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 statements (IDS) submitted on 16 November 2023 and 07 March 2024 ware filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word maximum length. 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 is missing a period at the end of its recitation and, thus, is objected to. Please amend claim 4 to include a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carson et al. (US Patent No. 8,284,403 B2), hereinafter Carson.
Regarding claim 9, Carson teaches a method of measuring optical extinction (abstract, col. 5 lines 12-18, col. 7 line 62-col. 8 line 27), comprising:
during a measurement period comprising alternating first times and second times (col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 15 discussing a monitoring time in which a sample stream and a reference stream are alternated; see also claim 1), continuously drawing air from a duct system (col. 4 lines 22-28, see also claim 1; Fig. 2 the duct system including valve 12, fan 9, filter 7, and the connected pathways for the sample and reference gases) into and through an optical cavity under same airflow conditions (Fig. 2 optical cavity defined by flow path 6, col. 6 line 11-col. 7 line 12 describing the use of an optical cavity; since both the sample and reference gases are emitted through valve 12 and along a path through fan 9 and flow path 6, they have the same airflow conditions);
during the first times of the measurement period, intaking filtered air into the duct system such that only filtered air is drawn from the duct system into and through the optical cavity (col. 4 lines 22-28, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 15, claim 1; since the valve alternates between sample and reference gas being emitted, only one gas is emitted at a time, thus the reference stream is emitted during “first times” of the monitoring period while the sample stream is blocked, the reference stream being filtered air); and
during the second times of the measurement period, refraining from intaking filtered air into the duct system such that only unfiltered air is drawn from the duct system into and through the optical cavity (col. 4 lines 22-28, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 15, claim 1; since the valve alternates between sample and reference gas being emitted, only one gas is emitted at a time, thus the sample stream, which comprises unfiltered gas, is emitted during “second times” of the monitoring period while the filtered air is blocked).
Regarding claim 10, Carson teaches the method of claim 9, as outlined above, and further teaches the same airflow conditions include a cavity flow rate through the optical cavity (col. 9 lines 44-48).
Regarding claim 14, Carson teaches the method of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches the same airflow conditions include a flow path through the optical cavity (see Fig. 2 and claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Carson teaches the method of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches the same airflow conditions include a temperature within the optical cavity (col. 5 lines 28-37).
Regarding claim 17, Carson teaches the method of claim 9, as outlined above, and further teaches obtaining baseline measurements of optical loss during the first times (col. 1 lines 57-67, col. 7 line 62-col. 8 line 37, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 2).
Regarding claim 18, Carson teaches the method of claim 9, as outlined above, and further teaches obtaining sample measurements of optical loss during the second times (col. 1 lines 57-67, col. 7 line 62-col. 8 line 37, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 2).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Patent No. 8,284,403 B2) in view of Murphy et al. (US Patent No. 9,709,491 B1, of record), hereinafter Murphy.
Regarding claim 16, Carson teaches the method of claim 9, as outlined above, but is silent to the first times have a duration between 30 seconds and 60 seconds; and the second times have a duration between 60 seconds and 300 seconds.
Murphy, which relates to optical extinction measurements of gases, teaches a measurement period in which only filtered dry air is measured for a time period that is shorter than a time period in which only ambient, unfiltered air is measured (Murphy: col. 10 lines 16-51, col. 10 line 67-col. 11 line 10 describing that the ambient (unfiltered) air is purged and replaced by filtered dry air for 2 minutes every 20 minutes, and that the dry air is measured for a minute, thus meaning the unfiltered air is measured for longer than the filtered air). The measurement durations of the first and second times (i.e. the measurement times of filtered and ambient air) are result-effective variables, in that if the measurement duration of the filtered dry air is too large, then the measurement accuracy of optical extinction of given environment will be negatively impacted due to longer periods of time in between ambient air measurements and/or lower amounts of time being spent measuring ambient air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first and second times of Carson to have the first times have a duration between 30 seconds and 60 seconds, and the second times have a duration between 60 seconds and 300 seconds, since determining the optimum measurement duration to ensure that the accuracy of optical extinction measurements for unfiltered air is sufficient is based on result-effective variables, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 19-20 are allowable in view of the prior art.
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a system for measuring optical extinction comprising: an optical cell having an optical cavity, a sample inlet, and a sample outlet; a duct system having an interior in fluid communication with the optical cavity through the sample inlet, the duct system including an unfiltered inlet, and a filtered inlet with a filter and an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter; a sampling fan associated with the sample outlet; and a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Ajay et al. (US 2016/0223437 A1), hereinafter Ajay, teaches a particle detection system comprising an optical cell having an optical cavity, sample inlet, and sample outlet (Ajay: Fig. 1 paragraph 0134, 0239-0241, 0244). Ajay further teaches a duct system in fluid communication with the optical cavity through the sample inlet, the duct system having an unfiltered inlet and a filtered inlet with a filter and an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter (Ajay: Fig. 15B, paragraph 0336-0353). While Ajay does teach a sampling fan (Ajay: Fig. 1 aspirator 16), the sampling fan is not disposed at the sample outlet of the optical cell (see Ajay Fig. 1 outlet 22). Additionally, Ajay does not teach a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity.
Bowman et al. (US Patent No. 3,812,330 A), hereinafter Bowman, teaches a system for measuring optical attenuation comprising an optical cell comprising a cavity, inlet, and outlet, and a duct system in fluid communication with the cavity having an unfiltered inlet and filtered inlet having a filter (see Bowman Fig. 3, col. 6 lines 21-37). However, Bowman does not teach an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter; a sampling fan associated with the sample outlet; and a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity.
Carson (US Patent No. 8,284,403 B2) teaches a system for measuring optical extinction comprising an optical cell having a cavity, inlet, and outlet, and a duct system comprising a filtered inlet comprising a filter, and an unfiltered inlet (see Carson Fig. 2 e.g. filter 7). Carson further teaches a sampling fan (see Carson Fig. 2 e.g. fan 9). However, the sampling fan of Carson is neither a fan that is inline with the filter of the filtered inlet nor is it at the sample outlet of the optical cell. Therefore, Carson does not teach a filtered inlet with a filter and an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter, and a sampling fan associated with the sample outlet. Furthermore, Carson does not teach a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity. Ajay et al. (US Patent No. 9,702,802 B2) has similar teachings and deficiencies as Carson.
Murphy (US Patent No. 9,709,491, of record) teaches a system for measuring optical extinction comprising an optical cell having a cavity, inlet, and outlet (see Murphy Fig. 1). Murphy further teaches a purging system in which clean, filtered air is directed into the optical cavity to purge the cavity of contaminants and to generate a background measurement (Murphy: Fig. 1, col. 10 line 16-col. 11 line 13), in addition to collecting ambient, unfiltered air into the cavity for a sample measurement (see Murphy Fig. 1). Murphy further teaches a sampling fan disposed at the outlet of the optical cell (see Murphy Fig. 6 fans 604, col. 8 lines 43-46). However, Murphy does not teach a duct system having an interior in fluid communication with the optical cavity through the sample inlet, the duct system including an unfiltered inlet, and a filtered inlet with a filter and an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter, and a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity.
Zhao et al. (CN 114166766 A), hereinafter Zhao, teaches a system for measuring optical extinction comprising an optical cell comprising a cavity, inlet, and outlet, and a duct system comprising a filtered and unfiltered inlet (see Zhao abstract, Fig. 2). However, Zhao further teaches the use of a particle filter (Zhao: Fig. 2 filter 603) that filters all air prior to the entrance to the optical cavity (see Zhao Fig. 2). Furthermore, Zhao is silent to the use of an inline duct fan or a sampling fan associated with a sampling outlet (Fig. 2 of Zhao shows a pump 605). Thus, Zhao does not teach the duct system including an unfiltered inlet, and a filtered inlet with a filter and an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter; a sampling fan associated with the sample outlet; and a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity. Li et al. (US 2023/0078598 A1), Cooper et al. (US Patent No. 10,345,213 B2), and Wang et al. (CN 109781639 A) all have similar teachings and deficiencies as Zhao.
Smith et al. (Smith, Jared D., and Dean B. Atkinson. "A portable pulsed cavity ring-down transmissometer for measurement of the optical extinction of the atmospheric aerosol." Analyst 126.8 (2001): 1216-1220.), hereinafter Smith, teaches a system for optical extinction measurements comprising an optical cell having a cavity, inlet, and outlet (see Smith Fig. 1 and section 2. Experimental). Smith further teaches a clean air system for providing filtered clean air to the cavity for baseline measurements (see Smith Fig. 1 and section 2. Experimental). However, the clean air system is not in fluid communication with the optical cavity through the same sampling inlet as the ambient air (see Smith Fig. 1). Thus, Smith does not teach a duct system having an interior in fluid communication with the optical cavity through the sample inlet, the duct system including an unfiltered inlet, and a filtered inlet with a filter and an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter. Furthermore, Smith does not teach a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity.
Baynard et al. (Baynard, Tahllee, et al. "Design and application of a pulsed cavity ring-down aerosol extinction spectrometer for field measurements." Aerosol Science and Technology 41.4 (2007): 447-462.), hereinafter Baynard, teaches a system for measuring optical extinction comprising an optical cell having a cavity, inlet, and outlet (see Baynard Fig. 1-2). Baynard further teaches a duct system having an unfiltered inlet and a filtered inlet comprising a filter (see Baynard Fig. 1-2). Additionally, Baynard teaches cycling automated valves between the filtered and unfiltered paths to provide the appropriate gas (Baynard: pg. 451 right col. 2nd paragraph). However, Baynard does not teach the filtered inlet has an inline duct fan arranged to draw a sample from a sample source and force the sample through the filter, and a controller configured to cycle the inline duct fan on and off while the sampling fan is on to thereby cycle filtered samples and unfiltered samples through the optical cavity. Furthermore, the system of Baynard includes an impactor which is configured to filter large particles (see Baynard pg. 458 left col. 2nd paragraph). Thus, the sample air of Baynard is not completely “unfiltered” air, as the air is filtered by the impactor prior to entering the unfiltered sample path.
Additionally, the remaining references cited on applicant’s information disclosure statement, that are not specifically mentioned above, have been considered by the examiner. None of these references teach the bolded and/or underlined limitations outlined above, in combination with the remaining limitations from the claim.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 1 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the method of claim 10, wherein: the cavity flow rate is based on a sample flow rate at which air is drawn from the duct system into the optical cavity, and intaking filtered air into the duct system comprises forcing sample air through a filter and into the duct system at an intake flow rate greater than the sample flow rate (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Carson (US Patent No. 8,284,403 B2) teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the cavity flow rate is based on a sample flow rate at which air is drawn from the duct system into the optical cavity, and intaking filtered air into the duct system comprises forcing sample air through a filter and into the duct system at an intake flow rate greater than the sample flow rate.
Ajay et al. (US Patent No. 9,702,802 B2), hereinafter Ajay II, teaches a method for extinction measurement in which, during a measurement period, only filtered air in taken into a duct system during first times, and, during second times, only unfiltered air is taken into the duct system, while the filtered air is refrained from entering the duct system (see Ajay II Fig. 1-7, abstract). Ajay II recites a control mechanism that control the flow rates of the sample, unfiltered air and the air that is forced through a particle filter (Ajay II: col. 3 line 58-col. 4 line 4), however Ajay II does not teach the cavity flow rate is based on a sample flow rate at which air is drawn from the duct system into the optical cavity, and intaking filtered air into the duct system comprises forcing sample air through a filter and into the duct system at an intake flow rate greater than the sample flow rate. Rather, Ajay II teaches that it is beneficial to have the sample, unfiltered air flow rate be periodically increased to enhance detection sensitivity (Ajay II: col. 4 line 51-col. 5 line 12).
Murphy (US Patent No. 9,709,491, of record) teaches a method of measuring optical extinction in which only filtered air is drawn into an optical cavity during first times of a measurement period, and ambient, unfiltered air is drawn into an optical cavity during second times of the measurement period (Murphy: col. 10 lines 16-51, col. 10 line 67-col. 11 line 10). However, Murphy does not teach a duct system in which both the filtered air and unfiltered air are drawn from, and further does not teach that the cavity flow rate is based on a sample flow rate at which air is drawn from the duct system into the optical cavity, and intaking filtered air into the duct system comprises forcing sample air through a filter and into the duct system at an intake flow rate greater than the sample flow rate.
Additionally, the remaining references cited on applicant’s information disclosure statement, that are not specifically mentioned above, have been considered by the examiner. None of these references teach the bolded and/or underlined limitations outlined above, in combination with the remaining limitations from the claim.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 11 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 12-13 depend on claim 11 and therefore are also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a duct system for use with an optical cell having an optical cavity and a sample inlet, the duct system comprising: a filtered inlet; a filter associated with the filtered inlet; an inline duct fan associated with the filtered inlet and arranged to draw air from a sample source and force the air through the filter; an unfiltered inlet arranged relative to the filtered inlet such that the air forced through the filter can follow an outlet flow path that exits the interior of the duct system through the unfiltered inlet; and a duct outlet configured to couple with the sample inlet of the optical cell and arranged relative to the filtered inlet and the unfiltered inlet to provide a sample flow path for the air into the optical cavity (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
None of the prior art, recited above or in the information disclosure statements filed by the applicant, teach or suggest a duct system having both a filtered and unfiltered inlet that are arranged relative to each other such that the air forced through the filter can follow an outlet flow path that exits the interior of the duct system through the unfiltered inlet.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 19 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 is therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877