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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 5/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitations “System for monitoring of an airborne pathogen” and “the filtered airborne pathogen is identified” (emphasis added) are determined to not be directed towards mental processes and thus abstract ideas because a human cannot reasonably perform the function of monitoring or identifying an airborne pathogen in their mind. The claim therefore qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the inquiry required by Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes dismisses the claim from further analysis in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106(III).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 contains a typo and should read “the cyclone is configured to separate the airborne particles [[form]] from the cleaning fluid”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forzani (US 2022/0054687).
Regarding claim 1, Forzani (US 2022/0054687) teaches –
A system for monitoring of an airborne pathogen in ambient air (Figs. 29-32, Pars. 74-77 disclose a system for monitoring airborne contamination), the system comprising:
a sampling unit (Fig. 31A pipe section 484) comprising
a collection inlet and configured to collect airborne particles from ambient air (the inlet 482 collecting air, par. 139);
a cascade impactor (the impactor section below including impactors 484, 486 filter and detect increasingly smaller particles and therefore reads on the structure and function of a cascade impactor, par. 139; Fig. 31B also teaches multiple stages within a single impactor 480; par. 140) comprising
an inlet (second pipe section 485),
an outlet (fourth pipe section 489),
a plurality of filter stages (the individual stages of the impactors 484 and 486, see also fig. 31B for the particular structure including filter structure 488’ of each impactor) and
a sensor board disposed on a filter stage from the plurality of filter stages (pars. 139-140, CMOS sensors including sensor surfaces 500 and 502 in fig. 31B which are semi-conductor structures reading on the limitation of a ‘board’ as claimed),
the cascade impactor connected to the sampling unit from the inlet (see fig. 31A) and configured
to filter the airborne pathogen from the collected airborne particles (par. 139-140, filter 488 would perform the function of filtering), wherein
the filtered airborne pathogen is identified by the sensor board (pars. 9, 76 teaches the impactors are used specifically as pathogen sensors, pars. 135 and 138 teaches the specific pathogen is identified in the process of sensing); anda processing unit connected to the sensor board (Fig. 29, par. 135, sensing module 442 and AI app 444 both include some processing unit) and configured to
detect the airborne pathogen identified by the sensor board (par. 135 disclose this transmission from the sensor to the processing unit).
Regarding claim 2, Forzani further teaches a vacuum pump connected to the sampling unit through the cascade impactor and configured to suck the airborne particles from ambient air and drive the collected airborne particles through the cascade impactor (Fig. 31A fan unit 490 creates negative pressure in the system and therefore acts as a vacuum pump, par. 139).
Regarding claim 4, Forzani further teaches a cleaning system operably connected to the cascade impactor and configured to clear the cascade impactor and the sensor board thereon from the airborne pathogen (Pars. 135 and Claims 1 and 7 teach an ultraviolet lamp and ozone producers as a mitigation module being used to treat air in conjunction with a sensing module, like the impactor sensing modules in sensor assembly 480).
Regarding claim 5, Forzani further teaches a cleaning fluid stored in a fluid storage, and a fluid pump connected to the fluid storage, the fluid pump configured to drive the cleaning fluid from the fluid storage and through the cascade impactor (pars. 92, 135 and claim 17 discloses an ozone disinfection or wet scrubbing with associated ventilation apparatus and a storage for the liquid, and the cleaning fluid being circulated and being brought into contact with the environment the sensing means are in).
Regarding claim 6, Forzani further teaches the cleaning system further comprises a fluid waste chamber connected to the outlet and configured to collect the cleaning fluid after exiting the cascade impactor (Fig. 4 dry scrubber 80 reads on this limitation as it contains a dry reagent to interact with the constituents of the air stream ).
Regarding claim 8, Forzani further teaches a drying system configured to dry the cascade impactor from the cleaning fluid (par. 92 discloses a dryer for performing a function of drying the airstream and thus the components in contact with the air stream including a fluid).
Regarding claim 9, Forzani further teaches the cascade impactor further comprises an ultraviolet light source to disinfect the sensor board from the airborne pathogen (par. 135, claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, Forzani further teaches the cascade impactor comprises a first sensor board disposed on a first filter stage from the plurality of filter stages and a second sensor board disposed on a second filter stage from the plurality of filter stages, and wherein the first sensor board and the second sensor board are different (Fig. 31A-31B show two different filter stages that include two different CMOS sensors, sensor surface 500 and 502; pars. 139-141) and are configured to the identify a first airborne pathogen and a second airborne pathogen respectively (par. 140, the CMOS sensors are well capable of performing this function and all the structure of the claim is met, MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 13, Forzani further teaches a reference sensor board not exposed to the airborne particles and configured to provide a reference signal to the processing unit for detection of the airborne pathogen (Fig. 32 shows the sensor assembly in further detail, the sensor assembly including a positive and negative control area with associated discrete substrate areas 512 and 532 reading on the limitation of a reference sensor board; par. 141).
Regarding claim 14, Forzani further teaches the processing unit is operably connected to a display unit to indicate the detection of the airborne pathogen to a user (Fig. 7 shows a GUI for displaying sensor output, pars. 46 and 92).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forzani (US 2022/0054687).
Regarding claim 3, Forzani is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to the sensor board being removable and replaced with a new sensor board after the airborne pathogen is detected.
However, this modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is merely the configuring of existing parts as separable, and if it is considered desirable for any reason to fashion prior art components as separable then it would merely be obvious to do so. MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Making the sensor board separable would allow the replacing and servicing of the sensor boards which would have the expected advantage of a device with a longer operational life that is more convenient to service.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forzani (US 2022/0054687) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen (US 11,085,861).
Regarding claim 10, Forzani is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to one or more coated crystals.
Chen (US 11,085,861) teaches an impactor system for measuring aerosols in gases (abstract) similar to the impactors used in Forzani, where the impactors include QCM crystal sensors that are coated (Figs. 2-3 QCM crystal sensor 28; col. 5 lines 1-7) for measuring the properties of the aerosol by a change in the mechanical characteristics of the crystal when in contact with the aerosol (Col. 3 lines 39-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Forzani such that the sensor board includes a coated crystal for detecting the pathogens by a mechanical change in the crystal as taught by Chen to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the sensitive, real-time, and reliable measuring capabilities of the crystal sensors to arrive at an improved sensing device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Forzani further teaches a data transmission unit connected to the processing unit and configured to transmit data between the processing unit and a secondary device (Figs. 4 and 28 both show network devices including reporting module 140 and network interface device 410 being connected to a processing devices 64 and 402).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention presented in claim 7. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Forzani.
Forzani teaches an impactor system with a cleaning system and a fluid waste chamber (see fig. 4 including wet scrubber 100 and dry scrubber 80) but is silent with regards to a cyclone disposed between the cascade impactor and the fluid waste chamber to separate airborne particles from the cleaning fluid. There would be no motivation absent hindsight reasoning from Applicant’s disclosure to modify the device of Forzani to include this feature, and therefore the claim is allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights