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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Carlson does not disclose, at least, "sending the vapor to at least one sensor," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Carlson teaches “an analyzer which analyzes the composition of the fluidic flow through said second outlet” (Abstract), the analyzer is a sensor.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Carlson does not disclose, at least, "analyzing the vapor and determining an aerosol type," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Carlson teaches “an analyzer which analyzes the composition of the fluidic flow through said second outlet” (Abstract), analyzing an aerosol to obtain its composition is the same as determine the aerosol type.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Carlson does not explicitly disclose a "computer processor" in its device which is capable of performing the steps of independent claim 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Carlson teaches “The operation of the device, including the flow rates through the device, is controlled by an IoT controller 227, which communicates via suitable wireless communications 229 and protocols to other devices” (Paragraph 66).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the controller appears to be connected to the converter via WiFi, but definitely is not part of the converter module”, page 8 of the remarks.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a computer processor is a part of the converter module) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Carlson does not disclose "wherein the aerosol type is a non-traditional agent (NTA) or a pharmaceutical-based agent (PBA)."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Carlson teaches “the detection of hazardous chemicals and threat vectors, and various applications in the pharmaceutical industry and the environmental sciences”, (Paragraph 3).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Carlson's components are very large and connected to multiple other external devices, including a heater (e.g., heat lamps) and power cords. (See Carlson, Figs. 3-4, for example). Hur's device does not perform nor is it capable of collecting the aerosol and heating it and converting it to a vapor, as well as performing anything else of Applicant's independent claims, other than sensing the gas based on a pattern recognition algorithm and alerting the wearer of the device via an alarm.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321).
Regarding claim 1, Carlson teaches a method for detecting an aerosol, wherein the method comprises: collecting aerosol particles (Paragraph 47, “During operation of the aerosol and vapor enhanced sample module 101, ambient air is drawn into the housing 103 via the inlet nozzle assembly 107, and exits the housing 103 via minor exhaust line 123 and major exhaust lines 127”); heating the aerosol particles; converting the aerosol particles to a vapor (Abstract, “a heater which vaporizes particles that collect on said collection surface”); sending the vapor to at least one sensor; analyzing the vapor; and determining an aerosol type (Abstract, “an analyzer which analyzes the composition of the fluidic flow through said second outlet”).
Regarding claim 2, Carlson teaches wherein the aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or in another gas and the vapor is a gas (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 4, Carlson teaches wherein the aerosol type is a non-traditional agent (NTA) or a pharmaceutical-based agent (PBA) (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 9, Carlson teaches wherein the aerosol particles are a liquid or a solid (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 10, Carlson teaches a device for detecting an aerosol, wherein the device comprises: an aerosol collector to collect aerosol particles (Paragraph 47, “During operation of the aerosol and vapor enhanced sample module 101, ambient air is drawn into the housing 103 via the inlet nozzle assembly 107, and exits the housing 103 via minor exhaust line 123 and major exhaust lines 127”); a heater to heat the aerosol particles (Abstract, “a heater which vaporizes particles that collect on said collection surface”); and a computer processor configured to: convert the aerosol particles to a vapor (Abstract, “a heater which vaporizes particles that collect on said collection surface”); send the vapor to at least one sensor; analyze the vapor; and determine an aerosol type (Abstract, “an analyzer which analyzes the composition of the fluidic flow through said second outlet”).
Regarding claim 11, Carlson teaches wherein the aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or in another gas and the vapor is a gas (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 13, Carlson teaches wherein the aerosol type is a non-traditional agent (NTA) or a pharmaceutical-based agent (PBA) (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 18, Carlson teaches wherein the aerosol particles are a liquid or a solid (Paragraph 3).
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of Chadha et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210033586).
Regarding claim 3, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the method further comprises: displaying the aerosol type to a user.
Chadha teaches wherein the method further comprises: displaying the aerosol type to a user (Paragraph 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to display Carlson’s data to a user because it would be easier for a user to understand.
Regarding claim 12, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the device further comprises: a display for displaying the aerosol type to a user.
Chadha teaches wherein the device further comprises: a display for displaying the aerosol type to a user (Paragraph 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to display Carlson’s data to a user because it would be easier for a user to understand.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of Novosselov et al. (“Design and Performance of a Low-Cost Micro-Channel Aerosol Collector”, published in 2014, see attached publication).
Regarding claim 5, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the aerosol particles are collected by a microchannel collector.
Novosselov teaches wherein the aerosol particles are collected by a microchannel collector (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Carlson’s collector with Novosselov’s microchannel collector because it has high collection efficiency and delivers highly concentrated samples as taught by Novosselov.
Regarding claim 14, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the aerosol collector is a microchannel collector.
Novosselov teaches wherein the aerosol collector is a microchannel collector (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Carlson’s collector with Novosselov’s microchannel collector because it has high collection efficiency and delivers highly concentrated samples as taught by Novosselov.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of He et al. (“Design and evaluation of an aerodynamic focusing micro-well aerosol collector”, published in 2017, see attached publication).
Regarding claim 6, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the aerosol particles are collected by a microwell collector.
He teaches wherein the aerosol particles are collected by a microwell collector (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Carlson’s collector with He’s microwell collector because it would minimize particle collection areas as taught by He.
Regarding claim 15, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the aerosol collector is a microwell collector.
He teaches wherein the aerosol collector is a microwell collector (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Carlson’s collector with He’s microwell collector because it would minimize particle collection areas as taught by He.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of Diagne et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20250130195).
Regarding claim 7, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Carlson further teaches wherein the aerosol particles are heated and desorbed by a heater (Paragraph 44).
Carlson is silent about the heater is a microheater.
Diagne teaches the heater is a microheater (Paragraphs 182-184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Carlson’s heater with a microheater because it would reduce the size of Carlson’s system.
Regarding claim 16, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Carlson further teaches wherein the aerosol particles are heated and desorbed by a heater (Paragraph 44).
Carlson is silent about the heater is a microheater.
Diagne teaches the heater is a microheater (Paragraphs 182-184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Carlson’s heater with a microheater because it would reduce the size of Carlson’s system.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of Mcloughlin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11996280).
Regarding claim 8, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the vapor is analyzed using machine learning.
Mcloughlin teaches wherein the vapor is analyzed using machine learning (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use machine learning in Carlson’s system to analyze the vapor because it is more accurate.
Regarding claim 17, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the vapor is analyzed using machine learning.
Mcloughlin teaches wherein the vapor is analyzed using machine learning (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use machine learning in Carlson’s system to analyze the vapor because it is more accurate.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of Hur et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180195987).
Regarding claim 19, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the device is wearable by a user and is no larger than 8 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm, with a weight of less than 100 grams.
Hur teaches wherein the device is wearable by a user (Abstract and paragraph 32) and with a weight of less than 100 grams (Paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make Carlson’s system wearable by a user and weight less than 100 grams because it would make Carlson’s system small and light enough to be easily carried around by a person.
The combination of Carlson and Hur is silent about the device is no larger than 8 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm.
However Hur teaches disposable sensor unit 150 having a smaller size (e.g., about 2.25 inches×1.75 inches×0.75 inches) in paragraph 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the device no larger than 8 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Carlson teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Carlson is silent about wherein the device is mounted to an apparatus.
Hur teaches wherein the device is mounted to an apparatus (Abstract and paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make Carlson’s system mounted to an apparatus because it would make Carlson’s system small and light enough to be easily carried around by a person.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210278321) in view of Chadha et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210033586) and Novosselov et al. (“Design and Performance of a Low-Cost Micro-Channel Aerosol Collector”, published in 2014, see attached publication) and He et al. (“Design and evaluation of an aerodynamic focusing micro-well aerosol collector”, published in 2017, see attached publication) and Mcloughlin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11996280) and Hur et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180195987).
Regarding claim 21, the claim is commensurate in scope with the above claims 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19, and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
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 XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights