DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, line 4, “the first channel a second flow rate” should be changed to --the first channel to a second flow rate--.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 “about” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 “about 0.9 to about 1.05” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “about”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by White et al. (US 8,806,915 B2) (hereinafter White).
Regarding claim 1, White teaches a fine dust measurement module [apparatus for measuring concentrations of airborne particulate matter] (see Abstract, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a fluid inlet through which a fluid comprising fine dust is introduced [air inlet 204 to receive air samples 118] (Col 4, lines 36-42, see Fig. 2A);
a first channel [102] through which the first fine dust having at least a first diameter, among the fine dust introduced into the fluid inlet, passes [particles larger than 2.5 microns may be exhausted via primary channel 102] (Col 6, lines 38-48, see Figs. 1-2A);
a second channel [104] through which second fine dust having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter, among the fine dust introduced into the fluid inlet, passes [particles smaller than 2.5 microns may be carried in the major flow corresponding to secondary channel 104] (Col 6, lines 38-48, see Figs. 1-2A);
a fine dust detection sensor configured to sense fine dust flowing into the second channel [secondary channel 104 may include a collection region where particles having a size less than a threshold size may be deposited onto a mass-sensitive element 112 to measure the mass concentration of the particles] (Col 3, lines 57-64, see Figs. 1-2A);
a heater above the fine dust detection sensor [thermophoretic heater 206 situated across from the collection surface 208] (Col 5, lines 12-24, see Fig. 2A); and
an orifice upstream of a flow of the second fine dust from the fine dust detection sensor and the heater [various portions of secondary channel 104 can be considered as having an orifice upstream of a flow of the second fine dust from sensor element 112, such as the orifice(s) from where secondary channels 104a, 104b branch out from primary channel 102] (see Fig. 2A, 6, 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 3, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a first inclined portion at a front end of the orifice and having a first inclination angle [inclined portion of 104a extending from the orifice that branches out from primary channel 102; 104a may be contoured to diverge at any suitable angle or direction] (Col 8, lines 25-32, see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a second inclined portion at a rear end of the orifice and having a predetermined second inclination angle [inclined portion of 104b extending from the orifice that branches out from primary channel 102; 104b may be contoured to diverge at any suitable angle or direction] (Col 8, lines 25-32, see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a plurality of orifices including the orifice, and wherein the plurality of orifices are spaced apart from each other at an interval along the flow of the second fine dust [orifices from where secondary channels 104a, 104b branch out from primary channel 102] (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, White as applied to claim 5 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the fine dust detection sensor [112] and the heater [206] are provided at a rear end of a first orifice of the plurality of orifices that is downstream of the flow of the second fine dust (see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the fine dust detection sensor comprises a mass detection sensor configured to directly sense a mass of fine dust introduced into the second channel [secondary channel 104 may include a collection region where particles having a size less than a threshold size may be deposited onto a mass-sensitive element 112 to measure the mass concentration of the particles] (Col 3, lines 57-64, see Figs. 1-2A).
Regarding claim 10, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the second channel comprises: a first sub-channel [104a]; a second sub-channel [104b], the first sub-channel and the second sub-channel being branched from each other and around the first channel; and a third sub-channel into which the first sub-channel and the second sub-channel are merged (see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 11, White as applied to claim 10 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the fine dust detection sensor [112] is provided in the third sub-channel (see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 14, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a third channel into which the first channel [102] and the second channel [104] are merged, and a discharge component [outlet 110] connected to the third channel and from which the fluid is discharged (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White as applied to claim 1 above.
As best understood regarding claim 2, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the diameter of the orifice is configured such that a Stokes number for the second fine dust is in a chosen range [equation governing particle cutoff diameter] (Col 8, line 52 - Col 9, line 28). White fails to teach wherein the Stokes number for the second fine dust is in a range of about 0.9 to about 1.05. 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 White such to choose a specific range for the Stokes number for the second fine dust, such as about 0.9 to about 1.05, in order to alter the particle cutoff diameter and detect particles at a chosen diameter. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solomon et al. (US 2006/0169065 A1) (hereinafter Solomon).
Regarding claim 8, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein a ratio of a first flow rate of the fluid introduced into the first channel to a second flow rate of the fluid introduced into the second channel is 1:9. Solomon teaches a fine dust measurement module comprising a virtual impactor wherein the ratio of the flow rates of the major and minor flows are adjusted to provide a particle size cutpoint (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 White with Solomon such to choose a ratio of a first flow rate of the fluid introduced into the first channel to a second flow rate of the fluid introduced into the second channel, such as 1:9, in order to alter the particle cutoff diameter and detect particles at a chosen diameter. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a flow rate ratio control nozzle in the first channel, wherein the flow rate ratio control nozzle is configured to adjust a ratio of a first flow rate of fluid introduced into the first channel to a second flow rate of fluid introduced into the second nozzle. Solomon teaches a fine dust measurement module comprising a virtual impactor wherein the ratio of the flow rates of the major and minor flows are adjusted to provide a particle size cutpoint and said ratio is controlled by a flow control nozzle [acceleration tube 12] (Para [0011], see Figs. 1-2, 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 White with Solomon such to comprise a flow rate ratio control nozzle in the first channel, wherein the flow rate ratio control nozzle is configured to adjust a ratio of a first flow rate of fluid introduced into the first channel to a second flow rate of fluid introduced into the second nozzle, in order to control the particle cutoff diameter.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Call et al. (US 2004/0232052 A1) (hereinafter Call).
Regarding claims 12-13, White as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the first channel comprises: a first sub-channel on a same plane as that of the second channel; a second sub-channel connected to the first sub-channel and on a plane different from that of the second channel; and a third sub-channel connected to the second sub-channel and on a same plane as that of the second channel; a first connector connecting the first sub-channel with the second sub-channel and a second connector connecting the second sub-channel with the third sub-channel. Call teaches a fine dust measurement module comprising a minor flow channel with a first sub channel on a same plane as a major flow channel [minor flow outlet 60 on same plane as major flow outlets 58] (see Fig. 3B), a second sub-channel connected to the first sub-channel and on a plane different from that of the major flow channel [minor flow portion between outlets 59 and 60] (see Fig. 3B); and a third sub-channel connected to the second sub-channel and on a same plane as that of the major flow channel [minor flow outlet 59 on same plane as major flow outlets 39] (see Fig. 3B); a first connector connecting the first and second sub-channels; and a second connector connecting the second and third sub-channels [connection points for minor flow channels to outlets 59 and 60] (see Fig. 3B). 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 White with Call such that the first channel comprises: a first sub-channel on a same plane as that of the second channel; a second sub-channel connected to the first sub-channel and on a plane different from that of the second channel; and a third sub-channel connected to the second sub-channel and on a same plane as that of the second channel; a first connector connecting the first sub-channel with the second sub-channel and a second connector connecting the second sub-channel with the third sub-channel, in order to allow a plurality of dust measurement modules to be stacked together to process large amounts of fluid streams.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Boersma (US 2020/0217771 A1) (hereinafter Boersma).
Regarding claim 15, White as applied to claim 14 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein a ratio of a second pressure inside the discharge component to a first pressure inside the third channel is less than or equal to 0.528. Boersma teaches a particle measurement module in which a ratio of a second pressure inside a discharge component to a first pressure inside a merged channel can be less than or equal to 0.528 [1 bar to an under pressure of 0-0.5 bar] (Para [0027]). 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 White with Boersma such that a ratio of a second pressure inside the discharge component to a first pressure inside the third channel is less than or equal to 0.528, in order to keep the flow substantially constant independent of pressure conditions. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, White in view of Boersma as applied to claim 15 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a choked nozzle between the third channel and the discharge component. Boersma additionally teaches a choked nozzle [22] between the third channel and the discharge component (see Figs. 1 and 4). 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 White in view of Boersma such to comprise a choked nozzle between the third channel and the discharge component, in order to keep the flow substantially constant independent of pressure conditions.
Regarding claim 17, White in view of Boersma as applied to claim 15 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a pump connected to the discharge component and configured to adjust an internal pressure of the discharge component [pump 108] (see Fig. 1).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Call.
Regarding claim 18, White teaches a fine dust measurement device comprising a fine dust measurement module [apparatus for measuring concentrations of airborne particulate matter] (see Abstract, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a fluid inlet through which a fluid comprising fine dust is introduced [air inlet 204 to receive air samples 118] (Col 4, lines 36-42, see Fig. 2A);
a first channel [102] through which the first fine dust having at least a first diameter, among the fine dust introduced into the fluid inlet, passes [particles larger than 2.5 microns may be exhausted via primary channel 102] (Col 6, lines 38-48, see Figs. 1-2A);
a second channel [104] through which second fine dust having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter, among the fine dust introduced into the fluid inlet, passes [particles smaller than 2.5 microns may be carried in the major flow corresponding to secondary channel 104] (Col 6, lines 38-48, see Figs. 1-2A);
a fine dust detection sensor configured to sense fine dust flowing into the second channel [secondary channel 104 may include a collection region where particles having a size less than a threshold size may be deposited onto a mass-sensitive element 112 to measure the mass concentration of the particles] (Col 3, lines 57-64, see Figs. 1-2A);
a heater above the fine dust detection sensor [thermophoretic heater 206 situated across from the collection surface 208] (Col 5, lines 12-24, see Fig. 2A);
an orifice upstream of a flow of the second fine dust from the fine dust detection sensor and the heater [various portions of secondary channel 104 can be considered as having an orifice upstream of a flow of the second fine dust from sensor element 112, such as the orifice(s) from where secondary channels 104a, 104b branch out from primary channel 102] (see Fig. 2A, 6, 7A, 7B); and
a discharge component configured to discharge fluid [outlet 110] (see Fig. 1).
White fails to teach a plurality of fine dust measurement modules, the discharge component connected to each of the plurality of fine dust measurement modules. Call teaches a plurality of fine dust measurement modules comprising a singular discharge component connected to each of the plurality of fine dust measurement modules (Para [0136-0137]). 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 White with Call such that the apparatus comprises a plurality of fine dust measurement modules, the discharge component connected to each of the plurality of fine dust measurement modules, in order to process large amounts of fluid streams.
Regarding claim 19, White in view of Call as applied to claim 18 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the plurality of fine dust measurement modules comprise a first, second, and third fine dust measurement module that are arranged in parallel. Call additionally teaches wherein the plurality of fine dust measurement modules may be operated in parallel with common major and minor flow exhausts (Para [0136-0137]). 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 White in view of Call such that the plurality of fine dust measurement modules comprises a first, second, and third fine dust measurement module that are arranged in parallel, in order to simultaneously process large amounts of fluid streams.
Regarding claim 20, White in view of Call as applied to claim 18 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a pump connected to the discharge component and configured to adjust an internal pressure of the discharge component [pump 108] (see White Fig. 1).
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
Prosecution Insights