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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments on the Prior Art Rejections:
a) Applicant argued pages 6-7 that the combination of Potyrailo et al ("Potyrailo") and Wichmann et al (Wichmann) does not teach the feature “the attenuating filter located between the laser and the flow cell reduces the intensity of laser light that is re-directed from the flow cell into the laser" as recited in amended claims 1 and 17.
b) Applicant argued page 7 that Potyrailo, Wichmann, and Rodier fails to teach the element of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9.
c) Applicant argued page 7 that Potyrailo, Wichmann, and Lu fails to teach the element of independent claims 1, 17, and dependent claims 11 and 22.
d) Applicant argued pages 7-8 that Potyrailo, Wichmann, and Goradia fails to teach the element claims 1 and 17 and dependent claims 12-16 and 20.
Applicant argued page 8 that Potyrailo, Wichmann, and Bates fails to teach the element of independent claim 17 and dependent claim 21.
Examiner's answer:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
a) The Office Action has shown clearly that the asserted both of Potyrailo and Wichmann references teach or suggest "each and every element" of claimed invention (See OA, claims 1 and 17).
It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, as stated in the previous Office action, both of Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses clearly the claimed language of the present invention recited as in claims 1 and 17 with feature “the attenuating filter located between the laser and the flow cell reduces the intensity of laser light that is re-directed from the flow cell into the laser” and “the reference number 14 refers to particle-emitted radiation and is not a re-directed laser light” as required by the present claims (See below OA, claims 1 and 17).
Such as, Potyrailo teaches clearly the claimed language of the present invention, in figures 1-2, an optical particle counter (32 @ figure 2) for detecting particles (44 @ figure 2) in a liquid dispersion (claim 3 and paragraph [0024]) comprising: an attenuating filter (42 @ figure 2) located between the laser (38 @ figure 2) and the flow cell (36 @ figure 2) adapted to reduce the intensity of the laser light (40 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0036]: e.g., a light source 38 to generate light 40, which is then filtered by using a first filter 42. In one embodiment, the first filter 42 may be employed to filter out some of the wavelengths of the light 40 “reducing light” which may not be required to interact with the biological particles 44 to obtain the signature of the biological particles 44) as the laser light passes from the laser (38 @ figure 2) to the flow cell (36 @ figure 2). Therefore, Potyrailo teaches clearly the attenuating filter (42 @ figure 2) for reducing the intensity of the light 40 in figure 2.
Potyrailo discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the intensity of laser light that is re-directed from the flow cell into the laser. However, Wichmann teaches clearly, in figures 1-2, that it is known in the art to provide a CW laser module (18 @ figures 1-2) having laser (36 @ figure 2) for generating the intensity of a laser light (10 @ figures 1-2) to a particle (12 @ figure 1) that is re-directed radiation light (14 @ figure 1) from the particle (12 @ figures 1-2) of the flow cell (28, 30 @ figure 3) into the laser (10 @ figures 1-2). Therefore, Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention.
Thus, both of Potyrailo and Wichmann references teach the same function/structure on the claimed invention of the Present Invention for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas. Thus, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the (Potyrailo and Wichmann) references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, when the references are considered in combination, the recitation of the claims would have been obvious as suggested. Therefore, Potyrailo and Wichmann combination met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention.
As response to the argument b), c), and d) as following: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both of Potyrailo, Wichmann, Rodier, Lu, Goradia, and Bates references teach the same function and/or structure on the claimed invention of the Present Invention for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas. Thus, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the (Potyrailo, Wichmann, Rodier, Lu, Goradia, and Bates) references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, when the references are considered in combination, the recitation of the claims would have been obvious as suggested. Therefore, Potyrailo, Wichmann, Rodier, Lu, Goradia, and Bates combination met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention.
For the reasons set forth above the arguments, it is believed that the rejection of the claims 1- 22 under 35 U.S.C 103 is proper.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo et al (US 2008/0003665 hereinafter "Potyrailo") in view of Wichmann et al (DE 102017218084 A1 herein after "Wichmann").
Regarding claims 1 and 17; Potyrailo discloses an optical particle counter (32 @ figure 2) for detecting particles (44 @ figure 2) in a liquid dispersion (claim 3 and paragraph [0024]) comprising:
a flow cell (36 @ figure 2) adapted to contain a flow of liquid dispersion (figures 2-3);
a laser (38 @ figure 2) that generates a beam of laser light (40, 46 @ figure 2) directed at the flow cell (36 @ figure 2);
an attenuating filter (42 @ figure 2) located between the laser (38 @ figure 2) and the flow cell (36 @ figure 2) adapted to reduce the intensity of the laser light (40 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0036]: e.g., a light source 38 to generate light 40, which is then filtered by using a first filter 42. In one embodiment, the first filter 42 may be employed to filter out some of the wavelengths of the light 40 which may not be required to interact with the biological particles 44 to obtain the signature of the biological particles 44) as the laser light passes from the laser (38 @ figure 2) to the flow cell (36 @ figure 2); and
an optical detection system (26, 28, 30 @ figure 2) for detecting laser light (47 @ figure 2) that exits the flow cell (36 @ figure 2). See figures 1-5.
PNG
media_image1.png
631
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
631
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Potyrailo discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the intensity of laser light that is re-directed from the flow cell into the laser. However, Wichmann teaches that it is known in the art to provide for a CW laser module (18 having a laser light 10 emitting laser 36 and at least reducing collimating lens 38) for reducing the intensity of laser light (14 @ figures 1-2) is re-directed from the flow cell (12 @ figures 1-2) into the laser (10 @ figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with the intensity of laser light that is re-directed from the flow cell into the laser as taught by Wichmann for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas.
Regarding claims 2 and 18; Potyrailo discloses the filter (42 @ figure 2) reduces the intensity of the laser light (40 @ figure 2) that passes through the filter (42 @ figure 2).
Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the intensity of the laser light reducing at least 50 percent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with the intensity of the laser light reducing at least 50 percent for the purpose of improving to measure the particles in the chamber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 3 and 19; Potyrailo discloses the optical detection system (32 @ figure 2) comprises an optical detector (26 @ figure 2) that receives the laser light (40 @ figure 2) that passes through the flow cell (36 @ figure 2), and is adapted to detect a reduction in intensity of the laser light (47 @ figure 2) caused by a particle (44 @ figure 2) in a liquid dispersion passing through the laser light (40 @ figure 2).
Regarding claim 6; Potyrailo discloses the flow cell (36 @ figure 2) is a micro flow cell. Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the flow cell includes a channel having a 0.4 mm X 1.5 mm depth and width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with the intensity of the laser light reducing at least 50 limitation above for the purpose of improving to measure the particles in the chamber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7; Potyrailo discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the laser is a semiconductor laser. However, Wichmann teaches that it is known in the art to provide the laser (18, 36 @ figure 2) is a semiconductor laser (e.g., the use of low-cost semiconductor laser elements (laser diodes), which makes the entire particle sensor cheaper and the control of the laser module 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Wichmann for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas.
Regarding claim 8; Potyrailo discloses the laser light (40 @ figure 2) includes electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in a range from 600 to 700 nanometers (paragraph [0041]: e.g., The radiation may include ultraviolet (UV) radiation, infrared (IR) radiation, visible radiation, or a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 10; Potyrailo discloses a liquid dispersion (figure 3, claim 24 and paragraph [0024]: e.g., The particles, such as biological particles, which are to be detected may be air-borne, or dispersed in an aqueous medium inside the detection area) in the flow cell (36 @ figure 2), the liquid dispersion comprising a liquid medium and particles dispersed in the liquid medium (paragraph [0024]).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo in view of Wichmann as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bates et al (US 2021/0404936 herein after "Bates").
Regarding claim 4; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the filter is effective to reduce mode-hopping by the laser compared to a comparable counter that does not include the attenuating filter located between the laser and the flow cell. However, Bates teaches that it is known in the art to provide the filter (112 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0072]: e.g., the optical assembly 112 may include one or more lenses, masks, and/or filters) is effective to reduce mode-hopping by the laser (102 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0168]: e.g., Laser facet spatial mode- hopping is undesirable in an optical particle counting instruments, as the mode-hopping may cause false particle counts) compared to a comparable counter (paragraph [0069]: e.g., A particle may refer to any small object which absorbs or scatters light and is thus detectable by an optical particle counter "100 @ figure 1") that does not include the attenuating filter located between the laser (102 @ figure 1) and the flow cell (106 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Bates for the purpose of improve accuracy for performing the signal/noise test with filtered air.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo in view of Wichmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norton et al (US 2014/0093949 hereinafter "Norton").
Regarding claim 5; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a surface of the filter is oriented at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the beam. However, Norton teaches that it is known in the art to provide a surface of the filter (30 @ figures 3B-3C) is oriented at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the beam (figures 3B-3C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Norton for the purpose of improve the measurement of the emission during the first portion of the excitation light scan.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo in view of Wichmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodier et al (US 2021/0381948 hereinafter "Rodier").
Regarding claim 9; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the laser has a power in a range from 7 to 15 milliwatts. However, Rodier teaches that it is known in the art to provide the laser has a power in a range from 7 to 15 milliwatts (paragraph [0123]: e.g., the laser power at the detector may be in the range of 5-50 mW for the incident beam). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Rodier for the purpose of improving to perform nanoparticle detection utilizing low power lasers enables lower costs and more compact instrumentation, while also eliminating the need for an actively cooled laser.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo in view of Wichmann as applied to claim 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Lu et al (US 2009/0152513 hereinafter "Lu").
Regarding claims 11 and 22; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the liquid dispersion comprises: at least 90 weight percent liquid medium, and less than 10 weight percent dispersed particles, based on total weight liquid dispersion. However, Lu teaches that it is known in the art to provide the liquid dispersion comprises: at least 90 weight percent liquid medium, and less than 10 weight percent dispersed particles, based on total weight liquid dispersion (paragraph [0014]: e.g., the dispersed phase of solid particles and the dispersing medium of liquid are thoroughly mixed, and the volume percentage of the dispersed solid particles in the ER fluid is 5-50%). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Lu for the purpose of improving nano-particles or micro-particles suspended in electrorheological (ER) fluid.
Claims 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo in view of Wichmann as applied to claims 10 and 19 above, and further in view of Goradia et al (US 2018/0128744 hereinafter "Goradia").
Regarding claim 12; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the particles are ceramic particles. However, Goradia teaches that it is known in the art to provide the particles are ceramic particles (paragraph [0005]: e.g., the number of particles (particle count) and the composition of the particles (e.g. metal, oxides, ceramic, hydrocarbon, polymers)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Goradia for the purpose of analyzing a sample of the cleaning solution to determine particle characteristics.
Regarding claim 13; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the particles comprise: silicon oxide (silica), cerium oxide (ceria), zirconia, or alumina. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above for analyzing a sample of the cleaning solution to determine particle characteristics, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14; Potyrailo discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for at least 90 percent of the particles have a particle size below 0.1 micron. However, Wichmann teaches that it is known in the art to provide at least 90 percent of the particles have a particle size below 0.1 micron (the detection of very small particles with a diameter down to a size of a few 10 nm "0.01 µm"). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Wichmann for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas.
Regarding claim 15 and 20; Potyrailo discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the counter is adapted to detect particles of a size greater than 0.5 micron by sensing a reduction in intensity of laser light detected by the optical detection system. However, Wichmann teaches that it is known in the art to provide the counter (32 @ figure 2) is adapted to detect particles of a size (44 @ figure 2) with micron (the detection of very small particles with a diameter down to a size of a few 10 nm "0.01 µm") by sensing a reduction in intensity of laser light (47 @ figure 2) detected by the optical detection system (26, 28 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Wichmann for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas.
Potyrailo in view of Wichmann and Goradia combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for detect particles of a size greater than 0.5 micron. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above for the purpose of improving to measure the particles in the chamber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a method of detecting particles in a chemical mechanical processing slurry. However, Goradia teaches that it is known in the art to provide a method of detecting particles in a chemical mechanical processing slurry (paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Wichmann for the purpose of measuring and determining both the number concentration and the mass concentration of particles in the sample gas.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potyrailo in view of Wichmann and Goradia as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bates et al (US 2021/0404936 herein after "Bates").
Regarding claim 21; Potyrailo in view of Wichmann and Goradia combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the filter is effective to reduce mode-hopping by the laser compared to a comparable counter that does not include the attenuating filter located between the laser and the flow cell. However, Bates teaches that it is known in the art to provide the filter (112 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0072] e.g., the optical assembly 112 may include one or more lenses, masks, and/or filters) is effective to reduce mode-hopping by the laser (102 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0168] e.g., Laser facet spatial mode-hopping is undesirable in an optical particle counting instruments, as the mode-hopping may cause false particle counts) compared to a comparable counter (paragraph [0069] : e.g., A particle may refer to any small object which absorbs or scatters light and is thus detectable by an optical particle counter "100 @ figure 1") that does not include the attenuating filter located between the laser (102 @ figure 1) and the flow cell (106 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical particle counter of Potyrailo with limitation above as taught by Bates for the purpose of improve accuracy for performing the signal/noise test with filtered air.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Yamamoto et al (US 2022/0057317) discloses Laser induced fluorescence (LIF) analysis can be performed by photon counting for basic materials in flow cytometry, microscopy, imaging, and material science.
2) Ellis et al (US 2021/0208054) discloses interferometric detection of particles and optical detection of particles having size dimensions less than or equal to 100 nm.
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 SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
March 21, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877