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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the short-lived alpha-emitting radionuclides" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce “a short-lived alpha-emitting radionuclide”. Claim 9 relies upon claim 7 which does not introduce a limitation directed to “a short-lived alpha-emitting radionuclide”. Claim 7 recites limitations directed to “radionuclides”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the radionuclides”.
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 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghoffer (U.S. 4,607,165) in view of Friedman (U.S. 7,683340).
Regarding claim 1:
Burghoffer discloses a particle alpha radiation sampler, comprising:
a scintillation cell (Fig. 1, 12 detector);
a counter in electrical communication with the scintillation cell (Col 4, lines 36-55, electronics behind detector) and configured to measure incidence of particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation);
a vessel defining a chamber (Fig. 1, 1 and 2 creates air flow space 7 and 10), wherein the scintillation cell is configured to receive alpha radiation passing through air in the chamber from particulate matter collected on a filter (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation; Fig. 1, filter 11);
at least one inertial impactor (Col. 2, lines 32-45, particle size allowed through a simple means) in fluid communication with the chamber (Col. 2, lines 32-45, particle size allowed through a simple means) and configured to allow passage of particles only at or below an established size threshold into the chamber (Col. 2, lines 32-45, particle size allowed through a simple means);
the filter (Fig. 1, 11), wherein the filter is in fluid communication with the chamber (Fig. 1, 11 connected to 10 and 7), and wherein the filter is configured to collect particulate matter from the air in the chamber drawn through the inertial impactor (Col. 5, lines 8-50, filter collects particles); and
a vacuum pump (Fig. 1, 4) in fluid communication with the chamber (Fig. 1, pump 4) and configured to draw air flow through the filter from the chamber and to draw air flow through the inertial impactor into the chamber (Col. 4., lines 20-54, air goes through chamber and filter).
However, Burghoffer fails to disclose a Geiger counter.
Friedman teaches a Geiger counter (Col. 11, lines 15-26, Geiger counting).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the counter of Burghoffer with the Geiger type counter taught by Friedman in order to improve radioisotope identification and lower power consumption (Friedman; Col. 2, lines 1-5). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the particle alpha radiation sampler of claim 1, wherein the inertial impactor is configured to only allow passage of particulate matter with dimensions no greater than 2.5 µm into the chamber (Burghoffer; Col. 2, lines 60-65, 1-10 µm).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the particle alpha radiation sampler of claim 1, wherein the Geiger counter is configured to measure the incidence of particle alpha radiation by generating an audio output signal (Burghoffer; col. 4, lines 39-55, sound output).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the particle alpha radiation sampler of claim 1, further comprising a film (Burghoffer; Col. 2, lines 35-40, simple means) between the chamber and the scintillation cell, wherein the film allows passage of particle alpha radiation through the film while blocking passage of other particles (Burghoffer; Col. 2, lines 35-40, simple means).
Regarding claim 7:
Burghoffer discloses a method for particle alpha radiation sampling, comprising:
using a vacuum pump, drawing air out of a chamber defined by a vessel and drawing air samples through at least one inertial impactor into the chamber and through a filter (Col. 4., lines 20-54, pump draws air through chamber and filter), wherein the inertial impactor removes particulate matter sized above an established size threshold (Col. 2, lines 32-45, particle size allowed through a simple means) and the filter collects the particulate matter sized below the established size threshold of the inertial impactor (Col. 2, lines 32-45, particle size allowed through a simple means; Col. 5, lines 8-50, filter collects particles);
recording incidence of particle alpha radiation on a scintillation cell (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation), wherein the particle alpha radiation (i) is emitted by radionuclides contained in the particulate matter collected on the filter (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation) and (ii) travels through the chamber and through a window to a scintillation cell (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation);
transmitting a signal from the scintillation cell to a counter with each incidence of particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation using electronics); and
using the counter to measure the incidence of the particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell (col. 4, lines 39-55, measuring frequency of alpha radiation using electronics).
However, Burghoffer fails to disclose a Geiger counter; and using the Geiger counter to measure the incidence of the particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell.
Friedman teaches a Geiger counter (Col. 11, lines 15-26, Geiger counting); and
using the Geiger counter to measure the incidence of the particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell (Col. 11, lines 15-26, Geiger counting).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Burghoffer with the Geiger type counter taught by Friedman in order to improve radioisotope identification and lower power consumption (Friedman; Col. 2, lines 1-5). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the radionuclides comprise radon decay progeny (Burghoffer; Col. 1, lines 40-55, radioactive decay times; Col. 5, lines 25-40, radon nuclei).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the inertial impactor only allows passage of particulate matter with dimensions no greater than 2.5 µm into the chamber (Burghoffer; Col. 2, lines 60-65, 1-10 µm).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the Geiger counter measures the incidence of particle alpha radiation by generating an audio output signal (Burghoffer; col. 4, lines 39-55, sound output).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the particle alpha radiation sampler further comprises a film (Burghoffer; Col. 2, lines 35-40, simple means) between the chamber and the scintillation cell, wherein the film allows passage of particle alpha radiation through the film while blocking passage of other particles (Burghoffer; Col. 2, lines 35-40, simple means).
Claims 5, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghoffer (U.S. 4,607,165) in view of Friedman (U.S. 7,683340) as applied to claims 1, and 7 above, and further in view of Woollam (U.S. 4,808,827) .
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the particle alpha radiation sampler of claim 1.
However, the combination of Burghoffer and Friedman fails to disclose further comprising a flow meter configured to measure air flow into the chamber.
Woollam teaches a flow meter configured to measure air flow into the chamber (Fig. 1, flow meters 11 and 12 measure air flow).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sampler of Burghoffer with the flow meter taught by Woollam in order to improve statistical validity of the of number of particles by increasing flow (Woollam; Col. 9, lines 1-5). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7.
However, the combination of Burghoffer and Friedman fails to disclose further comprising determining a decay rate of the alpha-emitting radionuclides from the measured incidence of the particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell.
Woolam teaches determining a decay rate of the alpha-emitting radionuclides from the measured incidence of the particle alpha radiation on the scintillation cell (Col. 5, lines 41-58, decay rate measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Burghoffer with the decay mesurement taught by Woollam in order to reduce the effects of energy loss in measurement (Woollam; Col. 5, lines 41-58,). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7.
However, the combination of Burghoffer and Friedman fails to disclose further comprising measuring a flow rate of the air into the chamber.
Woolam teaches measuring a flow rate of the air into the chamber (Fig. 1, flow meters 11 and 12 measure air flow).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Burghoffer with the flow meter taught by Woollam in order to improve statistical validity of the of number of particles by increasing flow (Woollam; Col. 9, lines 1-5). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 7.
However, the combination of Burghoffer and Friedman fails to disclose further comprising using a flow meter to measure air flow into the chamber.
Woolam teaches using a flow meter to measure air flow into the chamber (Fig. 1, flow meters 11 and 12 measure air flow).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Burghoffer with the flow meter taught by Woollam in order to improve statistical validity of the of number of particles by increasing flow (Woollam; Col. 9, lines 1-5). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Burghoffer (U.S. 4,607,165) in view of Friedman (U.S. 7,683340)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the particle alpha radiation sampler of claim 3.
However, the combination of Burghoffer and Friedman fails to disclose further comprising an event data logger configured to capture the audio output signal from the Geiger counter and to store the history of captured audio output signals.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Burghoffer and Friedman discloses the method of claim 12.
However, the combination of Burghoffer and Friedman fails to disclose further comprising using an event data logger to capture the audio output signal from the Geiger counter and to store the history of captured audio output signals.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights