DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment received on April 13, 2016 has been entered into the record.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0035] on lines 21 and 25 it appears that 14 is the incorrect identifier for ‘the memory (14)’ since 14 refers to a controller in FIG. 1 and on lines 23 and 24 it appears that 16 is the incorrect identifier for ‘the processor (16)’ since 16 refers to a transition laser in FIG. 1.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘at least one controller comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor (claim 1)' must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (2005/0230612)-previously cited in view of Zhang et al. (8,134,128) and Gusev (7,817,270)-previously cited.
As for claim 1, Weber in a method and apparatus for the characterization and analysis of the shape of molecules and molecular clusters, and for the separation of desired isomers, based on Rydberg states discloses/suggests the following: a system for multi-dimensional chemical sensing (FIGS. 2 and 4: noting that the detector readout demonstrates at least two dimensions), comprising: a tunable pulsed excitation laser aligned to deliver a laser pulse having a first wavelength to a sample point (FIG. 4: 44A with paragraph 0065, 0068, 0077, and 0079 and noting FIG. 5B: 44 (44A); at least one tunable pulsed transition laser aligned to deliver a laser pulse having a second wavelength to the sample point (FIG. 4: 40A or 42A with paragraphs 0061, 0067, 0077, and 0080 and noting FIG. 5B: 40A and 42A); wherein a number of the at least one tunable pulsed transition laser plus the tunable pulsed excitation laser is a number of dimensions sensed by the system (Fig. 4: 20 and 24; paragraphs 0060-0062); wherein the laser pulse having the first wavelength and the laser pulse having the second wavelength have energy sufficient to excite an electron of a sample molecule to a Rydberg state (paragraphs 0079 and 0080; and an ionization or light absorption detector (ionization detector: FIG. 4: 22 with 24).
As for ‘at least one controller comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor configured to execute instructions,’ Weber is silent. Weber does suggest the delay of the laser pulses may be controlled (paragraph 0125). Nevertheless, the examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art of laser spectroscopy to have at least one controller comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor configured to execute instructions to provide automated control of the measurement instrument and to perform automated processing of the measurement data. As well Zhang in a method and system for plasma-induced terahertz spectroscopy teaches having a spectroscopy signal processing unit and imaging signal processing unit comprise programs of instructions that are executable on a computer or microprocessor (col. 5, lines 8-11). And Gusev in a nanosecond flash photolysis system teaches having a computer that gathers measurements as well as control a pump source’s delay (Fig. 1: 23 with 16, 18, 14).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one controller comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor configured to execute instructions in order to automate the control of the measurement system such as to control a laser’s delay and to perform automated processing of the measurement data.
Regarding claim 1 and ‘to: deliver the laser pulse … and the at least the second wavelength (lines 15-25),’ this appears to be an intended use recitation. The examiner refers to the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 2, Weber in view of Zhang and Gusev discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the tunable pulsed excitation laser and/or the tunable pulsed transition laser is a femtosecond laser (paragraph 0061).
As for claim 3, Weber in view of Zhang and Gusev discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the system includes a plurality of tunable pulsed transition lasers, each aligned to deliver a laser pulse having a different wavelength to the sample point (FIG. 4: 40A and 42A; FIG. 5B: 40A and 42A).
As for claim 5, Weber in view of Zhang and Gusev discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for wherein the ionization or light adsorption detector is provided within an enclosed sensor device, Weber does not explicitly state this, but Weber does state that one suitable detector device is available from Quantar (paragraph 0072). Nevertheless, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to enclose detectors in a housing to protect the components of the detector as well as to prevent background radiation from being detected and thereby interfering with the measurement’s accuracy. In addition, Zhang does demonstrate having a detector in an enclosed sensor device (FIG. 1: 115 with 102 and 101). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ionization detector be provided within an enclosed sensor device such as a housing to protect the detector’s components from the external environment and to minimize background radiation from interfering with the actual measurement signal being detected.
As for claim 22, Weber in view of Zhang and Gusev discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests the detector is an electrometer (Fig. 4: 22 with paragraphs 0061 and 0072).
As for claims 23-24, Weber in view of Zhang and Gusev discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Weber in view of Zhang and Gusev discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to set at least one parameter of the tunable pulsed excitation and/or the at least one tunable pulsed transition laser (claim 23); wherein the at least one parameter comprising a timing parameter and/or time delay (claim 24)( see claim 1 above: ‘it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one controller comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor configured to execute instructions in order to automate the control of the measurement system such as to control a laser’s delay and to perform automated processing of the measurement data.’).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 6-9, 11, and 15-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As for claim 1, and ‘to: deliver the laser pulse … and the at least the second wavelength (lines 15-25),’ this appears to be an intended use recitation. The examiner refers to the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’ See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to claims 6-9, 15, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections under 35 USC 102 of claims 6-9, 15, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
10. Several facts have been relied upon from the personal knowledge of the examiner about which the examiner took Official Notice. Applicant must seasonably challenge well known statements and statements based on personal knowledge when they are made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In re Selmi, 156 F.2d 96, 70 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1946); In re Fischer, 125 F.2d 725, 52 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1942). See also In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 169 USPQ 231 (CCPA 1971) (a challenge to the taking of judicial notice must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice). If applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943). A seasonable challenge constitutes a demand for evidence made as soon as practicable during prosecution. Thus, applicant is charged with rebutting the well-known statement in the next reply after the Office action in which the well known statement was made.
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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 at 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 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights