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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pabari et al. (“Orbital altitude dust at Mars, its implication and a prototype for its detection”).
Regarding claim 1, Pabari et al. disclose an ionized material sample collection device comprising: one or a plurality of container's main bodies that each has a surrounding wall and a bottom wall and has a sample entrance in an upper portion of the surrounding wall (see Fig. 7a; see page 69, section 3, first paragraph going to page 70, detector is a box like structure); a sample impact target that is formed in the bottom portion of each of the container's main bodies (see Fig. 7a, target on bottom of container labeled); and one or more ionized material collection zones that are formed on at least one of the inner surfaces and the bottom surface of the surrounding wall of each of the container's main bodies (Id., electron collector and positive ion collector are labeled and shown on inner surfaces of surrounding wall of container).
Regarding claim 2, Pabari et al. disclose that a plurality of the ionized material collection zones are formed on at least one of the inner surfaces and the bottom surface of the surrounding wall (see Fig. 7a, electron collector and positive ion collector each formed on inner surfaces of surrounding wall), and each of the plurality of ionized material collection zones is an ionized material collection zone which has an affinity for a different element (electron collector has affinity for different elements than positive ion collector).
Regarding claim 3, Pabari et al. disclose that the ionized material collection zone is an ionized material collection zone in which ionized materials generated from particles that have impacted with the sample impact target at a hypervelocity are deposited (see page 72, section 4, “hyper velocity dust particle makes an impact… impact plasma is generated”; see also page 70, first full sentence, “high voltage….to collect electrons and ions generated from the hyper velocity dust impact”).
Regarding claim 9, Pabari et al. disclose that the sample impact target is constituted of an uneven surface (see Fig. 3 and page 70 first full paragraph, impacts create craters in target surface thus resulting in the target having an uneven surface).
Regarding claim 10, Pabari et al. disclose an ionized material collecting method comprising: mounting the ionized material sample collection device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) in a spacecraft (page 69, top of first column, MODEX prototype is proposed which would be used on a Mars oribiter); causing hypervelocity solid microparticles flying from outer space to rush into the container's main bodies (page 72, section 4);causing a mixture of gas substances and ionized substances originating from the solid microparticles generated due to collision of the solid microparticles that have rushed in with the sample impact target to impact with the ionized material collection zones (see Id. and Fig. 7a impact plasma is generated and electrons and ions are collected on electrode collectors); and depositing the mixture of gas substances and ionized substances originating from the solid microparticles on the ionized material collection zones (Id.).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pabari et al. (“Orbital altitude dust at Mars, its implication and a prototype for its detection”).
Regarding claim 6, Pabari et al. do not explicitly disclose what the ionized material collection zone is made of but do teach the zones being negatively and positively charged electrode plates (page 72, section 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the ionized material collection zones of Pabari et al., which are electrodes plates, out of any of various known materials commonly used for electrode plates, including copper or gold. It would have been obvious to have used copper for the plates, because copper is a material known and commonly used for electrodes that provides the advantages of being inexpensive and an excellent conductor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4, Pabari et al. fail to disclose or suggest the ionized material collection zone being an annular ionized material collection zone which has a predetermined width from the bottom wall side to the sample entrance side of the surrounding wall and being formed on the inner surfaces of the surrounding wall or an ionized material collection zone which is formed on the bottom surface, and a plurality of the ionized material collection zones being formed from the bottom surface side toward the sample entrance side.
With regard to claim 5, Pabari et al. fail to disclose or suggest the device comprising a plurality of container's main bodies, wherein each of the ionized material collection zones formed in each container is an ionized material collection zone which has an affinity for a different element.
With regard to claim 7, Pabari et al. fail to disclose or suggest the ionized material collection zone being an annular ionized material collection zone which has a predetermined width from the bottom wall side to the sample entrance side of the surrounding wall and is formed on the inner surfaces of the surrounding wall or an ionized material collection zone which is formed on the bottom surface, and a plurality of the ionized material collection zones being formed from the bottom surface side toward the sample entrance side, and the ionized material collection zone being split into a plurality of split layers in a circumferential direction of the surrounding wall, and each of the plurality of split layers having an affinity for a different element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fletcher et al. (US 3,916,187) and Jyoti et al. (“Mass Spectrometer Calibration of High Velocity Impact Ionization Based Cosmic Dust Analyzer”) both disclose devices for collecting ions from impact of high velocity particles in a container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/PAUL M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855