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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 July 2025 and 14 November 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “9” has been used to designate both a “groove”, as shown in Figure 1c and a “protrusion/lug”, as shown in Figure 3b.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Providing the sieve and/or the support frame with a data tag containing an identifier, as recited in claim 12.
No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, page line 27: A – comma – should be inserted prior to the term “such.”
Page 3, page lines 26 and 27: References to specific claims numbers within the specification should be avoided as the numbers may change during prosecution of the application and final numbering during allowance.
Page 4, page line 7: A – comma – should be inserted after the abbreviation “i.e.”
Page 6, page lines 10, 15, 21, 25, and 36: The abbreviation -- Figs. – should replace the abbreviation “Fig.”
Page 7, page line 27: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “art.”
Page 8, page lines 6 and 7: A – comma – should be inserted after the abbreviation “i.e.”
Page 8, page lines 14 and 35: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “embodiment.”
Page 9, page line 2: Reference numeral – 16 – should be inserted after the term “gap.”
Page 9, page line 16: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “ribs.”
Page 9, page line 20: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “embodiment.”
Page 9, page line 31: A – comma – should be inserted after reference numeral “6.”
Page 10, page line 15: A – comma – should be inserted after the abbreviation “i.e.”
Page 10, page lines 25 and 26: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “example.”
Page 10, page line 26: A – period – should be inserted after the abbreviation “Figs.”
Page 11, page line 15: Reference numeral – 2 – should replace reference numeral “3.”
Page 11, page line 28: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “variant.”
Page 11, page lines 25 and 27: A – comma – should be inserted after figure designation “3b.”
Page 11, page line 32: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “embodiment.”
Page 11, page line 33: Reference numeral “9” has been previously used to identify a “groove” (page 8, page line 16). A groove and a protrusion/lug are not synonyms; such that the same structure does not appear to be described. Thus, some other reference numeral should be used.
Page 12, page line 1: A – comma – should be inserted after figure designation “4c.”
Page 12, page line 10: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “embodiment.”
Page 12, page line 17: Some term should be inserted between the terms “allows” and “to.”
Page 12, page line 20: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “position.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the assembly.
Re claim 6, claim line 3: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the mating centering features.
Re claim 7, claim line 3: The term “support frame” should replace the term “it” to avoid potential confusion.
Re claim 8, claim line 4: The term “sieve” should replace the term “it” to avoid potential confusion.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Re claim 1, claim lines 4-5, 7, and 9: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., an impacting and collecting surface or the narrower limitation of a petri dish.
Re claim 3, claim lines 2-3: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., a material capable of withstanding autoclaving for sterilization, the narrower concept of a metal material; or even the narrower limitation of stainless steel.
Re claim 3, claim line 4: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., a disposable material or the narrower limitation of a plastics material.
Re claim 4, claim lines 2-3: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., a releasable engagement between the support frame and the sieve or the narrower limitation of a form-locking engagement.
Re claim 6, claim lines 2-4: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., mating centering features or the narrower limitation of mating conical surfaces and/or one or more mating protrusions and recesses.
Re claim 7, claim line 4: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., an impacting and collecting surface or the narrower limitation of a petri dish.
Re claim 8, claim lines 2-3: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., one or more lateral protrusions or the narrower limitation of one or more lugs.
Re claim 10, claim lines 2-4: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally, it is unclear if applicant want consideration of two narrower limitations, i.e., one or more lateral protrusions and/or recesses; or a peripheral shoulder or groove.
Re claim 12, claim line 3: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., a data tag containing an identifier or the narrower limitation of an electronically readable data tag.
Re claim 13, claim line 6: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., an impacting and collecting surface or the narrower limitation of a petri dish.
Re claim 14, claim lines 2-3: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if applicant want consideration of the broader limitation, i.e., an impacting and collecting surface or the narrower limitation of a petri dish.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Re claim 14, claim lines 2-3: The sampling lid assembly comprising an impacting and collecting surface has been previously recited (claim 1, claim lines 4-5). Claims 14 does not appear to add anything that has not been previously claimed.
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
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, 4-10, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,922,905 (Roth).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Roth discloses a sampling lid assembly for a particle monitoring system comprising:
a support frame (12) configured to be releasably attached to a sampling section/base (11) of the particle monitoring system (lower stage (12) is separately mounted to base (11) through a locking lip (40) – col. 3, lines 30-35; col. 4, lines 11-13 and Figures 2-3) and to define a space surrounding an impacting and collecting surface, preferably a petri dish, placed on the sampling section (collection member (16), comprised of a petri dish (50) is located within the lower stage (12) and placed on the base (11) – col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 4, lines 30-35 and Figure 2); and
a sieve (60) configured to be removably mounted at the support frame to close an open side of the space above the impacting and collecting surface (54)(circular aperture plate (60) appears to be removably insertable into the lower stage (12) and situated above an impaction surface (54) of the collection member (16) – Figures 2 and 7) , preferably the petri dish, the sieve (60) provided with fluid openings (90) arranged to direct, in operation of the particle monitoring system, a fluid towards the impacting and collecting surface, preferably the petri dish, placed on the sampling section (jet impaction passages (90) located within the central plate (60) direct fluid to an impaction surface (54) of the collection member (16) – col. 6, line 60 through col. 7, line 22 and Figure 2).
With respect to the limitations of claims 4 and 17, Roth appears to disclose that the support frame (12) and the sieve (60) are configured to be releasably engaged with each other, preferably in a form-locking engagement (central plate (60) is locked to the lower stage (12) by using a sealing flange (100) and locators (105) to compress the central plate to the lower stage (12) – col. 7, lines 29-53 and Figures 4 and 6).
With respect to the limitation of claim 5, Roth appears to disclose that the support frame (12) and the sieve (60) are configured to be engaged by a movement along an axial direction of the support frame and/or by a lateral movement along a radial direction of the support frame (central plate (60) is locked to the lower stage (12) by using a sealing flange (100) and locators (105) to compress the central plate to the lower stage (12) – col. 7, lines 29-53 and Figures 4 and 6).
With respect to the limitations of claims 6 and 18, Roth appears to disclose that the support frame (12) and the sieve (60) are provided with mating centering features for defining a mounted position, preferably mating conical surfaces and/or one or more mating protrusions and recesses (central plate (60) is locked to the lower stage (12) by using a sealing flange (100) and locators (105) to compress the central plate to the lower stage (12) – col. 7, lines 29-53 and Figures 4 and 6).
With respect to the limitation of claim 7, the support frame (12) is configured to be moved along a body of the sampling section of the particle monitoring system between a position where it defines the space surrounding the impacting and collecting surface, preferably the petri dish, placed on the sampling section and a position providing access to the sampling section (central plate (60) is locked to the lower stage (12) by using a sealing flange (100) and locators (105) to compress the central plate to the lower stage (12) creating a space surrounding the impaction surface (54) to allow air/fluid to pass around the dish – col. 7, lines 29-53 and Figures 4 and 6).
With respect to the limitation of claim 8, Roth further disclose that the sieve is provided with one or more lateral protrusions (9), preferably in the form of one or more lugs, allowing gripping of the sieve (6) for the purpose of positioning it at the support frame (2) (central plate (60) is locked to the lower stage (12) by using a sealing flange (100) and locators (105) to compress the central plate to the lower stage (12) – col. 7, lines 29-53 and Figures 4 and 6).
With respect to the limitation of claim 9, Roth discloses that the sieve (60) is provided with a plurality of radial ribs distributed about the periphery thereof to increase the rigidity against deformation (plurality of radially extending reinforcing ribs (96) bisect the space between radial paths (Pr) of the passages (90) on the upper surface (92) of the sieve/plate (60) to both reinforce plate (60) and serve as a flow dividing mechanism to separate the flow of the gaseous medium passing to the passages (90) and the plate (60) – col. 7, lines 22-28 and Figure 13).
With respect to the limitation of claim 10, Roth discloses that the support frame (12) is a ring-like body, preferably with one or more lateral protrusions and/or recesses, preferably in the form of a peripheral shoulder or groove (lower stage (12) is a circular structure having one or more locking assemblies (70) located about the lower edges of a section (68) which selectively lock the lower stage (12) to the base (11) – col. 5, lines 12-15 and Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-10).
With respect to the limitations of claim 13, Roth further discloses that the sieve (60) is formed so that, when the sampling lid assembly is mounted on the sampling section (11), and the sieve (6) is in the mounted position on the support frame (12), the surfaces of the support frame (12) facing towards the space are shielded from contact with the fluid directed, in operation of the particle monitoring system, through the fluid openings (90) towards the impacting and collecting surface (54), preferably the petri dish (50) placed on the sampling section (11) (col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 4, lines 30-35 col.; and col. 6, line 60 through col. 7, line 22 and Figure 2).
With respect to the limitation of claim 14, Roth further discloses that the sampling lid assembly comprises an impacting and collecting surface (54), preferably a petri dish (50) (col. 4, lines 30-52).
With respect to the limitation of claim 15, Roth further discloses a particle monitoring system comprising the sampling lid assembly according to claim 1 (Roth discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and the assembly is used to collect viable samples comprising particulates – col. 4, lines 30-45 and Figure 2).
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.
Claims 2-3, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,922,905 (Roth) in view of “Products for Microbiological Control 2 Microbiological Analysis Content” (Sartorius).
With respect to the limitations of claims 2-3 and 16, Roth discloses all of the limitations of the base claim but fails to disclose that the support frame and the sieve are made from different materials, specifically, the support frame is made from a stainless steel and the sieve is made from a disposable plastic.
Sartorius disclose products to be used in microbiological applications whereby the Combisart product line utilizes a stainless-steel filter holder that is usable with single-use disposable sieves from the Biosart and Microsart product lines (pages 29, 33, 35, 38, and 43). Modifying Roth to utilize a stainless-steel frame/holder with a disposable sieve would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as a means of providing value to the product by allowing the frames to be cleaned and reusable.
With respect to the limitation of claim 11, Roth discloses all of the limitations of the base claim; but fails to expressly disclose that the sieve is configured to be engaged with other sieves to form a self-support stack.
Sartorius disclose products to be used in microbiological applications whereby the Microsart filter units as formed as tray versions that are stackable within bags (page 35). Modifying Roth to allow the sieves to be stackable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of conserving space by allowing the sieves to be stackable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,922,905 (Roth) in view of US 10,900,877 (Pandey et al.)
With respect to the limitation of claim 12, Roth discloses all of the limitations of the base claim; but fails to disclose that the sieve and/or support frame are/is provided with a data tag containing an identifier, preferably of an electronically readable type.
Pandey et al. discloses a system for extracting minute objects from soil by sieving a soil sample and collecting filtered particles (abstract) The sieves used to collect particles as well as sample containers may be provided with bar codes that allow tracking of the sample along the various processing steps (col. 31, lines 46-56). Modifying Roth to utilize a data tag on the sieve and/or support frame would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of correlating the sample with the equipment being used to track the sample through any number of processing steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art disclose various particulate sampling systems utilizing suction to gather a fluid sample and means for depositing a sample onto a sample medium supported by a sample frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 Sweeney can be reached at 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights