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 .
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.
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 5-11 and 18-20 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.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 10-11, each of these claims defines an internal diameter or cross-sectional area of two components being “substantially similar” to one another. The terms “substantially” and “similar” are both vague and open to interpretation, and the requirement of the dimensions being “substantially similar” is even more vague and open to interpretation. Are these dimensions within 1%, 5% or even 10% or more of each other? The Specification does not define what is meant by “substantially similar,” nor does the word “substantially” even appear in Applicant’s disclosure. It appears that the purpose of the “substantially similar” dimensions is to minimize a pressure drop across the components. Because the claims are unclear and indefinite, any connected inlet/outlet of complements within a system will be considered be “substantially similar” if they are designed to “minimize a pressure drop.” It is further noted that “minimizing a pressure drop” is also vague as Applicant’s disclosure does not provide a range of pressure drops that would be considered acceptable when “minimizing” a pressure drop. Is a 1% drop, 5% drop or 10% or more drop considered “minimal”? Any device which explicitly seeks to “minimize a pressure drop,” or teaches dimensions which are not wholly different from one another will be considered to satisfy both the “substantially similar” and “minimize a pressure drop” language.
Regarding claim 9, the requirement that “the noise-reducing baffle is adapted to reduce pressure drop through the baffle” is indefinite. The claims have not established any baseline or prior art level of pressure from which the claimed “pressure drop through the baffle” is adapted to reduce. Therefore, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. It is further noted that “reducing a pressure drop” is also vague as Applicant’s disclosure does not provide a range of pressure drops that would be considered acceptable when “reducing” a pressure drop. Is a 1% drop, 5% drop or 10% or more drop considered “minimal”? Any device which explicitly seeks or functions to “reduce or minimize a pressure drop,” or teaches dimensions of connected components which are not wholly different from one another will be considered to satisfy the “reducing a pressure drop” language, as said dimensions would also “reduce” a pressure drop.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the flow path" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the requirement that “the noise-reducing muffler and the noise-reducing baffle are adapted such that pressure drop through the two components does not result in a significant increase in pressure drop of the aerosol or bioaerosol collector” is indefinite. The claims have not established any baseline or prior art level of pressure from which the claimed “pressure drop through the two components” is adapted to “not result in a significant increase in pressure drop”. Further, it is unclear what a “significant increase” in pressure drop is. Is it a 1%, 5%, 20%, or even 50% or greater increase? Because there is no established baseline of pressure drop from the pressure drop through the components is adapted to not significantly increase, nor is the term “significantly” defined, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the requirement that “the noise-reducing muffler and the noise-reducing baffle are adapted such that pressure drop through the two components does not result in a significant decrease in the flowrate of the aerosol or bioaerosol collector” is indefinite. The claims have not established any baseline or prior art level of pressure or flowrate from which the claimed “pressure drop through the two components” is adapted to “not result in a significant decrease in the flowrate”. Further, it is unclear what a “significant decrease” in pressure drop is. Is it a 1%, 5%, 20%, or even 50% or greater decrease? Because there is no established baseline of pressure drop or flowrate from the pressure drop through the components is adapted to not significantly decrease the flowrate, nor is the term “significantly” defined, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the requirement that “the noise-reducing baffle acts as a charging docking station for the aerosol or bioaerosol collector by including a charging socket that connects to a charging port of the collector” is indefinite. The phrase “docking station” is not mentioned in the Specification, so it is unclear what is meant by “acts as a docking station” means. Is the noise reducing baffle a docking station? Is it not a docking station per se, but somehow “acts” like one? Is it a power docking station, or merely a base for the collection device that physically “docks” or supports the collection device? Additionally, there is no discussion of a charging socket or port in the Specification, so it is unclear what these claimed components are relative to the disclosure. The terms “socket” and “port” would both appear to be female-type electrical connections, so it is unclear how these components are connected. Are they directly connected, or are there intervening connection portions therebetween? Because none of the charging elements are disclosure as presented in claim 20, the Examiner will broadly interpret the charging docking station, socket and port as any components which provide any kind of power connection between elements of a device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodes (9,709,541).
With respect to claim 1, Rodes teaches a system (Figures 3-10, #304) for reducing noise emitted from aerosol and bioaerosol collectors (150 – note that bioaerosols are considered to be a subset of aerosols, and the collection device #150 is capable of collecting any aerosols of the appropriate particle size when present in a collection/monitoring environment of the device #300/500, regardless of being of a biological or non-biological material – Col. 5, Lines 11-35), the system comprising: a noise-reducing muffler (defined by inlet chamber #306 of noise dampening device #304) positioned between a collection device (150) and an inlet (318) to an air mover (116); and a noise-reducing baffle (defined be outlet chamber #308, including baffle element #344 – Col. 11, Line 55-Col. 12, Line 7) connected to an outlet (326) of the air mover (116). It is noted that Applicant’s “baffle” is not a baffle per se, but is a flow path having baffle elements along or defining the flow path.
With respect to claim 2, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing muffler (306) is adapted to dampen frequencies emitted from the air mover inlet (318).
With respect to claim 3, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing baffle (308/344) is adapted to dampen frequencies emitted from the air mover outlet (326).
With respect to claim 9, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing baffle (308/344) is adapted to reduce pressure drop through the baffle. Because the system as a whole is designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, including the noise reducing baffle #308/344 are considered to be “adapted to reduce pressure drop through the baffle” in the same way as Applicant’s (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17).
With respect to claim 12, Rodes teaches a device (Figures 3-10, #304) for reducing noise emitted from aerosol and bioaerosol collectors (150 – note that bioaerosols are considered to be a subset of aerosols, and the collection device #150 is capable of collecting any aerosols of the appropriate particle size when present in a collection/monitoring environment of the device #300/500, regardless of being of a biological or non-biological material – Col. 5, Lines 11-35), the device comprising: a noise-reducing muffler (defined by inlet chamber #306 of noise dampening device #304) positioned between a collection device (150) and an inlet (318) to an air mover (116); and a noise-reducing baffle (defined be outlet chamber #308, including baffle element #344 – Col. 11, Line 55-Col. 12, Line 7) connected to an outlet (326) to an air mover (116), wherein the noise-reducing muffler (306) and noise-reducing baffle (308/344) are adapted to be added to existing aerosol collection devices (Col. 15, Lines 45-48). It is note that the device housing #504 can be removed to enable removal of components and cleaning of the interior. This feature renders inherent the limitation that “the noise-reducing muffler (306) and noise-reducing baffle (308/344) are adapted to be added to existing aerosol collection devices,” as one muffler/baffle #306/308 could be removed from an existing aerosol collection device #300/500 and either cleaned and re-installed in said existing device, or replaced by a new muffler/baffle in the existing device. Additionally, the language could also be interpretated as manufacturing components of aerosol collection device #300/500 and assembling them, such that when installing the muffler/baffle component #306/308, it is being installed in the partially assembled device #300/500, which constitutes an “existing” aerosol collection device. It is further noted that Applicant’s “baffle” is not a baffle per se, but is a flow path having baffle elements along or defining the flow path.
With respect to claim 13, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing muffler (306) is adapted to dampen frequencies emitted from the air mover inlet (318).
With respect to claim 14, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing baffle (308/344) is adapted to dampen frequencies emitted from the air mover outlet (326).
With respect to claim 16, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing muffler (306) is adapted to provide airtight attachment (via #316) to an outlet of the collection device (150) and airtight attachment (via #320) to the inlet (318) of the air mover (166) (Col. 10, Lines 51-Col. 11, Line 13). It is noted in the cited passage that the muffler and collection device/ air mover inlet are fluidly connecting by tubing/conduits, which connections are inherently considered to be “airtight” as a leaky/non-airtight connection would cause significant pressure drops or fluctuations depending on the level of leakage, would potentially contaminate the aerosol collection device, and generally render the device inoperable, as would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 17, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing baffle (308/344) is adapted to provide airtight attachment (via #328) to the outlet (326) of the air mover (116). (Col. 10, Lines 51-Col. 11, Line 13). It is noted in the cited passage that the baffle and air mover outlet are fluidly connecting by tubing/conduit, which connections are inherently considered to be “airtight” as a leaky/non-airtight connection would cause significant pressure drops or fluctuations depending on the level of leakage, would potentially contaminate the aerosol collection device, and generally render the device inoperable, as would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 18, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing muffler (306) and the noise-reducing baffle (308) are inherently adapted such that pressure drop through the two components does not result in a significant increase in pressure drop of the aerosol or bioaerosol collector (150). Because the system as a whole is designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, including the noise reducing muffler and baffle #308/344 are considered to be “adapted such that pressure drop through the two components does not result in a significant increase in pressure drop of the aerosol or bioaerosol collector” in the same way as Applicant’s (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17).
With respect to claim 19, Rodes teaches wherein the noise-reducing muffler (306) and the noise-reducing baffle (308) are inherently adapted such that pressure drop through the two components does not result in a significant decrease in the flowrate of the aerosol or bioaerosol collector (150). Because the system as a whole is designed to maintain a pressure/flow rate and minimize pressure drops, individual components, including the noise reducing muffler and baffle #308/344 are considered to be “adapted such that pressure drop through the two components does not result in a significant decrease in the flowrate of the aerosol or bioaerosol collector” in the same way as Applicant’s (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17).
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.
Claims 5-8, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodes (9,709,541).
With respect to claim 5, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that an internal diameter of a flow path in an inlet (314) of the noise-reducing muffler (306) is substantially similar to an internal diameter of an outlet of the collection device (150), in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above). It is noted that device of Rodes (300/500) as a whole designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, so as to minimize power consumption of the pump (116), and further avoids abrupt changes in geometries (i.e., cross-sectional areas) to prevent localized turbulence (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). The internal diameters are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required.
With respect to claim 6, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that wherein the internal diameter of a flow path in an outlet (322) of the noise-reducing muffler (306) is substantially similar to an internal diameter of air mover inlet (318). Although this is not explicitly stated, it appears obvious as depicted in Figure 3. Further, it is noted that device of Rodes (300/500) as a whole designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, so as to minimize power consumption of the pump (116), and further avoids abrupt changes in geometries (i.e., cross-sectional areas) to prevent localized turbulence (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). The internal diameters are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required.
With respect to claim 7, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that cross-sectional area of a flow path in an inlet (314) of the noise-reducing muffler (306) is substantially similar to a cross-sectional area of an outlet of the collection device (150), in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above). It is noted that device of Rodes (300/500) as a whole designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, so as to minimize power consumption of the pump (116), and further avoids abrupt changes in geometries (i.e., cross-sectional areas) to prevent localized turbulence (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). The cross-sectional areas of the claimed components are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required.
With respect to claim 8, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that a cross-sectional area of a flow path (“a flow path” defined by the flow path through the outlet section #322 of the noise-reducing muffler, which is considered to be “in” the noise-reducing muffler as claimed, as the “muffler” begins at the upstream end of inlet #314 and ends at the downstream end of outlet #322) in the noise-reducing muffler (306) is substantially similar to a cross-sectional area of air mover inlet (318). Although this is not explicitly stated, it appears obvious as depicted in Figure 3. Further, it is noted that device of Rodes (300/500) as a whole designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, so as to minimize power consumption of the pump (116), and further avoids abrupt changes in geometries (i.e., cross-sectional areas) to prevent localized turbulence (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). The internal diameters are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required.
With respect to claim 10, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that an internal diameter of the flow path (“the flow path” defined by the flow path through the inlet section #330 of the noise-reducing baffle, which is considered to be “in” the noise-reducing baffle as claimed, as the “baffle” begins at the upstream end of inlet #330 and ends at the downstream end of outlet #334) in the noise-reducing baffle (308/344) is substantially similar to an internal diameter of air mover outlet (326). Although this is not explicitly stated, it appears obvious as depicted in Figure 3. Further, it is noted that device of Rodes (300/500) as a whole designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, so as to minimize power consumption of the pump (116), and further avoids abrupt changes in geometries (i.e., cross-sectional areas) to prevent localized turbulence (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). The internal diameters are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required.
With respect to claim 11, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that a cross-sectional area of a flow path (“a flow path” defined by the flow path through the inlet section #330 of the noise-reducing baffle, which is considered to be “in” the noise-reducing muffler as claimed, as the “muffler” begins at the upstream end of inlet #330 and ends at the downstream end of outlet #334) in the noise-reducing baffle (308/344) is substantially similar to a cross-sectional area of air mover outlet (326). Although this is not explicitly stated, it appears obvious as depicted in Figure 3. Further, it is noted that device of Rodes (300/500) as a whole designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, so as to minimize power consumption of the pump (116), and further avoids abrupt changes in geometries (i.e., cross-sectional areas) to prevent localized turbulence (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). The internal diameters are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required.
With respect to claim 20, Rodes teaches wherein it is obvious that the noise-reducing baffle (308) acts as a charging docking station (when mounted on PCB #516, which provides all or most of the electronics – Col. 15, Lines 63-65) for the aerosol or bioaerosol collector (150) by including a charging socket that connects to a charging port of the collector (Col. 13, Lines 66-Col. 14, Lines 66). Although not defined in the Specification, as noted in the 112b rejection above, the claimed “socket” and “port” are considered to be satisfied by the connection of any power/charge carrying components connected between the external power source (Col 14, Lines 64-66) and the electrical inputs leading to the collection position #150 of the aerosol collection device #300/500, as socket/port, as the connections would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodes (9,709,541) in view of He (CN 107093482 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Rodes is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Rodes further teaches an air mover (116).
Rodes fails to explicitly teach wherein the air mover includes acoustic insulation to reduce noise emitted directly from the air mover.
He teaches a similar aerosol collection device (Figure 1), wherein an air mover (9) includes acoustic insulation to reduce noise emitted directly from the air mover ([0082]), so as to effectively reduce noise from the fan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Rodes, with the apparatus of He, so as to further effectively reduce noise from the fan (see He, [0082]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner still considers Rhodes and the obvious combination with He to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding the 112b rejections, while Applicant is correct that the claims can be broad, the issue is that the disclosure does not provide any boundaries for which the claimed broad language represents. As discussed in the 112 rejections above, is unclear what the parameters are for “substantially similar”, “adapted to reduce pressure drop”, significant increase in pressure drop” and “significant decrease in flowrate”. While one of ordinary skill may generally understand some of these parameters, it is unclear what these terms mean with respect to Applicant invention. How would one of ordinary skill known where the dividing line between an increase and a “significant increase” with regard to a pressure drop is? What is the difference between decrease and a “significant decrease” in flowrate? If two components are not identical, how would one of ordinary skill determine what is an acceptable size difference between two components to be considered “substantially similar” with regard to Applicant’s invention? Does a pressure drop mean any measurable amount such as a 0.0001% drop? Or is a pressure drop considered a drop when it is over 1%, 5% or even 10%? There are no disclosed boundaries or ranges for any of the these broadly claimed parameters. Additionally, Applicants arguments mostly hinge on Applicant’s assertion that Rhodes does not teach these claimed broad parameters. How can Applicant argue with respect to claim 9, 18 and 19 that Rhodes does not teach that a component is “adapted to reduce a pressure drop” if the Specification does not give some kind of range or boundary for what a pressure drop entails? In claims 18 and 19, Applicant argues that “the way the noise dampening device 304 of Rodes is structured would result in a significant increase in pressure drop and a significant decrease in the flow rate due to the substantially dissimilar internal diameters/cross-sectional areas of the constricted inlet/outlet ports to the inlet/outlet expansion chambers.” How do we know that the structure of Rhodes teaches “a significant increase” in pressure drop instead of merely an increase, or a significant decrease in the flow rate instead or a mere decrease? The fact that Applicant on one hand argues that they do not need to define these parameters with regard to the 112b rejection, and then argues definitely that the Rhodes device does not teach these parameters, or that Rhodes teaches sizes or pressure drops or flow rates that are outside what one of ordinary skill would understand these parameters to mean, is problematic. Therefore, the 112b rejections are maintained.
Regarding the antecedent basis rejection of claim 10, it is noted that the claim language in question should be amendment as follows “a flow path”, which is how Applicant has presented the same language to establish “a flow path” in each claims 5-8 and 11.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Applicant argues that “claim 1 comprises the separately claimed components of "a noise- reducing muffler positioned between a collection device and an inlet to an air mover" AND "a noise-reducing baffle connected to an outlet of the air mover." Rodes fails to disclose separate dual components, that is a noise-reducing muffler and a noise-reducing baffle, which are sandwiched on opposite sides of the air mover housed within the aerosol collector.” Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the word “separate” is not part of the claims, so the argument that “Rodes fails to disclose separate dual components, that is a noise-reducing muffler and a noise-reducing baffle, which are sandwiched on opposite sides of the air mover housed within the aerosol collector” is irrelevant to what Applicant has claimed and is therefore unpersuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate dual components, that is a noise-reducing muffler and a noise-reducing baffle, which are sandwiched on opposite sides of the air mover housed within the aerosol collector) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any details or parameters of what is meant by a pressure drop, nor is it described how the baffle is “adapted to reduce a pressure drop though the baffle”. As discussed above, because the system of Rhodes, as a whole, is designed to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops, individual components, including the noise reducing baffle #308/344 are considered to be “adapted to reduce pressure drop through the baffle” in the same way as Applicant’s (Col. 6, Lines 36-58; Col 12, Line 47-Col.13, Line 14; Col. 17, Line 42-Col. 18, Line 17). There is nothing in Rhodes that suggests the baffle is incapable of “reducing a pressure”, which again, is completely undefined in Applicant’s disclosure and open to the broadest reasonable interpretation, which the Examiner has communicated in the above rejection.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-17, Applicant’s argument that Rhodes does not satisfy that limitation “"wherein the noise-reducing muffler and noise-reducing baffle are adapted to be added to existing aerosol collection devices.” Because “the adaptation of claim 12 does not "necessarily" flow from Rodes” as discussed in MPEP § 2112. The Examiner disagrees as there is noting preventing the muffler and baffle #306/308 from being the “other components” that can be being removed from housing #504. Additionally, the rejection also noted that “Additionally, the language could also be interpretated as manufacturing components of aerosol collection device #300/500 and assembling them, such that when installing the muffler/baffle component #306/308, it is being installed in the partially assembled device #300/500, which constitutes an “existing” aerosol collection device.” Applicant has not addressed this position, which the Examiner also still considers providing a teach for the “adapted to be added” language of claim 12.
Regarding claims 18-19, in addition to the response to arguments of claim 9 above, the Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any evidence that “the way the noise dampening device 304 of Rodes is structured would result in a significant increase in pressure drop and a significant decrease in the flow rate due to the substantially dissimilar internal diameters/cross-sectional areas of the constricted inlet/outlet ports to the inlet/outlet expansion chambers.” This is a mere conclusory statement and unsupported, and as noted in the 112 response to arguments above, how would one of ordinary skill determine that “the way the noise dampening device 304 of Rodes is structured would result in a significant increase in pressure drop and a significant decrease in the flow rate due to the substantially dissimilar internal diameters/cross-sectional areas of the constricted inlet/outlet ports to the inlet/outlet expansion chambers” when we don’t known the different between: an increase and a significant increase in pressure drop, a decrease and a significant decrease in the flow rate, or what the threshold between two components which are identically size or “substantially similar”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 10-11, these claims are also being broadly interpreted in view of the 112b and undefined parameter of “substantially similar”. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner has not taken any official notice. Rather, the Examiner notes that the term “substantially similar” is unclear and open to the Examiner using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). As discussed in the above rejection with each of these claims, the internal diameters/cross-sectional areas are “substantially similar” in the same way as Applicants (see 112b rejection above), as a large difference in these connected inlet/outlet components would not allow the Rodes device to maintain a pressure and minimize pressure drops as is required. Applicant has not pointed to any definition of the term “substantially similar” in their disclosure to refute the Examiner’s interpreation using BRI.
Regarding claim 20, again, Applicant is referring to language that is not present in Applicant’s disclosure (i.e. “docking station,” “charging socket” or “charging port”) and then explains how Rhode’s docking station is allegedly oriented differently than Applicant’s claimed docking station, despite Applicant’s disclosure not mentioning a docking station, charging port or charging socket, or how ”the noise-reducing baffle acts as a charging docking station for the aerosol or bioaerosol collector by including a charging socket that connects to a charging port of the collector. Additionally, Applicant has reproduced Figure 4 with new labels for a charging port and charging socket (see arguments pages 13 and 27), which the Examiner will not consider as these components are not in the original drawings or mentioned in the disclosure, amounting to new matter. In its broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and given the indefiniteness discussed in the 112b rejection, it is considered to be obvious that the noise-reducing baffle (308) acts as a charging docking station (when mounted on PCB #516, which provides all or most of the electronics – Col. 15, Lines 63-65) for the aerosol or bioaerosol collector (150) by including a charging socket that connects to a charging port of the collector (Col. 13, Lines 66-Col. 14, Lines 66). Although not defined in the Specification, as noted in the 112b rejection above, the claimed “socket” and “port” are considered to be satisfied by the connection of any power/charge carrying components connected between the external power source (Col 14, Lines 64-66) and the electrical inputs leading to the collection position #150 of the aerosol collection device #300/500, as socket/port, as the connections would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In other words, the baffle #308 is mounted on the PCB #516, it is considered to be part of portion that “acts as a charging docking station,” which satisfies that claims. Further, it is unclear why Applicant is contemplating how this rejection would be treated if it were a 102, when it is clearly a 103-obviousness rejection.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Further regarding the combination of Rhodes and He, 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. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the Examiner has indicated that adding an insulation material to the fan of Rhodes would be advantageous to further reduce noise as taught by He, which teaches a similar fan having a noise reducing insulation material therein. Applicant’s peameal analysis, does not take anything from either reference to explicitly show that adding an insulation material to the fan would destroy the device of Rhodes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837