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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the claims regarding “guiding” vs. “guide” are withdrawn.
The objections to claims 18-19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Nikittin does not teach the claimed order of elements, that the sample gas cuvette is between the light guide element and the mirror arrangement.
Examiner’s position is that the limitation amended to claim 1 is the same as from the original claim 18. Original claim 18 was rejected with the combination of Mace, Nikittin and Harvey, and new claim 1 would be rejected with the same combination of references.
While the examiner acknowledges that Nikittin Figure 3 does not show the gas chamber 304 physically between elements 312 and 314, the primary reference Mace teaches the claimed order of elements along the optical axis of in Figure 6: light is generated by element 252, manipulated (in this case an unlabeled lens), crosses the gas cuvette, is further manipulated (by that unlabeled vertical bar, which paragraph 0094 indicates can be e.g. lenses, filters, etc), then enters detector 254.
The invention of Nikittin Figure 3 teaches a similar order of elements along the optical axis, wherein light is generated (element 306), manipulated (element 312), passes through a gas chamber (element 304), is further manipulated (element 314) and detected (element 308). The presence of a mirror in the gas chamber extends the optical path length through the chamber, but does not change the order of the system elements to other than that taught by Mace.
In the existing rejection of claim 1, Nikittin is used to teach the type of light manipulation element, namely a tapered hollow mirrored body, in the place of the light manipulation element of Mace, and the advantages of doing so (paragraphs 17-20). The physical locations of the elements in Nikittin Figure 3 do not change the teachings of replacing the lens of Mace with the tapered hollow mirrored body of Nikittin, nor does the physical placement of the elements in Figure 3 make it non-obvious to use the teachings of Nikittin to improve the invention of Mace.
As such, amended claim 1 is rejected under the same combination of references.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mace et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20020029003) in view of Nikittin et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20220236173) in view of Harvey (United States Patent 3614243), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “MNH”.
As to claim 1, Mace teaches a gas measuring device for determining the concentration of a gas component in a breathing gas mixture of a living being (Abstract “An integrated airway adapter capable of monitoring any combination of respiratory flow, O.sub.2 concentration, and concentrations of one or more of CO.sub.2, N.sub.2O, and an anesthetic agent in real time”), the gas measuring device comprising:
a radiation source adapted to emit light radiation in a wavelength range of 2.5 µm to 12.5 µm (the claimed range is within the infrared band (.78 µm to 1000 µm), and paragraph 0098 teaches “radiation of one or more specified infrared wavelengths”);
a sample gas cuvette (Figure 1, paragraph 0072 “airway adapter 20” and the portion defined by the U-shaped element 36) comprising a hollow body for receiving the respiratory gas mixture (Figure 1, tube through the middle, paragraph 0072 “flow passage 34”), the sample gas cuvette further comprising:
an inlet cuvette window configured as an inlet of the light radiation into the sample gas cuvette (Figure 6, paragraph 0091 “first window 40”);
an outlet cuvette window configured as an outlet of the light radiation from the sample gas cuvette (Figure 6, paragraph 0091 “second window 42”);
a gas inlet configured to supply the breathing gas mixture into the sample gas cuvette (Figure 4, the tube opening at the left towards the “M”); and
a gas outlet configured to output the breathing gas mixture from the sample gas cuvette (Figure 4, the tube opening to the right towards the “F”);
a detector arrangement comprising at least two bandpass filter elements for filtering the light radiation and at least two detector elements for receiving the filtered light radiation (Figure 6, paragraph 0094 “In addition to one or more infrared sensors, Infrared detector 254 may include any combination of other components, including a reference sensor, optics (e.g., lenses, filters, mirrors, beam splitters, etc.)” and paragraph 0089 teaches the use of bandpass filters “a filter 259 is disposed between luminescable material 232 and detector 258 so as to prevent wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation other than those emitted from luminescable material 232 from interfering with the luminescence and luminescence-quenching measurements obtained with detector 258” and it would be obvious to have the filters for detector 254 be similar, for the same reason).
Mace does not teach the radiation source comprises a mirror arrangement and a light source. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikittin. Nikittin teaches gas cell (Figure 3) into which a beam is directed and light extracted (Figure 3 with light source 306 and detector 308)”) wherein the radiation source comprises a mirror arrangement (Figure 1, paragraph 0023 “The first thermally-insulating optical element 112 and second thermally-insulating optical element 114 may each be realized, for example, by a tube with reflective internal walls”) and a light source (paragraph 0023 “light source 106”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the radiation source comprise a mirror arrangement and a light source, in order to better direct light going into the gas chamber in a desired manner.
Mace as modified by Nikittin above does not teach the hollow body having a cross-section that varies over a length of the sample gas cuvette. However, it is known in the art as taught by Harvey. Harvey teaches a gas cell (Figure 4 shows cell 44 with gas flow ports 21 & 22 and windows 29 & 38) with a hollow body (Figure 4, element 44) having a cross-section that varies over a length of the sample gas cuvette (Figure 4 shows gas chamber 44 with a tapered shape along the axis of the light beam, column 3:5 “conical bore of the inner gas cell member 19”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the hollow body having a cross-section that varies over a length of the sample gas cuvette, in order to permit the analysis of smaller samples of gases.
Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin does not teach the mirror arrangement being arranged upstream of the sample gas cuvette with respect to a longitudinal axis of the sample gas cuvette. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikittin. Nikittin teaches the mirror arrangement being arranged upstream of the sample gas cuvette with respect to a longitudinal axis of the sample gas cuvette (Figure 1, tube 112 is between the light source 106 and the gas chamber 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the mirror arrangement being arranged upstream of the sample gas cuvette with respect to a longitudinal axis of the sample gas cuvette, in order to better focus the light into the chamber in a desired manner.
Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin above does not teach a light guide element comprising a hollow body, the light guide element having a cross-section that varies over a length of the light guide element, the light guide element being located downstream of the mirror arrangement and the light source with respect to the longitudinal axis of the sample gas cuvette. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikittin. Nikittin teaches a light guide element comprising a hollow body (paragraph 0031 “a variety of thermally-insulating, light-guiding optical elements that form a single unitary part and may be configured to direct light, such as those comprising light pipes, light guides, hollow light guides with reflective internal walls”), the light guide element having a cross-section that varies over a length of the light guide element (Figure 3, paragraph 0044 “the second thermally-insulating light guide 314 may also have a tapered cylindrical shape”), the light guide element being located downstream of the mirror arrangement and the light source with respect to the longitudinal axis of the sample gas cuvette (Figure 3, light guide 314 is downstream from light source 306 and mirrored tube 312). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a light guide element comprising a hollow body, the light guide element having a cross-section that varies over a length of the light guide element, the light guide element being located downstream of the mirror arrangement and the light source with respect to the longitudinal axis of the sample gas cuvette, in order to increase the effective size of the detector area.
Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin above does not teach the light guide element and the sample gas cuvette being located between the mirror arrangement and the detector arrangement. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikittin. Nikittin teaches the light guide element and the sample gas cuvette being located between the mirror arrangement and the detector arrangement (Figure 1, light guide 114 and mirrored tube 112 are between light source 106 and detector 108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the light guide element and the sample gas cuvette being located between the mirror arrangement and the detector arrangement, in order to make it easier for the detector to sense incoming light.
While Mace teaches the use of a digital processor (paragraph 0041), Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin above does not teach a control unit configured to detect signals from the at least two detector elements and to determine the concentration of the gas component in the breathing gas mixture from the signals from the at least two detector elements. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikittin. Nikittin teaches a control unit configured to detect signals (paragraph 0022 “The electronic assembly 110 may be configured to receive information from the light detector”) from the at least two detector elements (paragraph 0050 “some light detectors may have a dual or quad sensor element arrangement”, additionally Mace teaches multiple detectors) and to determine the concentration of the gas component in the breathing gas mixture from the signals from the at least two detector elements (paragraph 0022 “The electronic assembly 110 may be configured to infer a concentration of the gas received by the gas sample cell 104 based on the information received from the light detector”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a control unit configured to detect signals from the at least two detector elements and to determine the concentration of the gas component in the breathing gas mixture from the signals from the at least two detector elements, in order to automate the gas monitoring and avoid operator negligence.
While Mace teaches the claimed order of optical operations (light is generated by element 252, manipulated (in this case an unlabeled lens), crosses the gas cuvette, is further manipulated (by that unlabeled vertical bar, which paragraph 0094 indicates can be e.g. lenses, filters, etc), then enters detector 254), Mace as modified by Harvey does not explicitly teach the sample gas cuvette being located between the light guiding element and the mirror arrangement. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikittin. Nikittin teaches a sample gas cuvette (Figure 3, element 304) being located between the light guiding element (Figure 3, element 313) and the mirror arrangement (Figure 3, element 312). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the invention of Mace with the optical elements of Nikittin and have the light guiding element be located adjacent to the detector arrangement and the outlet cuvette window, the sample gas cuvette being located between the light guiding element and the mirror arrangement, in order to better direct the light along a more direct path.
