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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 February 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-15 were originally filed on 16 February 2024.
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
-35 USC 112-
Claims 9-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
In light of Applicant’s response, the rejections are withdrawn.
-35 USC 102/103-
Claims 1-6 and 9-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by SCIALO.
Without acquiescing to the propriety of Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner finds them moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s substantial amendments to the claimed invention. Applicant provided no rationale why the amended features were not taught by NAFISI, thus the Examiner directs the Applicant to the new grounds of rejection below.
Claims 7-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by SCIALO/NAFISI.
Without acquiescing to the propriety of Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner finds them moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s substantial amendments to the claimed invention.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scialo et al., US20200158603 (hereinafter “SCIALO”) in view of Nafisi et al., US20240035693 (hereinafter “NAFISI”).
Re claim 1, SCIALO discloses a sampler component, comprising:
a chamber configured to allow fluid to flow there-through [0033];
a filter configured to remove particles or contaminants from the fluid as it passes through the chamber and capture said particles or contaminants on the filter [0080];
a apertured-member including at least one aperture [0080], wherein:
the apertured-member has zero- or low- fluid permeability to prevent the flow of fluid there-through [0103]; and
fluid freely passes through the at least one aperture and particles or contaminants are deposited on the filter in the area of the at least one aperture [0103]
SCIALO fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the apertured-member is located adjacent the filter and makes physical contact with the filter
However, NAFISI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an air sampling system comprising a plurality of filters [0045], wherein an aperture-member is adjacent a filter and in physical contact with it [Figs.3a/3b and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify SCIALO to include the particular filter configuration of NAFISI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform air sampling and monitoring of pathogens in real-time (see at least NAFISI [0001]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, NAFISI merely teaches that it is well-known to include a plurality of filters in an air sampling system. Since both SCIALO and NAFISI disclose similar air sampling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein: the sampler component is configured as a part for a fluid impactor device [0080]
Re claim 3, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein: the fluid is air [0036]
Re claim 4, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein:
the chamber includes a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet [0081];
fluid flows through the chamber in a direction from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet [0081];
the filter is located within the chamber [0080];
the apertured-member is located within the chamber [0080-0081]; and
at least one of:
the filter’s location is more proximate the fluid inlet than the apertured-member’s location [Fig.3 and associated text]; or
the apertured-member’s location is more proximate the fluid inlet than the filter’s location [Fig.3 and associated text]
Re claim 5, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 4, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein: the filter is adjacent the apertured-member [Fig.6 and associated text]
Re claim 6, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 5, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein: the filter is in physical contact with the apertured-member [Fig.6 and associated text]
Re claim 7, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above.
SCIALO fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the filter comprises a plurality of filters
However, NAFISI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an air sampling system comprising a plurality of filters [0045]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify SCIALO to include the particular filter configuration of NAFISI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform air sampling and monitoring of pathogens in real-time (see at least NAFISI [0001]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, NAFISI merely teaches that it is well-known to include a plurality of filters in an air sampling system. Since both SCIALO and NAFISI disclose similar air sampling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 8, SCIALO/NAFISIS renders obvious the sampler component of claim 7, as shown above.
SCIALO fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the plurality of filters includes a first filter and a second filter; and a configuration of the first filter is different from a configuration of the second filter
However, NAFISI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an air sampling system comprising a plurality of filters [0045], each of which may have a different configuration [0045]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify SCIALO to include the particular filter configuration of NAFISI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform air sampling and monitoring of pathogens in real-time (see at least NAFISI [0001]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, NAFISI merely teaches that it is well-known to include a plurality of filters with different configurations in an air sampling system. Since both SCIALO and NAFISI disclose similar air sampling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein: the sampler component comprises a plurality of apertured-members, each apertured-member including at least one aperture [0103]
Re claim 10, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 9, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein:
the plurality of apertured-members includes a first apertured-member and a second apertured-member [0103];
a configuration of the first apertured-member is different from a configuration of the second apertured-member [0103]
Re claim 11, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above. SCIALO further discloses, wherein:
the at least one aperture is round, square, rectangular or triangular in shape [Fig.7 and associated text]
Re claim 12, SCIALO/NAFISI renders obvious the sampler component of claim 1, as shown above.
SCIALO fails to explicitly disclose, wherein:
the at least one aperture includes a first aperture and a second aperture; and a size of the first aperture is different from a size of the second aperture; and a shape of the first aperture is different from a shape of the second aperture
However, NAFISI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an air sampling system wherein:
the at least one aperture includes a first aperture and a second aperture; and a size of the first aperture is different from a size of the second aperture; and a shape of the first aperture is different from a shape of the second aperture [Figs.5A-5E and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify SCIALO to include the particular filter configuration of NAFISI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform air sampling and monitoring of pathogens in real-time (see at least NAFISI [0001]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, NAFISI merely teaches that it is well-known to include a plurality of filters with different configurations in an air sampling system. Since both SCIALO and NAFISI disclose similar air sampling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claims 13-15, Applicant recites claims, embodied as a method, of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 1-6 and 9-12, as examined above. Accordingly, claims 13-15 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-6 and 9-12.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
RU2818913C1, Tsovianov et al. – impactor for an air sampling system
US20190346345, Scialo et al. – air sampling impactor system to improve particle distribution
US20070044577, Trakumas et al. – particulate sampler with central aperture
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
Prosecution Insights