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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on March 16th, 2026. Claims 1, and 3-25 are pending. Claims 8-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended recitation “…the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger” is drawn to new matter.
Applicant’s disclosure in par.[0029] (US 2023/0296482) provides solid collection vessels which trap or isolate particles in the air through the use of filters, impingers, or impactors, wherein impingers is a recitation to the general structre of the holding vessel itself, wherein not all impingers are bubbling impingers as the “bubbling” aspect is drawn to particular procedure utilized in the aerosol sampling, and wherein if this is not the case, it is noted that the specification does not detail particular physical structure to the impinger that makes it a “bubbling impinger.”
The subsequent discussion in par.[0029] is drawn to a separate discussion with respect to liquid collection vessels and the discussion therewith is drawn to process-type/procedural language in which the act of bubbling is discussed, but the disclosure is not drawn to particular, physical architectural forms of the liquid collection vessels and including the form of a bubbling impinger.
Further to this end, Examiner lastly notes that the term “bubbling impinger” is not a conventionally used term of art and it may be Applicant’s intention to claim an “impinger” while providing the concordant process steps therewith that effectively make it a “bubbling” impinger such as by steps to its filling with a collection liquid and drawing air therethrough by a pump so as to create bubbles that pass through the collection liquid.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
The metes and bounds of the sought methodology for collecting aerosol samples are indefinitely understood.
As amended, the claims recite that the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger. Further, in a later process, it is recited “responsive to detecting…that a sampler liquid level in a liquid collection medium comprising the one or more collection media….” in which it is unclear how many collection media are being set forth by the claim.
Does Applicant intend that the liquid collection medium and the at least one bubbling impinger are one and the same? To this end, does Applicant intend to recite in the subsequent process step “responsive to detecting…that a sampler liquid level in the at least one bubbling impinger is below a threshold…”?
Or does Applicant intend that this is a separate and distinct, additional collection medium to the “one or more collection media”?
This is likewise seen with respect to the third paragraph and the step of “responsive…sample collection criteria…collecting…through a collection medium of the one or more collection media.”
Applicant’s initial language established of “one or more collection media” and “wherein the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger” provided a breath that reads to one to infinity (i.e. large number), but only positively necessitate one bubbling impinger (“at least one” reads on one).
The subsequent general reference to “through a collection medium” (and likewise with respect to the above-discussed “a liquid collection medium comprising the one or more collection media…”) calls into question the desired number of collection media intended to be claimed.
With respect to “a collection medium” in this step, such collection medium is indefinitely set forth as the claim only positively requires one bubbling impinger and the claim does not utilize language as in “the at least one bubbling impinger” to equate such language or, in the alternative, particularly and positively establish that the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger and a collection medium (and likewise with respect to potentially “and a liquid collection medium”).
Applicant is invited to clarify this aspect either by recited “the at least one bubbling impinger” throughout or to particularly establish basis for a plurality of various collection media and designate those particular mediums throughout the claims.
For purposes of Examination, the claims will be construed in covering both options.
Further, the amended recitation to “bubbling impinger” is indefinitely understood as it is not a conventionally used term of art, and wherein the specification does not particularly define this terminology. As discussed above under 35 USC 112 a/1st, the recitation is drawn to new matter and concordant discussion in the specification to “bubbling impinger” and particular definition thereto so as to provide clear metes and bounds is not provided in the specification.
As discussed above, it may be Applicant’s intention to claim an “impinger” while providing the concordant process steps therewith that effectively make it a “bubbling” impinger such as by steps to its filling with a collection liquid and drawing air therethrough by a pump so as to create bubbles that pass through the collection liquid.
For purposes of Examination, the recitation will be treated to read on an impinger.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2009/0139399), hereafter Kang, in view of Grayfer et al. (US 2005/0183490), hereafter Grayer, and Rodier et al. (US 2021/0063349), hereafter Rodier.
