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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 contains “(23).8” rather than “(23)” at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 19-21 and 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the longitudinal axis of the excitation channel” and “the longitudinal axis of the sensor channel” in claim 6. Independent claim 1 does not require either of these channels to be defined by a longitudinal axis. Claim 7 is rejected for being dependent on claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the fan in the inlet unit" and “the fan in the outlet unit” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because independent claim 1 does not require any fan.
With respect to claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the longitudinal axis of the excitation channel” and “the longitudinal axis of the sensor channel”. Independent claim 16 does not require either of these channels to be defined by a longitudinal axis.
Claim 20 states that “the inlet unit comprises…a fan”. However, independent claim 16 already requires that the inlet unit include a fan, and therefore it is unclear if the fan in claim 20 is the same or different than the fan first set forth in claim 16. It is unclear how many fans are required by the claim.
Claim 21 states that “the outlet unit comprises a fan”. However, independent claim 16 already requires that the outlet unit include a fan, and therefore it is unclear if the fan in claim 20 is the same or different than the fan first set forth in claim 16. It is unclear how many fans are required by the claim.
With respect to claims 27-38, the term “to maximize the detection field area” is unclear. It is not evident to what degree the detection area must be maximized, or if this maximization must only be achieved through the setting angle α or by a combination of improvements. It is unclear if the term relates to a measurement of total detection area, to an increase in the available detection area, or something else. Furthermore, the specification does not appear to clarify what is meant by this limitation, how to assess it, and how to determine its metes and bounds.
With respect to claim 30, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the longitudinal axis of the excitation channel” and “the longitudinal axis of the sensor channel”. Independent claim 27 does not require either of these channels to be defined by a longitudinal axis.
Claim 33 recites the limitations "the fan in the inlet unit" and “the fan in the outlet unit” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because independent claim 27 does not require any fan.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15, 27-30, 34-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hairston (US 20060197033) in view of Van Der Sluis (US 10816449).
With respect to claims 1 and 27, Hairston discloses an airborne bacteria detection system comprising an optical structure (Figure 1:200). The structure includes an airflow channel having an inlet unit, an outlet unit, an excitation channel with an excitation unit, and a sensor unit. This is described in paragraphs [0058]-[0063].
[AltContent: textbox (α)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The 1st and 2nd longitudinal channels have axes positioned at an angle α which maximizes a detection field area. It is unclear, however, if lenses 332 and 330 define a sensor channel that communicates with the sensor unit.
Van Der Sluis discloses an optical particle detector system for evaluating contaminants in an air stream. Van Der Sluis shows in Figs. 1 and 3-5 that an optical structure is provided and includes an airflow channel comprising an inlet unit and an outlet unit. Multiple excitation units (Figure 5:101, 105a, 106) and located in respective excitation channels, and multiple sensor units (Figure 4:105b, 104, 107) are located in respective sensor channels. This is described in column 10, line 29 to column 11, line 4.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Hairston system includes at least one sensor channel in communication with the sensor unit. As shown by Van Der Sluis, this would provide the beneficial effect of minimizing the overall footprint of the device while defining a dedicated optical pathway between the detectable bacteria and the photodetector. Disposing the Hairston sensor in an integrated sensor channel would have obviated the need to connect and align an external detector unit before each operation, thereby improving ease of use and measurement accuracy.
With respect to claim 2, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Hairston shows that the angle α is less than 180° – see the annotated Figure above.
With respect to claims 3 and 28, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Hairston shows in Fig. 2 an embodiment in which the sensor unit (and therefore any accompanying sensor channel) is closer to the inlet unit than the excitation channel.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4 and 29, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Hairston shows in Fig. 2 an embodiment (see above annotated Figure) in which the first longitudinal unit contains the inlet unit and is aligned on the same longitudinal axis as the excitation unit. Fig. 2 also shows that the second longitudinal section contains the outlet unit.
With respect to claim 5, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Hairston teaches an example in paragraph [0045] in which an excitation unit emits radiation at approximately 280 nm. Van Der Sluis similarly teaches a wavelength range of 280 to 315 nm in column 9, lines 7-34.
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 30, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Van Der Sluis further shows in Fig. 5 that an angle b exists between adjacent sensor and excitation channels. The channels are shown as being closely bunched, and therefore it is understood that they are disposed at the smallest angle possible dictated by the physical dimensions of the excitation and sensor units.
With respect to claims 11-13 and 34-36, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Hairston further teaches that the excitation and emission units includes an LED source 102, 104, a filter 114 (“emitter reflector 114 comprises a plurality of filters that can be used sequentially to produce various bands of long wavelength radiation 104 and short wavelength radiation 110) and a window. See paragraphs [0012]-[0014] and [0046]. Van Der Sluis likewise teaches that the excitation and emission units include an LED source, a filter and a window. LED sources, filters and optical windows are considered to be well known in the optical detection art. The excitation channel of Hairston is defined by the length of the optical structure, and therefore is understood to be long enough to provide a collimating effect.
With respect to claim 15, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. The Hairston system may be used at regular intervals based on detected bioaerosol levels. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 38, Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Hairston and Van Der Sluis do not suffer from problems related to particle adhesion, and therefore it is understood that the walls of the disclosed devices are made from materials designed to prevent particle adhesion.
Claims 8-10 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hairston (US 20060197033) in view of Van Der Sluis (US 10816449) as applied to claims 1 and 27, and further in view of Clayton (US 20200340899) and Scott (WO 2006092572).
Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. Van Der Sluis additionally teaches that a fan (Figure 5:108) is used to generate air flow from the inlet unit to the outlet unit. Hairston and Van Der Sluis, however, do not teach inlet and outlet units that both include a light trap, a fan, and a universal mounting socket.
Clayton discloses an airborne bacteria detection system comprising an airflow channel defined between an input unit (Figure 6:605) and an outlet unit (Figure 7:707). The airflow channel is in optical communication with an excitation unit (Figure 4:424) and a sensor unit (Figure 4:428). Clayton teaches in paragraphs [0062]-[0064] that a light trap (Figure 7:758) is provided to remove stray light that might interfere with detection. Paragraph [0061] further teaches that the length, angle and diameter of the inlet and outlet units may be adjusted as necessary depending on the particular application requirements, which reads on the provision of a universal mounting socket.
Scott discloses a system for detecting airborne particles in a gas stream. The device includes an inlet unit (Figure 1:10) and an outlet unit (Figure 1:12), wherein the inlet unit includes an inlet fan (Figure 1:31), and wherein the outlet unit includes an outlet fan (Figure 1:32). This is taught on page 3.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Hairston inlet and outlet units with a light trap, a fan, and a universal mounting accessory. These features are shown by Clayton and Scott as performing known functions and improving results in a predictable manner. It is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143. Clayton shows how light traps reduce noise and enhance detection accuracy. Clayton further demonstrates that those of ordinary skill would have been interested in a flow path adapter that would allow the airflow channel to communicate with different sample sources. Scott teaches that inlet and outlet fans may be synchronized to improve air flow through a detection device (“the fans 31 and 32 may be operated at the same or different frequencies in order to optimize air flow along the channel 13, having regard to flow rate, power consumption, noise and the like. The vibrating fans 31 and 32 have the advantage of low cost, high reliability, low weight, compact configuration and do not require any lubrication, which can present a contamination problem in sensitive detection equipment. The fans 31 and 32 have the further advantage that they can be started after prolonged periods of being unused without any risk of jamming”).
Claims 14 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hairston (US 20060197033) in view of Van Der Sluis (US 10816449) as applied to claims 13 and 27, and further in view of Schmidt (US 20200011795).
Hairston and Van Der Sluis disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, these references teach the state of the art regarding the use of bandpass filters. Hairston, however, does not expressly indicate that the sensor unit is a single photon counter sensor.
Schmidt discloses a system for detecting viruses and other contaminants in a sample. Schmidt teaches that an excitation unit is coupled with an emission unit, and that the emission unit may include a bandpass filter and a single photon counter sensor. See, for example, paragraph [0116] (“The fluorescence emission signals of the particles were captured…the signal was then passed through bandpass and notch optical filters to eliminate the excitation wavelengths, and was finally detected by a single-photon-counting detector”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to further modify Hairston to ensure that a single photon counter senor is utilized. As evidenced by Schmidt, such detectors are known in the art and commonly used to determine the presence of a pathogen by detecting a target fluorescence emission. It would have been well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to select a known detector type (e.g., single-photon-counting detector) from a collection of those recognized by the prior art as being suitable and effective options.
Claims 16-19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hairston (US 20060197033) in view of Van Der Sluis (US 10816449) and Scott (WO 2006092572).
With respect to claims 16 and 22, Hairston discloses an airborne bacteria detection system comprising an optical structure (Figure 1:200). The structure includes an airflow channel having an inlet unit, an outlet unit, an excitation channel with an excitation unit, and a sensor unit. This is described in paragraphs [0058]-[0063].
[AltContent: textbox (α)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The 1st and 2nd longitudinal channels have axes positioned at an angle α which maximizes a detection field area. It is unclear, however, if lenses 332 and 330 define a sensor channel that communicates with the sensor unit.
Van Der Sluis discloses an optical particle detector system for evaluating contaminants in an air stream. Van Der Sluis shows in Figs. 1 and 3-5 that an optical structure is provided and includes an airflow channel comprising an inlet unit and an outlet unit. Multiple excitation units (Figure 5:101, 105a, 106) and located in respective excitation channels, and multiple sensor units (Figure 4:105b, 104, 107) are located in respective sensor channels. This is described in column 10, line 29 to column 11, line 4.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Hairston system includes at least one sensor channel in communication with the sensor unit. As shown by Van Der Sluis, this would provide the beneficial effect of minimizing the overall footprint of the device while defining a dedicated optical pathway between the detectable bacteria and the photodetector. Disposing the Hairston sensor in an integrated sensor channel would have obviated the need to connect and align an external detector unit before each operation, thereby improving ease of use and measurement accuracy.
Van Der Sluis additionally teaches that a fan (Figure 5:108) is used to generate air flow from the inlet unit to the outlet unit. Hairston and Van Der Sluis, however, do not teach inlet and outlet units that both include a fan.
Scott discloses a system for detecting airborne particles in a gas stream. The device includes an inlet unit (Figure 1:10) and an outlet unit (Figure 1:12), wherein the inlet unit includes an inlet fan (Figure 1:31), and wherein the outlet unit includes an outlet fan (Figure 1:32). This is taught on page 3.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Hairston inlet and outlet units with synchronized fans. Scott teaches that inlet and outlet fans should be used together to effectively drive an air sample through an optical detection unit. Scott indicates that the pumps may be synchronized to improve air flow and detection conditions (“the fans 31 and 32 may be operated at the same or different frequencies in order to optimize air flow along the channel 13, having regard to flow rate, power consumption, noise and the like. The vibrating fans 31 and 32 have the advantage of low cost, high reliability, low weight, compact configuration and do not require any lubrication, which can present a contamination problem in sensitive detection equipment. The fans 31 and 32 have the further advantage that they can be started after prolonged periods of being unused without any risk of jamming”).
With respect to claim 17, Hairston, Van Der Sluis and Scott disclose the combination as described above. Hairston shows in Fig. 2 an embodiment in which the sensor unit (and therefore any accompanying sensor channel) is closer to the inlet unit than the excitation channel.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18, Hairston, Van Der Sluis and Scott disclose the combination as described above. Hairston shows in Fig. 2 an embodiment (see above annotated Figure) in which the first longitudinal unit contains the inlet unit and is aligned on the same longitudinal axis as the excitation unit. Fig. 2 also shows that the second longitudinal section contains the outlet unit.
With respect to claim 19, Hairston, Van Der Sluis and Scott disclose the combination as described above. Van Der Sluis further shows in Fig. 5 that an angle b exists between adjacent sensor and excitation channels. The channels are shown as being closely bunched, and therefore it is understood that they are disposed at the smallest angle possible dictated by the physical dimensions of the excitation and sensor units.
With respect to claims 23-25, Hairston, Van Der Sluis and Scott disclose the combination as described above. Hairston further teaches that the excitation and emission units includes an LED source 102, 104, a filter 114 (“emitter reflector 114 comprises a plurality of filters that can be used sequentially to produce various bands of long wavelength radiation 104 and short wavelength radiation 110) and a window. See paragraphs [0012]-[0014] and [0046]. Van Der Sluis likewise teaches that the excitation and emission units include an LED source, a filter and a window. LED sources, filters and optical windows are considered to be well known in the optical detection art. The excitation channel of Hairston is defined by the length of the optical structure, and therefore is understood to be long enough to provide a collimating effect.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hairston (US 20060197033) in view of Van Der Sluis (US 10816449) and Scott (WO 2006092572) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Clayton (US 20200340899).
Hairston, Van Der Sluis and Scott disclose the combination as described above, however, do not teach inlet and outlet units that both include a light trap and a universal mounting socket.
Clayton discloses an airborne bacteria detection system comprising an airflow channel defined between an input unit (Figure 6:605) and an outlet unit (Figure 7:707). The airflow channel is in optical communication with an excitation unit (Figure 4:424) and a sensor unit (Figure 4:428). Clayton teaches in paragraphs [0062]-[0064] that a light trap (Figure 7:758) is provided to remove stray light that might interfere with detection. Paragraph [0061] further teaches that the length, angle and diameter of the inlet and outlet units may be adjusted as necessary depending on the particular application requirements, which reads on the provision of a universal mounting socket.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Hairston inlet and outlet units with a light trap and a universal mounting accessory. These features are shown by Clayton as performing known functions and improving results in a predictable manner. It is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143. Clayton shows how light traps reduce noise and enhance detection accuracy. Clayton further demonstrates that those of ordinary skill would have been interested in a flow path adapter that would allow the airflow channel to communicate with different sample sources.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hairston (US 20060197033) in view of Van Der Sluis (US 10816449) and Scott (WO 2006092572) as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Schmidt (US 20200011795).
Hairston, Van Der Sluis and Scott disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, these references teach the state of the art regarding the use of bandpass filters. Hairston, however, does not expressly indicate that the sensor unit is a single photon counter sensor.
Schmidt discloses a system for detecting viruses and other contaminants in a sample. Schmidt teaches that an excitation unit is coupled with an emission unit, and that the emission unit may include a bandpass filter and a single photon counter sensor. See, for example, paragraph [0116] (“The fluorescence emission signals of the particles were captured…the signal was then passed through bandpass and notch optical filters to eliminate the excitation wavelengths, and was finally detected by a single-photon-counting detector”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to further modify Hairston to ensure that a single photon counter senor is utilized. As evidenced by Schmidt, such detectors are known in the art and commonly used to determine the presence of a pathogen by detecting a target fluorescence emission. It would have been well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to select a known detector type (e.g., single-photon-counting detector) from a collection of those recognized by the prior art as being suitable and effective options.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799