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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show controller C as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: PS as seen in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract is currently not a single paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “and” on line 6, where because claim 9 recites “wherein the fluidic apparatus further comprises at least one of:” on lines 1-2, line 6 should instead recite “or”. This would clarify that only one of the two clauses is required.
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.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “airborne particulate matter” on line 4, where it is unclear if this airborne particulate matter is the same or different from the airborne particulate matter recited on line 1.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same.
It is suggested to amend line 4 to recite “to detect the airborne particulate matter”
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 5 currently recites “wherein at least one of:” on line 1, where it then proceeds to list three clauses, separated on line 10 by “and”. It is unclear with the phrasing what the claim requires.
For examination, it will be interpreted that only one of the three clauses is required to meet the limitations of claim 5.
It is suggested to amend line 1 to recite “wherein at least one of the following is met:” and to amend line 10 to recite “or”
Claims 6-11 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 8 currently recites “wherein one of” on line 1, and proceeds to list two clauses separated on line 4 by “and” where it is unclear with the phrasing what the claim requires.
For examination, it will be interpreted that only one of the clauses is required to meet the limitations of claim 8.
It is suggested to amend line 1 to recite “wherein one of the following is met:” and line 4 to recite “or”
Claim 12 recites “the waste container” where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as no waste container has been recited prior.
Please note that claim 9 is the first instance where a waste container is described, however claim 12 is dependent on claim 4.
Line 11 recites “the removable cartridges” where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as no removable cartridges have been recited prior.
It is noted that claim 10 describes removable cartridges, however claim 12 is dependent on claim 4.
For examination, claim 12 will be treated as being dependent on claim 10.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 14 recites “airborne particulate matter” on line 6, where it is unclear if this airborne particulate matter is the same or different from the airborne particulate matter recited on line 1.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same.
It is suggested to amend line 6 to recite “with said optical sensor, the airborne particulate matter”
Claim 15 recites “A computer program product, comprising a tangible medium and, stored therein, a computer program including code instructions that, when executed on at least one processor of the controller of a device for detecting airborne particulate matter in aerosols which comprises: ... an air sampler… an optical sensor… a fluidic apparatus… a controller” where it is unclear if it is a computer program product that comprises the air sampler, optical sensor, fluidic apparatus, and controller or if it is the device that comprises these components. If it is the computer program that comprises these components, it is unclear how a computer program would comprise these physical components.
For examination, it will be interpreted that it is the device that comprises the physical components.
Line 3 recites “the controller” where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as no controller has been recited prior.
Additionally, line 11 recites “a controller” where it is unclear if this is the same or different from the controller recited on line 3.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same controller.
Line 7 recites “detect airborne particulate matter” where it is unclear if this airborne particulate matter is the same or different from that recited on line 3.
For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same.
It is suggested to amend line 7 to recite “detect the airborne particulate matter”
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Northrup (US-2008/0048874-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Northrup teaches a device (collection and detection system 10) for detecting airborne particulate matter in aerosols, comprising ([0030], Figure 2):
- an air sampler (air collection module 14) configured to collect a sample of airborne particles suspended in air ([0030], [0031], Figure 2);
- an optical sensor (optical detection module 34) configured to detect airborne particulate matter in at least part of said sample ([0035], [0070], Figures 2, 8);
- a fluidic apparatus (distribution module 16, archive module 18, lysis and capture module 20, solutions module 24, metering and thermal cycling module 30, solutions module 32, and microfluidic circuitry) configured at least to deliver at least part of said sample to said optical sensor (34) ([0030], Figure 2); and
- a controller (control module 12) configured to automatically control the operation of said air sampler (14), said optical sensor (34), and said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) ([0030], [0038], Figure 2);
wherein said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) is configured and arranged to, under the control of said controller (12):
- capture, from said air sampler (14), and resuspend in a liquid medium, at least part of said airborne particles of said sample ([0031], [0032] see distribution module 16 (part of the fluidic apparatus) meters and distributes the fluid sample output from the air collection module 14); and
- deliver the resuspended airborne particles to said optical sensor (34) ([0035]);
and wherein the optical sensor (34) is configured to detect said airborne particulate matter in the delivered airborne particles ([0035], [0070]).
The limitations “an air sampler configured to collect a sample of airborne particles suspended in air”, “an optical sensor configured to detect airborne particulate matter in at least part of said sample”, and “the optical sensor is configured to detect said airborne particulate matter in the delivered airborne particles” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Northrup and the apparatus of Northrup is capable of collecting a sample of airborne particles suspended in air, capable of detecting the airborne particulate matter, and capable of detecting the airborne particulate matter. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Northrup (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the sample of airborne particles and liquid medium have not been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 2, Northrup further teaches wherein said optical sensor (34) is an optical biosensor configured to detect bioparticles, included in said airborne particulate matter, including one or more pathogens and/or one or more allergens and/or one or more other contaminants ([0028] see present invention is directed to a fully integrated and autonomous collection and detection system configured to monitor the ambient air for specific particles such as pathogens, further see other particles include cells, bacteria, viruses, nucleic acids, toxins, and other pathogens, [0035] where cells are first lysed and then amplified where then nucleic acids are detected).
The limitation “said optical sensor is an optical biosensor configured to detect bioparticles, included in said airborne particulate matter, including one or more pathogens and/or one or more allergens and/or one or more other contaminants.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Northrup and the apparatus of Northrup is capable of detecting bioparticles including one or more pathogens and/or one or more allergens and/or one or more other contaminants. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Northrup (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the airborne particulate matter has not been positively recited and is therefore not a part of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 3, Northrup further teaches wherein said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) is configured and arranged to, under the control of said controller (12), label the resuspended airborne particles for said airborne particulate matter, and deliver the labelled resuspended airborne particles to the optical sensor (34), and wherein the optical sensor (34) is configured to detect the labelled airborne particles ([0064] see metering and thermal cycling module 30 (part of the fluidic apparatus) is configured to tag one or more specific types of nucleic acids using a conjugated antibody solution including a different fluorescent marker for each specific nucleic acid, [0070]).
The limitation “the optical sensor is configured to detect the labelled airborne particles.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Northrup and the apparatus of Northrup is capable of detecting the labelled airborne particles. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Northrup (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the airborne particles and therefore the labelled resuspended airborne particles, are not positively recited in the claim and are therefore not a part of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 4, Northrup further teaches wherein the fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) comprises a reaction chamber (mixing reservoir 326) to carry out said labelling of the resuspended airborne particles with a reagent ([0064], [0065], Figure 7); and wherein the fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) further comprises at least one fluid dispenser fluidically (peristaltic pump 318) connectable, under the control of said controller (12), to said reaction chamber (326) to deliver the resuspended airborne particles, in the liquid medium, to said reaction chamber (326) and to extract therefrom the labelled resuspended airborne particles, and also fluidically connectable to the optical sensor (34) to deliver the same to the optical sensor (34) ([0057], [0064], Figures 1-7. From [0057] it describes that the peristaltic pump of the lysis and capture module 20 pressurizes a chamber to cause fluid flow, therefore the peristaltic pump 318 described for metering and thermal cycling module 30 which is seen to be connected to mixing reservoir 326 will similarly cause fluid to move into the mixing reservoir 326 and subsequently out of the mixing reservoir 326 to the optical detection module).
Regarding claim 5, Northrup further teaches wherein at least one of:
- the fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) further comprises a reagent container (solution reservoir 321) containing said reagent, and wherein said at least one fluid dispenser (318) is fluidically connectable, under the control of said controller (12), to said reagent container (321) to withdraw said reagent therefrom, and to said reaction chamber (326) to deliver the reagent thereinto ([0064], [0065], Figure 7);
Please note that only one of the three clauses listed in claim 5 are required to be met, see 112(b) section supra.
Regarding claim 6, Northrup further teaches wherein the fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) comprises a valvular arrangement (valves 169-180, 186-195, 196-213, 280-317, distribution valves 270, 276, 342) automatically controlled by the controller (12) to selectively and fluidically connect at least with part of said air sampler (14) and with said reaction chamber (326) ([0042], [0057], [0064], [0070], Figures 1, 4, 6-8).
Regarding claim 7, Northrup further teaches wherein said valvular arrangement (valves 169-180, 186-195, 196-213, 280-317, distribution valves 270, 276, 342) is configured to selectively and fluidically connect, under the control of said controller (12), said at least one fluid dispenser (318) with any of said reaction chamber (326), reagent container (321) (see Figure 7 where there are valves separating the mixing reservoir 327 from the holding reservoir 321).
Please note that from claim 5, it requires “at least one of” the limitations recited. Therefore the air sampler container and liquid medium container are not required.
Regarding claim 8, Northrup further teaches wherein one of:
- said valvular arrangement (valves 169-180, 186-195, 196-213, 280-317, distribution valves 270, 276, 342) is also configured to selectively and fluidically connect, under the control of said controller (12), said at least one fluid dispenser (318) with said optical sensor (34) (see Figure 7 where there is a valve 310 leading to the optical detector); and
Please note that only one of the two clauses of claim 8 are required to be met, please see 112(b) section supra.
Regarding claim 9, Northrup further teaches wherein the fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) further comprises at least one of:
- a waste container (waste module 28) fluidically connected or connectable, under the control of said controller (12), to the optical sensor (34) to receive waste therefrom ([0030], [0039], [0070], Figures 2, 7).
Regarding claim 10, Northrup further teaches implemented as a compact device integrating at least said air sampler (14), said optical sensor (34), and said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) in a common housing, wherein said reagent container (321), and waste container (28) are respective removable cartridges removably attached to said common housing or to a support attached thereto ([0029] describing Figure 1 that has multiple collection and detection systems 10, Figure 2 showing the functional block diagram, thus the components will be in a common housing. Further, the solution reservoir 321 and waste module 28 will not just be floating in space and will thus be attached to either the housing or support).
Please note that from claim 5, due to recitation of “at least one of” the liquid medium container is not required.
Regarding claim 11, Northrup further teaches wherein the controller (12) is configured to automatically control the operation of the air sampler (14), fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry), and optical sensor (34), continuously according to a sequence of consecutive detection tests, each starting by the air sampling with the air sampler (14) and ending with the waste deliverance to the waste container (28), said sequence lasting at least until one of said removable cartridges is emptied and thus needs of replacement ([0070], [0072], [0074]).
Regarding claim 12, Northrup further teaches comprising at least a further reaction chamber (mixing reservoir 327) to label the resuspended airborne particles with said reagent or with a further reagent, different to said reagent, to allow the detection of said airborne particulate matter, and wherein the optical sensor (34) is configured to detect the airborne particles labelled with said further reagent, and wherein the controller (12) is configured to automatically control the operation of the air sampler (14), fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry), and optical sensor (34), continuously according to a further sequence of consecutive detection tests, each detection test starting by the air sampling with the air sampler (14), and ending with the waste deliverance to the waste container (waste module 28), each sequence lasting at least until one of the removable cartridges is emptied and thus needs of replacement ([0064], [0065] see second portion of nucleic acid is directed to mixing reservoir 327, [0070], [0072], [0074]).
The limitation “wherein the optical sensor is configured to detect the airborne particles labelled with said further reagent” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Northrup and the apparatus of Northrup is capable of detecting the airborne particles labelled with said further reagent. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Northrup (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 13, Northrup further teaches wherein the controller (12) is configured to automatically control the operation of the air sampler (14), fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry), and optical sensor (34), to perform said sequence and said further sequence of consecutive detection tests at least in part in parallel ([0072] see air is continuously taken in by the air collection module 14 throughout the entire process, thus consecutive detection tests will be run at least in part in parallel, additionally there are multiple mixing reservoirs seen in Figure 7 which will also allow for parallel processing).
Regarding claim 14, Northrup teaches a method for detecting airborne particulate matter in aerosols, comprising the following steps:
- collecting, with an air sampler (air collection module 14), a sample of airborne particles suspended in air ([0030], [0031], [0072], Figure 2);
- at least delivering, with a fluidic apparatus (distribution module 16, archive module 18, lysis and capture module 20, solutions module 24, metering and thermal cycling module 30, solutions module 32, and microfluidic circuitry), at least part of said sample to an optical sensor (optical detection module 34) ([0030], [0035], [0070], [0072], [0073], Figure 2);
- optically detecting, with said optical sensor (34), airborne particulate matter in at least part of said sample ([0070])
wherein the operation of said air sampler (14), said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry), and said optical sensor (34) to perform said steps is automatically controlled ([0072]);
wherein the method further comprises:
- automatically controlling said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) to:
- capture, from said air sampler (14), and resuspend in a liquid medium, at least part of said airborne particles of said sample ([0031], [0032] see distribution module 16 (part of the fluidic apparatus) meters and distributes the fluid sample output from the air collection module 14); and
- deliver the resuspended airborne particles to said optical sensor (34) ([0035]);
- and detecting said airborne particulate matter in the delivered airborne particles with the optical sensor (34) ([0035], [0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Northrup teaches a computer program product, comprising a tangible medium and, stored therein, a computer program including code instructions that, when executed on at least one processor (processor 122) of the controller (control module 12) of a device (collection and detection system 10) for detecting airborne particulate matter in aerosols which comprises ([0041] see processing module 122 is configured to control the operation of the collection and detection system 10, and also includes host memory 124 and mass storage 126, as well as an I/O interface 130 which includes a user interface and network interface that displays user instructions and feedback related to input user commands):
- an air sampler (air collection module 14) configured to collect a sample of airborne particles suspended in air ([0030], [0031], [0072], Figure 2);
- an optical sensor (optical detection module 34) configured to detect airborne particulate matter in at least part of said sample ([0030], [0035], Figure 2);
- a fluidic apparatus (distribution module 16, archive module 18, lysis and capture module 20, solutions module 24, metering and thermal cycling module 30, solutions module 32, and microfluidic circuitry) configured at least to deliver at least part of said sample to said optical sensor (34) (0030], [0035], [0070], [0072], [0073], Figure 2); and
- a controller (12) configured to automatically control the operation of said air sampler (14), said optical sensor (34), and said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) ([0030], [0038], Figure 2);
wherein said fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) is configured and arranged to, under the control of said controller (12):
- capture, from said air sampler (14), and resuspend in a liquid medium, at least part of said airborne particles of said sample ([0031], [0032] see distribution module 16 (part of the fluidic apparatus) meters and distributes the fluid sample output from the air collection module 14); and
- deliver the resuspended airborne particles to said optical sensor (34) ([0035]);
and wherein the optical sensor (34) is configured to detect said airborne particulate matter in the delivered airborne particles ([0035], [0070]),
implement the automatic control of the air sampler (14), optical sensor (34), and fluidic apparatus (16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 32, and microfluidic circuitry) of the device (10), to perform the steps of the method of claim 14, to detect at least said airborne particulate matter (see claim 14 supra).
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Langlios (US-2004/0038385-A1) teaches an autonomous monitoring system for monitoring bioagents that includes a collector and a detector (Langlios; abstract).
Lu (US-2006/0207351-A1) teaches a device for sampling airborne trace particulates (Lu; abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796