DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “opening degree of the gas pressure regulating valve (6) and a rotation speed of the gas suction pump (5) are under a feedback control of a scattering signal frequency of individual particles recorded by a first sizing laser (21) and a second sizing laser (22) of the aerosol mass spectrometer” (claim 1 and method step of claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description for requiring: “wherein an opening degree of the gas pressure regulating valve and a rotation speed of the gas suction pump are under a feedback control of individual particles recorded by a first sizing laser and a second sizing laser of the aerosol mass spectrometer”.
MPEP 2163.03 (V) recites:
“An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved”
Here, the specification is devoid of any discussion as to how the opening degree of the gas pressure or the rotation speed of the gas suction pump are under a feedback control. Specifically, the only discussion of feedback control is in paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0036], [0049], [0074] and [0078] of the published application. However in each paragraph, the instant specification merely reiterates that the same claimed limitation. There is no discussion as to how the recorded individual particles or signals thereof are used to generate a feedback signal to change the opening degree of the regulating valve or the rotational speed of the gas suction pump. For instance, paragraph [0074] recites:
“the opening degree of the gas pressure regulating valve 6 and the rotation speed of the gas suction pump 5 are under a feedback control of the scattering signal frequency of individual particle recorded by the first sizing laser 21 and the second sizing laser 22”
This suggests that a scattering signal some how results in a feedback control of either the valve or pump, however there is no disclosed steps or algorithm or structure to suggest how this recorded signal is used to determine a change or feedback in the opening degree of the valve or the rotational speed of the pump.
Claim 1 further lacks written description for “individual particles recorded by a first sizing laser and a second sizing layer”. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a laser, however the specification is devoid of any laser that can record scattering signal frequency of individual particles. That is, a laser by itself cannot record scattering of individual particles, therefore this is a result with no disclosure as to how the result is achieved (i.e. by some detection means to detect scattered light from sizing laser, such as a photomultiplier tube (see for instance US 2011/0116090) paragraph [0039] teaches using a sizing laser and PMT to detect scattered light from intersecting particle).
Claims 2-16 lack written description by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim 13 is the method of claim 1 and requires a method steps commensurate with the functional step of claim 1 and lacks written description for the same reasons discussed above.
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 1-16 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.
The term “the bypass inlet is provided close to the main inlet” in claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the instant specification does not define the degree upon which is interpreted to be close rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claims 2-16 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ““wherein an opening degree of the gas pressure regulating valve and a rotation speed of the gas suction pump are under a feedback control” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function (feedback control) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. valve, pump, sizing lasers or aerosol mass spectrometer, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the valve, pump, sizing lasers or aerosol mass spectrometer in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 1 is further vague and indefinite for reciting “a scattering signal frequency of individual particles recorded by a first sizing laser and a second sizing laser of the aerosol mass spectrometer” because it is not clear how a laser without a detector can record scattering signal frequency of individual particles. No unambiguous determination can be made.
Claim 7 additionally requires recording signals with the first and second sizing lasers, similar to claim 1 above, it is not clear how a laser by itself can detect flight time of individual particles without some detector to measure scattered light. No unambiguous determination can be made.
Claim 13 similarly requires recording by a first and second sizing laser and is vague and indefinite for the same reasons above.
Claims 2-16 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Note to applicant:
Su et al. (cited below), authored by the inventors, is evidence that a number of prior art references were known to the applicant. Please submit Li 2018a cited throughout the Su reference and any other prior art documents that are relevant to the claimed invention, in particular any known references suggesting the claimed bypass channel, bypass inlet, bypass outlet and valve/pump along the bypass channel.
Additionally, note that Su et al. may be available as prior art because the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al. (Su et al. “Analytical performance of single particle aerosol mass spectrometer for accurate sizing and isotopic analysis of individual particles”, Atmospheric environment, Available online 05 April 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Su et al. teach a particle sampling device (fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber (Plens) having a main inlet (inlet to Plens), a main outlet (outlet from Plens to aerodynamic lens (see page 3, right column under section 3.1)),
wherein the main inlet is configured for entry of ambient aerosol (from nebulizer/sample ambient aerosol is generated to enter Plens. Alternatively, the inlet is an inlet, thus configured to receive ambient aerosol. That is, the intended purpose of the inlet does not distinguish the claimed invention from that of Su et al.), the main outlet is configured to be connected to an inlet of an aerodynamic lens of an aerosol mass spectrometer(as seen in figure 1), an aerosol flow channel is formed between the main inlet and the main outlet of the chamber (channel from inlet to outlet of Plens);
a gas suction pump ((section 3.1 teaches Plens is pumped by a pump))
and a gas pressure sensor (section 3.1 on page 3 teaches the pressure upstream (Plens) was monitored continuously, thus requiring a pressure sensor) and a temperature and humidity sensor (T/RH sensor in figure 1), wherein both a detection end of the gas pressure sensor and a detection end of the temperature and humidity sensor are connected with the chamber (figure 1 shows T/RH sensor connected to Plens indirectly by components and section 3.1 teaches Plens is continuously monitored requiring a pressure sensor coupled to Plens chamber),
and wherein a linear relationship exists between ln(τ) and ln(Stkm)1/2 (figure 5) where τ represents a flight time of individual particles, and Stkm represents a modified Stokes number of the individual particles, and Stkm is approximated as see equation of claim 1 α1 represents a first parameter associated with a particle type, α2 represents a second parameter associated with the particle type, P0 represents standard atmospheric pressure, T0 represents a normal temperature, Dn represents an inner diameter of an acceleration nozzle of the aerodynamic lens, ρp represents a particle density, Dp represents a particle diameter, χ represents a particle shape factor, Plens represents an inlet pressure of the aerodynamic lens, and Z0 represents a parameter associated with a carrier gas type (see equation 13 on page 6).
While Su teaches on page 8, left column, second full paragraph “Plens can be continuously scanned by adjusting the sampling orifice diameter or sampling pressure”, Su fails to expressly disclose a bypass inlet (15) and a bypass outlet (16); the bypass inlet (15) and the bypass outlet (16) are connected with each other via a bypass pipeline (14), the bypass pipeline (14) is located outside the chamber (3), the bypass inlet (15) is provided close to the main inlet (1), and both the bypass outlet (16) and the bypass inlet (15) are located on the aerosol flow channel; wherein an opening degree of the gas pressure regulating valve (6) and a rotation speed of the gas suction pump (5) are under a feedback control of a scattering signal frequency of individual particles recorded by a first sizing laser (21) and a second sizing laser (22) of the aerosol mass spectrometer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881