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
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 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Aerosol Measurement by Induced Currents” by Fierz et al. (“Fierz”) as listed in IDS dated 5/18/2026.
As for claim 1, Fierz discloses an apparatus for use with a charged aerosol detector (CAD) front-end, the apparatus comprising:
a detection tube or electrode (Fig. 1) configured to receive charged particles, wherein the detection tube or electrode is configured so that charged particles passing through or near the detection tube or electrode induce a counter charge on the detection tube or electrode (see “using Induced Currents”);
a detector configured to detect the counter charge (electrometer; see Fig. 2); and
an outlet (“Conclusions and Outlook”) configured to output the charged particles after passing through or near the detection tube or electrode, wherein the charged particles remain available for further analysis after passing through the outlet (“Conclusions and Outlook”).
As for claim 3, Fierz discloses that the outlet comprises a collection substrate (TEM grid; see “Conclusions and Outlook”) configured to collect the charged particles after passing through or near the detection tube or electrode.
As for claim 4, Fierz discloses a subsequent analysis device configured to receive the charged particles collected on the collection substrate (TEM; “Conclusions and Outlook”).
As for claim 6, Fierz discloses that the outlet comprises an exhaust that allows the particles to pass in real-time to a subsequent analysis device (see Figs. 1 and 2 and “Conclusions and Outlook”).
As for claim 7, the examiner notes that the recited analysis devices are not part of the claimed invention and that the recitation of the analysis devices merely describes the intended use of the claimed invention and does not structurally distinguish over the prior art of Fierz.
As for claim 8, Fierz discloses that the detection tube or electrode, detector, and outlet form a nondestructive CAD module (see Figs. 1 and 2), further comprising a destructive CAD module (TEM grid; “Conclusions and Outlook”).
As for claim 9, Fierz discloses that the destructive CAD module (TEM grid; “Conclusions and Outlook”) is fluidically connected with the outlet so that the nondestructive CAD module and the destructive CAD module are provided in series with each other (implied so that charged particles can be collected; “Conclusions and Outlook”).
As for claim 15, the examiner notes that the claim recites the intended use of the apparatus (i.e. to be used with a front-end comprising the recited structures). However, the intended use of the claimed apparatus does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 17, Fierz discloses a method comprising:
providing a CAD analyte to an inlet of the CAD front-end of claim 1 (see “Instrument Performance: Measurement Range” section);
analyzing the CAD analyte with the detection tube or electrode and the detector (for example; see Fig. 5); and
performing a further analysis on the charged particles output at the outlet (TEM grid; “Conclusions and Outlook).
As for claim 19, Fierz discloses that the detection tube or electrode, detector, and outlet form a nondestructive CAD module (see Figs. 1 and 2), and further comprising providing a destructive CAD module (TEM grid; “Conclusions and Outlook”).
As for claim 20, Fierz discloses switching between the nondestructive CAD module and the destructive CAD module (where switching has been broadly interpreted to include using the TEM grid).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Aerosol Measurement by Induced Currents” by Fierz et al. (“Fierz”) in view of U.S. Patent 3,921,012 issued to Marshall, III (“Marshall”).
As for claim 2, Fierz discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Fierz does not disclose a charge sensitive amplifier configured to receive an input charge corresponding to the detected counter charge and generate an output voltage that is proportional to the input charge.
However, Marshall discloses a charge sensitive amplifier (Abstract) configured to receive an input charge corresponding to a detected charge and generate an output voltage that is proportional to the input charge.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Fierz by including the charge sensitive amplifier as disclosed by Marshall in order to allow provide an accurate digital representation of the measured signal (Marshall: Abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Aerosol Measurement by Induced Currents” by Fierz et al. (“Fierz”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,658,021 issued to Bryden et al. (“Bryden”).
As for claim 5, Fierz discloses the apparatus of claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above).
Although Fierz suggests that different analysis devices can be used to study the particles of the aerosol (“Conclusions and Outlook”), Fierz does not disclose that the subsequent analysis device is a Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer or a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) mass spectrometer (MS).
However, Bryden discloses an analysis device (MALDI-MS; Abstract) that is a Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer or a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) mass spectrometer (MS).
Fierz and Bryden disclose the apparatus and the MALDI mass spectrometer respectively, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the apparatus of Fierz with the MALDI mass spectrometer of Bryden by locating the MALDI mass spectrometer downstream the apparatus so that the apparatus can provide the particles to the MALDI mass spectrometer as suggested by Fierz (Fierz: “Conclusions and Outlook”), and that in combination, the apparatus and the MALDI mass spectrometer merely performs the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Fierz to include the subsequent analysis device of Bryden to achieve the predictable result of providing an analysis device that can identify biological aerosol analytes.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Aerosol Measurement by Induced Currents” by Fierz et al. (“Fierz”) in view of EP 0303533 by Lambard (“Lambard”).
As for claim 13, Fierz discloses the apparatus of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).
Fierz does not disclose a first adapter on the nondestructive CAD module configured to mate with a corresponding adapter on the CAD front-end and a second adapter on the destructive CAD module configured to mate with the corresponding adapter on the CAD front-end.
However, Lambard discloses a first adapter (11) on a CAD module configured to mate with a corresponding adapter on a CAD front-end.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify non-destructive CAD module of Fierz by including the adapter of Lambard on each end of the non-destructive CAD module in order to allow the non-destructive CAD module to be removably attached to other devices.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Aerosol Measurement by Induced Currents” by Fierz et al. (“Fierz”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,491,419 issued to Wikfors et al. (“Wikfors”).
As for claims 14 and 18, Fierz discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 17 (see the rejections of claims 1 and 17 above).
Although Fierz suggests that different analysis devices can be used to study the particles of the aerosol (“Conclusions and Outlook”), Fierz does not disclose a light scattering unit having a light source and a light scattering detector.
However, Wikfors discloses a light scattering unit (152) having a light source and a light scattering detector (col. 9, lines 46-55). Wikfors discloses that non-destructive analysis devices can be located in series (col. 9, lines 32-55).
Fierz and Wikfors disclose the apparatus and the light scattering unit respectively, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the apparatus of Fierz with the light scattering unit of Wikfors by locating the light scattering unit in series with the apparatus as suggested by Fierz (Fierz: “Conclusions and Outlook”) and Wikfors (col. 9, lines 32-55), and that in combination, the apparatus and the light scattering unit merely performs the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Fierz to include the light scattering device of Wikfors to achieve the predictable result of providing an analysis device that can detect compounds.
Fierz as modified by Wikfors does not explicitly disclose that the light scattering unit is provided upstream of the detection tube or electrode.
However, at the time the application was filed, Fierz and Wikfors both recognized a need to include multiple analysis devices in series. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two ways to arrange the light scattering unit and the detection tube in series - with the light scattering unit upstream the detection tube or with the light scattering unit downstream the detection tube. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to try to arrange the light scattering unit upstream the detection tube to achieve the predictable result of providing two techniques for analyzing the aerosol with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 18, the apparatus of Fierz and Wikfors performs the recited method steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 9/9/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 8-13 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 9/9/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 15, 17, 19 and 20 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Fierz does not disclose an apparatus for use with a charged aerosol detector (CAD) front-end. Applicant argues that Fierz does not disclose an HPLC inlet, spray chamber, etc. The examiner notes that the recitation that the apparatus is for use with a charged aerosol detector (CAD) front-end describes the intended use of the apparatus. While the examiner acknowledges that Fierz does not disclose a CAD front-end as described in the instant specification, the examiner’s position is that since the CAD front-end outputs an aerosol, and since the apparatus of Fierz accepts an aerosol as an input, the apparatus of Fierz is capable of being used with a CAD front-end.
On pages 10-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Fierz does not disclose the outlet of claim 1. Applicant argues that Fierz’s description of a TEM grid is a speculative, forward-looking observation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an outlet includes a collection substrate that collects charged particles that have passed through or near the detector (see claim 3). Fierz describes that the charged particles can be collected on a TEM grid. Since the Fierz discloses that TEM grid is after the detection volume, the TEM grid is part of an outlet “arranged as in the claim”, which is required for anticipation. Since this outlet, the detection tube, and the detector are disclosed and as arranged in the claim by Fierz, Fierz anticipates the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights