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
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0020893, filed on 07/07/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the speed of dust particle in the main inlet duct” should be “the speed of the dust particle in the main inlet duct”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20230044367A1) in view of Molaie ("Review of the Newly Developed, Mobile Optical Sensors for Real-Time Measurement of the Atmospheric Particulate Matter Concentration". Micromachines (Basel). 2021 Apr 9;12(4):416. doi: 10.3390/mi12040416.), Kaye (US20160305872A1) and Zhang (US20190368993A1) as evidenced by Jongerius (US20180217042A1).
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches an air quality monitoring device (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a casing (110, Fig. 1) having a main inlet duct formed in a straight line (111a, Fig. 5b) to allow atmospheric air to enter through an inlet at a bottom of the main inlet duct and flow upwards (paragraph [0055] discloses the outside air flows upwards toward the main duct body);
a flow meter located at a top portion of the main inlet duct (170, Fig. 5b) and configured to measure a flow rate of the atmospheric air (paragraph [0056] discloses the flow fan is providing with a flow meter capable of measuring a flow rate of the air moving through the duct);
a light sensor disposed within the main inlet duct (160, Fig. 5b), a measurement surface of the light sensor being orthogonal to both an airflow direction (see Fig. 5b, which depicts the airflow as going in the horizontal direction, and the measurement surface of 160 is facing the vertical direction), the light sensor configured to measure an amount of light scattered by a dust particle contained in the atmospheric air (paragraph [0078] discloses the sensor 160 is a light scattering particulate matter sensor, which works by detecting scattered light);
an air ventilation device (170, Fig. 5b) configured to create negative pressure causing the atmospheric air to flow through the main inlet duct in a direction opposite to gravitational force (paragraph [0056] discloses the air flow fan aids in moving air through the inlet; fans work by creating a low or negative pressure area behind the blades. The main inlet duct of Fig. 5b is described as being horizontal in paragraph [0085], however the air flow fan would operate in the same manner regardless of orientation of the main inlet duct).
Son fails to explicitly teach a laser module configured to emit a laser beam into the atmospheric air flowing in the main inlet duct; the light sensor disposed near a focal point of the laser beam and orthogonal to a direction of the laser beam, and a processor configured to:
receive measured values from the light sensor and perform continuous high-speed sampling of the measured values; determine a size and a speed of the dust particle from temporal changes in intensity of the scattered light measured by the light sensor;
derive a mass or density of the dust particle based on a determined size of the dust particle and a difference between the speed of the dust particle and an airflow speed in the main inlet duct determined from the flow rate measured by the flow meter; and
obtain instant flow rates from the flow meter and adjust an operating strength of the air ventilation device so as to keep the flow rate at a predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of air quality monitors, Molaie teaches a device where a laser emits a laser beam into air flowing through an air duct (see Fig. 3), where the light sensor, laser, and airflow are orthogonal to each other (Fig. 3 depicts the laser being emitted in the horizontal direction, the airflow in the vertical direction, and the detector beneath the air duct with the face oriented "out of the page"; page 6, paragraph 1 describes the detector as orthogonal to the light source) and the sensor is near a focal point of the laser beam (Fig. 3 depicts a lens creating a focal point near the detector).
Son is silent as to the configuration or type of light scattering particulate matter sensor, and only describes that it may be implemented of known form (paragraph [0078]). Further, the particulate matter sensor taught in Son would require a dedicated light source of some sort rather than ambient light to ensure accurate. Placing the light source orthogonal to the detector as taught in Molaie ensures only the scattered light is detected, compared to a non-orthogonal orientation where some of the direct laser light may enter the detector and increase the signal noise and decrease the measurement precision. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the particulate sensor taught in Son with the light source and the orthogonal orientation of the light source and detector taught in Molaie in order to ensure accuracy of the scattered light detection while also increasing the measurement accuracy.
Son as modified by Molaie fails to teach a processor configured to:
receive measured values from the light sensor and perform continuous high-speed sampling of the measured values; determine a size and a speed of the dust particle from temporal changes in intensity of the scattered light measured by the light sensor;
derive a mass or density of the dust particle based on a determined size of the dust particle and a difference between the speed of the dust particle and an airflow speed in the main inlet duct determined from the flow rate measured by the flow meter; and
obtain instant flow rates from the flow meter and adjust an operating strength of the air ventilation device so as to keep the flow rate at a predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical particulate sensors, Kaye teaches a device with a processor (processing circuit - 22, Fig. 1) which receives data taken during high-speed sampling (paragraph [0041]; Fig. 4 depicts the data taken, which is on the time scale of microseconds and is continuous) and detects peaks in the intensity profile of a laser beam and determines time of flight from these peaks (paragraph [0045]) and determines the size and velocity of the detected particle from this data (paragraph [0049]). Further, Kay teaches using an air ventilation device (fan - 24, Fig. 1) with a variable speed depending on speed control input signal (paragraph [0042]), to change or keep the flow rate the same (paragraph [0054]).
Kaye discloses other ways of determining velocity and size of particles are complex and expensive, and this method of calculation is accurate while reducing cost and complexity (paragraph [0006]). Further, Kaye discloses that adjusting the operating strength of the fan aids in improving accuracy (paragraph [0054]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie with the processor which calculates size and speed and adjust the fan's operating power taught in Kaye in order to have an accurate device while also reducing cost and complexity.
Son as modified by Molaie and Kaye fails to teach a processor configured to: derive a mass or density of the dust particle based on a determined size of the dust particle and a difference between the speed of the dust particle and an airflow speed in the main inlet duct determined from the flow rate measured by the flow meter.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical particle detectors, Zhang teaches finding the density of a particle (eq. 2 or paragraph [0136]) using the particle size and the relative velocity between the particle and the surrounding air (paragraph [0138] discloses the symbols used in eq. 2).
The device of Son as modified by Molaie and Kaye teaches the determination of a particles size and velocity of the particle and the air flow. Jongerius discloses that optical particle sensors have a problem with calculating particle densities/mass concentration directly (paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look for other methods of finding particle density that relied on already determined parameters such as particle size and velocities of the air flow and particles. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the processor taught in Son as modified by Molaie and Kaye with the equation relating velocity, size of a particle, and density of a particle taught in Zhang as a way of calculating density without relying solely on a particle sensor.
Regarding claim 10, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye and Zhang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1 and further teaches an air ventilation device (Son: 170, Fig. 5a) provided inside the casing (Son: 110, Fig. 1), which creates negative pressure to allow air to flow from the inlet to the outlet (Son: paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye and Zhang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1 and further teaches the speed of the dust particle is determined based on (i) a thickness of the laser beam (Kaye: paragraphs [0021]-[0026] disclose the thickness of the laser beam determines the particle detection zone, which is the only area the particles will be measured in. Therefore, all measurements depend on the size of this area and thus the thickness of the laser beam) and (ii) a time interval between a first time at which the intensity of the scattered light begins to increase as the dust particle enters the laser beam and a second time at which the intensity of the scattered light begins to decrease as the dust particle exits the laser beam (Kaye: paragraph [0045] discloses the velocity of the dust particle is done a processing unit which detects peaks in the intensity profile of a laser beam and determines time of flight from these peaks. The peaks correspond to the particle entering the laser beam).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie with the processor which calculates size and speed taught in Kaye in order to have an accurate device while also reducing cost and complexity.
Claims 2-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20230044367A1) in view of Molaie ("Review of the Newly Developed, Mobile Optical Sensors for Real-Time Measurement of the Atmospheric Particulate Matter Concentration". Micromachines (Basel). 2021 Apr 9;12(4):416. doi: 10.3390/mi12040416.), Kaye (US20160305872A1) and Zhang (US20190368993A1) as evidenced by Jongerius (US20180217042A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by of Layher (US20180164137A1).
Regarding claim 2, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye and Zhang teaches the device as discussed above in claim 1, and further discloses a secondary inlet duct (Son: Fig. 7b depicts another embodiment which has a secondary inlet duct 125’), connected to the main inlet (Son: 125, Fig. 7a) at its top (127, Fig. 7a).
Layher discloses that alternative air flow paths alter the cumulative cross-sectional area of the air flow (paragraph [0195]), which slows the flow rate of the gas, thus increasing the accuracy of the measuring device (paragraphs [0011], [0194]). Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang with the secondary inlet duct taught in Son as a way to control the accuracy of a measurement device.
Regarding claim 3, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang teaches the device as discussed above in claim 1, and further teaches a common inlet duct (Son: 123 to 125, Fig. 7b) formed to allow air to flow into a common inlet at its bottom (Son: Fig. 7a depicts air A1 flowing in at the bottom 111a); and a secondary inlet duct (Son: 125’, Fig. 7b) connected to the top of the common inlet duct at its bottom (Son: Fig. 7b depicts 125’ connecting to 123 and 125 at the bottom 111a) and the top of the main inlet duct at its top (Son: Fig. 7b depicts 125’ reconnecting at the top 127), wherein a portion of the air flowing out from the common inlet duct branches and flows into the main inlet duct, while the remaining portion of the air flowing out from the common inlet duct flows into the secondary inlet duct (Son: Fig. 7b depicts the air A1 flowing from the common inlet duct 123 and splitting between 125’ and 125) and the air flowing out from the top of the main inlet duct is merged with the air flowing out from the secondary inlet (Son: Fig. 7b depicts the air from 125’ and 125 merging at the top in duct 127).
As discussed above in claim 2, it would be obvious to combine the device Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang with the secondary inlet duct taught in Son as a way to improve the accuracy of a measurement device. The common inlet duct taught in Son is another method of slowing the flow rate (Son: paragraph [0064]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Lee as modified by Layher with the common inlet duct taught in Son as a way to further control the air flow rate.
Regarding claim 4, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2, and further teaches the cross-sectional area of the secondary inlet duct is formed to be larger than that of the main inlet duct (Son: paragraph [0064] discloses one inlet is larger than the other).
As discussed above in claim 2, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang with the secondary inlet duct taught in Son as a way to control the accuracy of a measurement device.
Regarding claim 11, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang the invention as discussed above in claim 3, and further teaches the cross-sectional area of the common inlet duct is formed to be larger than the sum of the cross-sectional areas of the main inlet duct and the secondary inlet duct to ensure that the speed of dust particle in the main inlet duct is above a predetermined minimum speed (Son: Fig. 7b depicts the cross-section of the common inlet, 123, as larger than the main and secondary inlets, 125 and 125').
Son teaches unequal cross-sections affect the speed of the air flow (paragraph [0064]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang with the cross-section relationships between the common, main and secondary inlets taught in Son as a way to control the air flow speed.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20230044367A1) in view of Molaie ("Review of the Newly Developed, Mobile Optical Sensors for Real-Time Measurement of the Atmospheric Particulate Matter Concentration". Micromachines (Basel). 2021 Apr 9;12(4):416. doi: 10.3390/mi12040416.), Kaye (US20160305872A1) and Zhang (US20190368993A1) as evidenced by Jongerius (US20180217042A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong (CN109406356A).
Regarding claim 5, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1, and further teaches the laser module includes:
a laser source (Molaie: ‘Laser’, Fig. 3) that generates a laser beam (Molaie: ‘Laser beam’, Fig. 3); and
a laser capture (Molaie: ‘Light trap’, Fig. 3) that confines the laser beam after the laser beam passes through the main inlet duct (Molaie: page 6, paragraph 1 discloses the light trap confines the laser beam to avoid stray light).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the generic light scattering particulate matter sensor taught in Son with the sensor taught in Son as modified by Molaie, Kay and Zhang in order to easily measure light scattering from particles.
Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang fails to teach the laser module includes:
a lens that changes the shape and direction of the laser beam generated by the laser source; and
However, in the same field of endeavor of air quality detection, Xiong teaches a device which uses a lens to manipulate a laser beam (paragraph [0012] discloses a lens; paragraph [0029] discloses this lens collimates a laser beam and causes it to converge into a uniform beam, changing its shape and direction of the light rays; Fig. 1 also depicts the lens 100 collimating and converging the laser beam; Fig. 9 depicts the part of the lens which causes collimation and Fig. 10 depicts the part of the lens which causes convergence).
Xiong discloses that using a lens to shape and position the beam prevents the laser beam from being focused only on one point which leads to measurement inaccuracies (paragraph [0012]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang with the lens and laser capture to avoid inaccuracies in measurement.
Regarding claim 6, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang and Xiong teach the invention as discussed above in claim 5, and further teaches the focus depth of the laser beam emitted by the laser module is formed to be equal to or greater than the width of the main inlet duct (Xiong: paragraph [0060] discloses the laser beam has a width that is equal or greater to the flow channel).
Xiong discloses that by ensuring the width of the laser beam is greater or equal to the width of the flow channel, it can be ensured that all particles are measured (paragraph [0060]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, Zhang and Xiong with the laser beam width taught in Xiong to ensure all particles are measured.
Regarding claim 7, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, Zhang and Xiong teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5, and further teaches the laser module further includes a rectangular laser beam shaper that changes the cross-sectional shape of the circular laser beam generated by the laser source into a rectangle (Xiong: paragraph [0053] discloses an aspherical lens which acts as a beam shaper to form the laser beam into a straight line. A line beam is the same as a rectangle with a very small width).
Xiong discloses that a line beam enables the laser beam to be wide enough to ensure all particles are measured (paragraph [0060]) which decreases the chance of measurement inaccuracies (paragraph [0012]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, Zhang and Xiong with the laser beam shape taught in Xiong in order to minimize inaccuracies in measurement.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20230044367A1) in view of Molaie ("Review of the Newly Developed, Mobile Optical Sensors for Real-Time Measurement of the Atmospheric Particulate Matter Concentration". Micromachines (Basel). 2021 Apr 9;12(4):416. doi: 10.3390/mi12040416.), Kaye (US20160305872A1) and Zhang (US20190368993A1) as evidenced by Jongerius (US20180217042A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh (US20230194408A1).
Regarding claim 8, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1, but fails to teach the casing further includes an outlet duct formed at the bottom to allow air that has passed through the main inlet duct to be discharged and a direction-changing duct that connects the top of the main inlet duct and the top of the outlet duct to change the direction of airflow.
However, in the same field of endeavor of air sensors, Noh discloses an inlet (111, Fig. 1) and outlet duct (113, Fig. 1), where a direction change is required to go from the inlet duct to the outlet duct (P4 and P5 in Fig. 1 depict the direction-changing duct; arrows in Fig. 1 depict an air flow direction change).
Noh discloses the inlet, outlet and direction-changing duct causes larger dust particles to be captured by walls of the duct when the air changes direction, which reduces error for the sensing module (paragraph [0024]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, and Zhang with the inlet, outlet and direction changing duct taught in Noh as a way to reduce error in the sensing module.
Regarding claim 9, Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, Zhang and Noh discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 8, and further teaches the inlet and the outlet are placed at the same height (Noh: Fig. 1 depicts the inlet, 111, and the outlet, 113, at the same level).
The orientation of the inlet and outlet being on the same level in Noh is what forces the direction change of the air flow. As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Son as modified by Molaie, Kaye, Zhang and Noh with the inlet and outlet being at the same level and thus forcing a direction change as taught in Noh as a way to reduce error in the sensing module.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 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, 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
