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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 16-22, 24, 26-28, 30, 32, 33, 37, and 41-43 are being examined.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-13, 17-22, 24, 26-28, 30, 32, 37, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scialo (US 2015/0075301) in view of Pederson (WO 2011/059444).
Regarding claim 1, Scialo teaches a microbial air sampler comprising a sampling head (600) comprising one or more intake apertures (610) for sampling a stream of air and/or other gases inside the enclosure; an impactor base (500) containing a growth medium for receiving particles from the stream of air and/or other gases, the growth medium having an impact surface for receiving particles from the stream of air and/or other gases; a selectively removable cover (700) for covering the one or more intake apertures; and an outlet (520) for exhausting the stream of air and/or other gases.
Scialo fails to teach a robotic manipulator system configured to rotate the impactor from a dormant pose into a sampling pose.
Pederson teaches an annular sample processing device comprising a robotic manipulator system (drive system) configured to rotate a base plate/impactor (110). Applicants further recite “from a dormant pose into a sampling pose”, examiner interprets the “a dormant pose” as encompassing a position prior to the rotation and “a sampling pose” as when the sample is being processed as discussed in Pederson.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Scialo with a robotic manipulator system as discussed in Pederson in order to automate the system of Scialo.
Regarding claim 2, a plurality of impactors. (Paragraph [0022])
Regarding claims 3-6, Scialo fails to teach the selectively removable cover includes a magnet configured to magnetically engage with the robotic manipulator system.
Pederson teaches in Figures 1-3 a magnet (170/172) is fixed to the selectively removable cover/sampling head (160).
It would have been obvious to one having oridinary skill in the art to provide the device of Scialo to include a magnet to engage with the robotic sampler in order ensure the cover and the manipulator remain engaged and easily movable when desired.
Regarding claim 12, Scialo fails to teach the system is configured to rotate the impactor along a trajectory tracing a portion of, or a complete circle.
Pederson teaches an annular sample processing device comprising a robotic manipulator system (drive system) configured to rotate a base plate/impactor (110).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Scialo with a robotic manipulator system as discussed in Pederson in order to automate the system of Scialo.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Scialo fails to teach the circle has a diameter selected from the range of 2 cm to of 1000 cm; and wherein: the robotic manipulator system rotates the impactor from a dormant pose into a sampling pose, the impactor has a trajectory characterized by an arc having an arc length selected from 10° to 180°; or the robotic manipulator is configured to provide a trajectory for the sampler(s) having a tolerance for reproducibility of the arc length of less than 30% of the arc length.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Regarding claim 18, the impact surface (130) is oriented horizontally when the impactor is in the sampling position. Fig. 1B
Regarding claim 19, the impact surface (130) is oriented vertically when the impactor is in the dormant position. Refer to rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, a flow system for flowing the fluid through the particle detection device. (Claim 33)
Regarding claim 21, the flow system is coupled to the outlet (520) of the sampling impactor.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Scialo fails to teach a rotor mechanism, wherein the rotor mechanism is configured to engage the plurality of impactors disposed thereon, the impactors being oriented around a rotational axis of the rotor mechanism, wherein the rotor mechanism is configured to rotate about the rotational axis.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Regarding claim 26, each impactor (500) has a bottom surface, opposite the impact surface (130); Scialo fails to teach each impactor is disposed on the rotor mechanism such that the bottom surface of each impactor is oriented toward the rotational axis.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Regarding claim 27, Scialo fails to teach an impactor is rotated into the sampling pose, the impact surface of the impactor is substantially horizontal and facing upwards, and the impactor is located at a highest point on a rotational path traced by the rotor mechanism.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Regarding claims 28, 30 and 32, Scialo fails to teach an impactor is rotated into a dormant position, the impact surface of the impactor is not substantially horizontal and/or not facing upwards.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Regarding claim 37, the impactor base (500), sampling head, or both are optically transparent so as to allow visualization, optical detection or imaging of particles comprising viable biological particles in the growth medium without physically accessing the growth medium. (paragraph [0017])
Regarding claim 41, Scialo fails to teach a mobile robotic platform, wherein the robotic manipulator system is mounted to the mobile robotic platform.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, Scialo fails to teach a mobile robotic platform comprising a navigation system; and a robotic transport system; wherein the navigation system is configured to direct the robotic transport system to move the robotic sampling system from a sampling location to an incubator station.
Pederson teaches rotating of a base plate around a vertical axis by a drive system/robotic manipulator in order manipulate the base plate to different stations including incubating, light sources, sensors, etc. (page 8, Lines 10-18)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive system/robotic manipulator as taught by Pederson in order to automate the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 16 and 33 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights