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 Amendment
The objection regarding the potential objection to claim 10 is withdrawn, as amended claim 9 is patentably distinct from claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the existing rejection does not address all limitations of the amended claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rodier (US 20200355599) in view of Rabadeau (US 3947816) and Mueller (US 3882744).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodier et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20200355599) in view of Dennis et al (United States Patent 5231378) in view of Rabadeau (United States Patent 3947813), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “RDR”.
As to claim 1, Rodier teaches a particle detector system for particle analysis (Abstract “Provided herein are optical systems and methods for detecting and characterizing particles.”), comprising:
a detection chamber (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “flow cell (210)”) for introduction of a fluid stream having particles (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “flow of fluid (150) including particles”);
a light source (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “Optical source (220)”) configured to irradiate the particles across a two-dimensional plane in the detection chamber (paragraph 0024 “One method of increasing the effective scanning area of a beam or laser of an optical particle counter is to rapidly translate the beam through the target flow cell, such that the beam effectively scans a larger cross-sectional area or volume of the fluid being analyzed.”);
a light detector (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “on-axis optical detector array (240)” also paragraph 0082 “side scatter photodetector (268)”) configured to detect either light scattered by particles or light emitted from the particles (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “FIG. 1 provides a schematic of a system for detection of particles via on-axis particle measurement by detection of transmitted and forward scattered light”).
While Rodier teaches increasing the effective scanning area (paragraph 0023 “increasing the effective scanning area of the beam “) and that one method of doing so is by scanning the beam (paragraph 0024 “One method of increasing the effective scanning area of a beam or laser of an optical particle counter is to rapidly translate the beam through the target flow cell, such that the beam effectively scans a larger cross-sectional area or volume of the fluid being analyzed.”), Rodier does not explicitly teach wherein radiation from the light source expands angularly upon entry into the detection chamber. However, it is known in the art as taught by Dennis and Rabadeau.
Dennis teaches a smoke detector (Abstract “A high sensitivity smoke detector”) in which a beam entering a detection area expands angularly (Figure 1, light source 22 emits beam 24 to sampling volume 42, see column 2:43-44 “The light beam 24 passes obliquely across the sampling chamber.” see also 2:41-55), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the radiation entering a detection area expand angularly, in order to increase the size of the detection volume and thereby increasing the chances of detecting minute traces of smoke.
Rabadeau teaches an apparatus for scanning a fan-shaped area with light (Abstract “An omnidirectional optical system is arranged for scanning”), see Figure 1 in which a beam from laser 20 is directed to a rotating mirror 26 and the resulting fan is expanded by lens 32 (column 32:64-65 “fan of light produced by the rotating mirror 26”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scan a fan-shaped area, in order to efficiently turn a beam of light into a sheet of light thereby expanding the area being scanned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the teachings of Dennis to modify the invention of Rodier to have radiation that enters the detection chamber expand angularly and create a fan-shaped detection volume, in order to more effectively scan a larger cross-sectional area or volume, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the teachings of Rabadeau to modify the invention of Rodier as modified by Dennis above, to have the scanning be done by a rotating mirror, in order to expand the area being scanned.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the radiation from the light source expand angularly upon entry into the detection chamber, in order to better analyze a larger detection volume.
As to claim 2, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the two-dimensional plane extends angularly across the detection chamber (in Figure 1A, the beam 222 from source 220 extends through the flow cell 210, and there is inherently an angle between the two elements).
As to claim 3, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the light detector is disposed off axis of the two-dimensional plane (paragraph 0082 “side scatter photodetector (268)”).
As to claim 4, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the light source comprises a laser (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “Optical source (220), such as a laser source”) and optics configured to irradiate the particles along the two-dimensional plane (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “beam steering and shaping system (221)”).
As to claim 5, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the light source comprises a line laser configured to irradiate the particles along the two-dimensional plane (paragraph 0024 discusses taking a laser beam (interpreted to read on the claimed “line laser”) and rapidly translating it across the flow cell to interact with the flowing particles, “One method of increasing the effective scanning area of a beam or laser of an optical particle counter is to rapidly translate the beam through the target flow cell, such that the beam effectively scans a larger cross-sectional area or volume of the fluid being analyzed.”).
As to claims 6 and 7, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the light detector is disposed underneath or above the two-dimensional plane (in Figure 1, off-axis detector 268 is at a different height along the flow cell 210 from on-axis detector 240, so it is either underneath or above the plane created by beam 222, depending on which way one chooses to define “up”).
As to claim 13, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition the fluid stream is a gas stream (paragraph 0022 “The systems and methods of the invention provide detection of particles in flowing fluids” and “the fluid is a liquid or a gas”), and the particles in the gas stream comprise at least one of aerosol particles and smoke particles (paragraph 0062 “Particles can be composed of aggregates of material, such as … smoke”).
Examiner’s Note: MPEP 2114(II) indicates apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Regarding claims 13-18, none of the limitations are directed to altering the structure of Kumar, merely the materials and particles to which the invention of Kumar is applied. As such, prior art that satisfies the structural limitations in the claim, wherein the claimed condition is capable of being satisfied, will be considered applicable even in the absence of a recitation of the claimed limitation.
As to claim 14, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the fluid stream is a gas stream (paragraph 0022 “The systems and methods of the invention provide detection of particles in flowing fluids” and “the fluid is a liquid or a gas”), and the particles in the gas stream comprise toxic particles (paragraph 0062 “Particles can be composed of aggregates of material, such as dust, dirt, smoke, ash, water, soot, metal, oxides, ceramics, minerals, or any combination of these or other materials or contaminants.”).
As to claim 15, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the fluid stream is a liquid stream (paragraph 0022 “The systems and methods of the invention provide detection of particles in flowing fluids” and “the fluid is a liquid or a gas”), and the particles in the liquid stream comprise bacterial particles (paragraph 0062 ““Particles” may also refer to biological particles, for example, viruses, spores and microorganisms including bacteria, fungi, archaea, protists, other single cell microorganisms.”).
As to claim 16, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the fluid stream is a liquid stream (paragraph 0022 “The systems and methods of the invention provide detection of particles in flowing fluids” and “the fluid is a liquid or a gas”), and the particles in the liquid stream comprise viral particles (paragraph 0062 ““Particles” may also refer to biological particles, for example, viruses, spores and microorganisms including bacteria, fungi, archaea, protists, other single cell microorganisms.”).
As to claim 17, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the fluid stream is a liquid stream (paragraph 0022 “The systems and methods of the invention provide detection of particles in flowing fluids” and “the fluid is a liquid or a gas”), and the particles in the liquid stream comprise waste water particles (paragraph 0062 “Particles can be composed of aggregates of material, such as dust, dirt, smoke, ash, water, soot, metal, oxides, ceramics, minerals, or any combination of these or other materials or contaminants.”).
As to claim 18, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches the fluid stream is a liquid stream (paragraph 0022 “The systems and methods of the invention provide detection of particles in flowing fluids” and “the fluid is a liquid or a gas”), and the particles in the liquid stream comprise solids after water filtration (paragraph 0062 “Particles can be composed of aggregates of material, such as dust, dirt, smoke, ash, water, soot, metal, oxides, ceramics, minerals, or any combination of these or other materials or contaminants.”).
As to claim 19, the method would flow from claim 1.
As to claim 20, Rodier teaches a detection chamber (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “flow cell (210)”) for analyzing particles (Abstract “Provided herein are optical systems and methods for detecting and characterizing particles.”), comprising:
a light source (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “Optical source (220)”) configured to irradiate across a two-dimensional plane in the detection chamber (paragraph 0024 “One method of increasing the effective scanning area of a beam or laser of an optical particle counter is to rapidly translate the beam through the target flow cell, such that the beam effectively scans a larger cross-sectional area or volume of the fluid being analyzed.”); and
a light detector (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “on-axis optical detector array (240)” also paragraph 0082 “side scatter photodetector (268)”) configured to measure either light scattered by or light emitted from particles in a fluid stream in the two-dimensional plane (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “FIG. 1 provides a schematic of a system for detection of particles via on-axis particle measurement by detection of transmitted and forward scattered light”).
While Rodier teaches increasing the effective scanning area (paragraph 0023 “increasing the effective scanning area of the beam “) and that one method of doing so is by scanning the beam (paragraph 0024 “One method of increasing the effective scanning area of a beam or laser of an optical particle counter is to rapidly translate the beam through the target flow cell, such that the beam effectively scans a larger cross-sectional area or volume of the fluid being analyzed.”), Rodier does not explicitly teach wherein radiation from the light source expands angularly upon entry into the detection chamber. However, it is known in the art as taught by Dennis and Rabadeau.
Dennis teaches a smoke detector (Abstract “A high sensitivity smoke detector”) in which a beam entering a detection area expands angularly (Figure 1, light source 22 emits beam 24 to sampling volume 42, see column 2:43-44 “The light beam 24 passes obliquely across the sampling chamber.” see also 2:41-55), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the radiation entering a detection area expand angularly, in order to increase the size of the detection volume and thereby increasing the chances of detecting minute traces of smoke.
Rabadeau teaches an apparatus for scanning a fan-shaped area with light (Abstract “An omnidirectional optical system is arranged for scanning”), see Figure 1 in which a beam from laser 20 is directed to a rotating mirror 26 and the resulting fan is expanded by lens 32 (column 32:64-65 “fan of light produced by the rotating mirror 26”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scan a fan-shaped area, in order to efficiently turn a beam of light into a sheet of light thereby expanding the area being scanned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the teachings of Dennis to modify the invention of Rodier to have radiation that enters the detection chamber expand angularly and create a fan-shaped detection volume, in order to more effectively scan a larger cross-sectional area or volume, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the teachings of Rabadeau to modify the invention of Rodier as modified by Dennis above, to have the scanning be done by a rotating mirror, in order to expand the area being scanned.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the radiation from the light source expand angularly upon entry into the detection chamber, in order to better analyze a larger detection volume.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RDR, and further in view of Turman (United States Patent 3802167).
As to claim 8, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches a detection chamber (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “flow cell (210)” and “flow of fluid (150) including particles”).
Rodier as modified by Dennis and Rabadeau above does not teach the fluid stream is passive, whereby the fluid stream is introduced into [a collection] chamber by motion of the particle detector. However, it is known in the art as taught by Turman. Turman teaches a particle sampling apparatus (Abstract “An apparatus, for collecting particles from a gaseous medium”) comprising a flow tube that is attached to the outside of an aircraft (Figure 1) that creates a flow of gas containing particles (Figure 2, column 4:38-40 “that portion of the gaseous medium which is still particle-entrained, generally designated 92”) and directs the flow to sampling instruments (Figure 2, column 4:42 “individual particle collection chamber, such as 71”), wherein the fluid stream is passive (the outside air isn’t moving relative to the motion of the aircraft), whereby the fluid stream is introduced into [a collection] chamber by motion of the particle detector (Figure 1, column 1:16-17 “the apparatus is suitably mounted on, and external of, an aircraft, and is used while the aircraft is in flight” and the cut-away view of Figure 2 shows the invention to be only passive components, indicating the flow must be created by the airplane moving). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the fluid stream be passive, whereby the fluid stream is introduced into [a collection] chamber by motion of the particle detector, in order to
While Turman teaches a particle collection chamber and not a particle detection chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to replace the particle collection & storage elements of Turman with the active particle detection & analysis elements of Rodier, in order to provide real-time information on the particles in the surrounding air.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RDR, and further in view of Kumar et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230045828).
As to claim 9, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches a processor in communication with the light detector (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “The probe beam passes through flow cell (210) and is detected via an on-axis optical detector array (240), such as segmented 1D or 2D optical detectors (240A and 240B) comprising one or more pixel pairs, which is in operation communication with processor (101)”).
As to claim 10, RDR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Rodier teaches a processor (Figure 1A, paragraph 0080 “processor (101)”).
Rodier as modified by Dennis and Rabadeau does not teach that the processor communicates results from the light detector to a remote site. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kumar. Kumar teaches a network of remote sensors (Figure 1A, drones 160) where a drone carries a smoke detector (paragraph 0005 “a smoke detector onboard one of the one or more autonomous drones”) in which the processor communicates results from the light detector to a remote site (Figure 1A, Abstract “dispatch one or more autonomous drones to a location associated with the emergency condition; receive from the one or more autonomous drones, sensor data associated with the emergency condition”, see also paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the processor communicate results from the light detector to a remote site, in order to obtain data about a potentially dangerous situation and be able to make plans accordingly.
As to claim 11, RDR in view of Kumar teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, in addition Kumar teaches the detection chamber is one component of a drone (Kumar teaches carrying a smoke detector (paragraph 0005 “a smoke detector onboard one of the one or more autonomous drones”) and the rejection of claim 10 above combines the particle detector of Rodier onto a drone of Kumar, which obviously has the detection chamber of Rodier (Figure 1, element 210) be a component of a drone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the detection chamber be one component of a drone, in order to make measurements where the drone is (as opposed to taking a sample and then going to wherever the chamber might be located).
As to claim 12, RDR in view of Kumar teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, in addition the detection chamber is one component of a network of sensors (Kumar teaches multiple drones (Figure 1A, elements 160) at least one of which carries a smoke detector (paragraph 0005 “a smoke detector onboard one of the one or more autonomous drones”) as one of multiple sensors (paragraph 0018 “various sensors, such as temperature sensors, smoke sensors, motions sensors, water leak sensor, water flood sensor, intrusion sensors and the like”), and the rejection of claim 10 above combines the particle detector of Rodier onto a drone of Kumar, which obviously has the detection chamber be one component of a network of sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have detection chamber be one component of a network of sensors, in order to better gather additional information about the emergency condition.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877