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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2 of Remarks, filed 09/11//2025, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 35 under USC § 102 in light of the amendments have been fully
considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon
further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lancelin and Bermpohl as explained below.
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 15-21, 23, 25-26, 30-31 and 33 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 US 20020146351 A1 (Lancelin).
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 downstream from the separator using a collector (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)).
Zheng is silent to: separating the particles contained in the gaseous sample on the basis of a diameter of the particles into a first group of the particles with a diameter different from a second group of the particles using a separator for separating the particles; and
collecting the first group of the particles downstream from the separator using
However, Lancelin teaches separating the particles contained in the gaseous sample on the basis of a diameter of the particles into a first group of the particles with a diameter different from a second group of the particles using a separator for separating the particles (abstract, [0012]); and
collecting the first group of the particles downstream from the separator (abstract, [0012]).
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 prior art of Zheng to include the separating and collecting of particles of different sizes as suggested by Lancelin in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring particles of specific diameter ranges only are analyzed.
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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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.
Zheng teaches: 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 30, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15.
Zheng teaches: wherein the separator is a cyclone separator and the collecting device is a filter (pg. 6231 Col.2 “Analysis of Workplace Samples” teaches personal sampling cyclone, pg. 6230 Col. 1 “Experimental Section- Approaches for Raman Measurement of Aerosol” teaches collection of particulate sample on filter).
As to claim 31, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 30.
As to claim 33, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 20.
As to claims 30, 33, the combination is silent to: wherein the filter has a pore size smaller than the diameter of the first group of particles.
However, Zheng teaches filters of multiple pore sizes (See page 6230 Col. 2, 2nd parag.), therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a filter with a smaller pore size than the first group of particles in order to ensure the particles of a particular diameter/ diameter range are successfully collected.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Lancelin in light of WO2006138375A2 (Tuchman).
As to claim 24, the combination teaches the device as recited in claim 15.
Zheng 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 combination 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].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Lancelin in light of US 20150247187 A1 (Bermpohl).
As to claim 32, the combination teaches the method as recited in claim 30.
The combination is silent to: wherein the filter is made of nitrocellulose.
However, Bermpohl teaches a nitrocellulose filter [0032].
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 filter be made of nitrocellulose in order to yield the predictable result of increasing the particle trapping quality.
Conclusion
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 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 Maya Hendija whose telephone number is (571)272-0269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-16:00 (PST).
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
Prosecution Insights