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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) with PCT/EP2021/056946 which in turn claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with GB2003948.3. The certified copy of foreign priority has been filed with the Office on September 15, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2022, December 14, 2022, September 15, 2023, February 7, 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 2-14 in the reply filed on March 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has withdrawn Claims 15, 17, 19-25, 27, 29-38.
Applicant has cancelled Claims 2-4, 16, 26, 28
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Emmenegger et al US 20150083918.
Regarding Claim 1, Emmenegger teaches A double-pulse laser system for generating first and second laser pulses, comprising:
an optical arrangement (Fig. 5) comprising an optical splitting device (Fig. 5, 2) configured to generate a first laser pulse and a second laser pulse by splitting a single laser pulse (Paragraph 0116 “Beam splitter 2, which may be any type of beam splitter with equal absorption for both splitted parts of the laser beam, such as a semi-silvered mirror divides the laser light along a test path P1 for the test laser light pulses, and along a reference path P2 for the reference laser light pulses.”); and
a multipass cell, (Fig. 5, 3 Paragraph 0116 “Path P1 leads via mirror 12a through a 300 cm3 multipass cell constituting the sample chamber 3.”)
wherein the optical splitting device is configured to direct the second laser pulse into the multipass cell, the multipass cell arranged arranged to delay the second laser pulse with respect to the first laser pulse, (Paragraph 0117 “The length of path P1 through this specific multipass cell is 36 meters. After exiting the sample chamber 3, path P1 leads via mirror 12b to detector 4. Path P2 leads from beam splitter 2 via mirror 12c and a mirror 12d to detector 4 bypassing multipass cell 3. The path P1 from splitter 2 to input of chamber 3 and from output of chamber 3 to detector 4 is optically as identical as possible to the path P2 from splitter 2 to detector 4.”)
wherein the multipass cell comprises first and second reflector arrangements defining an optical cavity in which the delayed second laser pulse is reflected back and forth multiple times between the first and second reflector arrangements to provide a temporal delay between the first and second pulses of 1 ns or greater. (See annotated Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows the temporal delay of greater than 1 ns)
wherein the first reflector arrangement comprises first and second reflective surfaces perpendicular to each other and the second reflector arrangement is a single reflective concave surface and at least one of the first and second reflector arrangements comprises an aperture for allowing light to enter and/or exit the optical cavity. (See annotated Fig. 5 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
525
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Emmenegger teaches the optical splitting device is attached to or integral with the multipass cell. (Fig. 5 shows the optical splitting device is integral with the multipass cell or else the device would not function)
Regarding Claim 6, Emmenegger teaches the optical splitting device is on an exterior surface of the multipass cell. (“On” is defined as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with. See pertinent art #1. Emmenegger Fig. 3 shows the optical splitting device is in close proximity with the exterior surface of the multipass cell)
Regarding Claim 7, Emmenegger teaches the optical splitting device is on an exterior surface of one of the first and second reflector arrangements. (“On” is defined as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with. See pertinent art #1. Emmenegger Fig. 3 shows the optical splitting device is in close proximity with the exterior surface of the first and second reflector arrangements.)
Regarding Claim 12, Emmenegger teaches the optical arrangement comprises: one or a plurality of unpolarising beamsplitters for generating the first and second laser pulses; and/or one or a plurality of polarising beamsplitters for generating the first and second laser pulses. (Paragraph 0116 “Beam splitter 2, which may be any type of beam splitter with equal absorption for both splitted parts of the laser beam, such as a semi-silvered mirror divides the laser light along a test path P1 for the test laser light pulses, and along a reference path P2 for the reference laser light pulses.”)
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Emmenegger in view of Kumar US 6188481.
Regarding Claim 8, Emmenegger teaches the optical splitting device comprises a reflective surface. (Fig. 5 shows the beam splitter has a surface that reflects part of the light and transmits part of the light)
Emmenegger does not teach the optical splitting device has an aperture through which at least a portion of a laser pulse can pass.
However,
Kumar teaches the optical splitting device has an aperture through which at least a portion of a laser pulse can pass. (Fig. 3, 34 is beam splitter and 40 is aperature Col. 5 Lines 8-14 “FIG. 3 shows an illustration of an interferometer which is described to illustrate the invention. An incident beam 30 emerges from collecting optics 32 and is focussed onto a beam splitter 34. The beam splitter divides the incident beam 30 into first and second beams 36, 38. The beams 36 and 38 pass through respective optics 40, 42 and are collected by horns 44, 46.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical splitter as taught by Emmenegger by an aperture as disclosed by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to collimate the light leaving the beam splitter (Kumar Col. 5 Lines 8-14)
Regarding Claim 9, Emmenegger in combination with Kumar teaches the aperture of the optical splitting device is circular. (Fig. 3 shows a symmetrical lens so by looking straight on it would be circular. See Claim 8 for rational. )
Regarding Claim 10, Emmenegger in combination with Kumar teaches the aperture of the optical splitting device is aligned with an aperture of the multipass cell for allowing light to enter and/or exit the multipass cell. (Fig. 5 of Emmenegger shows the beam splitter is lined up through mirrors and it allows light to enter the multipass cell. See Claim for rationale.)
Regarding Claim 11, Emmenegger in combination with Kumar teaches the optical arrangement is configured to direct a single laser pulse towards the aperture of the optical splitting device (Fig. 5 of Emmenegger shows a pulse going to the optical splitting device which has an aperature in it as shown in Kumar) such that a portion of the single laser pulse passes through the aperture of the optical splitting device and into the multipass cell, thereby generating the second laser pulse, and a portion of the single laser pulse is reflected by the reflective surface of the optical splitting device, thereby generating the first laser pulse. (Fig. 5 of Emmenegger shows that the laser pulse that goes through the optical splitting device goes to the multipass cell and the pulse that is reflected does not go through the multipass cell. Two pulses are generated through this process. See Claim 8 for rationale. )
Claims 13, 14 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Emmenegger in view of So et al. US 20120092782
Regarding Claim 13, Emmenegger does not teach the optical arrangement is configured such that the angle at which the second laser pulse is directed into the multipass cell is adjustable.
However,
So teaches the angle at which the laser pulse is directed into the multipass cell is adjustable. (Paragraph 0030 “The angles of beam entry are continuously varied, along with the winding number Mx. For each of these entry angle and winding number configurations, the angle of tilting of the mirrors can be varied to find a configuration which satisfies the necessary constraints. FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate exemplary spot patterns showing Lissajous-like patterns for both first mirror pair 10 (FIGS. 5(a), 6(a)) and second mirror pair 16 (FIGS. 5(b), 6(b)). For the embodiment associated with beam patterns of FIG. 5, a tilt angle of 0.6.degree. was used, with a separation d of 0.104 m.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of entrance as taught by Emmenegger by having the entrance angle be adjustable as disclosed by So. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the beam spot pattern occurs thus changing the amount of reflections (So Paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 14, Emmenegger teaches the multipass cell has a longitudinal axis, (Fig. 5 shows the long axis of 3 as the longitudinal axis)
Emmenegger does not teach the optical arrangement is configured to direct the second laser pulse into the multipass cell at an angle to the longitudinal axis of:
from 0° to 20°;
from 1° to 15°; or
from 2° to 10°.
However,
So teaches the optical arrangement is configured to direct the second laser pulse into the multipass cell at an angle to the longitudinal axis of:
from 0° to 20°;
from 1° to 15°; or
from 2° to 10°.
(Figs. 5 and 6 show the variation of entrance degrees between -0.015 and 0.015)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of entrance as taught by Emmenegger by having the entrance angle be adjustable as disclosed by So. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the beam spot pattern occurs thus changing the amount of reflections (So Paragraph 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191221020626/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on (Definition 1c “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with”)
Ohkubo et al. US 20170365475 teaches many features found in Claim 1 and was used to restrict the application but was not used in the rejection due to amendments made to the Claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828