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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the information disclosure statements dated 18 Oct 2024 and 31 Dec 2024, which information has been considered and entered. The information disclosure statements have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
The numerous references and materials listed on the numerous sheets of the IDSs make it difficult to determine whether or not any of the references, or parts of the references, are material to Applicant’s claimed invention. It is noted that Applicant, in their several IDS submissions, do not indicate any particular reference or parts of references which they deem "material" to the patentability of the pending claims under 37 CFR 1.56.
Applicant is reminded of the standard set forth in the leading inequitable conduct case of J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 223 USPQ 1089 (Nov. 9, 1984), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 73 (1985): Where none of the prior art cited during prosecution teaches a key element of the claim(s) and where a reference known to the applicants does, the applicants should know that reference is material. Thus, if Applicant is aware of any cited reference from among the IDSs referenced above are "material," applicants should make that reference known to the examiner.
It is also noted that a "misrepresentation is material if it makes it impossible for the Patent Office fairly to assess [the patent] application against the prevailing statutory criteria." In re Multidistrict-Litig. Involving Forst Patent, 540 F.2d 601, 604, 191 USPQ 241, 243 (3d Cir. 1976); see also Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 456 F.2d 592, 600, 172 USPQ 323, 329 (3d Cir.), ce.rt. denied, 40'7 U.S. 934, 174 USPQ 129 (1972). The submission of voluminous documents in the instant information disclosure statements (here, in excess of 2000 pages) make it difficult, and likely impossible, for the Patent Office to fairly assess Applicant’s application against the prevailing statutory criteria.
Terminology
“Optical core based trace gas sensor” is used throughout the specification and claims. This does not seem to be a term of art, and no special meaning has been given to this term in the specification. The Examiner has interpreted “optical core based trace gas sensor” to mean any optical gas sensor.
Claim Suggestions
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 contains reference character 500 in parentheses. While this is not incorrect, there are no other reference characters in the claims, and this one looks out of place.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1: Change “a field-replaceable filter media” to --field-replaceable filter media-- because “media” is plural. This change should be made throughout the specification as well.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 12, and 16: Change “sub assembly” to --subassembly--. This change should also be made in the specification.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 16, 18, and 20: Change “optical core based” to --optical core-based--. This change should also be made in the specification.
Regarding claim 4: There is no antecedent basis for “the optics.”
Regarding claim 10: Delete the “a” before “filter media.”
Regarding claim 17: In line 2, delete the “a” before “filter media.”
Regarding claim 20: There is a random open parenthesis in line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13, and 17-19 is/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.
Regarding claim 10: It is indefinite to say that “the field-replaceable filter media includes: a filter media.” It must be inherent that the structure “field replaceable filter media” already includes “filter media.” Furthermore, “filter media” is a broader structure than “field-replaceable filter media” making the language more indefinite. Examiner recommends deleting “a filter media and.”
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites that the invention comprises “an air movement system.” However, this limitation is conditional in that it is only included “when the sizes of the pores are below a predetermined level.” Because the predetermined level is not defined, it is impossible to determine if the air movement system is included. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. This claim has not been further examined.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected as indefinite because it contains a broader limitation (filter felt) followed by a narrower one (chemical resistant filter felt). Examiner recommends deleting “chemical resistant filter felt.”
Regarding claim 17: It is unclear what a “dust filter adhesive” is. This does not appear to be a term of art. If this just means an adhesive that is applied to a dust filter, then the claim should just say “adhesive.” It is also unclear how applying an adhesive to a plate forms a bracket. A bracket is “an overhanging member that projects from a structure (such as a wall) and is usually designed to support a vertical load or to strengthen an angle” (retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bracket on 08 Sep 2026). It is further indefinite how attaching filter media to a bracket creates a packing and filter media. This structure would seem to be a bracket and filter media. This claim has not been further examined.
Regarding claims 18 and 19: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by JOHN et al. (US 20210199565).
Regarding claim 1: JOHN discloses: A system including an optical cell assembly (FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: an optical core based trace gas sensor (para. 24) configured to measure trace gas concentrations (para. 24); and an optical cell sub assembly including: a housing (enclosure 100) configured to house the optical core based trace gas sensor (para. 24); and a field-replaceable filter media (surface 110 with apertures 106) configured to be detachably attached to a portion of the housing (fasteners shown in FIG. 1 for detachment) and allow ambient trace gas to enter into the optical cell sub assembly (para. 24).
Regarding claim 2: JOHN discloses: the field-replaceable filter media (surface 110 in FIG. 1) is a perforated outer sheath including a plurality of apertures (106).
Regarding claim 3: JOHN discloses: the perforated outer sheath (Housing 100 in FIGS. 1 and 2 has surface 110 with apertures 106.) has a cylindrical shape (FIG. 1) with the plurality of apertures arranged along the circumference of the cylindrical shape (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4: JOHN discloses: one or more imbedded nozzles (104, 102 in FIGS. 1 and 2) disposed on and through the surface of the optical cell sub assembly (FIGS. 1 and 2; para. 24) to allow for cleaning of the optics of the optical core based trace gas sensor within the optical cell sub assembly (para. 24).
Regarding claim 16: JOHN discloses: control electronics electronically connected to the optical core based trace gas sensor inside the optical cell sub assembly (installed in vehicles to control sensors etc. and transmit data; para. 36).
Regarding claim 20: JOHN discloses: A system (FIGS. 1, 2) comprising: an optical core based trace gas sensor (para. 24) configured to measure trace gas concentrations (para. 24); and a housing (enclosure 100) having a cylindrical shape (FIG. 1) configured to house the optical core based trace gas sensor (para. 24), wherein the housing includes a perforated outer sheath (surface 110 with apertures 106) with a plurality of apertures (106) arranged along at least a portion of circumference of the cylindrical shape (FIG. 1), wherein the perforated outer sheath is configured to be detachably attached to a portion of the housing (fasteners shown in FIG. 1 for detachment) and allow ambient trace gas to enter into the optical core based trace gas sensor (para. 24).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHN in view of DE OLIVEIRA (FR 3080940). Please note that a machine translation of DE OLIVEIRA has been included with this office action. All references to text in DE OLIVEIRA are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 5: JOHN discloses: one or more mounting attachments (108 in FIG. 1; para. 24) such that the optical cell assembly is located distal from the one or more mounting attachments (because the mounting attachment 108 is on the periphery of the housing); and the one or more mounting attachments configured to attach the system to an unmanned vehicle (UAV 2002 in FIG. 9; para. 24, 35).
JOHN does not disclose an extender configured to connect their optical cell assembly to their UAV.
DE OLIVEIRA however does teach an extender (arm 25 in FIG. 4; page 4 lines 23-34) for attaching a gas sensor (26; page 4 lines 35-41) to their UAV (drone 10).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the extender of DE OLIVEIRA to attach the gas sensor of JOHN to the UAV of JOHN so that the gas sensor is taking measurements outside of the area of turbulence created by the rotating wings of the drone (page 3 lines 23-30 of DE OLIVEIRA).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHN in view of LIU et al. (WO 2021212931). US 20230324281 is an English language equivalent to WO 2021212931. All references to LIU are to the US publication.
Regarding claims 6-9: JOHN discloses: the housing (100 in FIGS. 1 and 2) includes a plurality of apertures (106).
JOHN does not disclose an additional filter media disposed on the plurality of apertures of the housing.
LIU however does disclose an additional replaceable filter media (replaceable metal screen 1 in FIG. 1; para. 26) covering apertures (2), that lead to an optical gas sensor (4; para. 27, abstract). LIU shows in FIG. 1, that the holes of the mesh (1) align with the apertures (2), thus meeting the limitations of claim 7. LIU also teaches that the housing (3, 5) includes an opening (where mesh 1 is installed), and wherein the field-replaceable filter media (1) is inserted into the opening during use in the field (FIG. 1), thus meeting the limitations of claim 8. LIU also teaches a protrusion between 2 and 1 on which the metal screen 1 sits (best seen in FIGS. 1 and 2b), thus meeting the limitations of claim 9.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to cover the apertures of JOHN with a replaceable filter media containing smaller holes as taught by LIU “for preventing dust impurities and the like from entering the absorption chamber and contaminating optical components” (para. 26 of LIU).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHN in view of MORRIS et al. (US 20180085696).
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 13: JOHN does not specify a dust filter frame, a filter backing plate, or a dust filter gasket.
MORRIS however does teach a gas sensor (abstract) within a housing (abstract) wherein, leading into the housing, the is filter media (FIG. 3) that includes: a filter media (308) and at least one of: a dust filter frame (310), a filter backing plate, and a dust filter gasket (312) for their gas sensor (abstract). MORRIS also teaches that the filter material has a plurality of pores (para. 14-15), thus meeting the limitations of claim 11. MORRIS also teaches that the filter can be hydrophobic (para. 15), thus meeting the limitations of claim 13.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a frame around a replaceable filter as taught by MORRIS so that a filter can readily be attached to the assembly housing the sensor (para. 19-20 of MORRIS).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHN in view of FLOOR (US 20210033524).
Regarding claim 14: JOHN does not disclose measuring a pressure drop.
FLOOR however does teach measuring a pressure drop (para. 69) across their filter arrangement (para. 69, 139-140) that leads to an optical gas sensor (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to measure a pressure drop across the filter of JOHN as taught by FLOOR to determine if the filter is blocked by particulates (para. 139-140 of FLOOR).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHN in view of MAGGIORE et al. (US 20130068673).
Regarding claim 15: JOHN does not disclose a digital image processing module configured to perform a visual inspection of the field-replaceable filter media, and wherein the processed image obtained from the digital image processing module is used to determine when the field-replaceable filter media needs to be replaced.
MAGGIORE however teaches a filter element (abstract) that uses a camera to monitor plugging (para. 31) and a processor to analyze the data received from the camera (para. 63).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a camera to monitor a filter as taught by MAGGIORE, so that the user of the filter of JOHN could determine if the filter is plugged (para. 31 of MAGGIORE).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references have been added to the Notice of References Cited for teaching various filters and accessories thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 M 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights