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 .
The Information Disclosure Statements
The prior art cited in the information disclosure statements filed on 8/28/2025 has been considered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 7,916,293 B2) [hereinafter Mitchell] in view of So et al. (US2021/0242989 A1) [hereinafter So].
As to claims 1-2, 14-15, , Mitchell teaches a system for particle detection within a chamber, comprising: a transmitter (200, Fig. 2A) configured to generate a beam 210 of light; one of a flow cell 220 and beam shaping optics 230 associated with the laser for generating a beam area within the chamber (flow cell chamber), the beam area configured to be arranged at an oblique angle relative to a longitudinal axis 250 of the chamber and substantially confined to an imaging plane (note image plane is where the light from the particle interaction is focused to, such as detector 280); and a detector 280 configured to detect particles that interact with the beam of light at the imaging plane.
Mitchell is silent the flow cell is multipass configuration. However, So, in the same field of endeavor, teaches multipass cell using spherical mirrors (title, abstract; paragraphs 0005-0006, 0018)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the multipass configuration of So to Mitchell system in order to make a weak interaction strong without making particle sensor bigger/detect much smaller particles or low concentrations.
As to claim 3, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claim1. The limitation’ wherein the system comprises the beam shaping optics configured to generate a rectangular ribbon shape of light,’ is intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As to claims 4, 16, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claims 1, 14, and in addition Michell teaches wherein the oblique angle is in a range from about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees (Fig.2; column 7, lines 12-21; column 8, lines 28-46).
As to claims 5-6, 17, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claims 1, 14, and in addition Mitchell is equally capable ‘wherein the chamber has an inner diameter, and the beam area extends through about 25% to about 90% of the inner diameter of the chamber; wherein the system is configured to match the beam area to an inner diameter of the chamber (column 8, lines 28-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to condition/shape/fit beam shape/area in the flow cell/chamber as desired.
As to claims 7, 18, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claims 1, 14, and in addition Michell teaches wherein the system is configured to detect a particle size of less than about 100 nm using optical emission (column 6, lines 7-30).
As to claims 8,19, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claim 1, and in addition Michell teaches wherein the detector is configured to provide spatial information about the detected particles (column 10, lines 12-43).
As to claims 10, 11, Mitchell teaches a system for particle detection within a pipe, comprising: a transmitter 200 configured to generate a beam 210 of light; a flow cell 220 associated with the laser, and wherein the flow cell generates a beam area within the pipe 220 arranged at an oblique angle
relative to a longitudinal axis of the pipe; and a detector 280 configured to detect one or more particles that traverse the beam area and interact with the beam of light, wherein the detector is positioned substantially perpendicular to the imaging plane.
Mitchell is silent to the flow cell is multipass configuration. However, So, in the same field of endeavor, teaches multipass cell using spherical/curved mirrors and beam bouncing back bouncing between said mirrors (title, abstract; paragraphs 0005-0006, 0018)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the multipass configuration of So with curved mirror to Mitchell system in order to make a weak interaction strong without making particle sensor bigger/detect much smaller particles or low concentrations.
Still Mitchell is silent using a camera. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use camera instead of a detector in order provide better spatial resolution.
As to claims 12-13, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claim 1. Mitchell in view of So is silent to wherein the system is installed in a section of a vacuum pump line fluidly connecting a process chamber with a vacuum pump system; wherein the section of the pipe comprises a mounting assembly that connects a first end of the pipe section to the process chamber and connects a second end of the pipe section to the vacuum pump system. However, examiner takes Official Notice that use a vacuum pump with flow cell/multipass system is known in the art.
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a vacuum pump to Mitchell in view of So system in order clean/suck contaminant air/particles from the chamber/cell.
As to claim 20, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claim 14, and in addition Michell teaches positioning the detector substantially perpendicular to the imaging plane to detect a light scattered from the detected particles that traverse the beam area. However, examiner takes Official Notice that positioning a detector perpendicular to image plane in known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position a detector perpendicular to an image plane in order to provide a profile along the beam.
Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of So and further in view of Patrick et al (US 2022/0233097 A1) [hereinafter Patrick].
As to claim 9, Mitchell in view of So teaches all as applied to claim 1. Mitchell in view of So is silent to “wherein the transmitter is configured to be mechanically coupled to a wall of the chamber and optically coupled via a transmitter window to transmit the beam of light to the chamber, and wherein the detector is configured to be mechanically coupled to the wall of the chamber and optically coupled via a detector window to receive light from the particles as they pass through the beam area.’
However, Patrick, in the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitter mechanically coupled to a wall of a chamber/slot and transmit beam to the chamber/slot, and a detector coupled to a wall of a chamber/slot and receive light passing through the chamber/slot (Figs. 3 a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mechanically couple a light transmitter and detector to a wall of a chamber to transmit and receive light via said chamber in order to make the whole optical path move as one solid block, so vibration and thermal drift cancel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
ORTYN et al. (WO 0231467 A1) teaches a multipass cavity system (10) employs a beam of light (12) that is reflected back and forth between reflective surfaces (15, 16) a plurality of times, illuminating a different portion of the field of view (25) with each pass until the light exits the reflection cavity. The 'recycling' of light beam substantially improves the SNR of the detection system. The present invention is a beam alignment system for use in such a multipass cavity, correcting misalignment in four degrees of freedom; the horizontal and vertical axes, the angle in each of the vertical and horizontal axes. Angular or positional errors lateral to the direction of the beam can dramatically affect performance. The present invention enables the measurement and adjustment of each degree of freedom independently, in order to make beam steering corrections and maintain optical alignment. This is accomplished in an automated, closed-loop feedback control system (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI NUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1298. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9am to 6pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAHI NUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights