, silica gel, ion exchange resin, or the like) (see Column 4, lines 7-17). In view of the teaching of Abe, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the desiccant filter in order to further reduce measurement noise.
Regarding claim 9, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a desiccant is disposed in the second fluid flow path. However, Abe teaches that a desiccant is disposed in the second fluid flow path (i.e., the second filter 70b is a member (adsorbent) that adsorbs the noise component; for example, silica gel, ion exchange resin, or the like; wherein the first flow channel 50a and the second flow channel 50b each include a second filter 70b) (see Column 4, lines 7-17). In view of the teaching of Abe, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the desiccant filter in order to further reduce measurement noise.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Groves et al (Pat. No. US 9,377,380; PTO-892 dated 11/30/2023) (hereafter Groves) and in further view of Shekarriz et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0159084) (hereafter Shekarriz)
Regarding claim 12, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the filter material is a desiccant filter material. However, Shekarriz teaches that the filter material is a desiccant filter material (i.e., Many other potentially interfering compounds may be removed by running the gas stream through a sorbent tube, such as activated carbon, molecular sieve, and silica gel likely to adsorb many of the species that could interfere with the signal except for the target organic molecule itself) (see paragraph sections [0080]-[0082]). In view of the teaching of Shekarriz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a desiccant in order to remove contaminants from the gas sample.
Regarding claim 13, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the filter material comprises silica gel. However, Shekarriz teaches that the filter material comprises silica gel (i.e., Many other potentially interfering compounds may be removed by running the gas stream through a sorbent tube, such as activated carbon, molecular sieve, and silica gel likely to adsorb many of the species that could interfere with the signal except for the target organic molecule itself) (see paragraph sections [0080]-[0082]). In view of the teaching of Shekarriz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a desiccant in order to remove contaminants from the gas sample.
Regarding claim 14, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the filter material is a molecular sieve. However, Shekarriz teaches that the filter material is a molecular sieve (i.e., Many other potentially interfering compounds may be removed by running the gas stream through a sorbent tube, such as activated carbon, molecular sieve, and silica gel likely to adsorb many of the species that could interfere with the signal except for the target organic molecule itself) (see paragraph sections [0080]-[0082]). In view of the teaching of Shekarriz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a desiccant in order to remove contaminants from the gas sample.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohltjen (Pat. No. US 7,240,535) (hereafter Wohltjen) in view of Shekarriz et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0159084) (hereafter Shekarriz)
Regarding claim 22, Wohltjen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the target material is 1-methylcyclopropene. However, Shekarriz teaches that the target material is 1-methylcyclopropene (i.e., a gas sample may contain both ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene) (see paragraph section [0081]). In view of the teaching of Shekarriz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a sensor sensitive to the selected target gas in order to measure the concentration of the selected target gas in the sample.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Assouad can be reached on (571)-272-2210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855