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 .
Summary
Claims 1-18, 20, and 28 are pending. Claims 1-18, 20, and 28 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 18 is/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 3, 4, and 18: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by ARNOTT et al. (US 20060290944).
Regarding claim 1: ARNOTT discloses: A monitoring device (FIG. 1) comprising: a resonator (118) comprising an inlet (114), an outlet (130), a chamber (cavity in para. 27) extending between the inlet and the outlet (FIG. 1), and a resonant frequency (para. 27); a pump mechanism (110) configured to draw in and direct an airborne particulate surrounding the monitoring device into the inlet and through the chamber and outlet of the resonator (para. 25); an optical source (122) situated and configured to provide and direct a laser beam into the chamber of the resonator at a predetermined modulation frequency (para. 25), wherein the airborne particulate within the resonator absorbs energy from the laser beam and transmits heat into the surrounding air (para. 26); a photodetector (126) situated and configured to receive and measure a power of the laser beam (para. 25) leaving the resonator (FIG. 1); and a sensor (134) situated and configured to measure a sound pressure within the chamber of the resonator associated with the heat transmitted from the airborne particulate (para. 26).
Regarding claim 2: ARNOTT discloses: a processor (144 in FIG. 1) including computer-readable instructions, wherein by executing the instructions, the processor is configured to: determine a mass concentration of the airborne particulate based on a ratio of the measured sound pressure of the resonator and power of the laser beam (para. 31).
Regarding claim 6: ARNOTT discloses: the resonant frequency of the resonator ranges from 0 Hz to 2000 Hz (FIG. 8; para. 83).
Regarding claim 8: ARNOTT discloses: the predetermined modulation frequency of the laser beam is equal to the resonant frequency of the resonator (para. 52).
Regarding claim 9: ARNOTT discloses: the laser beam is modulated with a square wave at the predetermined modulation frequency (para. 25).
Regarding claim 10: ARNOTT discloses: at least one acoustic filter situated and configured to filter sound external to the resonator chamber (bandpass filter in para. 27).
Regarding claim 12: ARNOTT discloses: an amplifier (148 in FIG. 1) is coupled to the photodetector (126) to amplify a signal output of the photodetector associated with the power of the laser beam (para. 27).
Regarding claim 13: ARNOTT discloses: the optical source comprises one or more lasers (para. 44).
Regarding claim 14: ARNOTT discloses: the sensor (134 in FIG. 1) is a microphone or a cantilever sensor (para. 26).
Regarding claim 15: ARNOTT discloses: A method comprising: drawing in a particulate species (106 in FIG. 1) through an inlet (114) and into a chamber (118) of a resonator of a monitoring device (step 302 in FIG. 4; para. 25; FIG. 1); directing a laser beam into the chamber of the resonator and toward the particulate species such that the particulate species absorbs energy from the laser beam and transmits heat to the surrounding air within the chamber of the resonator (steps 304 and 306 in FIG. 4; para. 26); measuring a power of the laser beam as it leaves the resonator and a sound pressure within the chamber of the resonator associated with the transmission of heat by the particulate species (para. 54); and determining a mass concentration of the particulate species based on a ratio of the measured sound pressure and power of the laser beam (para. 31).
Regarding claim 16: ARNOTT discloses: modulating a power of the laser beam to correspond with a resonant frequency of the resonator (para. 52).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARNOTT in view of BUGGE (US 20080198027).
Regarding claims 3-5, 17, 18, and 20: ARNOTT discloses: determining mass concentration (para. 31) and that pollution can be a health hazard (para. 3), but ARNOTT does not explicitly disclose sending an alert.
BUGGE however does teach determining whether the mass concentration of the airborne particulate (smoke in para. 61) exceeds a threshold concentration (para. 34); and upon determining the mass concentration exceeds the threshold concentration, sending an alert (alarm in para. 34) to one or more local and/or remote processors communicatively coupled to the processor of the monitoring device (BUGGE does not specify an additional processor that the alert is sent to. There is only the single “controller and measurement unit” which FIG. 1 states is a “PC and/or electronics.” However the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to send alerts between computers and other computing devices such as smartphones for the purpose of communicating important safety information to people located remotely. Furthermore, this can be in real-time, which is essential for fire safety, thus meeting the limitations of claim 4.), wherein the alert indicates the mass concentration of the airborne particulate exceeds the threshold concentration (para. 34). BUGGE also teaches a quantum cascade laser (para. 21), thus meeting the limitations of claim 5. BUGGE also teaches sounding a local alarm (para. 33-34), thus meeting the limitations of claim 20.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to send an alert as taught by BUGGE based on the measurement of ARNOTT because the presence of CO or smoke can indicate fire which is dangerous (para. 5 of BUGGE).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARNOTT in view of PATEL et al. (US 20080159341).
Regarding claim 7: ARNOTT does not disclose the particular wavelength range of 11 microns to 13 microns.
PATEL however does disclose a quantum cascade laser (para.8), wherein such lasers have a range from 3 to 15 microns (para. 8), and that such lasers are tunable over a range of wavelengths (para. 8; 75-60).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a particular IR wavelength depending on what substance is being detected, and that this range is where “most of the important trace gas pollutants, chemical warfare agents, toxic industrial chemicals, and vapors of explosives exhibit their characteristic infrared fingerprint absorption” (para. 8 of PATEL).
Furthermore, the specific claimed wavelength range, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by ARNOTT that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired sample to be detected, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the range is used, as already suggested by ARNOTT and PATEL.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the range stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of ARNOTT.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARNOTT in view of TABARU et al. (EP 2944945).
Regarding claim 11: ARNOTT does not disclose a mercury-cadmium-telluride (MCT) detector.
TABARU however does teach an MCT detector (para. 47) in their mid-IR laser detector for gases (para. 46-48).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the MCT detector of TABARU as the detector of ARNOTT because it is sensitive to wavelengths in the mid-IR region (para. 47 of TABARU).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARNOTT in view of PATEL.
Regarding claim 28: ARNOTT discloses: A device (FIG. 1) for monitoring a mass concentration of silica particulates (This is a statement of intended use. A device with the following structure will be able to monitor for many different types of particles.) comprising: a resonator (118) comprising an inlet (114), an outlet (130), a chamber (228 in FIG. 3) extending between the inlet and the outlet (FIGS. 1 and 3), and a resonant frequency (para. 27); a pump mechanism (110) configured to draw in and direct silica particulates surrounding the monitoring device into the inlet and through the chamber and outlet of the resonator (para. 25; As previously stated, the particles themselves are not within the scope of the claim. Therefore specifying them as silica particulates is a statement of intended use.); a laser (122 in FIG. 1) situated and configured to provide and direct a laser beam modulated with a square wave (para. 25) into the chamber of the resonator at a laser power modulation frequency approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the resonator (para. 25), wherein the silica particulates within the resonator absorbs energy from the laser beam and transmits heat into the surrounding air within the chamber of the resonator (para. 26); a photodetector (126) situated and configured to receive and measure a power of the laser beam leaving the resonator (FIG. 1); and a sensor (134) situated and configured to measure a sound pressure within the chamber of the resonator associated with the heat transmitted from the silica particulates (para. 26).
ARNOTT does not disclose the particular wavelength range of 11 microns to 13 microns.
PATEL however does disclose a quantum cascade laser (para.8), wherein such lasers have a range from 3 to 15 microns (para. 8), and that such lasers are tunable over a range of wavelengths (para. 8; 75-60).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a particular IR wavelength depending on what substance is being detected, and that this range is where “most of the important trace gas pollutants, chemical warfare agents, toxic industrial chemicals, and vapors of explosives exhibit their characteristic infrared fingerprint absorption” (para. 8 of PATEL).
Furthermore, the specific claimed wavelength range, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by ARNOTT that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired sample to be detected, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the range is used, as already suggested by ARNOTT and PATEL.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the range stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of ARNOTT.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896