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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026 has been entered.
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 10 and 20 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.
The term “near” in claims 10 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “near the slit” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “near”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach et al. (WO 2008/083138 A1) (hereinafter Roach) in view of Ajay (US 2010/0039645 A1) (hereinafter Ajay) and Haugh et al. (US 2012/0130545 A1) (hereinafter Haugh).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Roach teaches a method and apparatus for inspecting a device [object inspection] (see Abstract), the method comprising:
holding the device [object under inspection 1] in an enclosure [chamber 2] (see Figs. 1-2);
blowing, with an intake, an air flow into the enclosure and through the device to disperse particulates within the device into the air flow [particle extracting unit 3 seeking to extract particles from inside and outside the object 1 by various patterns of gas flow around and through the object] (Pg. 33, lines 4-10, see Figs. 1-2); and
detecting the particulates in the air flow with a particulate sensor positioned to observe the air flow after passing through the device [particle analysis within the chamber; detect particles suspended in gas within a detection space] (see Abstract, Claim 92),
wherein the device comprises a vent and the air flow enters the device through the vent [gas flow through the object; OUI may be a traveler’s luggage, electronic device, food package, or any other package or object; various electronic devices known to have vents for air flow, such as computers, televisions, gaming consoles, power supplies, etc.] (Pg. 33, lines 4-10, Pg. 34, lines 5-10, see Figs. 1-2).
Roach fails to teach deriving a level of the particulates in the air flow with the particulate sensor. Ajay teaches a method for detecting particles in an air flow with a particulate sensor wherein the level of the particulates in the air flow is derived based on the particulate sensor (Para [0028], see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Roach with Ajay such to further derive a level of the particulates in the air flow with the particulate sensor in order to monitor particulate levels in the object.
Roach in view of Ajay fails to teach wherein the device comprises an intake vent and an exit vent, wherein the air flow enters the device through the intake vent and the air flow exits the device through the exit vent. Roach additionally teaches wherein the OUI may be an electronic device, and that the gas flows through the object (Pg. 33, lines 4-10, Pg. 34, lines 5-10, see Figs. 1-2). Haugh teaches wherein a common electric device [laptop] comprises intake and exit vents allowing air to flow through the laptop through an intake vent and exit through the exit vent (Para [0019], see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Roach in view of Ajay such that the device is a laptop comprising an intake vent and an exit vent, wherein the air flow enters the device through the intake vent and the air flow exits the device through the exit vent, in order to detect particulates present inside the laptop.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 1 and 11 teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the particulate sensor is disposed to observe the air flow exit the enclosure (see Roach Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 1 and 11 teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising receiving the device at a recycling or remanufacturing facility. Roach additionally teaches wherein the device is received at a facility for detecting particulates that are associated with hazardous threats (Roach Pg. 1) and that the object under inspection can be an electronic device (Roach Pg. 34, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh such that the device is received at a recycling or remanufacturing facility, in order to recycle or remanufacture old electronic devices.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 1 and 11 teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the device is a set top box, a desktop computer, or a laptop [OUI may be an electronic device or any other package or object] (Roach Pg. 34, lines 5-10).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 1 and 11 teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further disposing the device on a platform comprising a slit prior to the blowing [object under inspection 1 is placed on object placement shelf 11; object placement shelf 11 has large open areas to allow air to reach the bottom of the object 1] (Roach Pg. 34, lines 5-10, see Fig. 2). Roach in view of Ajay fails to teach wherein the disposing aligns the exit vent with the slit. Roach additionally teaches wherein the blown air separates particles from their supporting surfaces and maximizes the number of particles reaching the detector (Pg. 33). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh such that the disposing aligns the exit vent with the slit, in order to prevent particles from getting stuck on the shelf and maximizing the number of particles reaching the detector.
As best understood regarding claims 10 and 20, Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 9 and 19 teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the particulate sensor comprises a plurality of particulate sensors [TDS or LDS detectors may be incorporated], one of the plurality of particulate sensors is disposed near the slit [aimed at portions of an OUI cavity] and one of the plurality of particulate sensors is disposed to observe the air flow exit the enclosure (Roach Pg. 54, line 32 - Pg. 55, line 5, see Fig. 8).
Claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2019/0203628 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12-13, Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh as applied to claims 1 and 11 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a controller for determining a necessity to clean the device by comparing the level of particulates to a predetermined level, and then cleaning the device based on the determined necessity. Su teaches an apparatus and method for inspecting a device, wherein a controller determines a necessity to clean the device by comparing a level of particulates to a predetermined threshold level, and then cleaning the device based on the necessity (Para [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Roach in view of Ajay and Haugh with Su such to further comprise a controller for determining a necessity to clean the device by comparing the level of particulates to a predetermined level, and then cleaning the device based on the determined necessity, in order to provide an alert as to when an unwanted particulate level threshold is met and needs to be addressed.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Roach in view of Ajay, Haugh, and Su as applied to claims 2 and 12 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising managing the air flow with an air flow control valve (Roach Pg. 19, lines 15-30).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach in view of Ajay, Haugh, and Su as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Dursun et al. (US 2017/0022807 A1) (hereinafter Dursun).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Roach in view of Ajay, Haugh, and Su as applied to claims 2 and 12 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the particulate sensor comprises a plurality of particulate sensors (Roach Pg. 54, line 32 - Pg. 55, line 5, see Fig. 8). Roach in view of Ajay, Haugh, and Su fails to teach wherein the controller aggregates each level from each of the plurality of particulate sensors to derive the level of the particulate in the air flow. Dursun teaches an apparatus and method for monitoring airborne particulate utilizing a plurality of particle sensors at different locations and aggregating the measurements for determining various levels of particulate in the air (Para [0019, 0028], see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Roach in view of Ajay, Haugh, and Su such that the controller aggregates each level from each of the plurality of particulate sensors to derive the level of the particulate in the air flow, in order to provide region-based determinations of the level of particulates in the air flow.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 6, 10, 18, and 20, the rejections of claims 6 and 18 are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims. The term “near the slit” still exists in amended claims 10 and 20 so the rejections are maintained for those claims.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855