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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. Applicant’s arguments see pages 10-115-6, filed on 11/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-18 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First: There is no definition for wording “isolated flow output” in current specification. Therefore, this wording is objected. In the other words, the specification must be amended to disclose clearly the definition of the wording “isolated flow output”.
For the purpose of examination, this wording is interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow: “flow output”.
Second: New reference of Chae et al. (5,654,205) discloses the limitations “the first/second particle counter receiving a second portion of the [isolated] flow output” and “a tubular Y-connector”, (figure 2, first counter 28, second counter 30. The connection of tubes 20, 22, 24 is not different from a tubular Y-connector).
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim/Specification Objections
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is no definition for wording “isolated flow output” in current specification. Therefore, this wording is objected. In the other words, the specification must be amended to disclose clearly the definition of the wording “isolated flow output”.
For the purpose of examination, this wording is interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow: “flow output”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 5-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman et al. (Pat. No. 5,247,842) in view of Chae et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,654,205). Hereafter “Kaufman” and “Chae”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaufman teaches an apparatus for calibrating condensation particle counters (figure 1) comprising
a container for supplying test particles (figure 1, container 16);
a pump communicatively connected to the container (figure 1, pump 18, container 16);
a nebulizer communicatively connected to the pump (figure 1, nebulizer 20, pump 18);
a classifier communicatively connected to the nebulizer, the classifier receiving an aerosol input from the nebulizer and providing an [isolated] flow output (figure 1, classifier 50, nebulizer 20, the flow output from classifier 50 to particle counter 52 CPC. Please see the Specification/Claim Objection above);
a first particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier, the first particle counter receiving a first portion of the [isolated] flow output; (figure 1, particle counter 52, classifier 50, t a first portion of the flow output from classifier 50 to particle counter 52 CPC).
However, Kaufman does not teach a second particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier, the second particle counter receiving a second portion of the [isolated] flow output. Chae teaches a second particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier, the second particle counter receiving a second portion of the [isolated] flow output (figure 2, first counter 28, second counter 30. Kaufman has taught the classifier 50 as indicated above, Moreover, Chae’s analyzer 18 is not different from a classifier 50 of Kaufman’s reference. Please see the Specification/Claim Objection above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kaufman by having a second particle counter in order to count different particle (figure 2, first counter 28, second counter 30).
Regarding Claims 2, 5, Kaufman teaches the test particles have a known and constant diameter (column 2, lines 10-11, 47-48; Column 4, lines 21-23; Column 8, lines 48-49). Further, selection of particle size range or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate particle size range for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 6-17, Kaufman and Chae teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for peristaltic pump, nanoparticle nebulizer, Kanomax 9100 nebulizer, ion mobility classifier, annular flow ion mobility classifier, Kanomax 3660 classifier, condensation particle counter, Fast Condensation Particle Counter, Kanomax 3650 Fast CPC, scanning condensation particle counter, Kanomax 36X0 Scanning CPC. Kaufman and Chae do not teach the exact type of nebulizer, pump, classifier, counter, as that claimed by Applicant. However, the type differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular type of the nebulizer, pump, classifier, counter, is anything more than one of numerous type a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 18, Kaufman teaches an apparatus for calibrating condensation particle counters comprising
a container for supplying particles (figure 1, container 16) of a known and constant diameter (column 2, lines 10-11, 47-48; Column 4, lines 21-23; Column 8, lines 48-49);
a pump communicatively connected to the container (figure 1, pump 18, container 16);
a nebulizer communicatively connected to the pump (figure 1, nebulizer 20, pump 18);
a classifier communicatively connected to the nebulizer (figure 1, classifier 50, nebulizer 20);
a first condensation particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier (figure 1, particle counter 52, classifier 50); and
However, Kaufman does not teach a tubular Y-connector receiving an output from the ion mobility classifier, the first/second particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier through the Y-connector. Chae teaches a tubular Y-connector receiving an output from the ion mobility classifier, first/second particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier through the Y-connector (figure 2, first counter 28, second counter 30. The connection of tubes 20, 22, 24 is not different from a tubular Y-connector. Kaufman has taught the classifier 50 as indicated above, Moreover, Chae’s analyzer 18 is not different from a classifier 50 of Kaufman’s reference). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kaufman by having a second particle counter in order to count different particle at different chambers (figures 1, 2, first counter 110, second counter 120. Page 10, claim 1).
Although the Kaufman and Chae does not teach the exact type of nanoparticle nebulizer, ion mobility classifier, as that claimed by Applicant, the type differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular type of the nanoparticle nebulizer, ion mobility classifier is anything more than one of numerous type a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Note: selection of particle size range or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate particle size range for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
6. Claims 3-4, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman et al. (Pat. No. 5,247,842) in view of Chae et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,654,205), further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0177863). Hereafter “Kaufman”, “Chae”, “Zhang”.
Regarding Claim(s) 3-4, Kaufman and Chae teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for protein is selected from a group consisting of Cytochrome, IgGi/PEBG, and PEG 200K. Zhang teaches protein is selected from a group consisting of Cytochrome, IgGi/PEBG, and PEG 200K, ([0961, 1017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kaufman and Chae by having protein being selected from a group consisting of Cytochrome, IgGi/PEBG, and PEG 200K in order to implement inspection with a specific particle.
Regarding Claim 19, Kaufman teaches a system for calibrating condensation particle counters comprising
a. a container for supplying test particles (figure 1, container 16) of a known and constant diameter between 3.6 and 15nm in diameter (column 2, lines 10-11, 47-48; Column 4, lines 21-23; Column 8, lines 48-49);
b. a pump communicatively connected to the container (figure 1, pump 18, container 16);
c, a nebulizer communicatively connected to the pump (figure 1, nebulizer 20, pump 18);
d. a classifier communicatively connected to the nebulizer, the classifier providing an [isolated] flow output (figure 1, classifier 50, nebulizer 20, the flow output from classifier 50 to particle counter 52 CPC. Please see the Specification/Claim Objection above);
e. a first particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier, the first condensation particle counter receiving a first portion of the [isolated] flow output; (figure 1, particle counter 52, classifier 50, t a first portion of the flow output from classifier 50 to particle counter 52 CPC. Please see the Specification/Claim Objection above).
However, Kaufman does not teach a second particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier, the second particle counter receiving a second portion of the [isolated] flow output. Chae teaches a second particle counter communicatively connected to the classifier, the second particle counter receiving a second portion of the [isolated] flow output (figure 2, first counter 28, second counter 30. Kaufman has taught the classifier 50 as indicated above, Moreover, Chae’s analyzer 18 is not different from a classifier 50 of Kaufman’s reference. Please see the Specification/Claim Objection above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kaufman by having a second particle counter in order to count different particle (figure 2, first counter 28, second counter 30).
Although the Kaufman and Chae does not teach the exact type of condensation particle counter, peristaltic pump, annular flow ion mobility classifier, nanoparticle nebulizer, as that claimed by Applicant, the type differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular type of the condensation particle counter, peristaltic pump, annular flow ion mobility classifier, nanoparticle nebulizer is anything more than one of numerous type a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Moreover, although Kaufman does not teach protein test particles, Zhang teaches protein test protein ([0961, 1017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kaufman and Chae by having protein test protein in order to implement inspection with a specific particle.
Note: selection of particle size range or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate particle size range for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
December 17, 2025
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877