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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word limit. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 26 lacks a space between “wherein” and “the”
claim 1 recites “produce spectral” in line 3 of part d), should read “spectra”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 15-21, 23, 25-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00830?ref=article_openPDF).
As to claim 25, Zheng teaches a method for analyzing a gaseous sample in respect of a composition of the particles contained in the sample (Abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
sucking in the gaseous sample using a suction (pg. 6230 Col. 2 teaches the particulate sample was collected an air sampling pump (Model: GilAir Plus))
separating the particles contained in the gaseous sample on the basis of a diameter of the particles using a separator for separating the particles (pg. 6230 Col. 2 teaches filters with various pore sizes);
collecting the particles using a collector for collecting the particles (pg. 6230 Col. 1 “Experimental Section- Approaches for Raman Measurement of Aerosol” teaches collection of particulate sample on filter);
analyzing the particles contained in the gaseous sample on the basis of the diameter of the particles using a sensor, the sensor operating on the basis of Raman scattering (pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches use of Raman spectrometer);
producing spectra by way of the sensor (Fig. 3, pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches collecting Raman spectra); and
evaluating the spectra by virtue of the spectra being compared with reference spectra via an evaluator for evaluation purposes (pg. 6231 “Calibration Methods” and pg. 6327 “Measurement of workplace samples)).
As to claim 15, the subject matter of claims 25 and 15 relate in that the technical features of method claim 25 are in each case suitable for implementing the apparatus of claim 15, therefore the apparatus is inherent, in view of the method claim 25.
As to claim 16, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15 wherein the suction includes a fan or a pump ((pg. 6230 Col. 2 teaches the particulate sample was collected an air sampling pump (Model: GilAir Plus)).
As to claim 17, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15 wherein the suction is configured to convey a gas volume of 8-10 l/min (pg. 6236 teaches flow samplers enabling up to 10 L/min can be used.
As to claim 18, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15 wherein the separator is configured to separate the particles according to an aerodynamic diameter, the separator being in the form of an inertial separator or cyclone separator (pg. 6231 Col.2 “Analysis of Workplace Samples” teaches personal sampling cyclone).
As to claim 19, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15 wherein the separator is configured to separate the particles according to their geometric diameter, the separator for separating the particles being in the form of a filter (pg. 6230 Col. 2 teaches filters with various pore sizes).
As to claim 20, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15 wherein the collector is in the form of a filter (pg. 6230 Col. 1 “Experimental Section- Approaches for Raman Measurement of Aerosol” teaches collection of particulate sample on filter).
As to claim 21, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15, wherein the sensor for analyzing the particles is arranged at a distance d from the device for collecting the particles, the distance d being in a range from 1 to 50 mm (pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches a working distance of 8.8mm).
As to claim 23, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15 wherein the reference spectra describe different forms of silicon dioxide (pg. 6231 “Calibration Methods” teaches calibration aerosol is made of silica and spectra were taken, further “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims " In re Otto, See MPEP 2115).
As to claim 26, the combination teaches the method as recited in claim 25 wherein the comparison between the spectra and the reference spectra is implemented by way of correlation, machine learning or a peak search (Fig. 9 shows Raman shift data comparing peaks).
As to claim 28, the combination teaches the sensor device as recited in claim 27 wherein the illuminator has a bandwidth of the order of I nm or less with (pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches laser with wavelength of 785nm) , at the same time, luminous fluxes (laser inherently produces luminous fluxes) and homogeneous illumination (single wavelength excitation laser 785nm).
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.
Claims 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00830?ref=article_openPDF) in light of WO2006138375A2 (Tuchman).
As to claim 24, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15.
Zheng teaches is silent to: wherein the device is in the form of a body-worn device for a user.
However, Tuchman teaches a personal dust monitor worn by workers capable of detecting and/or quantitating particulates in an environment, such as particulate concentration in ambient air, and identifying and/or quantitating at least one component of the collected particulates [003].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zheng to be worn on the user as suggested by Tuchman in order to monitor dust exposure levels in their work area to avoid health problems and so the presence of injurious materials in the dust can be determined [003].
As to claim 27, the combination teaches a sensor device (pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches portable Raman spectrometer (i-Raman)) for analyzing a gaseous sample in respect of a composition of the particles contained in the sample, the sensor comprising:
an illuminator (pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches laser) and an imaging optical unit or an optical sensor (pg. 6231 Col. 2 teaches the Raman spectrometer has a spectral resolution of 3.5 cm^-1, an objective, and that spectra were collected, therefore, it is inherent an imaging optical unit or optical sensor is required for the method described).
The combination is silent to: a slit; a dispersive element.
However, Tuchman teaches a sensor device ([072] teaches spectrometer) for analyzing a gaseous sample in respect of a composition of the particles contained in the sample, the sensor comprising:
an illuminator ([072] teaches light source);
a slit [072]; a dispersive element ([072] teaches prism); and an imaging optical unit or an optical sensor ([072] teaches light detector).
These components are well known in the field and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the slit and the dispersive element in order to control the amount of light received and separate the light into its spectral components for better analysis.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00830?ref=article_openPDF) in light of WO2006138375A2 (Tuchman) and US20080180661A1 (Brown).
As to claim 29, the combination teaches the sensor device as recited in claim 27.
The combination is silent to: further comprising a filter, the filter being in the form of a notch filter.
However, Brown teaches a photometric analyzer for in-situ industrial process monitoring applications which can measure chemical mixtures made up of one or several solid, liquid, or gaseous analytes and uses Raman scattering [0011] and notch filters [0021].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the notch filter of Brown in order to extract targeted spectral bands from the return signal corresponding to specific chemicals of interest [0021].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Maya Hendija whose telephone number is (571)272-0269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:00-16:00 (MST).
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.
/MAYA HENDIJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877