Kang discloses an apparatus and method for collecting and detecting airborne particles (abstract). With regard to claim 1, Kang discloses receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors (i.e. level sensor 90, wherein the level sensor 90 is disposed within one or more collection media 100; and microbiological detector 130, in which both sensors are communicatively coupled to the microcontroller 140) (pars.[0102-0113], fig. 5, 6, for example). Kang further discloses comparing, by a processor, the sensor data to one or more sample collection criteria (herein, given as a contamination level of the absorbing liquid being below a predetermined value), and responsive to the processor determining that the one or more sample collection criteria have been met (i.e. the contamination level is below a predetermined value), collecting an aerosol sample in at least one of one or more collection media 100, wherein collecting the aerosol sample comprises propelling air, as claimed, for a duration equal to a sample integration time (see par.[0113], wherein if the level of the contamination is below a predetermined value, the processor 142 of microcontroller 140 repeats the above described cycle of air sampling with the collection device [see preceding paragraphs and as in fig. 7 with returning to S2] until the level of contamination of sampled absorbing liquid reaches the predetermined value or higher); further, and within this process, Kang discloses responsive to detecting, by at least one of the one or more liquid level sensors (herein, level sensor 90), that a sampler liquid level in a liquid collection medium comprising the one or more collection media is below a threshold, raising, by the processor, the sampler liquid level to meet the threshold during the duration (see par.[0111] and steps S3&S4, fig. 7, for example). Further, as in cl. 5, the sample collection criteria comprises real-time environmental data as given by the data of the contaminant level of the sample of absorbing liquid, wherein it is noted that the recitation “real-time environmental data” reads on nominally designated data, wherein data to the contamination level of the sample of absorbing liquid provides commensurate data that is codified as “real-time environmental data” as it pertains data correlated to the sample airborne environment. Examiner further notes that such a recitation is drawn to data and is not correlated or connected to a particular sensor providing such data (i.e. Applicant may intend an external sensor outside of the collection media, and wherein said external sensor is a temperature, pressure, humidity, VOC sensor, etc…) Further, the “real-time” aspect could be connected to a particular configuration of the sensor to actuate/turn-on at repeated intervals over time (herein “real-time” does not appreciably provide anything toward parameters sensed over time and remains to read on the nominally designated data).
With regard to claim 1, Kang does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger and transmitting a message, by the processor, alerting one or more users that the aerosol sample has been collected.
Grayfer discloses systems and methods for sampling a gas flow to measure contaminants (abstract). Grayfer discloses an automated sampling system 120 including a switch to automatically perform a sequence of electronically stored instructions, and including LED indicators such as a green LED 124 that indicates that the sampling operation is complete and the traps/impingers can be removed for analysis (par.[0054], figs.).
Rodier discloses triggered sampling systems and methods therewith (abstract). Rodier discloses impingers including bubbler for collecting and monitoring airborne molecular contamination, in which the fluid flows through an absorbent material, given as a liquid in the case of the impinger/bubbler so as to bubble the liquid therein and capture particles in the absorbent material(pars.[0002,0005,0047,0050,0051,0059], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang to include transmitting a message ,by the processor, alerting one or more users that the aerosol has been collected such as suggested by the analogous art of Grayfer to an automated sampling system in order to provide a simple and effective mechanism for automatically indicating to a user that the sampling is completed and the user may turn their attention to the analysis and the results thereof the collected sample, as well as affording an ability to stop the operation of any now unnecessary sampling equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang to include wherein the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger such as taught by the analogous art of Rodier to an airborne sampling and analysis apparatus in which a bubbling impinger represents an obvious alternative form of sampler to that of the cyclone sampling apparatus as in Kang, wherein the cyclone sampling apparatus in Kang is drawn to a sampler in which external air and absorbing liquid are sprayed to absorb the airborne particles in the external air with the absorbing liquid that is analogous to that of the bubbling impinger of Rodier in which the fluid flows through an absorbent material, given as a liquid in the case of the bubbling impinger, so as to bubble the liquid therein and capture particles in the absorbent material, in which such a bubbling impinger would have a reasonable expectation of success in the likewise method of Kang.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Grayfer and Rodier as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Zaromb (USPN 6,087,183).
Kang/Grayfer/Rodier does not specifically disclose calculating, by the processor, an evaporation rate for the sampler liquid level based on the sensor data, and responsive to detecting that the sampler liquid level in the liquid collection medium is below the threshold based on the evaporation rate, raising the sampler liquid level to meet the threshold.
Zaromb discloses a portable high-throughput liquid-absorption air sampling apparatus (abstract). Zaromb discloses providing a liquid reservoir and pump to feed liquid absorbent into the portable sampling apparatus (PHTLAAS) at a rate that is sufficient to compensate for evaporation (line 63, col. 10 – line 15, col. 11). Zaromb further discloses that another requirement for the automated or semi-automated continuous operation of the PHTLAAS is the proper balance between the rate of replenishment of the sorbing liquid (i.e. liquid level) and the rate of its depletion by evaporation, wherein if the replenishment is excessive, too much liquid will accumulate in the sampler and result in partial flooding and increased liquid entrainment losses, while if the rate of replenishment is insufficient, the sampler may dry up and would result in reduced collection efficiency (lines 10-22, col. 12, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang/Grayfer/Rodier to calculate, by the processor, an evaporation rate for the sampler liquid level based on the sensor data, and responsive to detecting that the sampler liquid level in the liquid collection medium is below the threshold based on the evaporation rate, raising the sampler liquid level to meet the threshold such as suggested by the analogous art of Zaromb to a automated/semi-automated air sampler, wherein Kang likewise provides condition responsive control of the supply of liquid to the collection medium in concert with the sensed condition of the liquid level by the level sensor (i.e. a level sensed below the threshold results in supply of the liquid to meet the threshold) and wherein the disclosure of Zaromb makes clear that both the liquid level and its rate of depletion by evaporation should be assessed in order to attain a proper balance and maintain the liquid level at an appropriate level for more efficient sampling, wherein it is clear that monitoring evaporation rate as in Zaromb represents an obvious analogue to that provided in Kang to the liquid level and its automated adjustment, wherein adjustment with respect to its depletion by evaporation would have a reasonable expectation of success herein.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Grayfer and Rodier as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
Kang/Grayfer/Rodier does not specifically disclose responsive to a sub-integration duration elapsing, detecting whether a sampler liquid level in at least one liquid collection medium is below a threshold, wherein the sub-integration duration is less than the sample integration time.
As discussed above, Kang discloses that responsive to detecting that a sampler liquid level in at least one liquid collection medium and raising the sampler liquid level to meet the threshold as in claim 3 (see par.[0111]). Furthermore, as seen in pars.[0109-0111]+ this responsive action coincident with sampler liquid level detection is done at a period of time before the end of the operation cycle (a cycle defining a sample integration time).
While Kang/Grayfer/Rodier does not explicitly provide a discrete time-dictated check of the liquid sampler level, this is seen as an obvious modification by one of ordinary skill in the art and ascertained by the aforementioned disclosure in Kang in which Kang likewise desires to monitor the sampler liquid level at a sub-integration time and such provides the benefit of assuredly providing sufficient absorbing liquid in order to provide a collection and further, subsequent assay thereof that has a higher degree of accuracy as it will be ascertained that proper conditions for the assay have been met.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Grayfer and Rodier as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Toledo Subirana et al. (US 2023/0117949), hereafter Toledo.
Kang/Grayfer/Rodier does not specifically disclose the at least one or more collection media comprises a plurality of collection media and collecting the aerosol comprises selecting, by the processor, a collection medium of the plurality based on the sample collection criteria being met.
Kang/Grayfer/Rodier further does not specifically disclose the plurality of sample collection media are respectively connected by a plurality of respective fluid lines to a multiplexing manifold, as in cl. 7, and operating, by the processor, the plurality of valves to route the air from the air pump through the multiplexing manifold to the selected collection medium.
Toledo discloses an air sampling system and method of use thereof (abstract). Toledo discloses the at least one or more collection media comprises a plurality of collection media and collecting the aerosol comprises selecting, by the processor, a collection medium of the plurality based on the sample collection criteria being met (herein, temperature and moisture sensed and communicated to the controller, and wherein the controller is connected to and controls the fluid handling as in the manifold/valves, pump, etc.), and wherein Toledo further discloses disclose the plurality of sample collection media are respectively connected by a plurality of respective fluid lines to a multiplexing manifold, as in cl. 7, and operating, by the processor, the plurality of valves to route the air from the air pump through the multiplexing manifold to the selected collection medium (pars.[0010,0011,0040,0044,0075], figs. 3,10, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang/Grayfer/Rodier to include a plurality of collection media and collecting the aerosol comprises selecting, by the processor, a collection medium of the plurality based on the sample collection criteria being met and the plurality of sample collection media are respectively connected by a plurality of respective fluid lines to a multiplexing manifold, as in cl. 7, and operating, by the processor, the plurality of valves to route the air from the air pump through the multiplexing manifold to the selected collection medium such as taught by the analogous art of Toledo to an automated air sampling device wherein such provisions provide the ability to automatically sample the environment for a number of instances and at various times, wherein selected respective collection elements are chosen while maintaining the remaining collection elements clean for their future sampling, which provides for increased throughput of data to more accurately assess the environment both over time and with respect to redundancy of multiple sample collection and detection events, and while avoiding the need for workers to be present to manually determine the amount of debris at a given time and being exposed to potentially dangerous conditions (see par.[0007,0040], for example)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-7, filed March 16th, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided above.
With regards to claims 1 and 5 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Grayfer, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that Kang does fails to teach or suggest a liquid level sensor disposed within the one or more collection media, nor detecting by a liquid level sensor a sampler liquid level in a liquid collection medium, as Kang at best could be said to teach or suggest a liquid level sensor in a reservoir, not a collection medium.
Examiner asserts that as discussed above in the body of the rejection and commensurate with the present claims and their amendments, the one or more collection media is drawn to element 100 (“sample collector” as in Kang), and such element is commensurate to that claimed and also commensurate to that disclosed in Applicant’s disclosure.
See, for example par.[0029] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0296482 in which it is provided that the sample collection vessels (shown as item ‘206’,’406’) also referred to herein as sample collection media, may be any device to collect aerosolized particles from environmental air that is drawn through them.
The cyclone collection medium 100 as in Kang is commensurate to that claimed and also to that defined in Applicant’s disclosure to “one or more collection media.”
Further, as seen in fig. 5, for example, the one or more liquid levels sensors 90 is disposed within the one or more collection media 100 as it is within the confines of the overall sample collection medium 100.
Kang further discloses detecting by a liquid level sensor sampler liquid level in a liquid collection medium (see par.[0111] and steps S3&S4, fig. 7, with respect to the absorbing liquid held in cartridge 20/liquid collection medium). Kang further discloses “raising, by the processor, the sampler liquid level by operating a sampler liquid pump…from a liquid reservoir into the liquid collection medium” as seen in par.[0111] in which a peristaltic filling pump 52 is activated through switch 143 in connection with the processor 142 to supply clean absorbing liquid from reservoir 110 to the cartridge.
Herein, the claims are also amended to provide that the one or more collection media comprise at least one bubbling impinger.
Kang does not explicitly disclose a bubbling impinger and modification to Kang is provided by way of combination with Grayfer and the newly-added prior art of Rodier which provides analogous prior art to that of Kang and provides for a bubbling impinger as claimed that represents an obvious modification to Kang for the reasons discussed above in the body of the action.
As such, there are no such deficiencies with respect to the cited prior art and amended claim 1.
Applicant further asserts that the remaining claims depend from the independent claim 1 and are therefore patentable for likewise reasons.
As discussed above, there are no such deficiencies with respect to the cited prior art and amended claim 1, and the remaining claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 over the above-cited prior art for the particular reasons set forth in the body of the action.
Examiner further notes that in view of the amendments to the claims, claims 1 and 3-7 are herein rejected under 35 USC 112 a/1st and 35 USC 112 b/2nd for the particular reasons discussed above in the body of the action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights