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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2026 and 07/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach wherein an infrared transmissive coating covers an entire perimeter of the substrate because Wong’s Figure 5 depicts 6, flexible film, covers the top and the side surfaces of 4, optical window, but does not cover the bottom surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach wherein an infrared transmissive coating covers an entire perimeter of the substrate because Wong’s Figure 5 depicts 6, flexible film, covers the top and the side surfaces of 4, optical window, but does not cover the bottom surface, Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., every surface of the substrate is covered by the coating) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim positively recites “an entire perimeter of the substrate” and not “every surface of the substrate”. Given the claim language, when viewed from the top view, Wong is interpreted to teach 6, flexible film, covering an entire perimeter of 4, optical window. Thus, Examiner maintains the prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2012202951 A, of record) in view of Wong et al. (5,463,223, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Nagao discloses a Fourier transform infrared spectroscope (Figure 1; [0024]) comprising: a substrate composed of KRS-5 as a raw material (12, substrate; [0030]); an infrared light source (52, IR light source) accommodated in a housing (see Figure A, below; the housing has been drawn in the broadest reasonable interpretation and includes the housing of 52, IR light source, and the housing of 50, optical system); a sample chamber (20, cell) disposed on an exterior of the housing (see Figure A), in which a sample is accommodated (32, working electrode; [0033]); and a detector (58, infrared spectrometer; [0033]) disposed on the exterior of the housing (see Figure A) and configured to detect infrared light ([0033]), wherein an infrared transmissive coating covers the substrate ([0065] teaches a prism having a diamond-like carbon film prepared on the bottom surface of the prism substrate), the substrate is a window of the housing (at least [0065] teaches the ATR prism is made of a Ge window material; Examiner notes that because 10, prism, is transparent, it can be considered a window), and the window transmits infrared light from an interior of the housing toward the sample chamber and the detector at the exterior of the housing (Figure 3; [0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Examiner provided annotated Figure 3
Nagao fails to teach wherein an infrared transmissive coating covers an entire perimeter of the substrate. Nagao and Wong are related because both teach an infrared spectroscope.
Wong teaches an infrared spectroscope (at least col 1 lines 5-6) wherein an infrared transmissive coating (Figure 5, 6, flexible film; col 4 lines 32-34) covers an entire perimeter of the substrate (4, optical window; Figure 5 depicts 6, flexible film, convers an entire perimeter of 4, optical window; col 8 lines 59-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Nagao to incorporate the teachings of Wong and provide wherein an infrared transmissive coating covers an entire perimeter of the substrate. Doing so would allow for prevention of leaking or evaporation of the sample as well as significant clarity in analyzing and imaging in the sample.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Nagao discloses the Fourier transform infrared spectroscope according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a thickness of the infrared transmissive coating is set to a value at which an infrared absorptance is lower than 3%.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thickness of the coating such that the infrared absorptance is lower than 3%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Furthermore, Examiner notes that [0065] teaches the prism to have a diamond-like carbon film, which is known in the art to have an extremely high transmittance in the IR band by material property. Thus Examiner notes that it is within the scope of the reference to be motivated to keep a low infrared absorptance rate of the coating. Doing so would allow for improved transmissivity through the prism.
Regarding claim 4, he modified Nagao discloses the Fourier transform infrared spectroscope according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the infrared transmissive coating is set to a value within a range not smaller than 10 nanometers and smaller than 100 nanometers ([0065] teaches DLC film with thicknesses of 20 nm and 75 nm).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Nagao discloses the Fourier transform infrared spectroscope according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the infrared transmissive coating is set to a value within a range not smaller than 20 nanometers and smaller than 50 nanometers ([0065] teaches DLC film with thickness of 20 nm).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Nagao discloses the Fourier transform infrared spectroscope according to claim 1, wherein a raw material for the infrared transmissive coating is diamond-like carbon ([0065] teaches a prism having a diamond-like carbon film prepared on the bottom surface of the prism substrate).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Nagao discloses the Fourier transform infrared spectroscope according to claim 1, wherein the housing accommodates an optical system (50, optical system) that receives infrared light from the infrared light source (Figure 2; [0044]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2012202951 A, of record) in view of Wong et al. (5,463,223, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kocabas et al. (2024/0003662, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Nagao discloses the Fourier transform infrared spectroscope according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a raw material for the infrared transmissive coating is parylene. The modified Nagao and Kocabas are related because each teach an infrared transmissive coating.
Kocabas teaches an infrared transmissive coating wherein a raw material for the infrared transmissive coating is parylene ([0052] teaches an alternative of diamond-like carbon as a material of an infrared transparent layer may be parylene).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Nagao to incorporate the teachings of Kocabas and provide wherein a raw material for the infrared transmissive coating is parylene. Doing so would allow for improved protection and durability of the member and subsequent components.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights