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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 15, and 19. Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 4 and 18 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox et al. (US 2008/0297360 A1), hereinafter Knox, in view of Rieker et al. (US 2021/0080324 A1), hereinafter Rieker.
Regarding claim 1, Knox teaches a method of detecting one or more particulate matter within a sensing region (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0002, 0160-0161), the method comprising:
emitting, from a beam component (Fig. 1 emitter 16), an optical beam along a beam path defined at least partially within the sensing region (paragraphs 0144, 0165, Fig. 1);
determining a particulate matter concentration within the sensing region (paragraphs 0157, 0209-0227, 0272, 0282, 0435) based at least in part on particulate data generated by a plurality of photodetectors (paragraphs 0209-0227; see also paragraph 0154 “A plurality of image-capturing devices may be used”, 0161), the particulate data being defined at least in part by (i) a detection of a scattered portion of the optical beam reflected from one or more particulates positioned along the beam path (paragraphs 0161, 0165, 0170, 0209-0227), (ii) a pulse quantity and/or a pulse intensity defined by the one or more particulates (paragraphs 0161, 0169, 0222-0227, 0328), and (iii) an optical pulse rate of the optical beam (paragraphs 0169, 0320; see also paragraphs 0034-0037).
Knox does not teach a method detecting one or more gases within a sensing region comprising detecting, by a dual-frequency comb spectroscopy operation, a first gas within the sensing region based at least in part on gas data generated by the beam component, wherein the gas data is generated by the beam component via an optical gas sensing means, and wherein the gas data is defined at least in part by a detected absorption of at least a portion of the optical beam at a first wavelength corresponding to the first gas.
Rieker, which relates to optical gas measuring methods using pulsed sources, teaches a method detecting one or more gases within a sensing region (Rieker: abstract, paragraphs 0012, 0053-0055, 0065, Fig. 1) comprising emitting, from a beam component (Rieker: Fig. 1 transceiver 104, first and second frequency comb sources 120(1), 120(2)), an optical beam along a beam path defined at least partially within the sensing region (see Rieker Fig. 1, paragraphs 0053-0058), detecting, by a dual-frequency comb spectroscopy operation (Rieker: paragraphs 0012-0013, 0053-0055), a first gas within the sensing region based at least in part on gas data generated by the beam component (Rieker: paragraphs 0012-0013, 0053-0055), wherein the gas data is generated by the beam component via an optical gas sensing means (Rieker: paragraphs 0012-0013, 0053-0055, Fig. 1 system 100 to sense gas 116), and wherein the gas data is defined at least in part by a detected absorption of at least a portion of the optical beam at a first wavelength corresponding to the first gas (Rieker: paragraphs 0053-0055, 0065).
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See Sundance, Inc. V. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and Anderson's- Black Rock, Inc. V. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). Here, a skilled artisan in the field of atmospheric monitoring would have recognized that the detecting methods of Knox and Rieker could have been combined, according to known methods, to obtain the predictable result of a method that simultaneously measures the atmosphere for toxic gases and dangerous particulate matter. Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to create a detection method that combines the benefits of the particulate matter measuring method of Knox (i.e. a sensitive detection method that enables a concentration of particulate matter to be measured in addition to giving an indication of particulate location) and the benefits of the gas sensing method of Rieker (i.e. a highly sensitive detection method that enables the identification of a gas to be measured corresponding to its location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the method of Knox with the method of Rieker, according to known methods, to achieve the predictable result of a highly sensitive detection method that simultaneously monitors an environment for potentially harmful particulate matter concentrations and toxic gases (see Knox abstract and Rieker paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 2, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical beam embodies an active optical beam that is pulsed from the beam component such that the active optical beam defines the optical pulse rate (Knox: paragraph 0169; Rieker: paragraphs 0066-0067, 0081).
Regarding claim 3, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches executing a data processing operation wherein a photodetector signal defined at least in part by the particulate data generated by the plurality of photodetectors is processed with the optical pulse rate (Knox: paragraphs 0169, 0203) using a phase-locked loop to enhance the photodetector signal by at least partially reducing signal noise (Knox: paragraphs 0169, 0203, 0267-0269, 0324; the processing of data with the pulse rate reduces the photodetector’s exposure to ambient light, thus reducing noise).
Regarding claim 7, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches transmitting the particulate data generated by the plurality of photodetectors to a controller (Knox: Fig. 1 processor 20, paragraph 0161), and determining, via the controller, the particulate matter concentration associated with the particulate matter based at least in part on the particulate data (Knox: paragraphs 0161, 0167-0168, 0184, 0209-0227, 0283-0284).
Regarding claim 8, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches transmitting the gas data generated by the beam component to a controller (Rieker: Fig. 1 data processing module 122), and determining, via the controller, a gas concentration associated with the first gas based at least in part on the gas data (Rieker: paragraph 0065 “the Fourier transform of interferogram 302 yields an absorption spectrum and/or optical transfer function of gas 116 from which a path-integrated quantity of gas 116 may be estimated”, the quantity of a gas being proportional to its concentration; see also paragraphs 0166, 0170).
Regarding claim 9, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches the gas data is further defined by an absorption intensity defined at the first wavelength (Rieker: paragraphs 0062-0065), and wherein the gas concentration associated with the first gas is determined based at least in part on the absorption intensity defined at least at the first wavelength (Rieker: paragraphs 0062-0065; the photodetector records an interferogram based the total intensity of the pulse trains having two different wavelengths (paragraph 0054), the interferogram is Fourier transformed which yields an absorption spectrum in which the quantity of a gas can be estimated, the quantity being proportional to concentration).
Regarding claim 15, Knox teaches a sensor (Fig. 1 particle detector 10) configured for detecting one or more particulate matter (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0002, 0160-0161), the sensor comprising:
a beam component (Fig. 1 emitter 16, lens 21, FOV restrictor 23) comprising a light beam generator (Fig. 1 emitter 16) configured to emit an optical beam along a beam path defined at least partially within a sensing region of the sensor (paragraphs 0144, 0165, Fig. 1 region 12),
a plurality of photodetectors (Fig. 1 image capture device 14, paragraphs 0161; see also paragraph 0154 “A plurality of image-capturing devices may be used”) configured to generate particulate data (paragraphs 0161, 0209-0227) defined at least in part by (i) a detection of a scattered portion of the optical beam reflected from one or more particulates positioned along the beam path (paragraphs 0161, 0165, 0170, 0209-0227), (ii) a pulse quantity and/or a pulse intensity defined by the one or more particulates (paragraphs 0161, 0169, 0222-0227, 0328), and (iii) an optical pulse rate of the optical beam (paragraphs 0169, 0320; see also paragraphs 0034-0037); and
a controller (Fig. 1 processor 20) configured to determine particulate matter concentration within the sensing region based at least in part on the particulate data generated by the plurality of photodetectors (paragraphs 0157, 0209-0227, 0272, 0282, 0435).
Knox does not teach a sensor configured for detecting one or more gases, the sensor comprising: a beam component comprising a light beam generator configured to emit an optical beam along a beam path defined at least partially within a sensing region of the sensor, wherein the beam component is further configured to generate gas data associated with a first gas positioned within the sensing region via an optical gas sensing means; a controller configured to detect, by a dual-frequency comb spectroscopy operation, the first gas based at least in part on the gas data generated by the beam component, wherein the gas data is defined at least in part by a detected absorption of at least a portion of the optical beam at a first wavelength corresponding to the first gas.
Rieker, which relates to optical gas measuring sensors using pulsed sources, teaches a sensor configured for detecting one or more gases (Fig. 1 dual-frequency comb spectroscopy system 100, paragraphs 0053-0055), the sensor comprising: a beam component (Rieker: Fig. 1 transceiver 104, first and second frequency comb sources 120(1), 120(2)) comprising a light beam generator (Rieker: Fig. 1 first and second frequency comb sources 120(1), 120(2), Fig. 5) configured to emit an optical beam along a beam path defined at least partially within a sensing region of the sensor (Rieker: see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0053-0058), wherein the beam component is further configured to generate gas data associated with a first gas positioned within the sensing region via an optical gas sensing means (Rieker: paragraphs 0012-0013, 0053-0055, see Fig. 1 transceiver 104 and DCS spectrometer 102 to sense gas 116); a controller (Rieker: Fig. 1 data processing module 122) configured to detect, by a dual-frequency comb spectroscopy operation (Rieker: paragraphs 0012-0013, 0053-0055), the first gas based at least in part on the gas data generated by the beam component (Rieker: paragraphs 0012-0013, 0053-0055), wherein the gas data is defined at least in part by a detected absorption of at least a portion of the optical beam at a first wavelength corresponding to the first gas (Rieker: paragraphs 0053-0055, 0065).
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See Sundance, Inc. V. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and Anderson's- Black Rock, Inc. V. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). Here, a skilled artisan in the field of atmospheric monitoring would have recognized that the sensor of Knox could be combined, according to known methods, with the sensor of Rieker to obtain the predictable result of a sensor that simultaneously measures the atmosphere for toxic gases and dangerous particulate matter. Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to create a sensor that combines the benefits of the particulate matter sensor of Knox (i.e. a sensitive detection method that enables a concentration of particulate matter to be measured in addition to giving an indication of particulate location) and the benefits of the gas sensor of Rieker (i.e. a highly sensitive detection method that enables the identification of a gas to be measured corresponding to its location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the sensor of Knox with the sensor of Rieker, according to known methods, to achieve the predictable result of a highly sensitive sensor that simultaneously monitors an environment for potentially harmful particulate matter concentrations and toxic gases (see Knox abstract and Rieker paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 16, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the sensor of claim 15, as outlined above, and further teaches the optical beam embodies an active optical beam that is pulsed from the beam component such that the active optical beam defines the optical pulse rate (Knox: paragraph 0169; Rieker: paragraphs 0066-0067, 0081).
Regarding claim 17, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the sensor of claim 16, as outlined above, and further teaches the controller is further configured to execute a data processing operation wherein a photodetector signal defined at least in part by the particulate data generated by the plurality of photodetectors is processed with the optical pulse rate (Knox: paragraphs 0169, 0203) using a phase-locked loop to enhance the photodetector signal by at least partially reducing signal noise (Knox: paragraphs 0169, 0203, 0267-0269, 0324; the processing of data with the pulse rate reduces the photodetector’s exposure to ambient light, thus reducing noise).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Rieker as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Stark (US 2020/0064512 A1, of record).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 1 and sensor of claim 15, as outlined above, but does not teach the gas data generated by the beam component comprises a frequency-comb data stream including at least the first wavelength and a second wavelength.
Stark, which relates to utilizing dual-frequency comb spectroscopy for measurements, teaches a beam component (Stark: paragraph 0045, laser source) comprising a frequency-comb data stream including at least a first wavelength and a second wavelength (Stark: paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method and sensor of Knox (as modified by Rieker) have the gas data generated by the beam component include a frequency-comb data stream including at least the first wavelength and a second wavelength, as taught by Stark, for the benefit of mitigating optical limitations in the gas sensing means of Knox (as modified by Rieker) (see Stark paragraph 0047).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Rieker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walls et al. (US 2018/0149578, of record), hereinafter Walls.
Regarding claim 6, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach providing a color filter relative to the plurality of photodetectors such that the scattered portion of the optical beam is passed through the color filter.
Walls, which relates to detecting particle scattering, teaches providing a color filter relative to a plurality of photodetector such that a scattered portion of an optical beam is passed through the color filter (Walls: see Fig. 1-3 sensor 128 and filter 186, layer 202; see also paragraph 0074-0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Knox (as modified by Rieker) to provide a color filter relative to the plurality of photodetectors such that the scattered portion of the optical beam is passed through the color filter, as taught by Walls, for the benefit of blocking undesired light, such as ambient light (see Walls paragraph 0076).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Rieker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenberg et al. (US Patent No. 9,377,481 B1, of record), hereinafter Greenberg.
Regarding claim 10, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach determining a cumulative particulate matter concentration based on the respective particulate data generated by each of the plurality of photodetectors.
Greenberg, which relates to determining particulate matter concentrations, teaches determining a cumulative particulate matter concentration based on the respective particulate data generated by each of a plurality of photodetectors (Greenberg: col. 7 lines 14- 25, col. 11 lines 4-14; calculating the total mass and volume of the particles yields cumulative concentration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Knox (as modified by Rieker) to include the step of determining a cumulative particulate matter concentration based on the respective particulate data generated by each of the plurality of photodetectors, as taught by Greenberg, for the benefit of reducing the uncertainty of the total concentration of particles (Greenberg: col. 6 lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 11, Knox, as modified by Rieker and Greenberg, teaches the method of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not teach the beam path defined by the optical beam defines a looped path configuration, wherein the beam path is defined along two or more distinct linear axes.
However, Knox (as modified by Rieker and Greenberg) teaches the beam path is defined along a distinct linear axis (see Knox Fig. 1, 25, etc.). The instant application does not recite a new or unexpected result from having the beam path be defined as a looped path configuration wherein the beam path is defined along two or more distinct linear axes. Rather, the technical effect of a looped path configuration wherein the beam path is defined along two or more distinct linear axes merely appears to be to gather more scattered light from different locations with the plurality of photodetectors and/or generate a stronger absorption signal with the gas sensing means. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the beam path of Knox (as modified by Rieker and Greenberg) to have a looped path configuration, wherein the beam path is defined along two or more distinct linear axes, as doing so beneficially increases the amount of scattered light that can be detected by the photodetectors and the strength of the absorption signal detected by the gas sensing means of Knox (as modified by Rieker and Greenberg).
Regarding claim 12, Knox, as modified by Rieker and Greenberg, teaches the method of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not teach the beam path defined by the optical beam defines a retro-reflection path configuration, wherein the beam path is defined along a single axis between the beam component and a reflective element configured to reflect the optical beam towards the beam component.
However, Rieker teaches the beam path defined by the optical beam defines a retro-reflection path configuration (see Rieker Fig. 1, paragraph 0053), wherein the beam path is defined along a single axis between the beam component and a reflective element configured to reflect the optical beam towards the beam component (see Rieker Fig. 1 retroreflector 118, paragraph 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the beam path of Knox (as modified by Rieker and Greenberg) to have a retro-reflection path configuration, wherein the beam path is defined along a single axis between the beam component and a reflective element configured to reflect the optical beam towards the beam component, as taught by Rieker, for the benefit of improving detection range and enabling a more compact detection system that is used to perform the method of Knox (as modified by Rieker and Greenberg).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Rieker and Greenberg as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Myrick et al. (US 2023/0280270 A1, of record), hereinafter Myrick.
Regarding claim 13, Knox, as modified by Rieker and Greenberg, teaches the method of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not teach the optical beam is emitted in an emission direction at least substantially towards a mobile reflection platform configured for movement relative to the beam component such that the beam path defines a dynamic configuration.
Myrick, which relates to atmospheric sensing, teaches an optical beam is emitted in an emission direction at least substantially towards a mobile reflection platform (Myrick: see Fig. 1-2, abstract, paragraph 0006) configured for movement relative to a beam component (Myrick: see Fig. 1-2 base station 12, abstract, paragraph 0006, 0035, 0040) such that the beam path defines a dynamic configuration (Myrick: see paragraph 0040; it is implicit that the beam path of Myrick is a dynamic configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Knox (as modified by Rieker and Greenberg) to have the optical beam is emitted in an emission direction at least substantially towards a mobile reflection platform configured for movement relative to the beam component such that the beam path defines a dynamic configuration, as taught by Myrick, for purpose of providing a dynamic beam path along which particulate data and gas data may be detected, beneficially improving detection range and flexibility.
Regarding claim 14, Knox, as modified by Rieker, Greenberg, and Myrick, teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, but does not teach detecting a movement of the mobile reflection platform from a first position to a second position relative to the beam component; and at least partially adjusting the emission direction defined by the beam path such that at least a portion of the beam path is defined along an axis oriented between the beam component and the second position of the mobile reflection platform.
Myrick teaches detecting a movement of the mobile reflection platform from a first position to a second position relative to the beam component (Myrick: paragraph 0035, 0040; tracking the mobile platform involves detecting movement from a first position to a second position); and at least partially adjusting the emission direction defined by the beam path (Myrick: paragraph 0035, 0040; the emission direction corresponds to the aiming of the telescope/base station) such that at least a portion of the beam path is defined along an axis oriented between the beam component and the second position of the mobile reflection platform (Myrick: paragraph 0035, 0040-0041; aiming the telescope to project a beam onto the retroreflector of the UAV ensures the beam path is defined along an axis oriented between the beam component (base station 12 in Fig. 1-2) and a second position of the UAV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Knox (as modified by Rieker, Greenberg, and Myrick) to include detecting a movement of the mobile reflection platform from a first position to a second position relative to the beam component; and at least partially adjusting the emission direction defined by the beam path such that at least a portion of the beam path is defined along an axis oriented between the beam component and the second position of the mobile reflection platform, as taught by Myrick, for the benefit of ensuring the absorption signal for the gas sensing means can always be detected despite changes in the location of the mobile platform.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Rieker as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yamakage et al. (US 2009/0229250 A1, of record), hereinafter Yamakage.
Regarding claim 20, Knox, as modified by Rieker, teaches the sensor of claim 15, as outlined above, but does not teach each photodetector is oriented to face in a direction at least substantially towards a respective portion of the beam path and configured to generate respective particulate data defined at least in part by respective detections of scattered optical beam light reflected from one or more particulates positioned at the respective portion of the beam path adjacent the respective photodetector.
Yamakage, which relates to gas and particulate matter sensors, teaches a plurality of photodetectors (Yamakage: paragraph 0019, Fig. 8 photodetectors 71 and 71a) wherein each photodetector is oriented to face in a direction at least substantially towards a respective portion of the beam path (Yamakage: see Fig. 8, paragraph 0098) and configured to generate respective particulate data defined at least in part by respective detections of scattered optical beam light reflected from one or more particulates positioned at the respective portion of the beam path adjacent the respective photodetector (Yamakage: see Fig. 8, paragraph 0098; e.g. photodetector 71a analyzes an upper portion of the beam path and is angled such that scattered light propagating in its direction will be detected by it, thus generating its own respective particulate data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the sensor of Knox (as modified by Rieker) to have each photodetector is oriented to face in a direction at least substantially towards a respective portion of the beam path and configured to generate respective particulate data defined at least in part by respective detections of scattered optical beam light reflected from one or more particulates positioned at the respective portion of the beam path adjacent the respective photodetector, as taught by Yamakage, for the benefit of measuring particulate matter concentration to a higher degree of accuracy (see Yamakage paragraph 0098).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skibo et al. (US 2016/0274025 A1) relates to systems and methods for detecting gases and particulate matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights