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 .
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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “the processor hosts a program module” is indefinite. It is not clear what “hosts a program” means in terms of the physical device of the processor. Hosting may mean that the program is written into the processor, physically part of the structure of the device. Or it could mean the processor simply accesses temporary information to run the program. The difference between these interpretations leaves confusion as to the breadth of the claim. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations “two light beams…where portions of the light beams overlap each other” and “determining a second optical response value for the particle when located between the light beams” seems to contradict each other. It is unclear how the beams can both overlap and have space between them for the particles. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “in the vicinity of a center of one of the light beams” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the vicinity of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations “determining a first optical response value for a particle when located in a vicinity of a center of one of the light beams” and “determining a second optical response value for the particle when located between the light beams” lacks antecedent basis since it is unclear that the particle ever is actually located at the center of a beam or in between the beams. These limitations are only drawn to the instructions within the processor and cannot affect or manipulate the particles or the detector itself. The processor cannot cause the detector to collect light when the particle is in the center of a beam or in between beams and cannot cause the particles to be in those locations. Ultimately, the processor is only currently limited to analyzing the data received. The applicant might intend that the processor first determines form the captured light if the particle is in the center of a beam or in between beams. However, how the claim is worded now, clarification is required.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 7, and 8, the limitations are drawn to method steps in the passive voice (is generated, is calculated, is compared) without being drawn to any particular structure. Claims 5, 6, and 7 are drawn to a system claim limited by structure, however it is unclear what structure, if any, is performing these steps and even if the steps are considered to be part of the invention (the passive voice often notes elements that happen beyond the scope of the current subject). Correction is required.
With respect to claim 8, the limitation “the processor uses the MIN/MAX ratio and additional signal parameters as an input” is unclear if the processor actually inputs the data or just intends to use that data as an input outside of the claimed system. Additionally, “additional signal parameters” is vague and undefined causing confusion over the scope of the limitation. Furthermore, the limitation “the computer model is operative to determine…” is not limiting in any way since the computer model is not part of the claimed system’s structure. In order to include a computer model, the specification must disclose specific programming or algorithms that disclose the functions of the model, it cannot be a black box that outputs a result. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 9, 10, and 11, the limitations are drawn to “a particle analysis method is executed,” “the optical response signal parameters are calculated,” and “the optical response signal parameters are calculated” but fails to connect the method steps to any of the structure of the system. The limitations are in the passive voice causing further confusion as to if the limitations are positive recitations or just commentary about outside factors. Additionally, the limitations raise the question as to whether the claim is infringed upon when the structure is present or only when a particular method is carried out. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 12, the limitation “when more than two light beams are emitted by the at least one light source” is repeating what claim 1 already disclosed but with the term “when” it makes it seem as if it is not always true. It is then further confusing to follow up with the limitation “light beam profiles have different widths” and “the light beams may not be symmetrical in an airflow direction” calling into questions do the light beam profiles always have different widths or only at certain times. The limitation that they “may not be symmetrical” is not limiting as it is in the alternative.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, an optical response ratio signal (MIN/MAX ratio) requires a specific time period of the signal in order to determine a minimum and maximum. The claims disclose multiple amplitude peaks, however it is unclear where the corresponding minimum arises. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 16, the limitation discloses “calculating a variance” however fails to relate this step back to “based on the identified ratio value, estimating a size of the particle”. Claim 14 seems complete in collecting and analyzing data so the further steps provided in claim 16 don’t seem to expand upon those previously disclosed. Clarification is required.
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.
(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, 5, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ling U.S. Publication 2017/0191923.
With respect to claim 1, Ling discloses a detection system for particles comprising:
A particulate sensor unit, the particulate sensor unit comprising (abstract)
At least one light source configured to direct at least two light beams to an interrogation region and where portions of the light beams overlap each other (Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 5, P.0045, light source 70)
An optical detector configured to capture scattered or reflected light from the aerosol particle in the interrogation region that passes through the at least two light beams (Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 5, P.0045, detector 72)
A processor in operative communication with the optical detector (P.0036)
Wherein the processor hosts a program module with instructions executable by the processor to perform a particle sizing method for aerosol particles in the interrogation region (P.0052, P.0108)
Wherein when the detected optical response has two peaks, determining a first optical response value for a particle when located in a vicinity of a center of one of the light beams and determining a second optical response value for the particle when located between the light beams (P.0011, P.0065, wherein “between the light beams” is indefinite as described above but can be interpreted as not centered)
Identifying a ratio value between the first optical response value for the particle and the second optical response value for the particle (P.0108, a ratio of a peak or waveform height and the local minimum between peaks, P.0125)
Based on the identified ratio value, estimating a size of the particle (P.0108, P.0052)
It should be noted that the limitation “for a vehicle” and “interrogation region outside of the vehicle” are intended use limitations. No vehicle is claimed in the system so the placement of the system it outside of the limitations of the claim.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 7, Ling discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Ling fails to disclose the extra steps of calculating an airspeed or generating a histogram.
