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 .
Drawings
FIG. 5 is objected to because the reference character “16” on the left should be replaced by --15--.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: OBESERVATION MODULE COMPRISING A CHAMBER, A LIGHT SOURCE, OPTICAL TRAPS, AN OPTICAL CELL, AND A PROCESSOR FOR DETECTING A PRESENCE OF AT LEAST ONE PARTICLE OF AN AEROSOL.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7, lines 20-21, “3” after “the preparation module” should be replaced by --2--.
Page 9, line 9, --4-- should be inserted after “the housing”.
Page 9, line 21, --6-- should be inserted after “the first passage”.
Page 10, line 6, --10-- should be inserted after “the device”.
Page 10, lines 20-21, --3-- should be inserted after “the observation module”.
Page 10, line 35, --11-- should be inserted after “the chamber”.
Page 13, line 6, --lateral side-- should be inserted after “first”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to page numbers and line numbers in the substitute specification. The page numbers and line numbers mentioned above refer to the substitute specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) An observation module for a device for detecting [[the]] a presence (a lack of an antecedent basis) of at least one particle of an aerosol in a stream, the observation module comprising at least:
a chamber through which flows, in service, the stream;
a light source able to generate a light beam passing through, in service, the stream, the light source [[being]] comprising a square-fibre laser; and
an optical cell comprising at least one optical sensor for collecting a light emission resulting from an excitation of [[at]] the at least [[the]] one particle of the aerosol by the light beam .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 1, wherein, in service, the stream passes through the chamber substantially vertically.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 1, wherein the light source is arranged such that a general direction of the light beam extends in a direction, which is substantially horizontal.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical sensor is arranged such that an optical axis of the at least one optical sensor extends in a direction, which is substantially horizontal.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical sensor and the light source are arranged such that, respectively, an optical axis of the at least one optical sensor and a general direction of the light beam generated by the light source extends substantially orthogonally to one another.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one optical trap associated with the light source and/or the at least one optical sensor.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 1, further comprising:
a processor for processing information generated by the optical cell.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The observation module according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to characterize the at least one particle of the [[test]] aerosol and/or to carry out a simultaneous counting of the at least one particle of the [[test]] aerosol (a previously recited limitation in claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A device for detecting [[the]] a presence (a lack of an antecedent basis) of at least one particle of an aerosol in a stream, the device comprising:
an observation module according to claim [[1]] 1; and
a preparation module connected to [[said]] the observation module.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 10 and 11 claim an application, which does not fall within at least one of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
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 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saaski et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,267,723 B1) in view of Wolf et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,235,053 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Saaski et al. disclosed an observation module for a device for detecting a presence of at least one particle of an aerosol in a stream (20), the observation module comprising at least:
a chamber (14) through which flows, in service, the stream;
a light source (58) able to generate a light beam (24) passing through, in service, the stream; and
an optical cell (300) comprising at least one optical sensor for collecting a light emission resulting from an excitation of the at least one particle of the aerosol by the light beam.
However, although Saaski et al. disclosed that the light source comprises a laser (column 5, line 56 - column 6, line 16), Saaski et al. did not disclose that the observation module further comprising:
a light source comprising a square-fibre laser.
Wolf et al. disclosed a beam-shaping device for shaping a laser beam, comprising:
a square-fibre laser (column 5, lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a square-fibre laser as the light source, since a person would be motivated to optimize an efficiency of detecting a light emission from particles of the aerosol by shaping the light beam to match a cross-section of the stream.
With respect to claim 2, Saaski et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, wherein, in service, the stream passes through the chamber substantially vertically (Saaski et al.: FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Saaski et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, wherein the light source is arranged such that a general direction of the light beam extends in a direction, which is substantially horizontal (Saaski et al.: FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 4, Saaski et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical sensor is arranged such that an optical axis of the at least one optical sensor extends in a direction, which is substantially horizontal (Walls et al.: FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 6, Saaski et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one optical trap (59) associated with the light source and/or the at least one optical sensor (Saaski et al.: column 6, lines 17-25).
With respect to claim 7, Saaski et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, further comprising:
a processor for processing information generated by the optical cell (Saaski et al.: column 9, line 29 - column 10, line 9; column 11, lines 33-61; column 15, lines 36-49).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walls et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,915,600 B2) in view of Wolf et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,235,053 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Walls et al. disclosed an observation module for a device for detecting a presence of at least one particle of an aerosol in a stream, the observation module comprising at least:
a chamber (120) through which flows, in service, the stream;
a light source (124) able to generate a light beam (108) passing through, in service, the stream; and
an optical cell (128) comprising at least one optical sensor for collecting a light emission resulting from an excitation of the at least one particle of the aerosol by the light beam.
However, although Wallis et al. disclosed that the light source comprises a laser (column 10, line 45 - column 11, line 47), Walls et al. did not disclose that the observation module further comprising:
a light source comprising a square-fibre laser.
Wolf et al. disclosed a beam-shaping device for shaping a laser beam, comprising:
a square-fibre laser (column 5, lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a square-fibre laser as the light source, since a person would be motivated to optimize an efficiency of detecting a light emission from particles of the aerosol by shaping the light beam to match a cross-section of the stream.
With respect to claim 2, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1. However, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. did not disclose that the stream passes through the chamber substantially vertically.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the stream to pass through the chamber substantially vertically, since a person would be motivated to optimize an intensity of the light beam by introducing the stream into the chamber from a different orientation, which does not overlap a path of the light beam.
With respect to claim 3, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, wherein the light source is arranged such that a general direction of the light beam extends in a direction (Walls et al. 132), which is substantially horizontal (Walls et al.: FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical sensor is arranged such that an optical axis (one of 360°) of the at least one optical sensor extends in a direction, which is substantially horizontal (Walls et al.: FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 5, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical sensor and the light source are arranged such that, respectively, an optical axis (y-axis) of the at least one optical sensor and a general direction (Walls et al. 132) of the light beam generated by the light source extends substantially orthogonally to one another (Walls et al.: FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one optical trap (Walls et al. 158) associated with the light source and/or the at least one optical sensor.
With respect to claim 7, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 1, further comprising:
a processor (Walls et al. 190) for processing information generated by the optical cell (Walls et al.: column 16, line 44 - column 17, line 16).
With respect to claim 8, Walls et al. and Wolf et al. disclosed the observation module according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to characterize the at least one particle of the aerosol and/or to carry out a simultaneous counting of the at least one particle of the aerosol (Walls et al.: column 16, line 44 - column 17, line 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prince et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,815,458 B2) disclosed an optical sample analysis including an autofocus functionality.
Clayton et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,047,787 B2) disclosed an optical bench and a method for detecting particles.
Tamura (U. S. Patent No. 10,509,029 B2) disclosed a measurement device and a measurement method.
Saaski et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,274,410 B1) disclosed a detector for detecting particles in a bioaerosol.
Saaski et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,267,723 B1) disclosed a detector for detecting particles in a bioaerosol.
Walls et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,915,600 B2) disclosed devices, systems, and methods for detecting particles.
Pan (U. S. Patent No. 9,448,155 B2) disclosed a system for sampling and/or an analysis of particles in a gaseous environment.
Wolf et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,235,053 B2) disclosed a device and a method for shaping a beam.
Kulkarni et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,970,840 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus for an analysis of an aerosol with optical spectroscopy.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,932,490 B2) disclosed a measurement device for a mass concentration of a size-segregated aerosol.
Falconer (U. S. Patent No. 4,071,298 A) disclosed a laser Raman/fluorescence device for analyzing airborne particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov