DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Note to the Pro Se Applicant
The Examiner invites the Applicant to schedule an interview with the Examiner to discuss any and all of the rejections/objections below so as to expedite prosecution. The Examiner may be reached at (571) 270-0704 or by filing an Automated Interview Request (AIR) form online.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words and includes comparisons with prior art. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner has provided an example below (annotated and clean copies) of a proper abstract based on the Applicants filing for guidance:
Abstract
(with mark-up) A device is described to increase the size accuracy and resolving power with which variants of the variable saturation condensation particle sizer (VSCPS)
Abstract
(clean copy without mark-up – 129 words) A device is described to increase the size accuracy and resolving power with which variants of the variable saturation condensation particle sizer (VSCPS) may characterize particles suspended in a gas. Also described is a novel approach to introduce the particles to be sized in the center of a stream of vapor laden sheath gas. In one embodiment of this invention, the centered aerosol flow is fed at the bottom of a cylindrical tube, while the gas/vapor mixture enters laterally through the porous walls of this tube. In another embodiment the flow in the mixing region is stabilized by accelerating the gas either in the missing region or after it. A method to infer a condensation size without the need of extensive calibration or complex numerical computations is also disclosed.
Furthermore, on page 2 of the Applicants Specification, lines 1-2, the phrase “the Provisional Patent Application number 63/374319, filed 8/05/2022” should read as “the Provisional Patent Application number 63/474319, filed 8/05/2022” (the provisional application number had a typo in it).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, see instant Specification, page 5, para. [0006], figure is from Attoui et al. (2003). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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;
Additionally in Figure 1, a legend should be added for clarity.
Additionally in Figure 1, the label “Figure 1” blocks the “0.4” label on the X-axis;
In Figure 5, a legend should be added for clarity; and
In Figure 6, a legend should be added for clarity.
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.
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 63/474319, filed 8/5/2022. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
To summarize above, the Applicant appears to claim priority from provisional patent application 63/474319 on page 2, lines 1-3 of the instant Specification, however the Applicant is required to make the claim on the Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed. Specifically, on the ADS, under Domestic Benefit/National Stage Information, Prior Application Status should read as “Pending”, the Continuity Type should read as “Claims benefit of provisional”, the Prior Application Number Should read 63474319, and the Filing Date should read as “2022-08-05”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, the phrase “A sheathed condensation particle counter (CPC) capable of operating at unusually high flow rates of a sheathing gas by relying on flow stabilization means” has been interpreted as “for stabilization means for a sheathed condensation particle counter (CPC) capable of operating at unusually high flow rates of a sheathing gas”.
Furthermore, the invocation of the term “means” above has been interpreted such that the stabilization means includes the generic structural limitations as described in the alternative by the Applicant instant specifications, namely:
(configuration 1) wherein the flow stabilization means comprises a porous tube with an inlet for aerosol flow; wherein the porous tube is connected opposite the inlet to a cylindrical porous tube with uniformly porous lateral walls allowing for a sheath flow Q to enter and push the boundary of the aerosol flow; wherein the porous tube is connected to a thermally insulating tube; and wherein the thermally insulating tube is connected to a condensing tube; OR
(configuration 2) wherein the flow stabilization means comprises a capillary tube centered and surround by a surrounding tube at a first end of the surrounding tube, wherein the surrounding tube includes a converging tube at a second end of the surrounding tube with a reduced diameter compared to the first end of the surrounding tube; wherein the converging tube is connected to a thermally insulating tube; and wherein the thermally insulating tube is connected to a cold condensing tube.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the phrase “unusually high flow rates” is defined and the Examiner was unable to locate a clear definition in the Applicants specification so as to understand what is includes or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “
Regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “saturation is maintained up to a maximal flow rate”, and the claim also recites “even when said maximal flow rate exceeds 0.1 l/min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
This rejection may be overcome by amending the broader recitation to “saturation is maintained up to a maximal flow rate exceeding 0.1 l/min”, and removing the phrase “even when said maximal flow rate exceeds 0.1 l/min” from line 6.
Regarding claim 5, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “said near 100% saturation”. However, the Examiner believes that this was a simple typographical error, and has been read as “said close to 100% saturation”.
Furthermore regarding claim 5, it is unclear how the phrases “closely spaced plates” and “wet volume flows close to said several plates” is defined and the Examiner was unable to identify any definitions in the Applicants specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrases.
This rejection may be overcome by amending the phrases to read as “between said several plates”.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrases “highly diffusive vapor”, “relatively cold”, and “relatively hot” and the Examiner was unable to locate any definitions in the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what was included or excluded by the phrases. The Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the phrases to clarify the limitations based on based on the originally filed claims/specification/drawings.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6-8, and 10, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As described in MPEP 608.01(n), a dependent claim may only depend on multiple claims in alternative only. In this case, claim 7 on both claim 2 and claim 4. Similarly, claim 10 depends on claim 9 and claim 4.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The rejection of claim 7 may be overcome by placing the entire wording of claim 4 in place of the phrase “according to claim 4”, such that it reads, for example, as:
7. The sheathed CPC of claim 2 operated as a LVSCPS s is carried by a gas flowing through said wet volume, such that said gas exiting said wet volume is close to 100% saturated with said vapor at said saturation temperature, and such that said close to 100% saturation is maintained up to a maximal flow rate exceeding 0.1 l/min independently of the flow rate of said gas flowing through said wet volume
Similarly for claim 10, this rejection may be overcome by placing the entire wording of claim 4 in place of the phrase “according to claim 4”, such that it reads, for example, as:
10. The sheathed CPC of claim 9 operated as a linear VSCPS s is carried by a gas flowing through said wet volume, such that said gas exiting said wet volume is close to 100% saturated with said vapor at said saturation temperature, and such that said close to 100% saturation is maintained up to a maximal flow rate exceeding 0.1 l/min independently of the flow rate of said gas flowing through said wet volume
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 4-5, the phrase “close 100% saturation” should read as “close to 100% saturation”.
In claim 8, line6, the period should be deleted and (c) should start on a new line.
In claim 10, the claim should end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/112(d), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-10, Gallar et al. (Carlos Gallar, Charles A. Brock, José L. Jimenez & Craig Simons (2006) A Variable Supersaturation Condensation Particle Sizer, Aerosol Science and Technology, 2006, 40:6, 431-436, hereinafter Gallar) represents the best art of record. However, Gallar fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 4 as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Gallar teaches a sheathed condensation particle counter (CPC) (see Fig. 1, all elements; see also Abstract; see also pages 433, Design section discussion of the sheathed CPC) operating at a flow rate of a sheathing gas (see Table 1 and 2, sheath gas operating at 3.33 cm3/sec or ~0.2 l/min) relying on flow stabilization section (see Fig. 1, use of Aerosol Capillary tube considered a flow stabilization section for sheathing the Aerosol), keeping said flow laminar at a Reynolds number up to 111 where said sheathing gas meets an aerosol flow (see Table 1 and 2 and page 7 of the instant Specification, Applicant’s testing of the Gallar device only works up to a calculated Reynolds number of 134).
Gallar fails to teach that the CPC is capable of flow rates over 1.2 l/min, keeping said laminar flow at a Reynolds number in excess of 140 in the region where said sheathing gas meets an aerosol flow; wherein the flow stabilization means comprises a porous tube with an inlet for aerosol flow; wherein the porous tube is connected opposite the inlet to a cylindrical porous tube with uniformly porous lateral walls allowing for a sheath flow Q to enter and push the boundary of the aerosol flow; wherein the porous tube is connected to a thermally insulating tube; and wherein the thermally insulating tube is connected to a condensing tube; OR wherein the flow stabilization means comprises a capillary tube centered and surround by a surrounding tube at a first end of the surrounding tube, wherein the surrounding tube includes a converging tube at a second end of the surrounding tube with a reduced diameter compared to the first end of the surrounding tube; wherein the converging tube is connected to a thermally insulating tube; and wherein the thermally insulating tube is connected to a cold condensing tube.
Regarding claim 4, Gallar teaches a sheathed CPC operated as a variable saturation condensation particle sizer (VSCPS) (see Fig. 1, all elements; see also Abstract; see also pages 433, Design section discussion of the sheathed CPC operated as a VSCPS), where a vapor from a liquid contained in a wet volume kept at a saturation temperature Ts is carried by a gas flowing through said wet volume (see Fig. 1 and Table 2, vapor passes through the Fluorinert wet volume chamber kept at 49°C), such that said gas exiting said wet volume is close to 100% saturated with said vapor at said saturation temperature, and such that said close 100% saturation is maintained up to a maximal flow rate exceeding 0.1 l/min independently of the flow rate of said gas flowing through said wet volume
Gallar fails to teach that the sheathed CPC is operated as a linear variable saturation condensation particle sizer, and such that said gas exiting said wet volume is close to 100% saturated with said vapor at said saturation temperature, and such that said close 100% saturation is maintained up to a maximal flow rate exceeding 0.1 l/min independently of the flow rate of said gas flowing through said wet volume.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 1 and 4 and the examiner can find no teachings for a sheathed CPC as particularly claimed above, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855