These limitations fail to further limit claim 1 though since they are drawn to indefinite method steps and claim 1 is a system. As noted above, the steps are not clearly drawn to any particular structure so therefore do not add any further limitations.
With respect to 13, Ling discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, the limitation “the vehicle is an aircraft” is an intended use limitation and cannot differentiate form prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling U.S. Publication 2017/191923.
With respect to claim 14, Ling discloses a method of measuring particle sizes comprising:
Transmitting a plurality of light beams from a light source to an interrogation region (P.0047, Figure 1, light source 70, light beam 76 split into plurality through mask 90, interrogation region = irradiation zone 66, P.0057)
Collecting a portion of scattered or reflected light form the interrogation region, based on the transmitted light beams (P.0049)
Detecting an optical response of the collected portion of scattered or reflected light form the interrogation region to determine whether the detected optical response has at least two peaks (P.0150)
When the detected optical response has at least two peaks, determining a first maximum optical response value for a particle in the interrogation region (P.0150, P.0151, P.0152)
Determining a first minimum optical response value for the particle (P.0152)
Identifying a ratio value between the first maximum optical response value for the particle and the first minimum optical response value for the particle (P.0143, P.108)
Based on the identified ratio value, estimating a size of the particle (P.018, P.0143)
However, Ling fails to disclose the light source is on a vehicle or that the interrogation region is outside a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to transmit light beams from a light source on a vehicle, i.e. means for transporting since placing the light sources on a vehicle is simply one of several possibilities, either on a moving structure or a non-moving structure. Placing light sources on the vehicle would not require any particular skill or extra inventive skill but would permit movement of the measuring method to different locations, allowing greater flexibility in measurement regions.
Additionally, it would follow that the interrogation region is outside the vehicle since there is no reason to think the irradiation zone of Ling is inside a vehicle.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, Ling discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 14 above. In addition, Ling discloses:
The detected optical response has two peaks (Figure 21)
Using a look-up table for particle content analysis (P.0125, plurality of reference values to compare with)
However, Ling fails to disclose using a look-up table for estimating particle size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a look-up table for estimating particle size since Ling uses the look-up table to determine particle content and likewise using a look-up table that is comprises of matching signals to sizes would be within ordinary skill. Using look-up tables is well known in the art and since Ling is interested in determining both particle size and particle content (P.0039, P.0108) it would naturally follow to apply the look-up table to Ling’s size measurements as well.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling U.S. Publication 2017/191923 in view of Chiu et al. U.S. Publication 2024/0027325.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Ling discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 2 above. However, Ling fails to disclose the light beams have a flat-top profile in one axis and a Gaussian profile in a perpendicular axis as well as the light beams create a parallel multi line laser pattern.
Chiu discloses an apparatus for particle detection comprising:
At least one light source configured to direct at least two light beams to an interrogation region and where portions of the light beams overlap each other (P.0301, Figure 3A, light source 308))
The light beams have a flat top profile in one axis and Gaussian profile in a perpendicular axis (Figure 4, P.0294)
The at least two light beams create a multiline laser pattern where each line is parallel to each other (Figure 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parallel line lasers of Chiu for the light beams of Ling since as disclosed by Chiu since the widened continuous beams allow for detection of all particles rather than missing particles as singular beams with a singular focused interrogation region tend to do (P.0301).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling U.S. Publication 2017/191923 in view of Ray et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0055422.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Ling discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 14 above. In addition, Ling discloses the particles are droplets (P.0003). However, Ling fails to disclose the particles are water droplets, ice crystals, volcanic ash, sand, or dust and the vehicle is an aircraft.
Ray et al. discloses a cloud atmosphere characterization comprising:
The particle comprises a water droplet or ice crystal (P.0016)
The vehicle is an aircraft (P.0015)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to measure the size of water droplets or ice crystals from an aircraft as in Ray since as Ray discloses the size of water droplets and ice crystals are evidenced in how optical beams are scattered and by determining the size of water droplets in cloud atmosphere, dangerous conditions can be alerted more accurately to pilots (P.0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 112 and are dependent upon a rejected base claim under prior art. However, the examiner wanted to point out that the subject matter of claims 16 and 17, if rewritten for clarity and with support, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to disclose creating a two dimensional histogram comparing a MIN/MAX ratio vs optical response peak (MAX) and calculating a variance of each histogram column.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wood et al. discloses “Time resolved shadowgraphs of large individual water and ethanol droplets vaporized by a pulsed CO2 laser” where a plurality of line lasers are used to image a particulate.
Karasikov et al. U.S. Publication 2024/0027326 discloses a system and measurement for particles where a plurality of overlapping beams are used to interact with a particle and peaks measured to determine particle size.
Haaving et al. U.S. Patent #6,421,121 discloses using histograms from optical scattering to identify particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights