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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8, 9, 11, and 18 are blurry and hard to read. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recite ‘tether to one of a balloon and an aerial drone’, however, it should read ‘tether to either a ballon or an aerial drone’.
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 4 and 19 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 4 recites the limitation "the reactant". There is no mention of “the reactant” in claim 1, which claim 4 is dependent upon. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 4 being dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "first fluid" and “second fluid”. There is not mention of "first fluid" and “second fluid” in Claim 18, which claim 19 in dependent upon. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the first fluid” as sulfuric acid and “the second fluid” as dimethylamine.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al (CN 112915955 A). The examiner has obtained a machine translation of the CN document above from OrbitExpress. The rejection below is based off the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method of measuring atmospheric reactive precursor gases that form aerosol particles (‘aerosol nucleation turbulent flow tube reactor’, pg 4, para 0006), the method comprising: contacting a continuous flow (pg 13, para 0048) of a first fluid (‘sulfuric acid’, pg 12, para 0045) and a continuous flow (pg 13, para 0048) of a second fluid (‘dimethylamine’, pg 12, para 0045) in a reaction chamber (pg 5, para 0008) of a flow reactor (‘aerosol nucleation turbulent flow tube reactor’, pg 4, para 0006) to generate a 1-2 nanometer particle (pg 13, para 0047) comprising a reaction product of the first fluid and second fluid; and detecting the particle via a condensation particle counter (pg 13, para 0046).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the first fluid comprises an atmospheric gas comprising at least one reactant (‘sulfuric acid’, pg 12, para 0045).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches the invention of claim 2. Huang further teaches the reactant comprises sulfuric acid (pg 12, para 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the first fluid comprises a carrier gas comprising nitrogen and oxygen (‘zero air’, pg 5, para 0008).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the second fluid comprises dimethylamine (pg 12, para 0045).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the reaction product comprises sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles (pg 13, para 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches turbulent flow of the reaction product (pg 5, para 0008).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the particle detected via the condensation particle counter (pg 13, para 0046) comprises a diameter from 1-2 nanometers (pg 13, para 0047).
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the reaction chamber has a relative humidity of 38% (pg 13, para 0048).
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.
Claims 4, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (CN 112915955 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "Measurement report: Sulfuric acid nucleation and experimental conditions in a photolytic flow reactor" by Hanson et al.
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1.
Huang does not teach the reactant has a concentration from 1 x 106 to 8 x 108 molecules cm-3.
However, Hanson teaches nucleation rates involving sulfuric acid measured by a photolysis flow reactor (pg 1987, Abstract). Hanson teaches the reactant (‘sulfuric acid’) having a concentration from 1.5x108 molecules cm-3 (pg 1995, Figure 7) because the concentration of sulfuric effects the particle formation (pg 1997, Section 3.8 Van der Waals interactions). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dates to modify the teaching of Huang with the sulfuric acid having concentration from 1 x 106 to 8 x 108 molecules cm-3 as taught by Hanson for the benefit of increasing particle formation (pg 1997, Section 3.8 Van der Waals interactions).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1.
Huang does not teach generating laminar flow of at least one of the first fluid, second fluid, and reaction product.
However, Hanson teaches laminar flow of the first fluid (‘sulfuric acid’), second fluid (‘dimethylamine’) , and reaction product (‘sulfuric acid- dimethylamine particles’) to precisely control the residence time in the flow reactor (pg 1991, Section 3.2 Growth of nanoparticles produced in bulk flow reactor). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang with laminar flow as taught by Hanson to precisely control the residence time in the flow reactor (pg 1991, Section 3.2 Growth of nanoparticles produced in bulk flow reactor).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1.
Huang does not teach mixing the first fluid and second fluid for 10-24 seconds to generate the reaction product.
However, Hanson teaches the residence time of the sulfuric acid and dimethylamine in the flow reactor to be 22.7 seconds to form particles for the benefit of sufficient time for cluster formation (pg 1991, Section 3.2 Growth of nanoparticles produced in bulk flow reactor). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang with a residence time of 22.7 seconds as taught by Hanson for sufficient time for cluster formation (pg 1991, Section 3.2 Growth of nanoparticles produced in bulk flow reactor).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1.
Huang does not teach separating the reaction product from particles other than the reaction product.
However, Hanson teaches pulse-height analysis which is a method of analysis that can separate particles based on size for the benefit of using it with the ultrafine condensation particle counter (pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Huang with a pulse-height analysis as taught by Hanson for the benefit of using it with the ultrafine condensation particle counter (pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1.
Huang does not teach separating particles having a diameter greater than or equal to 7 nanometers from particles having a diameter less than 7 nanometers.
However, Hanson teaches pulse-height analysis which is a method of analysis that can separate particles based on size (pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment). Hanson teaches separating particles having a diameter of 8 nanometers from particles having a diameter less than 8 nanometers (pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment) for separating the nucleated clusters from background particles. Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang with pulse-height analysis for separating particles having a diameter greater than 7 as taught by Hanson for separating the nucleated clusters from background particles.
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1.
Huang does not teach the reaction chamber has a temperature from 21-25°C.
However, Hanson teaches the reaction chamber has a temperature of 22.85°C (‘296K’, pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment) because lower temperatures are advantageous for increased nucleation rates (pg 1988, Section 1 Introduction). Thus, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang with the reaction chamber having a temperature of 22.85°C as taught by Hanson for the benefit of increased nucleation rates (pg 1988, Section 1 Introduction).
Regarding claim 16, Huang teaches the invention of claim 1. Huang further teaches the second fluid (‘dimethylamine’) has a flow rate of 1 L/min (pg 13, para 0048).
Huang does not teach wherein the first fluid has a flow rate from 35 cm3/min to 1 L/min.
Although Huang reference does not teach the specific flow rate range for the first fluid (‘sulfuric acid’), it is not inventive to discover the optimum range for flow rate of a reactant in a method that is taught by the prior art. Huang teaches the flow rate of sulfuric acid is varied to be proportionate to the sulfuric acid concentration (pg 31, para 0047-0048). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the flow rate range of the first fluid (‘sulfuric acid’) to be 1 L/min as taught by Huang for the benefit of generating more particles (pg 13, para 0047).
Regarding claim 18, Huang teaches a method of measuring atmospheric reactive precursor gases that form aerosol particles (‘aerosol nucleation turbulent flow tube reactor’, pg 4, para 0006), the method comprising: contacting a continuous flow (pg 13, para 0048) of atmospheric sulfuric acid (pg 12, para 0045) and a continuous flow (pg 13, para 0048) of dimethylamine (pg 12, para 0045) in a reaction chamber (pg 5, para 0008) of a flow reactor (‘aerosol nucleation turbulent flow tube reactor’, pg 4, para 0006) to generate a 1-2 nanometer sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles (pg 13, para 0047); and detecting the sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles via a condensation particle counter (pg 13, para 0046).
Huang does not teach a residence time from 10-24 seconds to generate a reaction product.
However, Hanson teaches the residence time of the sulfuric acid and dimethylamine in the flow reactor to be 22.7 seconds to form particles for the benefit of sufficient time for cluster formation (pg 1991, Section 3.2 Growth of nanoparticles produced in bulk flow reactor). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang with a residence time of 22.7 seconds as taught by Hanson for sufficient time for cluster formation (pg 1991, Section 3.2 Growth of nanoparticles produced in bulk flow reactor).
Regarding claim 19, Huang in view of Hanson teaches the invention in claim 18. Huang teaches sulfuric acid as the atmospheric gas which is the reactant (pg 12, para 0045). Huang teaches dimethylamine (pg 12, para 0045) as the stabilizer that reacts with and nucleates sulfuric acid to generate sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles (pg 13, para 0047). Huang further teaches the dimethylamine does not react with any other gases other than sulfuric acid during the residence time because the sampling area is configured to mix the reactant with whatever is added from the sample inlet (pg 10, para 0042).
Regarding claim 20, Huang in view of Hanson teaches the invention in claim 18.
Huang does not teach separating the 1-2 nanometer sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles from atmospheric particles having a diameter greater than 7 nanometers prior to detecting the 1-2 nanometer sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles.
However, Hanson teaches pulse-height analysis which is a method of analysis that can separate particles based on size (pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment). Hanson teaches separating sulfuric acid-dimethylamine particles having a diameter of 8 nanometers from particles having a diameter less than 8 nanometers (pg 1988, Section 2 Experiment) for separating the nucleated clusters from background particles. Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang with pulse-height analysis for separating particles having a diameter greater than 7 as taught by Hanson for separating the nucleated clusters from background particles.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (CN 112915955 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "Tethered Balloon Systems" by Dorsey et al.
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches the invention in claim 1.
Huang does not teach the reaction chamber being tethered to a balloon or an aerial drone.
However, Dorsey teaches a tethered balloon system that is used for measurements of aerosols and traces gases (pg 1). Dorsey teaches that typical sensor that are included in the tethered ballon system are aerosol sampling sensors (pg 2). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the reaction chamber tether to a balloon system as taught by Dorsey for the benefit of getting gas samples that are not possible by surface or satellite techniques (pg 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/H.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights