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 .
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 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 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.
As to Claims 6 and 16,
The phrase “the primary pole and the secondary pole are insulated with a plurality of panels disposed horizontally with respect to the primary pole and the secondary pole” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) At issue is that it is unclear how the term “panel” should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. A “panel” is defined to mean “a distinct portion, section, or division of a wall, wainscot, ceiling, door, shutter, fence, etc., especially of any surface sunk below or raised above the general level or enclosed by a frame or border” or “a comparatively thin, flat piece of wood or the like, as a large piece of plywood” per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/panel. While other definitions also exist, the issue here is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably consider circular disks or layers of an sensor to be considered “panels” as claimed. While these features may be disks, a disk is not reasonably a panel. As such, it is unclear how these features should be interpreted in light of the disclosure.
The Examiner acknowledges that applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, but that when applicant intends to use a term outside its ordinary and customary meaning, applicant must clearly redefine such a term in the disclosure. Merely providing an example of a intended meaning is not a clear redefinition of that term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “panel” in claim 6 is used by the claim to mean “a circular disk,” while the accepted meaning is “a distinct portion, section, or division of a wall, wainscot, ceiling, door, shutter, fence, etc., especially of any surface sunk below or raised above the general level or enclosed by a frame or border.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that a layer or disk shaped object can be considered a panel.
2) Applicant claims that the panels are disposed “horizontally” with respect to the primary and secondary poles, but the panels are not reasonably disposed in this manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the panels, one example of which is shown above, are not disposed horizontally with respect to any panel. Instead, they are located above, below, or between the poles. It is unclear how these panels are horizontally disposed as claimed, and it is therefore unclear how such a feature should be interpreted.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that layers or surfaces that are disposed above, below, or between the poles but extend parallel to a same direction that the poles extend in meet the claim limitation.
As to Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsi (US 5,773,833).
As to Claim 1,
Hsi discloses A photoionization detector (PID) comprising:
a primary pole (22) (Figures 1,4,5), (Column 1, Lines 47-52), (Column 3, Line 64-Column 4, Line 7), (Claim 16 / note the electrodes are charged to attract either positively or negatively charged particles, and thus poles);
a secondary pole (24) spaced apart from the primary pole and coupled to a bias voltage source (Figures 1,5,6), (Column 6, Lines 35-45), (Claim 17 / note the third electrode is also charged to attract particles, and thus a pole), wherein the secondary pole is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from at least one UV light source for generating photo-induced electrons (Column 6, Lines 35-45); and,
at least one gas port (6) associated with the secondary pole configured to flow gas in between the primary pole and the secondary pole for absorbing the UV light to alter the generated photo-induced electrons (Column 3, Line 60-Column 4, Line 7 / note this is a property of the system, as evidenced on lines 11-29 of Column 2).
As to Claim 11,
Hsi discloses A method for photoionization detector (PID), the method comprising:
exposing, via at least one ultraviolet (UV) light source (1), a secondary pole (24) to UV light to generate photo-induced electrons, wherein the secondary pole is spaced apart from a primary pole (22), and coupled to a bias voltage source (Figures 1,4,5), (Column 1, Lines 47-52), (Column 3, Line 64-Column 4, Line 7),( Column 6, Lines 35-45), (Claim 16 / note the electrodes are charged to attract either positively or negatively charged particles, and thus poles);
facilitating, via at least one gas port (6) associated with the secondary pole, flow of gas in between the primary pole and the secondary pole, for absorbing the UV light to alter the generated photo-induced electrons (Column 3, Line 60-Column 4, Line 7 / note this is a property of the system, as evidenced on lines 11-29 of Column 2).
As to Claims 2 and 12,
Hsi discloses the secondary pole is exposed to the UV light through one or more openings in the primary pole (Figures 1,4,5 / note the primary pole 22 has openings that allow the UV light from (1) to strike secondary pole 24).
As to Claims 3 and 13,
Hsi discloses the photo-induced electrons are configured to generate current based at least on a voltage difference between the primary pole and the secondary pole (Column 3, Line 64-Column 4, Line 7), (Column 6, Lines 35-45 / note this is a property of the system because the gas will act as a dielectric and any currents generated based on the electrons will be based on voltage differences between the electrodes/poles).
As to Claims 4 and 14,
Hsi discloses at least one signal processing circuit (9,28,29) is operationally coupled with the at least one secondary pole (Figure 4), wherein the at least one signal processing circuit is configured to receive the current (Figure 4),(Column 8, Lines 26-47).
As to Claims 5 and 15,
Hsi discloses the at least one signal processing circuit is configured to generate a signal related to a concentration of gas based on the received current (Figure 4), (Column 6, Lines 46-57),(Column 8, Lines 3-14).
As to Claims 6 and 16,
Hsi discloses the primary pole and the secondary pole are insulated with a plurality of panels (23, 30, 32) disposed horizontally with respect to the primary pole and the secondary pole (Figure 5), (Column 9, Lines 11-29).
As to Claims 7 and 17,
His discloses the plurality of panels comprises: a first panel (23 or 13 which, in light of the disclosure, is a thick circular panel) disposed below the primary pole; a second panel (32) disposed horizontally between the primary pole and the secondary pole; and, a third panel (30) disposed above the secondary pole (Figure 5 / note a direction above the third panel can reasonably still be a direction below a different panel as the directions are referenced to the individual panels and not collectively).
As to Claims 8 and 18,
Hsi discloses the at least one gas port is associated with the second panel and the third panel (Figure 4 / note the gas port (6) is associated with all panels).
As to Claims 9 and 19,
Hsi discloses the gas corresponds to a high ionization energy gas (Column 3, Line 60-Column 4, Line 7 / note the device is intended to be used with such gas).
As to Claims 10 and 20,
Hsi discloses the at least one UV light source is connected with a high voltage source, and corresponds to a UV lamp, wherein the UV light comprises a plurality of photons that are absorbed by the gas to alter the generated photo-induced electrons (Column 3, Line 45-Column 4, Line 7 / note such a source must be present).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2024/0322754 A1 to Willcox et al. which discloses a photoionization detector using a UV lamp to ionize a target sample and perform a detection using polarized electrodes, and 2) US 2024/0068999 A1 to Huang which discloses a photoionization detector using a UV lamp to ionize a gas that is then detected by electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
