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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
liquid delivery drive unit in claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15,
control unit in claims 6, 8, and 9,
particle classification device, and
condensation particle counter.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites that an electric force acts on the liquid cone without reciting corresponding structure to support the electric force, and therefore, it is not clear if corresponding structure is to be imported into the claim or if the claim is merely stating desired results from operating the claimed device. Although an electrode is recited, it is not sufficient to support the electric force. This contrasts with claim 7 which recites a power supply that applies voltage. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2006/0146327).
Wang shows the following:
1. An electrospray device for aerosolizing a conductive liquid, comprising:
a liquid delivery drive unit (Para. [0028]: “aerosol charger 32”; para. [0049]: “Computer-controlled valves 106”) by which the conductive liquid is introduced into an emitter;
an emitter (Para. [0028]: “aerosol injection port 20”) that discharges the conductive liquid introduced into the emitter through an emitter tip to aerosolize the conductive liquid;
a counter electrode disposed to face the emitter tip (see electrical ground attached to electrically conductive wall 24; See first, second, and third voltages discussed in para. [0046]);
a sheath flow guide part (Para. [0029]: “may include additional minor sheath flows through both sides of the narrow aerosol injection port slit 20”) disposed around the emitter to provide a sheath flow;
an electrode part that applies a voltage to form a potential difference between the emitter or the conductive liquid and the counter electrode (Para. [0026]: “a separation section 22, which applies an electric field E across the interior chamber 14”; Para. [0031]: “a negative voltage source 54”); and
a camera that captures an image of a liquid cone on the emitter tip (Para. [00269]: “a camera 28 for detecting aerosol streams exiting the housing”), wherein an electric force acts on the conductive liquid on the emitter tip by the voltage applied from the electric electrode part, causing droplets to be discharged from the emitter tip toward the counter electrode to generate an aerosol (para. [0031]: “the smaller more mobile particles are influenced by the electric field greater than the larger particles and will, therefore, migrate further toward the charged electrode plate 25.”).
2. The electrospray device of claim 1, wherein control parameters related to aerosol generation are generated based on a shape of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured by the camera, and
the electrospray device is automatically controlled using the control parameters (The claim is drawn to the structure of a device and the claim is directed to the manner of operating the device which does not serve to structurally distinguish from Wang).
3. The electrospray device of claim 2, wherein the control parameters include at least one of the voltage and a flow rate of the conductive liquid supplied to the emitter (The claim is drawn to the structure of a device and the claim is directed to the manner of operating the device which does not serve to structurally distinguish from Wang).
4. The electrospray device of claim 1, wherein a lighting unit is disposed at a position facing the camera with the emitter tip interposed therebetween, and
aerosolization is controlled based on the shape of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured by the camera (The claim is drawn to the structure of a device and the claim is recites the manner of operating the device which does not serve to structurally distinguish from Wang. Note that the lighting unit is not listed as an element of the device. See claim 6 which clearly recites additional structural elements to the device).
7. An electrospray device comprising:
a liquid chamber that accommodates a sample liquid having electrical conductivity;
an aerosolization chamber (Para. [0026]: “a housing 12”)connected to the liquid chamber to receive the sample liquid from the liquid chamber and aerosolize the sample liquid; and
a liquid delivery drive unit (Computer-controlled valves 106) that moves the sample liquid in the liquid chamber to the aerosolization chamber,
wherein the aerosolization chamber comprises:
an emitter (Para. [0028]: “aerosol injection port 20”) that discharges the sample liquid introduced from the liquid chamber through an emitter tip and aerosolizes the sample liquid;
a counter electrode disposed to face the emitter tip (see electrical ground attached to electrically conductive wall 24; See first, second, and third voltages discussed in para. [0046]);;
a sheath flow guide part (Para. [0029]: “may include additional minor sheath flows through both sides of the narrow aerosol injection port slit 20”) disposed around the emitter to provide a sheath flow;
a power supply that applies a voltage to form a potential difference between the emitter or the sample liquid and the counter electrode (inherent based on para. [0026]: “a separation section 22, which applies an electric field E across the interior chamber 14”; Para. [0031]: “a negative voltage source 54”);; and
a camera (Para. [00269]: “a camera 28 for detecting aerosol streams exiting the housing”) that captures an image of a liquid cone on the emitter tip, and
wherein an electric force acts on the liquid cone on the emitter tip by the applied voltage, causing droplets to be discharged from the emitter tip toward the counter electrode to generate an aerosol (para. [0031]: “the smaller more mobile particles are influenced by the electric field greater than the larger particles and will, therefore, migrate further toward the charged electrode plate 25.”).
10. An aerosol-based liquid particle counting system comprising:
the electrospray device of claim 1;
a dryer that dries the aerosol discharged from the electrospray device (Para. [0049]: “dryer 112”);
a particle classification device connected to the dryer (Para. []: “a conventional differential mobility analyzer (DMA) 90”); and
a condensation particle counter connected to the particle classification device (Para. [0048]: “a condensation particle counter (CPC) 102”).
11. An automated control method of the electrospray device of claim 1, the method comprising:
obtaining a liquid cone image by operating the electrospray device to generate a liquid cone on the emitter tip and capturing an image of the liquid cone on the emitter tip in real time (Para. [0035]: “droplets that are subsequently easily viewed and counted by the camera 28”);
processing the liquid cone image (Para. [0035]: “counted by the camera 28”); and
adjusting control parameters (Para. [0049]: “Computer-controlled valves 106”).
12. The automated control method of claim 11, further comprising generating a recipe before the obtaining of the liquid cone image, wherein the recipe includes a (Para. [0031]: “the charged aerosols 52 are separated by size into different flow streams based on the aerosol's electrical mobility. Simply put, the smaller more mobile particles are influenced by the electric field greater than the larger particles”).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bentvelsen (US 2014/0339323).
5. The electrospray device of claim 1, further comprising:
a liquid supply tube (exit tube of aerosol charger 32) connected to one side of a chamber housing to supply the conductive liquid to the emitter; and
a
wherein the liquid delivery drive unit is a regulator that controls the flow rate of the conductive liquid (Para. [0028]: “The aerosol sample flow rate through the aerosol charger 32 is preferably about 0.3 L/min.”).
Wang teaches a flow rate such as 0.3 L/min is desired but does not show the use of a flowmeter to know if the desired flow rate is achieved.
Bentvelsen shows the analysis and regulation of aerosol output wherein Bentvelsen teaches the use of a differential pressure sensor to calculate an aerosol output rate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a differential pressure sensor in order control (i.e. regulator) and ensure that the desired flow rate is achieved as called for by Wang.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valaskovic et al. (US 2002/0190203) in view of Wang.
Valaskovic shows the following:
1. An electrospray device (e.g. Figs. 1, 8, and 10) for aerosolizing a conductive liquid, comprising:
a liquid delivery drive unit (mobile phase pump) by which the conductive liquid is introduced into an emitter;
an emitter (nozzle) that discharges the conductive liquid introduced into the emitter through an emitter tip to aerosolize the conductive liquid;
a counter electrode disposed to face the emitter tip (counter-electrode);
an electrode part that applies a voltage to form a potential difference between the emitter or the conductive liquid and the counter electrode (HV electrode); and
a camera that captures an image of a liquid cone on the emitter tip (Para. [0098]: “A CCD camera based microscope (magnification approx. 100x) was positioned above the capillary nozzle to provide an image of the capillary nozzle and resultant aerosol plume.”; “An optimal lens system is one wherein the field of view imaged by the camera includes the end of the nozzle”), wherein an electric force acts on the conductive liquid on the emitter tip by the voltage applied from the electric electrode part, causing droplets to be discharged from the emitter tip toward the counter electrode to generate an aerosol (para. [0031]: “the smaller more mobile particles are influenced by the electric field greater than the larger particles and will, therefore, migrate further toward the charged electrode plate 25.”).
Valaskovic does not show a sheath flow guide. Wang shows the use of sheath flow guides (para. [0029]) in order to confine the aerosol flow to a region of uniform flow velocity. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use sheath flow guides in the device of Valaskovic in order confine the aerosol flow to a region of uniform flow velocity.
2. The electrospray device of claim 1, wherein control parameters related to aerosol generation are generated based on a shape of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured by the camera, and
the electrospray device is automatically controlled using the control parameters (The claim is drawn to the structure of a device and the claim is directed to the manner of operating the device which does not serve to structurally distinguish from Valaskovic).
3. The electrospray device of claim 2, wherein the control parameters include at least one of the voltage and a flow rate of the conductive liquid supplied to the emitter (The claim is drawn to the structure of a device and the claim is directed to the manner of operating the device which does not serve to structurally distinguish from Valaskovic).
4. The electrospray device of claim 1, wherein a lighting unit is disposed at a position facing the camera with the emitter tip interposed therebetween, and
aerosolization is controlled based on the shape of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured by the camera (The claim is drawn to the structure of a device and the claim is recites the manner of operating the device which does not serve to structurally distinguish from Valaskovic. Note that the lighting unit is not listed as an element of the device. See claim 6 which clearly recites additional structural elements to the device).
6. The electrospray device of claim 1, further comprising a control unit that generates the control parameters for generating an aerosol and automatically controls the electrospray device (Para. [0164]: “Computer 14”),
wherein the control unit is included in the electrospray device or is an external information processing device connected to the electrospray device by communication, and
wherein the control unit processes a liquid cone image of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured by the camera, compares the liquid cone image with a reference image (Para. [0090]: “the obtained spray image is compared to a library of reference images, and the best match is found. Based upon the best match the voltage is either increased, decreased, or left unchanged.”), and adjusts the control parameters according to a comparison result (Para. [0164]: “Computer 14 analyzes the image of the electrospray, and adjusts the high voltage power supply 3 to increase or decrease the voltage applied to the capillary nozzle, as necessary to maintain the optimum electrospray configuration, or pattern.”).
7. An electrospray device comprising:
a liquid chamber (Para. [0164]: “mobile phase pump 2”) that accommodates a sample liquid having electrical conductivity;
an aerosolization chamber (Para. [0164]: main body of “capillary nozzle 1”) connected to the liquid chamber to receive the sample liquid from the liquid chamber and aerosolize the sample liquid; and
a liquid delivery drive unit (Para. [0164]: the pump of the “mobile phase pump 2”)that moves the sample liquid in the liquid chamber to the aerosolization chamber,
As to the elements of the aerosolization chamber, please see the elements cited for claim 1.
8. The electrospray device of claim 7, further comprising:
a control unit (Figure 10, computer 14) connected to the power supply, (13) , and the liquid delivery drive unit (3),
wherein the control unit generates control parameters for automatically adjusting the voltage and the pressure difference (change in voltage would also change pressure difference) based on an image of the liquid cone on the emitter chip captured by the camera.
As to the differential gauge, the same reason is applied as found for claim 5 above.
9. The electrospray device of claim 8, wherein the liquid delivery drive unit is a differential regulator connected to the liquid chamber to generate a pressure difference between the liquid chamber and the aerosolization chamber and the differential regulator and the power supply are automatically controlled using control parameters. (Valaskovic does not show the differential regulator. Official notice is taken that differential regulators were well known. Valaskovic shows a variety of flow rates are desired (paras. [0098], [0105], [0137]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a differential regulator in order to vary the pressure differential in order to achieve different flow rates).
11. An automated control method of the electrospray device of claim 1, the method comprising:
obtaining a liquid cone image by operating the electrospray device to generate a liquid cone on the emitter tip and capturing an image of the liquid cone on the emitter tip in real time;
processing the liquid cone image; and
adjusting control parameters (Para. [0086]: “As shown in FIG. 10, the electrospray aerosol generated at the exit of the capillary nozzle is illuminated with a light source and imaged with a CCD camera equipped microscope. The intense light source is positioned and focused to optimize contrast and the scattering of light by the aerosol droplets. The computer acquires and analyzes the image of the aerosol, and makes any necessary adjustment to the high voltage connected to the nozzle so as to optimize the aerosol morphology.”).
12. The automated control method of claim 11, further comprising generating a recipe before the obtaining of the liquid cone image, wherein the recipe includes a reference image (Para. [0090]: “the obtained spray image is compared to a library of reference images, and the best match is found.”).
13. The automated control method of claim 12, wherein, before the adjusting of the parameters, the liquid cone image is compared with the reference image in the recipe to determine whether to adjust the control parameters, and the reference image is an image of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured when optimal aerosolization is achieved (Para. [0090]: “the obtained spray image is compared to a library of reference images, and the best match is found… For this system to work the library of modes must first be constructed so that the mode detection algorithm can make a quantitative comparison.” Para. [0100]: “For this "fine tune" phase voltage was adjusted in 50 V increments to maintain the conditions for optimal spray.”).
14. The automated control method of claim 11, further comprising, before the obtaining of the liquid cone image, generating a recipe, wherein the recipe includes a reference image and a reference cone horizontal length, the reference image is an image of the liquid cone on the emitter tip captured when optimal aerosolization is achieved, and the reference cone horizontal length is a horizontal length of only the cone on the emitter tip in the reference image (see claim 13 above),
wherein the processing of the liquid cone image comprises:
obtaining a difference image between the liquid cone image and the reference image; calculating a difference in the cone horizontal length between the liquid cone image (Para. [0080]: “the overall shape of the liquid jet and droplet plume are used for control.” The “shape” entails the size including length) and the reference image (Para. [0185]: “motor driven translation stage 35, which moves capillary nozzle either towards or away from counterelectrode 5 as necessary to maintain the optimum electrospray pattern or form.”);
calculating an area of the difference image;
determining whether both the area of the difference image and the length difference are within allowable values (Para. [0112]: “The acquired image would then be compared to each of the library images using a normalized spatial domain cross-correlation scheme, a well-established image comparison method known to those skilled in the art.” See also paras. [0113]-[0121]); and
maintaining the control parameters when the area and the difference are within the allowable values according to the determination, and adjusting the control parameters when the area and the difference are outside the allowable values (Para. [0013]: “until a satisfactory spray pattern is achieved”; Para. [0090]: “Based upon the best match the voltage is either increased, decreased, or left unchanged.”),
wherein the difference in the cone horizontal length is a difference between the reference cone horizontal length and the cone horizontal length in the liquid cone image (see discussion above regarding shape/length).
15. The automated control method of claim 11, further comprising:
before the obtaining of the liquid cone image while generating the liquid cone, capturing an initial emitter image including the emitter tip in a state in which the liquid cone is not generated (Para. [01111]: “Before the control system could be utilized, the pattern-matching algorithm would require the acquisition of a library of reference images for each of the common modes” with non-operating being a mode); and
calculating parameters from the initial emitter image and storing the reference parameters (Para. [0111]: “This library of images would be acquired at various flow rates and voltages”), wherein the processing of the liquid cone image comprises:
performing preprocessing on the liquid cone image (Para. [0112]: “Image parameters such as contrast, intensity and gamma would be adjusted to maximize the quality of the image content”);
processing the cone image to calculate one or more geometric parameters (Para. [0117]: “The "image understanding" techniques include geometric modeling and non-uniform image sampling.”);
comparing the geometric parameters with the reference parameters (Para. [0117]: “image correlation is carried using correlation techniques that incorporate "image understanding" techniques to interpret the information in each reference image”);
generating control parameters based on the comparison; and
adjusting at least one of the voltage, a flow rate of a supply tube, and a driving value of the liquid delivery drive unit based on the control parameters (Para. [0164]: “Computer 14 analyzes the image of the electrospray, and adjusts the high voltage power supply 3 to increase or decrease the voltage applied to the capillary nozzle, as necessary to maintain the optimum electrospray configuration, or pattern.”).
Valaskovic does not show the subtracting of an initial emitter image from the cone image. Official notice is taken that it was well known to subtract an initial image from an obtained image in order to remove superfluous areas of non-interest. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to remove areas of the cone image (e.g. the background of the image) by subtracting an image without the cone so that only the image of the cone is obtained thereby easing image processing load and potential sources of image analysis error.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valaskovic et al. and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bentvelsen (US 2014/0339323).
Valaskovic shows all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above and shows:
5. The electrospray device of claim 1, further comprising:
a liquid supply tube (exit tube of aerosol charger 32) connected to one side of a chamber housing to supply the conductive liquid to the emitter; and
a
wherein the liquid delivery drive unit is a regulator that controls the flow rate of the conductive liquid using a measurement value measured by the flowmeter (Para. [0137]: “A tapered, metal coated fused-silica capillary needle would be connected to a syringe pump delivering mobile phase at a flow rate between 100 nL/min to 2 µL/min.”).
Valaskovic teaches a certain flow rate is desired but does not show how to know if the desired flow rate is achieved.
Bentvelsen shows the analysis and regulation of aerosol output wherein Bentvelsen teaches the use of a differential pressure sensor to calculate an aerosol output rate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a differential pressure sensor in order control (i.e. regulator) and ensure that the desired flow rate is achieved as called for by Valaskovic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights