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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 11/21/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-18 are pending and claims 15-18 are withdrawn upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections are withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered :
On page 7 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the amended claim because it requires that the radiation is sent across a standoff distance from the detection unit to the collection medium of the collection unit and receives a signal back. That is, detection unit sends a signal (e.g. a laser beam or the like) to another unit and interrogates the medium (e.g., filter) in that unit and the two units are separated by the standoff distance.
Response:
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case : firstly: the limitation is rejected by the combination of prior art and not individual prior art as Applicant is arguing. Secondly : Van der Jagt teaches claimed collection units configured to collect a sample from an aerosol cloud, Van der Jagt also teaches collection units includes a collection medium configured to collect aerosol particles from the aerosol cloud and condense the aerosol particles on or in the collection medium; also teaches a detection unit configured to analyze a composition the sample from the aerosol cloud. Although Van der Jagt is silent about which type of detector is used , Sullivan teaches detection unit includes an optical detection module having a radiation source configured to transmit an interrogation beam to the samples to interrogate the samples in aerosol cloud, and a radiation receiver configured to receive a return signal from the sample, therefore, the combination teaches claimed system based on obviousness except for a standoff distance between the detection unit and the one or more collection units. However, Podmore teaches a standoff distance and teaches to avoid the toxic sample gases, the drone with detection unit 118 should be in standoff distance from each other. Therefore the combination Podmore with the modified Van der Jagt’s system comprising collection units configured to collect a sample from an aerosol cloud; wherein the one or more collection units includes a collection medium teaches the limitation on standoff distance based on obviousness as cited in this action, and argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argument regarding Kulkarni is moot as the rejection of amended claim is not relying upon Kulkarni.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Jagt, US 20240409246 A1 in view of Sullivan, US 20060262318 A1 and Podmore, US 20200249092 A1 .
Claim 1
Van der Jagt in figs. 1-6 teaches
A system (50), comprising:
one or more collection units 10 configured to collect a sample from an aerosol cloud (e.g., aerosol 2 from 1000,¶0024¶0027) ;
wherein the one or more collection units 10 includes a collection medium 11 configured to collect aerosol particles from the aerosol cloud and condense the aerosol particles on or in the collection medium (e.g., ¶0033¶0034 collection medium is a filter or suitable for accumulating analytes from the fluid medium, note that instant application does not disclose any type of condenser only a filter for trap or condensing aerosol particles which filter broadly reads on claimed condense same as disclosure);
and
a detection unit (¶0028: a detector, can be provided to the mobile delivery platform 20 and/or the fluid sampler 10) configured to analyze a composition the sample from the aerosol cloud (function met by system in fig.1 as cited in ¶0028¶0027).
Van der Jagt does not specifically teach wherein a standoff distance between the detection unit and the one or more collection units is sufficient such that exposure of the detection unit to the aerosol cloud is minimized; wherein the detection unit includes an optical detection module having a radiation source configured to transmit an interrogation beam to the one or more collection units across the standoff distance to interrogate the collection medium, and a radiation receiver configured to receive a return signal from the collection medium of the one or more collection units.
In the similar field of endeavor, Sullivan in figs.1-2 teaches: wherein the detection unit includes an optical detection module 9 having a radiation source (source laser 7) configured to transmit an interrogation beam (laser 7, see step 17) to the one or more collection sample aerosol (17, 5) of ligands (13) in suspect region (17) to interrogate the collection sample aerosol (17, 5) of ligands (13), and a radiation receiver (9, step 25) configured to receive a return signal 7 from the collection sample aerosol (17, 5) of ligands (13) in suspect region (see step 25).
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 Sullivan‘s optical detection module for Van der Jagt’s detection unit in Van der Jagt’s mobile platform connected to the Van der Jagt’s collection unit and collection medium , and the modified Van der Jagt’s detection unit includes a radiation source configured to transmit an interrogation beam to the modified Van der Jagt’s one or more collection units to interrogate the modified Van der Jagt’s collection medium, and a radiation receiver configured to receive a return signal from the modified Van der Jagt’s collection medium of the modified Van der Jagt’s one or more collection units. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detecting dispersed airborne biological agents in sufficient time to avoid contamination and give an effective warning to the intended target (e.g., Sullivan ¶0001). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (Sulivan’s optical detection module having a radiation source configured to transmit an interrogation beam and to interrogate the collection sample, and a radiation receiver configured to receive a return signal from the collection sample) for another (Van der Jagt’s detection unit in mobile platform) to obtain predictable results (detecting toxics collected by Van der Jagt’s collection mediums of collection units), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination as cited above does not specifically teach wherein a standoff distance between the detection unit and the one or more collection units is sufficient such that exposure of the detection unit to the aerosol cloud is minimized and having a radiation source configured to transmit an interrogation beam to the one or more collection units across the standoff distance.
In the similar field of endeavor, Podmore teaches wherein a standoff distance (physical distance in ¶0026) between the detection unit 118 and the radiation source of drone and samples(e.g., ¶0049¶0026) and is sufficient such that exposure of the detection unit to the aerosol cloud is minimized (inherently met by system 100 with standoff distance 0-1000 meters from gases and drone cited in e.g., ¶0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Podmore‘s standoff distance for the modified Van der Jagt’s detection unit wherein a standoff distance between the modified Van der Jagt’s detection unit and the modified Van der Jagt’s one or more collection units is sufficient such that exposure of the modified Van der Jagt’s detection unit to the aerosol cloud is minimized; wherein the modified Van der Jagt’s detection unit includes an optical detection module having a radiation source configured to transmit an interrogation beam to aerosol cloud one or more collection units across the standoff distance to interrogate the collection medium, and a radiation receiver configured to receive a return signal from the collection medium of the one or more collection units. One of ordinary skill in the art knows the definition of standoff distance between a source and system so that when the aerosol cloud comprises hazardous contaminant the system should be protected would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the system from contamination.
Examiner notes that the instant specification does not disclose more than examples of 10 ft and 40ft for standoff distance and no detail disclosure to support on how this limitation is performed. Therefore, in the light of the specification, the limitation broadly is interpreted and met with the prior art. If applicant believes that the term exposure or limitation “sufficient such that exposure of the detection unit to the aerosol cloud is minimized” is essential to the claim, an additional 112 (a) issue would raise.
Claim 2
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 1, Van der Jagt teaches wherein the one or more collection units 10 includes a plurality of collection units 10-1 to 10-4.
Claim 8
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan teaches the system of claim 1, Van der Jagt teaches to determine a chemical composition of the particles in the collection medium (e.g., Van der Jagt ¶0024) Sullivan teaches wherein the optical detection module further includes a composition determination module 9 configured to receive data from the radiation receiver to determine a specific component(e.g., ¶0027) therefore the combination teaches the limitation, i.e., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sullivans’s composition determination module for the modified Van der Jagt‘s detection unit. wherein the modified Van der Jagt’s optical detection module configured to receive data from the radiation receiver to determine a chemical composition of the particles in the modified Van der Jagt’s collection medium. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remotely and directly detecting the presence of aerosolized biological agents and to provide warning of a toxin laden cloud (Sullivan ¶0005¶0008).
Claim 10
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 1, Van der Jagt further teaches wherein one or more of the detection unit (¶0027) and/or the one or more collection units 10 are configured to couple to a moving platform 20.
Claim 11
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the wherein the detection unit (20 in case it is on UAV comprises detection unit as cited in e.g., ¶0027) and the one or more collection units 10 each further includes a respective communications module configured to communicate with a controller to guide the detection unit and the one or more collection units to one or more respective positions in space relative to the aerosol cloud (it is an known and inherent component of drones 20 to remotely be controlled and conducted to the right spot otherwise, the system is not able to perform the collection of aerosol). Additionally/alternatively this limitation is obvious in view of Sullivan (¶0018 and controller in 11 and communication modules for communication between 11 and 1).
Claim 13
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the respective communications module of the detection unit 20 is further configured to communicate the composition of the aerosol cloud to the controller 29 and/or a user (this is inherently met by any UAV and controller). Additionally/alternatively this limitation is obvious in view of Sullivan (¶0018 and controller in 11 and communication modules for communication between 11 and 1).
Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Jagt, US 20240409246 A1 in view of Sullivan, US 20060262318 A1 and Podmore, US 20200249092 A1 and further in view of Kulkarni, US 20250130140 A1.
Claim 4
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 1, Kulkarni further teaches wherein the collection unit 204 further includes a pump (264:¶0080 )configured to draw aerosol particles from the aerosol cloud onto the collection medium (¶0080: function met by the combination of Van der Jagt and Kulkami for the same reason and motivation cited in claim 3).
In the similar field of endeavor, Kulkarni teaches collection unit 204 includes a collection medium (e.g., ¶0055: porous filter paper liner) configured to collect and condense aerosol particles from the aerosol cloud the aerosol particles on or in the collection medium (¶0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kulkarni‘s filter to condense Van der Jagt’s aerosol cloud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove excess vapor outside system (e.g., ¶0055), furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 5
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore and in view of Kulkarni teaches the system of claim 4, Kulkarni further teaches wherein the collection medium includes a filter medium (262 ¶0055¶0080) for the same reason and motivation cited in claims 3 and 4.
In the similar field of endeavor, Kulkarni teaches collection unit 204 includes a collection medium (e.g., ¶0055: porous filter paper liner) configured to collect and condense aerosol particles from the aerosol cloud the aerosol particles on or in the collection medium (¶0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kulkarni‘s filter to condense Van der Jagt’s aerosol cloud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove excess vapor outside system (e.g., ¶0055), furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Van der Jagt, US 20240409246 A1 in view of Sullivan, US 20060262318 A1 and Podmore, US 20200249092 A1 and further in view of Kulkarni, US 20250130140 A1and TIAN, CN114344542A.
Claim 6
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore and in view of Kulkarni teaches the system of claim 4, the combination does not specifically teach wherein the collection unit further includes a sensor configured to detect hazardous particles in the collection medium and to provide a warning to the detection unit that a respective collection unit has entered a hazardous aerosol cloud.
In the similar field of endeavor TIAN teaches the collection unit 100/200 further includes a sensor 200 configured to detect hazardous particles in the collection medium and to provide a warning to the detection unit that a respective collection unit has entered a hazardous aerosol cloud (e.g., Abstract/underlined portions on translation provided by the office).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TIAN‘s detection unit for the modified Van der Jagt‘s collection unit and to provide a warning to the detection unit that a respective collection unit has entered a hazardous aerosol cloud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to performing prompt alarm (Abstract).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Jagt, US 20240409246 A1 in view of Sullivan, US 20060262318 A1 and Podmore, US 20200249092 A1 and Pariseau, US 20200378940 A1.
Claim 12
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 10, but the modified Van der Jagt does not specifically teach wherein the respective communications modules are configured to communicate a respective position of the detection unit to the one or more collection units to maintain the standoff distance.
In the similar field of endeavor, Pariseau in fig.3 teaches communications modules (353 ¶0075¶0076) are configured to communicate a respective position via 356 of the detection unit 302 to the one or more units (other 302) to maintain the standoff distance (functional language met by 356,353,302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Pariseau‘s communications modules for the modified Van der Jagt‘s detection unit and collection units wherein the modified Van der Jagt’s respective communications modules are configured to communicate a respective position of the modified Van der Jagt’s detection unit to the one or more the modified Van der Jagt’s collection units to maintain the standoff distance . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide information about air quality for the given geographical area to a user (¶0012 of Pariseau).
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Jagt, US 20240409246 A1 in view of Sullivan, US 20060262318 A1 and Podmore, US 20200249092 A1 and Pariseau, US 20200378940 A1.
Claim 14
Van der Jagt in view of Sullivan and Podmore teaches the system of claim 1, Van der Jagt teaches wherein the detection unit and the one or more collection units 10 each further include a respective navigation module configured to guide the detection unit 10 and the one or more collection units 20 to one or more positions in space relative to the aerosol cloud (20 and 10 are connected therefore this limitation that is inherently met for UAV 20 is also met for collection unit 10, but does not specifically teach without communication from a remote or on-ground controller.
Pariseau in fig.3 teaches the detection unit 311 and the one or more units 303 each further include a respective navigation module (353 ¶0076) configured to guide the detection uni 311 and the one or more units 302 to one or more positions (via 356) in space relative to the cloud (outdoor 121) without communication from a remote or on-ground controller (e.g., claim 1: geographic coordinates are detected and updated dynamically without user assistance to automatically generate a periodically updated air quality map based on the date and time stamped data records. ¶0031¶0071¶0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ‘s for ‘s. One of ordinary skill in the art knows automation systems without interfering users and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to benefits of automation such as eliminating human errors. Furthermore, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III (“Automating A Manual Activity”). Besides, based on MPEP 2114.IV, broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, combination of Nankana and Park as cited in the previous office action and cited here, at least teaches the limitation without using artificial intelligence reads on the limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855