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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, the applicant argues that ETSCHMAIER does not disclose that the substrate 102 exchanges heat between the first portion of the fluid and the second portion of the fluid. The examiner agrees that ETSCHMAIER fails to directly disclose that the substrate 102 exchanges the heat. Rather ETSCHMAIER teaches that the waste heat from controller 112 can be used to heat the whole system 100. Art rejections do not need to rely on only what the prior art explicitly discloses but rather on what it teaches as a whole to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, since waste heat of the controller is somehow fed back through the system on a whole, it would be inherent that some of that heat would flow into the substrate 102. The substrate being what the controller is mounted on. The same can be said of all the components in the system, that it would be inherent that heat would flow into them from the controller. As thermodynamics goes, the heat would naturally flow from the hotter areas (where the controller is located in the middle of the substrate 102) outwards. This inherently includes passing heat to the beginning of the flow channel prior to the sensor 10.
The applicant argues that if sensor 10 also heats up, heat from the controller would be prevented from passing the “thermal mass” created by the sensor 10 and would not arrive at the first portion of the flow. If the heat from the sensor and microcontroller were the same or the sensor greater, the examiner would agree. However, it is well known in the art that microcontrollers produce much more heat than sensors and this is perhaps why ETSCHMAIER only notes that the heat from microcontroller is used to heat the fluid. So even considering the nature heat created by sensor 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would not be such a great thermal mass as to prevent heat from the controller to pass. Of course, only more complicated thermodynamic equations can determine for sure knowing the exact heat output of both components, the material make up of all components in the system, and the distances between components. But the degree necessary is only within ordinary understanding and in this case one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that heat from the microcontroller is far greater than heat from the sensor and the microcontroller heat would spread throughout the entire system until equilibrium is reached.
With respect to claim 8, the applicant argues that ETSCHMAIER fails to disclose the first sensor with a second sensor arranged downstream preheated with waste heat generated by the first sensor. The examiner still holds that since the heater of ETSCHMAIER is located at the entrance to the flow cell (something important and valued by ETSCHMAIER), if the heater were replaced with the processor (as offered in P.0087), this would locate the processor with optional sensors (P.0089-90, flow sensors, temperature sensors). Optionally, the heater itself located upstream of the second sensor can include a flow sensor (P.0079). In any of these cases, ETSCHMAIER discloses a sensor of some sort located upstream of the optical particulate matter sensor 10. ETSCHMAIER directly notes that waste heat from the controller heats the flow (P.0087) but also it would be inevitable without the controller there as argued before that any type of sensor will produce at least a small amount of waste heat that will affect the flow.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10, the examiner disagrees. The temperature sensor 305 absolutely “determines at least a parameter associated with particulate matter”, that parameter being temperature. The temperature of the flow and temperature of the particulates is not a separable characteristic. Measuring the temperature of the flow is inherently also the temperature of the particulates. Arguendo that somehow they are not the same, the temperature of the fluid that the particulates are flowing within is also “a parameter associated with the particulate matter.”
With respect to the applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to duplicate the optical particulate matter sensor into having two optical particulate matter sensors, the examiner disagrees. Multiplying working components involves only routine skill in the art. Having two optical particulate matter sensors within the flow would provide more information about the flow and result in a larger data set to consider, always a benefit weighed with the costs in each situation. No hindsight is necessary to value the added advantage of having duplicate measurements performed on a sample stream to compare for errors and changes.
With respect to claim 4, the applicant argues bodily incorporation of the feedline and recovery line of Gnauert into the first section and second section of flow of ETSCHMAIER. Prior art is not considered in a cut and paste manner but rather taken as a whole what the art would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art. Gnauert teaches having an outlet tubing section surrounding an inlet tubing section for an environmental sensor and the benefits that would procure. One of ordinary skill having ETSCHMAIER would then seek the benefits of Gnauert and reasonably apply the teaching that the outlet tubing surrounds the inlet tubing. This may involve moving around of other components, added processing or calculating, or other minor changes but does not mean that the combination of teachings are novel.
For this reason, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection stands as previously presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Etschmaier et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0393351.
With respect to claim 1, Etschmaier discloses an integrated particulate matter sensor system comprising:
A sensor device comprising an environmental sensor for determining at least one environmental parameter associated with a sensor gas flow through the sensor device (P.0063)
The sensor device comprising a heat exchanger for exchanging heat between at least a first portion of the sensor gas flow upstream of the environmental sensor and at least a second portion of the gas flow downstream of the environmental sensor, such that the first portion of the sensor gas flow is preheated using waste heat generated by the environmental sensor itself (P.0087, heat exchanger = substrate 102 and cover 120 inherently gathers residual waste heat and lacking any thermal insulation would inherently spread via thermal equilibrium)
It should be noted that the limitation “such that the first portion of the sensor gas flow is preheated using waste heat generated by the environmental sensor itself” does not limit the claim to a particular structure but rather states a desired outcome. A “such that” clause is similar to “wherein” or “whereby” in MPEP 2111.04 that teaches that for a system claim the structure must be present to allow certain conditions to happen but those steps do not need to actually happen for the prior art to render the claim unpatentable. In this case, the structure of ETSCHMAIER allows for the first portion of gas flow to be preheated by waste heat from the sensor itself via a connected substrate 102 and lack of thermal insulation between the flow and components. ETSCHMAIER does not need to explicitly disclose that this happens since the claim is drawn to the apparatus, not method of using it.
With respect to claim 3, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Etschmaier discloses:
An inlet for allowing an inlet gas flow to enter the sensor device, the inlet gas flow forming the first portion of the sensor gas flow (Figure 1, inlet 106)
An outlet for allowing an outlet gas flow to exit the sensor device, the outlet gas flow comprising the second portion of the sensor gas flow (Figure 1, outlet 108)
Wherein the heat exchanger is configured to exchange heat between the inlet gas flow and the outlet gas flow (Figure 1, substrate 102 and cover 120 inherently exchange heat from one end of the device to the other)
It should be noted that the limitation “wherein the heat exchanger is configured to exchange heat between the inlet gas flow and outlet gas flow” does not limit the claim to a particular structure but rather states a desired outcome. A “such that” clause is similar to “wherein” or “whereby” in MPEP 2111.04 that teaches that for a system claim the structure must be present to allow certain conditions to happen but those steps do not need to actually happen for the prior art to render the claim unpatentable. In this case, the structure of ETSCHMAIER allows for the heat to be exchanged between the inlet gas flow and outlet gas flow via a connected substrate 102 and lack of thermal insulation between the flow and components. ETSCHMAIER does not need to explicitly disclose that this happens since the claim is drawn to the apparatus, not method of using it.
With respect to claim 5, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Etschmaier discloses:
Wherein the environmental sensor is a particulate matter sensor for determining at least one parameter associated with the particulate matter in the sensor gas flow (Figure 1, P.0063-64, P.0074, particulate matter size for air quality)
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(s) 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Etschmaier U.S. Publication 2020/0393351.
With respect to claim 8, Etschmaier discloses a particulate matter sensor comprising:
A first environmental sensor for determining at least one environmental parameter associated with a first sensor gas flow through the sensor device (P.0064, P.0068, first environmental sensor = temperature sensor, Figure 1, P.0090)
A second environmental sensor for determining at least one environmental parameter associated with a second sensor gas flow through the sensor device, the second environmental sensor being arranged downstream of the first environmental sensor such that the second sensor gas flow comprises at least a portion of the first sensor gas flow downstream of the first environmental sensor (P.0064, P.0068, second environmental sensor = optical particulate matter sensor 10, P.0087, wherein controller 112 can be substituted for the heater 130 so would be arranged upstream of the sensor 10)
Wherein the second sensor gas flow is preheated using waste heat generated by the first environmental sensor (P.0087)
Etschmaier discloses that the microcontroller 112 in Figure 1 can be substituted for the heater 130 in order to use the waste heat from the microcontroller to heat the sample. Etschmaier also discloses incorporating a temperature sensor in the microcontroller 112 or in the heater 130. The examiner believes the combination of these teachings arrives at the above claims. However, if not, Etschmaier at the very least makes it obvious to incorporate a first sensor prior to the particulate matter sensor and using the waste heat from that element at the first sensor to heat the sample. This arrives at a compact, efficient design that allows for various properties to be measured at once in a fluid sample.
With respect to claim 9, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above. In addition, Etschmaier discloses:
A heat exchanger for exchanging heat between at least a first portion of the second sensor gas flow upstream of the second environmental sensor and at least a second portion of the second sensor gas flow downstream of the second environmental sensor (Figure 1, heat exchanger = cover 120 or substrate 102, wherein inherently the heat from any electronic components are transferred even minorly across the surfaces
Whereby the second sensor gas flow is additionally preheated using waste heat generated by the second environmental sensor (inherent that any optical sensor is going to heat up the sample unless steps are taken to prevent it which are not disclosed in Etschmaier)
With respect to claim 10, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8. In addition, Etschmaier discloses:
Wherein the first environmental sensor is a first particulate matter sensor for determining at least one parameter associated with particulate matter in the first sensor gas flow (P.0064, P.0068, second environmental sensor = optical particulate matter sensor 10)
Wherein the second environmental sensor is a second particulate matter sensor for determining at least one parameter associated with particulate matter in the second sensor gas flow (P.0064, P.0068, first environmental sensor = temperature sensor)
With respect to claim 15, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 10 above. In addition, Etschmaier discloses:
Wherein the second particulate matter sensor is an optical particulate matter sensor comprising a first light source and a first light detector (P.0117, light source 22, detector 24)
wherein the first and second sensors are mounted on a common circuit board (P.0118, common circuit board = PCB substrate 102)
wherein the circuit board is arranged such that the second sensor gas flow upstream of the second particulate matter sensor is in thermal contact with the circuit board (P.0018, wherein both are mounted on the board)
However, Etschmaier fails to disclose the first particulate matter sensor is an optical particulate matter sensor comprising a first light source and a light detector.
Etschmaier discloses the first particulate matter sensor is a temperature sensor but fails to disclose the specifics of the temperature sensor. A temperature sensor often has a light source and light detector (for example U.S. Publication 2004/0131504 and U.S. Publication 2003/0028345). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a light source and detector within the temperature sensor of Etschmaier and to include them as mounted on the common PCB as the other components for a complete and reproducible measurement of the fluid.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to multiply the single optical particulate matter sensor of Etschmaier to create to two optical particulate matter sensors such that the fluid can be measured at two different locations in the flow stream for more complete measurement data that allows more conclusive analysis. It has been held that duplicating working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 16, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above. However, Etschmaier fails to disclose a valve movable between a first state and a second state controlling flow between the first environmental sensor and the second environmental sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a valve between sensors since valves are well known in the art for controlling flows, especially through measurement systems, and by opening and closing the valve, it would be obvious that the flow would start or stop by virtue of pressure changes. This would allow for control over timing of the flow reaching the second sensor, either for the sensor’s sake or for performing extra processing on the sample.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etschmaier U.S. Publication 2020/0393351 in view of Gnauert U.S. Publication 2013/0125624.
With respect to claim 4, Etschmaier discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 3 above. However, Etschmaier fails to disclose the heat exchanger comprises an inlet tubing section arranged between the inlet and the environmental sensor and an outlet tubing section arranged between the environmental sensor and the outlet, the outlet tubing section surrounding the inlet tubing section.
Gnauert discloses a system for measuring aerosols comprising:
A heat exchanger comprises an inlet tubing section arranged between the inlet and the environmental sensor and an outlet tubing section arranged between the environmental sensor and the outlet, the outlet tubing section surrounding the inlet tubing section (Figure 1, heat exchanger = everything below sensor measuring area 26 in Figure 1, inlet tubing section = 12a, outlet tubing = 20a, environmental sensor = 16 + 17 + 18, P.0016)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the overlapping inlet and outlet tubing of Gnauert since this provides a compact arrangement of parts with only a single supply line without requiring mechanical components to move the sample through (P.0010-P.0011)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, 13, 14, 40, and 41 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights