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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 09/13/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of the abbreviation “SLPM” should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 7-10, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a control section” without disclosing the structural cooperation between the control section and the sample section or the sensor arrangement in the flow path. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural cooperation between the control section and the rest of the particle monitoring system. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the method steps of “determining a mass flow rate of the sample fluid flowing through a flow path downstream of the sampling section”, “determining an absolute pressure in the flow path upstream of the position”, and “calculating the volume flow rate of the sample fluid flowing through the sampling section” without disclose the devices for performing the determining and the calculating. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices for performing the determining and the calculating. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “optionally” is considered “language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” (see MPEP 2103). Furthermore, the claim does not explain how “the standard temperature” is obtained. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the device for measuring standard temperature.
The claim further recites the method step of “controlling an opening degree” without disclosing the device for perform the controlling. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the device for controlling the opening degree. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “a method for calibrating/adjusting a particle monitoring system” without disclosing the method step(s) for actually calibrating/adjusting the system. The claim does not explicitly disclose whether the method steps of “selecting correcting values” and “inputting the correcting values” defines the step of calibrating/adjusting. Accordingly, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted steps are: the method step for calibrating/adjusting. Furthermore, the claim does not explain whether the phrase “selecting correcting values for distinct selected pressure/volume flow rate levels” refers to the values at the external test fluid source or the values at the particle monitoring system.
The claim recites the method steps of “selecting correcting values” and “inputting the correcting values” without disclosing the device for performing the selecting and the inputting. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices for selecting correcting values and for inputting the correcting values.
The claim recites “selecting correcting values for distinct selected pressures/volume flow rate levels, preferably by interpolating between the distinct levels by a curve fit, preferably a polynomial curve fit, or by an interpolated look-up table” without explaining whether (1) the correcting values are calculated “by interpolating between the distinct levels by a curve fit, preferably a polynomial curve fit, or by an interpolated look-up table”, (2) the distinct selected pressure/volume flow rate levels are determined “by interpolating between the distinct levels by a curve fit, preferably a polynomial curve fit, or by an interpolated look-up table”, or (3) the correcting values are selected “by interpolating between the distinct levels by a curve fit, preferably a polynomial curve fit, or by an interpolated look-up table”. Furthermore, the claim recites the broad recitation “by an interpolated look-up table” the claim also recites the narrower statement of “preferably by interpolating between the distinct levels by a curve fit, preferably a polynomial curve fit”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claim recites the broad recitation “inputting the correcting values into the control section (20) of the particle monitoring system (1)” the claim also recites the narrower statement of “preferably wherein the correcting values for pressure and flow rate are applied independently and one after the other or simultaneously”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 19, the term “HEPA” is a trade name. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982)). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the ability of the filter to capture small airborne particles and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Further clarification is respectfully requested. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 7-10, 13, and 20 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses a method for calibrating/adjusting a particle monitoring system without further limiting or defining the device of the particle monitoring system as disclosed in the independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses a portable microbial air sample without further modifying or defining the particle monitoring system as disclosed in the independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skarping et al. (Pat. No. US 10,222,359) (hereafter Skarping).
Regarding claim 1, Skarping teaches a particle monitoring system (1) comprising:
a sampling section (2) for performing a sampling process on a sample fluid flowing through the sampling section (2) (i.e., gas, e.g. in the form of breathing air or modified breathing air, is drawn through the flow channel 4 by a pump 5) (see Fig. 1); and
a sensor arrangement (3) for determining a volume flow rate of the sample fluid flowing through the sampling section (2) (i.e., mass flow sensor 6 and pressure sensor 7) (see Fig. 1), the sensor arrangement (3) associated to a flow path (7) downstream of the sampling section (2) (i.e., flow channel 4) (see Fig. 1) through which the sample fluid flows, in operation, after having passed the sampling section (2) (i.e., mass flow of gas flowing through the flow channel 4 is measured by a mass flow sensor 6) (see Fig. 1),
wherein the sensor arrangement (3) comprises a flow sensor (4) (i.e., mass flow sensor 6) (see Fig. 1) for determining a mass flow rate of the sample fluid flowing through the flow path (7) downstream of the sampling section (2) (i.e., mass flow of gas flowing through the flow channel 4 is measured by a mass flow sensor 6) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the sensor arrangement (3) comprises an absolute pressure sensor (5) for determining an absolute fluid pressure in the flow path (7), and the flow sensor (4) is arranged in a section of the flow path (7) downstream of the sampling section (2) and downstream of the absolute pressure sensor (5) in the flow direction away from the sampling section (2) (i.e., flow sensor 6 is downstream of pressure sensor 7) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Skarping teaches that the sensor arrangement (3) comprises a flow rate regulating component (6;6a) that is arranged in the flow path (7) (i.e., pump 5 controlled by CPU 9) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Skarping teaches the sensor arrangement (3) comprises a temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the fluid in the flow sensor (4) (i.e., an internal temperature sensor located in the flow channel provided by the mass flow sensor 6 of the pump assembly 1 for detecting errors during a temperature measurement) (see Column 11, lines 54-60).
Regarding claim 6, Skarping teaches a differential pressure meter for determining a pressure difference of the sample fluid over a given geometrical flow restriction, preferably a nozzle, through which the sample fluid flows (i.e., the CPU 9 uses the operational speed to calculate a flow and checks the measured temperature difference between the two pressure sensors 7, 8) (see Column 11, lines 9-19).
Regarding claim 11, Skarping teaches further comprising a particle filter (8) that is arranged in the flow path (7) between the sampling section (2) and the flow sensor (4) (i.e., inlet filter 14) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Skarping teaches a portable microbial air sampler, preferably for compressed gas, comprising a particle monitoring system (i.e., pump assembly is attached to a sampling device) (see Column 10, lines 28-44).
Regarding claim 17, Skarping teaches that the flow sensor (4) comprises the temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the fluid in the flow sensor (4) (i.e., an internal temperature sensor located in the flow channel provided by the mass flow sensor 6 of the pump assembly 1 for detecting errors during a temperature measurement) (see Column 11, lines 54-60).
Regarding claim 18, Skarping teaches the flow sensor (4) comprises a differential pressure meter for determining a pressure difference of the sample fluid over a nozzle through which the sample fluid flows (i.e., the CPU 9 uses the operational speed to calculate a flow and checks the measured temperature difference between the two pressure sensors 7, 8) (see Column 11, lines 9-19), and a temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the fluid in the differential pressure meter (i.e., an internal temperature sensor located in the flow channel provided by the mass flow sensor 6 of the pump assembly 1 for detecting errors during a temperature measurement) (see Column 11, lines 54-60)..
Claims 4, 7-10, 15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bayazit et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0366709) (hereafter Bayazit).
Regarding claim 12, Bayazit teaches a method for monitoring particles of a sample fluid, the method comprising:
sampling particles in a stream of the sample fluid flowing through a sampling section (2) (i.e., draw the fluid into system 200 via opening 212) (see Fig. 2A); and
determining a volume flow rate of the stream of sample fluid flowing through the sampling section (2) by:
determining a mass flow rate of the sample fluid flowing through a flow path downstream of the sampling section (2) (i.e., controller 210 can use the various pressures and intensive properties of the fluid (e.g., the density) to calculate the flow rate, volumetric flow rate and/or mass flow rate) (see paragraph section [0041]),
determining an absolute pressure in the flow path upstream of the position where the mass flow rate is determined and downstream of the sampling section (2) (i.e., pressure transducer 206A can measure absolute pressure) (see Fig. 2A), and
calculating the volume flow rate of the sample fluid flowing through the sampling section (2) based on the determined mass flow rate and the determined absolute pressure (i.e., Controller 210 can use the various pressures and intensive properties of the fluid (e.g., the density) to calculate the flow rate, volumetric flow rate and/or mass flow rate, using Eqs. 1-10) (see paragraph section [0041]).
Claims 13-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights