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
2. 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.
3. Claims 4 and 14 are 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.
The term “proximal” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Proximal” renders the position of the detector relative to the sample point indefinite.
The term “near” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Near” renders the location of the air relative to the oil well indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weber (2005/0230612).
As for claims 1 and 6 treating claim 1 as the apparatus for the practice of the method of claim 6, 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(claims 1 and 6) (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 (claims 1 and 6) (FIG. 4: 44A with paragraph 0065, 0068, 0077, and 0079 and noting FIG. 5B: 44 (44A); a tunable pulsed transition laser aligned to deliver a laser pulse having a second wavelength to the sample point (claims 1 and 6) (FIG. 4: 40A or 42A with paragraphs 0061, 0067, 0077, and 0080 and noting FIG. 5B: 40A and 42A) 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 (claims 1 and 6) (paragraphs 0079 and 0080; and an ionization or light absorption detector (ionization detector: FIG. 4: 22 with 24); and detecting a level of ionization or light absorption at the sample point using an ionization or light absorption detector, wherein the level of ionization or light absorption detected, the first wavelength, and the second wavelength are used to determine a presence and an identity of one or more chemicals present in the sample (claim 6)(paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0058, 0059 and paragraphs 0011, 0070, 0120, 0125; note: FIG. 4: 24 having each wavelength on an axis of the detector readout).
Regarding claim 1 and ‘to detect a level of ionization or light absorption at the sample point, wherein the level of ionization or light absorption detected, the first wavelength, and the second wavelengths are used to determine a presence and an identity of one or more chemicals present in a sample,’ 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 claims 2 and 7, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 1 and 6). In addition, Weber discloses wherein the tunable pulsed excitation laser and/or the tunable pulsed transition laser is a femtosecond laser (paragraph 0061).
As for claims 3 and 8, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 1 and 6). In addition, Weber discloses 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 claims 4 and 10, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 1 and 6). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the ionization or light absorption detector is positioned proximal to the sample point (FIG. 4: of 22 and 24 note 22 relative 20).
As for claim 9, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 8). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the plurality of pulsed laser beams has different durations and/or shapes to the sample point (paragraph 0136: suggesting when observing fragmentation of clusters to use long pulse durations; as well the durations may be in the range of about 100 fs to about 2 ps).
As for claim 17, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 8). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the presence and identity of a plurality of different chemicals in the sample are determined (claims 25 and 43 of Weber; abstract; paragraph 0001).
As for claim 18, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 8). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the pulsed laser beam having the first wavelength and the pulsed laser beam having a second wavelength are timed to measure the kinetics of a reaction in the sample (paragraphs 0085 with 0119).
6. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weber et al. (WO 2019/164552 A2).
As for claims 1 and 6 treating claim 1 as the apparatus for the practice of the method of claim 6, Weber in spatially resolved standoff trace chemical sensing using backwards transient absorption spectroscopy discloses/suggests the following: a system for multi-dimensional chemical sensing (claims 1 and 6) (FIG. 1 and FIG. 3: showing two dimensionality), comprising: a tunable pulsed excitation laser aligned to deliver a laser pulse having a first wavelength to a sample point (claims 1 and 6)(FIG. 1: 195 nm to beam block: treating the overlap of the probe and the pump pulse as the sample point: paragraph 0026); a tunable pulsed transition laser aligned to deliver a laser pulse having a second wavelength to the sample point (claims 1 and 6)(FIG. 1: IR pulse to beam block; treating the overlay of the probe pulse and the pump pulse as the sample point: paragraph 0026; paragraph 0028: probe laser is tunable: ‘The wavelength of the probe pulse was scanned with 5 nm steps’) 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 (claims 1 and 6) (FIG. 2: 195 nm and 800-1350 nm); and an ionization or light absorption detector (claim 1) (paragraph 006 with FIG. 1: detector (light absorption detector) ‘to detect a level of ionization or light absorption at the sample point, wherein the level of ionization or light absorption detected, the first wavelength, and the second wavelengths are used to determine a presence and an identity of one or more chemicals present in a sample.’); and detecting a level of ionization or light absorption at the sample point using an ionization or light absorption detector, wherein the level of ionization or light absorption detected, the first wavelength, and the second wavelength are used to determine a presence and an identity of one or more chemicals present in the sample (claim 6)(paragraphs 0027, 0041, 0044; again, see FIG. 1: from beam block to detector).
As for claims 4 and 10, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 1 and 6). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests the light absorption detector is positioned proximal to the sample point (FIG. 1: noting detector relative to beam block; paragraph 0050: 10 m or less due to the atmospheric extinction for 195-200 nm radiation).
As for claim 13, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 6). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the sample is an air sample (abstract; paragraphs 0023 and 0028).
As for claim 15, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 11). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein the sample point is at a range of from 10 meters to 100 meters from the tunable pulsed excitation laser and the tunable pulsed transition laser (paragraph 0050: around 10 m due to the atmospheric extinction of wavelengths in the 195-200 nm range).
As for claim 16, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 11). In addition, Weber discloses/suggests wherein where the first wavelength has a wavelength from 150 to 200 nanometers (FIG. 1: 195 nm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (WO 2019/164552 A2).
As for claim 5, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for the ionization or light absorption detector is provided within an enclosed sensor device, Weber is silent. 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 stray light such as background light from being detected and thereby interfering with the measurement’s accuracy. 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 light absorption 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 stray light from interfering with the actual optical measurement signal being detected.
9. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (WO 2019/164552 A2) in view of Vasudev (2018/0252641).
As for claim 11, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 6). Weber does not explicitly state that the one or more chemicals include hydrogen sulfide. Nevertheless, Weber states that the spatially resolved and substance specific detection of chemical vapors in open air is of paramount importance for environmental, security, and health monitoring (paragraph 004). As well Vasudev in a method and apparatus for the spectroscopic detection of low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas teaches that trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide can be very harmful to human health and can also corrode valuable equipment (paragraph 0004). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more chemicals include hydrogen sulfide to monitor the air quality of a work area to prevent harm to workers and equipment from a potential hydrogen sulfide leak.
As for claim 14, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). Weber does not explicitly state that the air sample is obtained from the air near an oil well, but Weber does mention the importance of chemical vapor detection for environmental, security, and health monitoring (paragraph 004) and mentions the detection of methane (paragraph 0017). As well Vasudev in a method and apparatus for the spectroscopic detection of low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas teaches that trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide can be very harmful to human health and can also corrode valuable equipment (paragraph 0004) and is released as a by-product of oil and gas exploration which includes emission from oil and gas fields. 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 air sample be obtained from the air near an oil well to monitor the well’s environmental impact by monitoring for hydrogen sulfide and methane.
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (WO 2019/164552 A2) in view of Mirov et al. (2010/0246610).
As for claim 12, Weber discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 6). Weber does not explicitly state that the sample is a breath sample, but Weber does mention the importance of chemical vapor detection for environmental, security, and health monitoring (paragraph 004). Nevertheless, Mirov in a mid-IR laser instrument for analyzing a gaseous sample and method for using the same teaches the sample is a breath sample (paragraph 0102) and notes that addressing disease early is in identifying biomarkers for cancer, specifically lung cancer (paragraph 0008). 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 sample be a breath sample in order to screen patients for cancer early in order to improve the health outcomes of the patients.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
12. 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.
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