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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “for separating particles from aerosols for conditioning test aerosols for penetration measurement on filters” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the at least claim 5 has been interpreted as follows:
“a device comprising: a component having an inlet and an outlet for the aerosol; at least one sieve which fills the cross section of the component for impingement and/or impaction of particles from the aerosol, wherein the sieve is formed of wires arranged in parallel or predominantly in parallel, and wherein the sieve has a wire diameter in the range of 20 mm to 50 mm, wherein the component has at least one port for supplying air or removing air in the direction of flow of the aerosol upstream of the sieve or of the inlet for the aerosol.”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariessohn et al (US 20120174650; hereinafter Ariessohn) in view of Gorbunov et al (US 20060081515; hereinafter Gorbunov).
As regarding claim 1, Ariessohn discloses the claimed invention for a method for separating particles from aerosols for conditioning test aerosols (title, abstract and fig. 1), comprising the following steps: a. introducing an aerosol into an aerosol-conducting component (9 of fig. 1) having an inlet (2) and an outlet (6) for the aerosol, b. impingement and/or impaction (particle trap (4) and [0148]) of particles from the aerosol.
Ariessohn discloses the particle trap can be an impactor ([0148]). Ariessohn does not disclose using at least one sieve which fills the aerosol-conducting cross section of the component, wherein the sieve is formed of wires arranged in parallel or predominantly in parallel. Gorbunov teaches using at least one sieve which fills the aerosol-conducting cross section of the component, wherein the sieve (12 of fig. 2) is arranged in parallel or predominantly in parallel. Both Ariessohn and Gorbunov are directed to aerosol particle impacting device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide using at least one sieve which fills the aerosol-conducting cross section of the component, wherein the sieve is arranged in parallel or predominantly in parallel as taught by Gorbunov in order to enhance filtration efficiency.
Ariessohn as modified does not disclose sieve is formed of wires. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide sieve is formed of wires in order to enhance the efficiency of separating particles from an aerosol, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Ariessohn as modified does not disclose wherein the sieve has a wire diameter in the range of 20 mm to 50 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the sieve has a wire diameter in the range of 20 mm to 50 mm in order to enhance the efficiency of separating particles from an aerosol, since 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.
Ariessohn as modified discloses supplying air or removing air in the direction of flow of the aerosol upstream of the sieve or upstream of the inlet for the aerosol (fig. 1).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide supplying air or removing air in the direction of flow of the aerosol upstream of the sieve or upstream of the inlet for the aerosol in order to enhance particle extraction and separation for sampling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 2, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein steps b. and c. are carried out simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein steps b. and c. are carried out simultaneously to improve process efficiency, reduce equipment size, and minimize sampling time, as such simultaneous execution represents a routine design choice in aerosol separation and sampling system.
As regarding claim 3, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein an at least partial mixture of the aerosol and the supply air takes place in step c (22, 12, 13 and 11).
As regarding claim 4, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the inflow velocity of the at least one sieve is in the range of 0.010 to 5 m/s as a result of supplying air or removing air in step c. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the inflow velocity of the at least one sieve is in the range of 0.010 to 5 m/s as a result of supplying air or removing air in step c in order to enhance the efficiency of separating particles from an aerosol, since 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.
Claims 5-6 are likewise rejected for reason analogous to those set forth for claims 1-4 above.
As regarding claim 8, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the wires of the sieve have circular or polygonal cross sections. However, the shape of a structural feature is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
As regarding claim 9, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the sieve consists of a metal or a metal alloy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the sieve consists of a metal or a metal alloy in order to enhance the efficiency of separating particles from an aerosol, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As regarding claim 10, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein a plurality of sieves (Gorbunov - 12) are arranged in succession in the aerosol-conducting component in the direction of flow of the aerosol.
As regarding claim 11, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the sieves (Gorbunov - 12) are arranged such that a wire of a sieve arranged downstream in the direction of flow are each located in the space between two wires, of the sieve arranged upstream, such that the wires of the downstream sieve are located in the flow of the aerosol after the upstream sieve.
As regarding claim 12, Ariessohn as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ariessohn as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an air-conveying device connected to the port for supplying air and an aerosol-conveying device connected to the inlet of the component and/or an aerosol generator are connected to a control device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein an air-conveying device connected to the port for supplying air and an aerosol-conveying device connected to the inlet of the component and/or an aerosol generator are connected to a control device in order to produce aerosols having controlled and stable characteristics in order to improve the accuracy, consistency, and efficiency of particle extraction, separation, and sampling operations, since it was known in the art as shown in Ostraat (US 20200139324; [0029]).
Claims 13-19 are likewise rejected for reason analogous to those set forth for claims 1-4 and 9-10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Bobbly Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773