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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn.
The 112(a) rejections of claims 12-16 are withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 12-16 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, most of the limitations are separated by commas while line 16 has a semicolon. Either is acceptable but the use should be consistent, see MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 1, lines 5-6 recite “a sharp cut cyclone” and line 7 recites “a sharp cut cyclone” indicating there are two identically-named elements. For purposes of examination, examiner reads the second instance as “the sharp cut cyclone”.
Claim 1, line 12 ends with a preposition. For purposes of examination, examiner disregards the word “to”.
Claim 10 recites “the first first optical wavelength”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the previously applied art does not address the limitations of amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han (20160274024), Martins (20210270711), Yoon (KR 101145103) and (CN 1078478555).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (United States Patent Application Publication 20160274024) in view of Martins (United States Patent Application Publication 20210270711), in view of Yoon (KR 101145103) in view of Shang et al (CN 1078478555), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “HMYS”.
As to claim 1, Han teaches a method for real-time monitoring of total airborne particulate matter (paragraph 0004 “real-time on-line integrated measurement of aerosol optical parameters”), the method comprising:
volumetrically controlling a flow rate using a flow sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0033 “flow meter (44)”), an internal pump (Figure 1, paragraph 0033 “pump (80)”), a pressure sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0033 “temperature/pressure/humidity sensor (56)”), and a temperature probe (Figure 1, paragraph 0033 “temperature/pressure/humidity sensor (56)”) affixed to an inlet to generate an air sample (Figure 1, paragraph 0041 “aerosol particles go through the aerosol cutting head (43) under the action of the pump (80)”),
measuring relative humidity (Figures 5 through 7 show data taken at a range of relative humidities, indicating the relative humidity was known) and temperature (Figure 1, paragraph 0032 “temperature/pressure/humidity sensor (68)”) of the air sample for determining a dewpoint correction factor (paragraph 0032 “The first temperature/pressure/humidity sensor (68) can monitor the environmental conditions inside the photoacoustic cavity and also plays an important role of instrument calibration and processing of detection signals.”),
maintaining a relative humidity threshold of the air sample with a sample conditioning system [[to]] (Figures 5 through 7 show data taken at a range of relative humidities, indicating the ability to achieve and maintain a desired relative humidity long enough to take reliable data),
determining a first scattering coefficient of airborne particles in the air sample (paragraph 0017 “precisely acquires aerosol scattering coefficient”) for a first optical wavelength (paragraph 0006 “laser beams of 1064 nm, 532 nm and 355 nm wavelengths”) via an optical sensor (Figure 2, elements 62, 64-67, 73, see paragraphs 0032-0033);
determining a second scattering coefficient of airborne particles in the air sample (paragraph 0017 “precisely acquires aerosol scattering coefficient”) for a second optical wavelength (see paragraph 0006 as above, also paragraph 0017 teaches three wavelengths at the same time “multi-channel (three wavelengths)”), via the optical sensor (Figure 2, elements 62, 64-67, 73, see paragraphs 0032-0033).
Han does not teach the use of a a sharp cut cyclone with an inlet. However, it is known in the art as taught by Martins. Martins teaches a particle analysis system (Title “System And Method For Determining Particulate Size Distribution And Other Properties”) that uses a sharp cut cyclone inlet (Figure 1, paragraph 0043 “aerodynamic separator 110 can be of different types including cyclones, impactors, elutriators, or other size separators” and paragraph 0003 “Sharp Cut Cyclone separators are a subset of cyclone separators”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use a sharp cut cyclone with an inlet, in order to collect all particulates of interest below a single specific maximum size.
Han as modified by Martins does not determine a scattering Angstrom exponent (SAE) using at least the first scattering coefficient and the second scattering coefficient. However, it is known in the art as taught by Yoon. Yoon teaches aerosol analysis (Abstract “A yellow dust detecting method using a scattering coefficient and absorption coefficient of an aerosol is provided to enhance the accuracy with respect to a detection of yellow dust by using an aerosol optical property.”) which determines a scattering Angstrom exponent (SAE) using at least the first scattering coefficient and the second scattering coefficient (paragraph 206 “When A is the aerosol scattering coefficient of 450 nm and 700 nm, respectively, the Angstrom Exponent (AE) is given by Equation 9 below” and the given equation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to determine a scattering Angstrom exponent (SAE) using at least the first scattering coefficient and the second scattering coefficient, in order to more accurately analyze the scattered light.
While Han teaches the calculation of aerosol characteristics (Abstract “the integrated on-line detection of different optical parameters of an aerosol”), Han as modified by Martins and Yoon above does not explicitly teach determining an airborne particle concentration for a range of particle sizes based at least on the SAE, the first scattering coefficient, and the dewpoint correction factor. However, it is known in the art as taught by Shang. Shang teaches determining an airborne particle concentration for a range of particle sizes (Abstract “a method and device for measuring gas particles”) in which scattering coefficients are obtained (paragraph 70 “determine the extinction coefficient of the molecule and the backscattering coefficient of the molecule”) at multiple wavelengths (paragraph 127 “the gas particles can be measured respectively by laser radar signals of multiple wavelengths emitted by the laser radar”), environmental factors are measured (paragraph 133 “the environmental parameters may include: temperature, humidity, air pressure, and the like.”) and the effect of particle size taken into account (paragraph 154 “Among them, for particles of different sizes, c 00 and c km can have different values”).
The invention of Han as modified by Martins and Yoon above teaches determining the SAE from scattering coefficients (as indicated above), and the invention of Shang teaches determining an airborne particle concentration for a range of particle sizes (Abstract “a method and device for measuring gas particles” also paragraph 64 “real-time monitoring of PM2.5 and PM10 concentration”) in which scattering coefficients are measured (paragraph 70 “determine the extinction coefficient of the molecule and the backscattering coefficient of the molecule” and paragraph 127 “the gas particles can be measured respectively by laser radar signals of multiple wavelengths emitted by the laser radar”), in addition to environmental factors (paragraph 133 “the environmental parameters may include: temperature, humidity, air pressure, and the like.” from which one can obviously calculate a dewpoint). As SAE is based on the optical thickness of a particle at multiple wavelengths and the invention of Shang teaches such measurements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to determine SAE (similar to the teaching of Yoon above), in order to more accurately analyze the scattered light, and further to determine the concentration based on the claimed measurements (i.e. scattering coefficients & environmental factors, and numbers based on those measurements), in order to provide a more accurate final result.
As to claim 2, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Martins teaches the optical sensor is a nephelometer (paragraph 0043 “angular scattering nephelometer assembly 100”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the optical sensor be a nephelometer, in order to better measure the multi-wavelength light scattering pattern produced by particulate material in suspension in air, water, or other fluids.
As to claim 3, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Martins teaches the nephelometer is an integrating nephelometer (paragraph 0004 “One class of device commonly used to measure light scattering properties of particulate material are called nephelometers and are usually divided between integrating (measuring a broad range of angles integrated into a single signal)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the nephelometer is an integrating nephelometer, in order to better measure a broad range of angles integrated into a single signal.
As to claim 4, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Martins teaches the nephelometer is a multi-wavelength nephelometer (paragraph 0004 “<nephelometers> have also been used for decades to measure the multi-wavelength light scattering pattern produced by particulate material in suspension in air, water, or other fluids.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the nephelometer be a multi-wavelength nephelometer, in order to constrain the range of possible combinations of particle properties by the physics of how particles with different properties scatter light.
As to claim 6, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Martins teaches the first optical wavelength is in a first range from approximately 410 nm to approximately 490 nm, and the second optical wavelength is in a second range from approximately 590 nm to approximately 680 nm (paragraph 0054 “each light source 220 can have a range of wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2500 nm”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the first optical wavelength is in a first range from approximately 410 nm to approximately 490 nm, and the second optical wavelength is in a second range from approximately 590 nm to approximately 680 nm, in order to include useful wavelength bands.
As to claim 7, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 4, in addition Martins teaches the nephelometer has a truncated integrating range from 10-171° (paragraph 0054 “can cover an angular scattering range from 0 to 180°”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the nephelometer have a truncated integrating range from 10-171°, in order to limit data to a desired range of scattering angles.
As to claim 8, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Martins teaches the sharp cut cyclone is a PM2.5 sharp cut cyclone (paragraph 0003 “Sharp cyclone separators are frequently used in air quality sampling to collect all particulates below a single specific maximum size which are of interest to human health studies. Typically, in the air quality field, this size range is selected at 2.5 microns in diameter, referred to as PM 2.5.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the sharp cut cyclone be a PM2.5 sharp cut cyclone, in order to remove interference by particles that are not of a desired size.
As to claim 9, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 8, in addition Martins teaches the flow rate through PM2.5 sharp-cut cyclone is volumetrically controlled specific to the chosen sharp-cut cyclone (paragraph 0008 “The apparatus uses an inlet with an aerodynamic separator (for instance a cyclone) collecting particles from an air stream for which the flow is dynamically measured and controlled”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the flow rate through PM2.5 sharp-cut cyclone is volumetrically controlled specific to the chosen sharp-cut cyclone, in order to ensure that particles of a known size and quantity are being measured.
As to claim 10, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 6, in addition Martins teaches the first [[first]] optical wavelength is 635 nm, and the second optical wavelength is 450 nm (paragraph 0054 “each light source 220 can have a range of wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2500 nm”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the first optical wavelength be 635 nm, and the second optical wavelength be 450 nm, in order to better study certain materials or environments (e.g. 450 nm has lower absorption in water making it more suitable when the humidity is high, and copper ions absorbs 635 nm well).
As to claim 19, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Yoon teaches the determining the SAE further uses the first optical wavelength and the second optical wavelength (paragraph 206 “When A is the aerosol scattering coefficient of 450 nm and 700 nm, respectively, the Angstrom Exponent (AE) is given by Equation 9 below” and the given equation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be determining the SAE further uses the first optical wavelength and the second optical wavelength, in order to more accurately analyze the scattered light.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HMYS, and further in view of Jee et al (KR 20220011882).
As to claim 11, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Han teaches the relative humidity is controlled to be < 35% (Figures 5 through 7 show data taken at a range of relative humidities above 35%, indicating the ability to achieve and maintain a desired relative humidity).
Han as modified by Martins and Yoon and Shang above does not teach an air mass sample heater is included to reduce humidity. However, it is known in the art as taught by Jee. Jee teaches an air mass sample heater is included to reduce humidity (translation p8, 1st paragraph “may further include a control unit for controlling the heat generation of the heater to adjust the relative humidity of the air surrounding the particles to be analyzed”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have an air mass sample heater be included to reduce humidity, in order to minimize the influence of humidity.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HMYS, and further in view of Tian (CN 109520899).
As to claim 17, HMYS teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the determining the airborne particle concentration for a range of particle sizes is further based on a function of the SAE that is based at least in part on a curve fit of empirical mass scattering efficiency data plotted against SAE as a surrogate to particle size. However, it is known in the art as taught by Tian. Tian teaches measuring particle concentrations (paragraph 4 “air particle concentration detection apparatus based on laser light scattering”) at different particle sizes (paragraph 58 “Pulse of the amplitude between a~b, which is considered as, to be detected The optical signal that particulate matter of the partial size less than 1um scatters, corresponding PM1.” etc), with data analysis using curve fitting (paragraph 73 “MCU records the number of pulses of each concentration fragmentation value under above-mentioned a, b, c, d variable grain object partial size subregion, And obtain nonlinear fitting curve. Attached drawing 3 is nonlinear fitting curve synoptic diagram, the Nonlinear Quasi of each partial size subregion of a, b, c, d”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the determining the airborne particle concentration for a range of particle sizes is further based on a function of the SAE that is based at least in part on a curve fit of empirical mass scattering efficiency data plotted against SAE as a surrogate to particle size, in order to more accurately determine a final result.
As to claim 18, HMYS in view of Tian teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Tian teaches the function is broken up into segments based on ranges of the SAE (paragraph 73 “Attached drawing 3 is nonlinear fitting curve synoptic diagram, the Nonlinear Quasi of each partial size subregion of a, b, c, d” where Figures 2 and 3 show segmented data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the function be broken up into segments based on ranges of the SAE, in order to better analyze each of the ranges.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877