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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 6/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s first argument is that Liu does not inherently teach a detection chamber including walls which occlude ambient light; however, this argument is not persuasive. Neither this nor the previous action rely on Liu to explicitly or inherently teach all aspects of the cited limitation. Liu is relied on to teach a detection chamber with walls. Considering the explicit disclosures of FIG. 7 (which shows receiver tube 93 with particle counting instrument 95 affixed, which, in turn, is coupled to minor flow pump 94, with the minor flow moving from receiver tube 93 to particle counting instrument 95 to minor flow pump 94 in that order) and the corresponding text (COL. 5, lines 39-46, which specify that the “minor flow pump 94 is made to draw a minor flow… through a particle counting instrument 95”). It is unclear how a pump could draw (i.e., pull) a flow through a particle counting instrument without some kind of chamber (even just a tube) including some kind of walls (even just the walls of a tube), which would be a detection chamber including walls (as detection takes place in a particle counting instrument). Additionally, relying on implicit disclosure of a reference is permitted. As quoted in MPEP 2144.01, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In the present case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to infer that drawing a concentrated minor flow through a detector to count the (increased) particle concentration would involve a detection chamber including walls to guide the minor flow (allowing the flow to be drawn by the pump) and keep it from mixing with the ambient air (which would unconcentrate the particles that had just been intentionally concentrated), and Applicant has yet to suggest any alternative inference that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to draw. In this and the previous action, Liu is not relied on directly to disclose occlusion of ambient light, as Liu does not disclose whether the materials of the optical particle counter are translucent or not. Instead, occluding ambient light is found to be obvious to prevent degradation that would naturally occur by including stray light from the environment and bolstered by Giering’s analogous choice to take measurements in a naturally dark environment. One of ordinary skill in the art may be inspired by the naturally dark environment favored by Giering while designing an enclosed detection environment like that of Liu to choose materials that render the enclosed detection environment dark (other than intentional illumination from an internal light source), and an obvious way to produce a dark environment is to occlude ambient light. While not strictly relied on in the present action, it may further be noted that Blesener also provides a detection chamber (FIG. 3, optical particle counter chamber 40) including walls which occlude ambient light (FIG. 3, spherical mirror 42, light stop device 39, and housing 37, which would all absorb or reflect ambient light, occluding said ambient light in either case).
Applicant’s second argument is that neither Liu nor Giering teaches an internal light trap; however, this argument is moot. Blesener is relied on to teach an internal light trap.
Request for Rejoinder
Applicant’s request for rejoinder is noted, and the withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder at such a time as the elected claims may be found in condition for allowance. Note, however, that for rejoined claims to be allowed, those claims must meet all requirements for patentability, including under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see MPEP 821.04, third paragraph). The previous action pointed out, invention II, as recited in claim 18, raises questions as to how one would “calculate a dominant wavelength of light emitted by the at least one particle based on a dominant color hue within the located particle area” based on a previously obtained grayscale image or whether the disclosure as originally filed adequately describes or enables such a calculation. Typically, such calculations would be based on some sort of wavelength-filtered image data (as is common in color photography) or wavelength-dispersed image data (as is common in spectrometry).
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) 1-5, 7-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent 4972957) in view of Giering (Non-Patent Literature “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”), further in view of Marple 1 (US patent 4670135) and Blesener (foreign patent publication WO 9010858).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method of suspended particle detection, the method comprising:
receiving, with a multi-stage particle concentrator (FIG. 1, particle concentrating sampler and collector 10), an aerosol comprising particles suspended within a bulk gas, the aerosol having a first concentration indicative of count of particles per unit volume of the bulk gas (abstract, which discusses concentrating particles to obtain a sufficient number of particles measured without sampling too large a volume of air); and
concentrating, with the multi-stage particle concentrator, the aerosol to generate a particle-rich stream of gas comprising at least one particle, the particle-rich stream of gas having a second concentration greater than the first concentration (FIG. 7, minor flow sent to minor flow pump via particle counting instrument 95 which would comprise a detection chamber. Note COL. 2, lines 65-68, which points out that FIG. 7 is a schematic representation of the device of FIG. 1.), wherein concentrating the aerosol comprises:
concentrating the aerosol in a first stage comprising a nozzle to generate an intermediate stream of gas (FIG. 1, receiver tube 27, together with inlet nozzle 17 and outlet orifice 18); and
further concentrating the intermediate stream of gas in a second stage downstream of the first stage to generate the particle-rich stream of gas, the second stage comprising a second set of nozzles arranged in series with the first stage (FIG. 1, using second stage impactor housing 32);
irradiating the at least one particle in the particle-rich stream of gas with a light source of a certain wavelength (FIG. 7, particle counting instrument 95. Also see COL. 5, lines 46-48, the particle counting instrument can be an optical counter. An optical counter will necessarily rely on an optical signal (i.e., light), which will inherently come from a light source and be of at least one wavelength) in a detection chamber, the detection chamber including detection chamber walls (FIG. 7 shows the minor flow passing through the particle counting instrument 95 on its way to the minor flow pump 94. COL. 5, lines 36-48 describe that the minor flow pump draws (i.e., pulls) the minor flow through the particle counting instrument. In order to draw the particle-enriched minor flow through the particle counting instrument 95, as disclosed by Liu, rather than the alternatives contrary to Liu of drawing air from the environment or drawing it around or past rather than through the particle counting instrument 95, the particle counting instrument 95 would need an enclosed space (i.e., a detection chamber) through which the minor flow would flow, enclosed by some type of enclosing structure (i.e., detection chamber walls)).
While Liu does not explicitly state that the materials used to enclose the minor flow as it goes through the particle counting instrument occlude ambient light, going out of one’s way to choose translucent materials would degrade the signal-to-noise ratio of an optical particle counter (is a change in light falling on the detector caused by a particle or by changes in ambient lighting?) or require features not in evidence to mitigate or prevent that degradation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Liu to have used walls that occlude ambient light rather than walls that do not occlude ambient light to gain the predictable benefit of improving signal-to-noise ratio in the optical measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Liu does not explicitly teach capturing image data relating to the at least one particle with an image sensor.
In the same field of endeavor of detecting, counting, and characterizing suspended particles and reasonably pertinent to the goal of identifying and analyzing those particles in image data (see FIG. 12 of the present disclosure), Giering does teach a detection region from which ambient light is occluded (page 3, first paragraph, a 658 nm solid state diode laser is used as illumination. Light with wavelengths near 658 nm is occluded by ocean water at depths below a few meters, much shallower than most of Giering’s measurements, though performing measurements deep underwater is far from the only way known to block ambient light) and capturing image data relating to the at least one particle with an image sensor (page 3, first paragraph, holographic image records). By using imaging techniques in an ambient-light-occluded environment, Giering is able to not just count particles, but also characterize their shape and size, yielding more information about the particles suspended in the medium, all while maintaining a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating virtual compactor and optical particle counter of Liu with the imaging techniques of Giering to better characterize the particles suspended in the aerosol sampled in terms of size, shape, or other identifying information.
Liu does not explicitly teach that the first stage comprises a first set of nozzles arranged in parallel.
In the same field of endeavor of particle concentrators, Marple 1 does teach that the first stage comprises a first set of nozzles arranged in parallel (COL. 2, lines 6-9, which describe using multiple inlet nozzles in a virtual impactor apparatus). By using multiple inlet nozzles, Marple 1 is able to increase the flow rate while keeping the flow through each individual nozzle at a reasonable value (COL. 2, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating virtual compactor and optical particle counter of Liu, as modified by Giering, by using multiple inlet nozzles on the device in the manner of Marple 1 to increase the total flow rate that can be handled by the device without increasing the flow of the air through each nozzle too much.
Liu does not explicitly teach an internal light trap configured to prevent reflection of irradiated light back into the detection chamber.
In the same field of endeavor of optical particle detectors utilizing impactors, Blesener does teach an internal light trap configured to prevent reflection of irradiated light back into the detection chamber (FIG. 3, light stop device 39, described on page 13, lines 20-23, and page 13, line 28 through page 14, line 12. Note that references to “surface 39” may have been intended to refer to the surface labeled 46 in FIG. 3, but that the surface labeled 46 is part of light stop device 39, rendering the distinction largely moot). By including a light stop device, Blesener is able to control stray light in the detection chamber (page 13, lines 28-30), which combined with a light-absorbing coating on housing 37 (page 14, lines 8-20) and a housing 90 which prevents stray/ambient light from entering the system (page 13, lines 25-27), reduces stray or background light, which is important to increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (page 14, lines 23-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating virtual compactor and optical particle counter of Liu, as modified by Giering and Marple 1, by including a light trap like that of Blesener to prevent light from the particle detector from being improperly reflected onto the detector from the walls of the housing in order to reduce the background light on the detector and improve signal-to-noise ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Liu does not explicitly teach obtaining a frame of grayscale image data comprising luminance values of image data captured by the image sensor or camera;
analyzing the image data in the frame to identify at least one particle captured in the frame, wherein analyzing the image data comprises:
identifying pixels having luminance values that satisfy a threshold; and
determining particle contours of the at least one particle based on the identified pixels; and
generating at least one of quantitative or qualitative information for the at least one particle based at least partially on the analyzing of the image data.
In the same field of endeavor of detecting, counting and characterizing suspended particles, Giering does teach obtaining a frame of grayscale image data comprising luminance values of image data captured by the image sensor or camera (page 3, first paragraph, final sentence. Note that a monochrome image is the same as a grayscale image in that neither distinguishes between different wavelengths of light.);
analyzing the image data in the frame to identify at least one particle captured in the frame (FIG. 1 as a whole, using Planktonator software to identify particles), wherein analyzing the image data comprises:
identifying pixels having luminance values that satisfy a threshold (FIG. 1 (b), Otsu threshold); and
determining particle contours of the at least one particle based on the identified pixels (FIG. 1 (e), contour calculation); and
generating at least one of quantitative (introduction, second paragraph, particle size) or qualitative information (introduction, second paragraph, particle shape) for the at least one particle based at least partially on the analyzing of the image data (introduction, second paragraph). By processing image data in this way, Giering is able to distinguish particles from one another in images containing suspended particles in order to determine their concentration, shape, and size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating aerosol particle counter of Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, with the image processing techniques of Giering in order to gain the benefit of characterizing not just the number of particles, but also discover qualitative and quantitative information about the particles suspended in the fluid under test.
Regarding claim 3, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that concentrating the aerosol comprises:
receiving at least a portion of the bulk gas into at least one first stage inlet nozzle of the particle concentrator (FIG. 1, inlet nozzle 17);
outputting a particle-lean stream of gas as a major flow stream from a first outlet of the first stage of the particle concentrator (FIG. 1, conduit or line 78, which is directed to major flow pump 80); and
outputting the particle rich-stream of gas as a minor flow stream from a second outlet of the second stage of the particle concentrator (FIG. 1, line 65, which is directed to minor flow pump 66).
Regarding claim 4, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 3 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that a ratio of a volumetric flow rate of the particle-lean stream of gas to a volumetric flow rate of the particle-rich stream of gas is in a range of from 10:1 to 1000:1 (Liu teaches various ratios in this range, including 19:1 (95% major flow and 5% minor flow. COL. 1, lines 40-41) and 99:1 or higher (99% major flow and 1% minor flow. COL. 5, lines 32-35)).
Regarding claim 5, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that concentrating the aerosol further comprises powering a blower positioned outside of the particle concentrator (FIG. 1, note that both the minor flow pump 66 and the major flow pump 80 are positioned outside of outer housing assembly 11) , and wherein the blower causes at least a portion of the bulk gas to be received by an inlet of the particle concentrator and causes the particle-rich stream of gas to be available at an outlet of the particle concentrator (COL. 1, lines 31-41).
Regarding claim 7, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that the multi-stage particle concentrator is a concentrating virtual impactor (CVI) device (COL. 1, section “Field of the Invention”) that performs an inertia-based preferential particle separation (COL. 1, lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 8, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 7 (as described above).
Liu further teaches preferentially separating particles, wherein preferentially separating particles comprises: causing a majority of particles in the aerosol which have a maximum dimension that is above a particle size cut point in the aerosol to enter the particle-rich minor stream of gas (COL. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 8 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that the particle size cut point is 1 (±0.5) micrometer or larger (COL. 2, lines 7-10, which includes 1 micrometer and allows for sizes larger and smaller).
Regarding claim 10, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 3 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that concentrating the aerosol comprises passing the bulk gas through a first nozzle of the first set of nozzles of the first stage (FIG. 1, inlet nozzle 17), receiving the minor flow stream at a first receiving tube of the first stage (FIG. 1, receiving tube 27), and ejecting the major flow stream at a major flow exit from the first stage (FIG. 1, annular passageway 30, accessed via passageways 28, which are also shown, for example, in FIG. 3), wherein the minor flow stream is the intermediate stream of gas and the major flow stream is the particle-lean stream of gas (COL. 1, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 11, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 10 (as described above).
Liu further teaches that the major flow exit surrounds the receiving tube (COL. 3, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 17, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
While Liu is silent as to the overall size of the device, so does not explicitly teach that the multi-stage particle concentrator has a maximum dimension of less than 150 millimeters, mere changes in size or proportion generally do not patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating aerosol particle counter of Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, by building the device at a scale such that the particle concentrator has a maximum dimension of less than 150 mm.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent 4972957) in view of Giering (Non-Patent Literature “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”), Marple 1 (US patent 4670135), and Blesener (foreign patent publication WO 9010858), further in view of ebm-papst (Non-Patent Literature “Operating instructions R1G190-AC37-52”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 5 (as described above).
Liu is silent as to the amount of power used by the blower.
In the same field of endeavor of moving air using a blower, ebm-papst does teach that powering the blower comprises providing power to the blower in a range of from 10 watts to 300 watts (page 5, table 3.2 lists nominal power of consumption 80 watts, which is in a range of from 10 watts to 300 watts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have built the concentrating aerosol particle counter Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, with the 80-watt blower of ebm-papst to provide an off-the-shelf solution to producing the air movement required to operate the aerosol particle concentrator of Liu.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent 4972957) in view of Giering (Non-Patent Literature “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”), Marple 1 (US patent 4670135), and Blesener (foreign patent publication WO 9010858), further in view of Marple 2 (Non-Patent Literature “Diesel Exhaust/Mine Dust Virtual Impactor Personal Aerosol Sampler: Design, Calibration and Field Evaluation).
Regarding claim 13, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Liu does not explicitly teach performing a first-pass preseparation to remove a majority of particles which have a maximum dimension above a second particle size cut point desired for concentration enhancement.
In the same field of endeavor of virtual impactors for separating particles by size for air sampling, Marple 2 teaches performing a first-pass preseparation to remove a majority of particles which have a maximum dimension above a second particle size cut point desired for concentration enhancement (FIG. 2, respirable cut classifier). By using a preseparation, Marple 2 is able to remove nonrespirable particles that are not of interest before further separating the particles by size using a virtual impactor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating aerosol particle counter of Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, with the preseparation of Marple 2 in order to remove large particles that are not of interest before passing the remaining sample, including particles of interest into the concentrating aerosol particle counter to make the analysis of the particles of interest easier.
Regarding claim 14, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, Blesener, and Marple 2, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 13 (as described above).
While Marple 2 does not explicitly define the size of particles removed by the preseparation, Liu does list a particle size cut point of 10 micrometers or larger as an option for separating particles by size (COL. 2, lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating aerosol particle counter of Liu, as modified by Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, Blesener, and Marple 2, through routine optimization to choose a particle size cut point listed by Liu for the preseparation in order to separate particles of interest from particles not of interest, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, Blesener, and Marple 2, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 13 (as described above).
Marple 2 teaches that performing the first-pass preseparation comprises performing an inertia-based separation in the multi-stage particle concentrator (the cyclone separator used to remove nonrespirable particles is a type of inertia-based separation. See paragraph 3 of the introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating aerosol particle counter of Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, Blesener, and Marple 2, to use generally the same type of preseparation as Marple 2, an inertia-based cyclone separator.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent 4972957) in view of Giering (Non-Patent Literature “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”), Marple 1 (US patent 4670135), and Blesener (foreign patent publication WO 9010858), further in view of Linke (Non-Patent Literature “Additive manufacturing, explained”).
Regarding claim 16, Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Liu does not teach that the multi-stage particle concentrator is formed by an additive manufacturing process.
In the same field of endeavor of producing mechanical devices, Linke teaches using additive manufacturing to form functional objects (section “What is additive manufacturing?”, paragraph 3, penultimate sentence). Linke teaches that additive manufacturing can reduce costs (page 1, section “Why It Matters”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the concentrating virtual compactor of Liu, as modified by Giering, Marple 1, and Blesener, using additive manufacturing as taught by Linke, motivated by a desire to reduce costs.
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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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 SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights