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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Period punction within claim. 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 1 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.
Claim limitation “single unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 2-9, 12 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 2 is recites the limitation "the center conductive rod and “the internal PCB" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is recites the limitation "the guided gas flow holes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is recites the limitation "enclosed chamber" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is recites the limitation "the in-chamber FFRC (Flat Flex Ribbon Cable) connector" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is recites the limitation "the in-chamber circuit PCB assembly module" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the 100% enclosed ion chamber" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is recites the limitation "the double layered anti-noise layers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is recites the limitation "the distance R from the chamber center rod tip" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is recites the limitation "the radon gas detector" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The Specification does not give details on materials or process parameters for manufacturing the ion chamber using injection molding techniques.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The Specification does not give details on materials or process parameters for signal communication connection.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gordon et al (US 11,275,183 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon et al discloses a radon gas detector (1) comprising a 2-in-1 structure of an injection-molded enclosed ion chamber and plated plastic semi-enclosed ion chamber (plastic may be machined or molded into any desired geometry, plated directly on the interior surfaces of the internal metal sleeves or coated on plastic which has been injection molded or machined for a precise fit) (col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 12), wherein the detector integrates collection and processing functionalities (9) within a single unit (See Fig. 8, col. 8, lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 10, Gordon et al discloses wherein the chamber is produced by injection mode (col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 12).
Regarding claim 11, Gordon et al discloses wherein the chamber is a plated chamber (plastic may be machined or molded into any desired geometry, plated directly on the interior surfaces of the internal metal sleeves or coated on plastic which has been injection molded or machined for a precise fit) (col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al (US 11,275,183 B2) in view of Taghioskoui et al (US 2020/0015717 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gordon et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Gordon et al is silent with regards to a central conductive rod as claimed. Taghioskoui et al discloses a reconfigurable sequentially-packed ion transfer device and system comprising: center conductive rod for collecting ionized positive charge (multiple ion guides may have an even number of rods) securely fastened to PCB (paragraph [0200]) (See Figs. 10A, 10B). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Gordon et al with the teaching of Taghioskoui et al, so as to facilitate precise determination of radon gas levels.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Taghioskoui et al discloses wherein the in-chamber circuit PCB assembly module comprises wherein the central rod preprocesses the signal (paragraph [0200]).
Regarding claim 9, Taghioskoui et al discloses an arrangement the distance R from the chamber center rod tip to the bottom wall of the radius of the chamber (See Fig. 10A, 10B).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al (US 11,275,183 B2) in view of Burke et al (US 2009/0230305 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gordon et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Gordon et al is silent with regards to guided gas flow holes as claimed. Burke et al disclose a radon monitor comprising: a chamber with guided gas flow holes (plurality of apertures) on the side (paragraph [0009]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Gordon et al with the teaching of Burke et al, so as to enable unform exposure to sensing elements.
Regarding claim 4, Burke et al discloses air inlet holes (plurality of apertures to allow air flow) (paragraph [0009]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al (US 11,275,183 B2) in view of Kim et al (KR 20150093987 A) and Kurani et al (US 11490852 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Gordon et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Gordon et al is silent with regards to a FFRC connector as claimed. Kim et al discloses an ionization chamber for measuring concentration of radon gas and radon concentration measuring apparatus, comprising: measuring radon concentration by Wi-Fi or serial communication (RS-485)) (Section Description of Embodiments). Kurani et al discloses a wearable device to detect, measure and monitor air quality comprising: a gas sensor to detect presence or concentration of gasses (col. 17, lines 27-30); connectors or ribbon cables used for display all sensor data (col. 68, lines 17-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Gordon et al with the teaching of Kim et al and Kurani et al, since it is known in the art to use FPC ribbon cable in both Wi-Fi modules and internal serial communication particularly within compact electronics.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al (US 11,275,183 B2) in view of Diamondis et al (US 5,489,780 A).
Regarding claim 7, Gordon et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Gordon et al is silent with regards to preventing electric noise as claimed. Diamondis et al discloses a radon gas measurement apparatus, comprising: enclosed ion chamber to prevent electric noise from outside of the chamber (col. 10, lines 60-col. 11, line 9). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Gordon et al with the teaching Diamondis et al, so as to mitigate external electrical noise interference.
Regarding claim 8, Diamondis et al discloses double layered inner and outer coated conductive material to prevent noise from outside (col. 7, lines 4-15).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al (US 11,275,183 B2) in view of Kurani et al (US 11490852 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Gordon et al discloses a radon gas detector (1) comprising a 2-in-1 structure of an injection-molded enclosed ion chamber and plated plastic semi-enclosed ion chamber (plastic may be machined or molded into any desired geometry, plated directly on the interior surfaces of the internal metal sleeves or coated on plastic which has been injection molded or machined for a precise fit) (col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 12), wherein the detector integrates collection and processing functionalities (9) within a single unit (See Fig. 8, col. 8, lines 17-27). Gordon et al is silent with regards to a FFRC cable connection as claimed. Kurani et al discloses a wearable device to detect, measure and monitor air quality comprising: a gas sensor to detect presence or concentration of gasses (col. 17, lines 27-30); connectors or ribbon cables used for display all sensor data (col. 68, lines 17-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Gordon et al with the teaching of Kurani et al, since it is known in the art to use FPC ribbon cable in both Wi-Fi modules and internal serial communication particularly within compact electronics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884