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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12 and 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 11-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11841311 B2 in view of US 20190094140 A1 because the subject matter of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9-17 of the present application is obvious in based on U.S. Patent No. 11841311 B2 in view of US 20190094140 A1, as can be seen by the following analysis:
Patent No. 11841311 B2 claims a multimodal dust sensor comprising:
an array of lasers (claim 1);
an array of a plurality of collimating lenses for collimating laser radiation (claim 1);
an array of a plurality of focusing lenses for focusing a beam of the laser radiation (claim 1);
a first array of a plurality of photodetectors (claim 1);
a second array of photodetectors
an array of a plurality of dichroic mirrors (claim 1);
an array of a plurality of dichroic filters (claim 1); and
a beam splitter disposed between the collimating lenses and the focusing lenses and configured to split the collimated laser radiation into two beams of a first beam and a second beam (claim 1),
wherein the multimodal dust sensor is configured to:
form a probe volume by focusing the first beam of the laser radiation through the focusing lenses, wherein the first beam is scattered by dust particles entering the probe volume (claim 8),
combine the first beam scattered by the dust particles and the second beam of the laser radiation passed through the beam splitter (implicit in the location of the beam splitter in claims 1, 8-9),
detect, through the array of photodetectors, a photocurrent resulted from combining the first beam and the second beam (claim 8), and
wherein the beam splitter is disposed between the array of dichroic filters and the array of dichroic mirrors, and between the arrays of focusing lenses and the array of collimating lenses (claim 1);
wherein the collimating lenses and the focusing lenses define a first array of optical axes and the first array of photodetectors and the second array of photodetectors define a second array of optical axes (claim 1), and
wherein the first array of optical axes and the second array of optical axes intersect at a point located on the beam splitter and form a measurement channel (claim 5).
Patent No. 11841311 B2 doesn’t explicitly claim the sensor is configured to output a value related to the dust particles based on the detected photocurrent.
US 20190094140 A1 is also directed to a similar dust sensor and teaches output a value related to the dust particles based on the detected photocurrent (paragraph 132).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the claims of Patent No. 11841311 B2 so that it’s configured to output a value related to the dust particles based on the detected photocurrent in order to detect the size and concentration of the dust particles, which is useful to decide the best way to address the presence of the dust.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 1 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 3, see claim 9 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 5, see claim 2 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 6, see claim 5 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 9, see claim 1 of Patent No. 11841311 B2 (note that the claims don’t require for the types to be different).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 1 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 11, see claim 8 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 12, see claim 9 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 14, see claims 1 and 11 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 15, see claims 11-12 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 16, see claim 1 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Regarding claim 17, see claim 1 of Patent No. 11841311 B2
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 would be allowable if Applicant overcomes the double patenting rejection, for example by submitting a terminal disclaimer. For reasons for the examiner indicating allowable subject matter, see page 16, last paragraph to page 17, first paragraph of the Office Action mailed 1/06/2026.
Additionally, claims 4 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reasons are the same as the previous paragraph plus the fact that they are not subject to a double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877