As to claim 2, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nikittin teaches the light guide element or the sample gas cuvette or both the light guide element and the sample gas cuvette are formed with reflective surfaces on an inside thereof (regarding Figure 3, elements 312 & 314, paragraph 0031 teaches “a variety of thermally-insulating, light-guiding optical elements that form a single unitary part and may be configured to direct light, such as those comprising light pipes, light guides, hollow light guides with reflective internal walls”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the light guide element or the sample gas cuvette or both the light guide element and the sample gas cuvette are formed with reflective surfaces on an inside thereof, in order to better direct the light in a desired manner, e.g. to collimate the light from the light source towards the reflective element.
As to claim 4, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition the invention of Mace as modified by Nikittin teaches
the light guide element extends so as to be tapered between the radiation source and the sample gas cuvette (for claim 1, Nikittin Figure 3 element 314 was identified as the claimed light guide element, but as claim 1 does not specify where in the optical axis the claimed element is positioned, Figure 3 element 312 may be identified as the claimed light guide element, and as such the position of Nikittin element 312 satisfies claim 4’s limitation of being between the radiation source (Nikittin element 306) and the sample gas cuvette (Nikittin element 304));
the light radiation from the radiation source passes through the light guide element through the inlet cuvette window into the sample gas cuvette, through the outlet cuvette window to the detector arrangement (in Mace Figure 6, light from source 252 passes through a lens shape, and this is where the light guide of Nikittin would be present (see Nikittin Figure 3 where guide 312 is between light source 306 and chamber 304), then through window 40, the gas flow area (the center square), window 42 and detector 254).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the claimed arrangement of optical elements, in order to better channel the light that comes from the light source to the gas in a desired manner (i.e. to increase or decrease the intensity of the light to modify the chances of an interaction).
MNH does not teach the sample gas cuvette extends so as to be expanded between the sample gas cuvette and the detector arrangement. However, Harvey teaches a tapered gas chamber (Figure 4) and as the positioning of the tapered chamber would affect the function of the chamber, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the direction from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2145(X)B. In this case, it would have been obvious to try the taper in both directions (i.e. left or right) and choose the one that worked best in that situation.
As to claim 5, MHN teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of a length of the light guide element is a value in a range of 2.5 mm to 5.0 mm. However, Mace teaches the flow passage is on the order of tens of millimeters (paragraph 0140 “Ribs 21 preferably define a 22 mm diameter and reduce the weight of airway adapter 20'”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date that the other optical elements would be of the same scale. It has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)A. In this case, the light guide element would be in the claimed size range in order to better fit into the invention of MNH.
As to claim 6, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the light guide element is formed as a truncated pyramid. However, Nikittin teaches a light guide element is shaped as a tapered square prism and as a tapered rectangular prism (Figure 4, elements 414 & 415, see paragraph 0051). The shape of the light guide is therefore a results-effective variable and it would be obvious to change that variable to one of a finite number of possibilities (i.e. the shape of the prism), in order to modify both the width and height of the final beam profile. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed shape would be used in order to change the final dimensions of the light profile to best match the detector shape.
MNH does not teach the sample gas cuvette is formed as a truncated pyramid. However, as Nikittin teaches a variety of gas chamber shapes including a cylinder, an ovoid cylinder and a rectangular prism (see paragraph 0038), the shape of the gas chamber is therefore a results-effective variable and it would be obvious to change that variable to one of a finite number of possibilities (i.e. the shape of the chamber), in order to use a chamber geometry that lest impedes the light transmission. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed shape would be used in order to improve the light path through the detector.
As to claim 7, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nikittin teaches the sample gas cuvette, or the light guide element or both the sample gas cuvette, and the light guide element are formed as a truncated pyramid or as a truncated cone (Figure 4, paragraph 0050 “tapered cylindrical thermally-insulating light guide 412”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the sample gas cuvette, or the light guide element or both the sample gas cuvette, and the light guide element are formed as a truncated pyramid or as a truncated cone, in order to concentrate the light into a desired distribution across the sensor elements.
As to claim 8, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nikittin teaches the light guide element is formed as a truncated cone (Figure 4, paragraph 0050 “tapered cylindrical thermally-insulating light guide 412”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the light guide element be formed as a truncated cone, in order to concentrate the light into a desired distribution across the sensor elements.
Harvey teaches the sample gas cuvette is formed as a truncated cone (Figure 4 shows gas chamber 44, see column 3:5 “conical bore of the inner gas cell member 19”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the sample gas cuvette be formed as a truncated cone, in order to permit the analysis of smaller samples of gases.
As to claim 9, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 7, with the exception of a pyramid angle or a cone angle of the light guide element is a value in a range 7.5° to 20.0°. However, Harvey teaches a cone shape, and as the shape of the cone affects the amount of gas in the chamber, the shape is therefore a results-effective variable and it would be obvious to change that shape (i.e. the angle of the cone) to one of a finite number of possibilities, in order to find the one that worked best in that situation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed range of angles would be used in order to minimize the gas needed while maintaining effective results.
As to claim 10, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 7, with the exception of an inlet opening of the light guide element is a value in a range 2.0 mm to 4.0 mm. However, Mace teaches the flow passage is on the order of tens of millimeters (paragraph 0140 “Ribs 21 preferably define a 22 mm diameter and reduce the weight of airway adapter 20'”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date that the other optical elements would be of the same scale. It has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)A. In this case, the light guide element would be in the claimed size range in order to better fit into the invention of MNH.
As to claim 11, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 7, with the exception of explicitly teaching any of the claimed ratios or ranges. However, MNH teaches all of the claimed elements (e.g. light guide element, cone angle, sample gas cuvette, inlet opening, etc) as indicated in the above claims, and the values of these elements would obviously affect the overall performance of the invention. As such the dimensions and ratios of those dimensions are therefore results-effective variables and it would be obvious to change those variables to one of a finite number of possibilities (e.g. the ratio of the gas cuvette to the size of the gas inlet), in order to modify both the width and height of the final beam profile (e.g. in order to study how the refresh rate of the gas affects performance). See MPEP 2144.05(II), also 2144.04(IV)(A). In this case the claimed ratios and ranges would be modified to optimize the size & shape of the invention for a particular gas (e.g. you might want a high gas refresh rate if the gas you’re studying has a lot of water vapor and you want to avoid condensation).
As to claim 18, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nikittin teaches the light guiding element (Figure 3, element 314) is located adjacent to the detector arrangement (Figure 3, element 308) and the outlet cuvette window (Figure 3, element 305, which corresponds to Mace’s Figure 6, element 42, when the teachings of Nikittin are applied to Mace). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the light guiding element be located adjacent to the detector arrangement and the outlet cuvette window, in order to aid in light transmission in a desired manner.
As to claim 19, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Mace teaches the outlet cuvette window (Figure 6, element 42) is located adjacent to the detector arrangement (Figure 6, element 254).
Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin above does not teach the light guide element being located between the sample gas cuvette and the mirror arrangement. However, Mace teaches optical elements between the light source and the window to the gas chamber (Figure 6, there is a lens between light source 252 and window 40), and Nikittin teaches the use of optical elements along the light path to guide & shape the light as desired (Figure 3, light guides 312 & 314), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use place the claimed elements in the claimed position, as there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of placing optical elements along the optical path and it would take only ordinary engineering experience to modify the invention of Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin to read on the claimed arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2145(X)B.
As to claim 20, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 19, with the exception of the inlet cuvette window is located adjacent to the light guide element. However, Mace Figure 6 shows optical elements (a lens) adjacent to the window to the gas chamber (element 40), and Nikittin teaches the use of optical elements along the light path to guide & shape the light as desired (Figure 3, light guides 312 & 314), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use place the claimed elements in the claimed position, as there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of placing optical elements along the optical path and it would take only ordinary engineering experience to modify the invention of Mace as modified by Harvey and Nikittin to read on the claimed arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2145(X)B.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MNH, and further in view of Iwanaka et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230050424).
As to claim 3, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition the invention of Mace as modified by Nikittin teaches
the sample gas cuvette extends between the radiation source and the light guide element (Nikittin Figure 3, gas sample cell 304 is between light source 306 and light guide 314);
the light guide element extends between the sample gas cuvette and the detector arrangement (Nikittin Figure 3, light guide 314 is between gas sample cell 304 and detector 308);
the light radiation from the radiation source passes through the inlet cuvette window into the sample gas cuvette, through the outlet cuvette window and through the light guide element to the detector arrangement (in Mace Figure 6, light from source 252 enters the gas flow area (the center square) through window 40, out through window 42 and that space between the window 42 and detector 254 is where the light guide of Nikittin would be present (see Nikittin Figure 3 where guide 314 is between chamber 304 and detector 308)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the claimed arrangement of optical elements, in order to better channel the light that comes from the gas to the detector in a desired manner (i.e. to increase or decrease the amount of light per unit area on the detector).
MNH does not teach the sample gas cuvette is tapered between the radiation source and the light guide element. However, Harvey teaches a tapered gas chamber (Figure 4) and as the positioning of the tapered chamber would affect the function of the chamber, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the direction from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2145(X)B. In this case, it would have been obvious to try the taper in both directions (i.e. left or right) and choose the one that worked best in that situation.
MNH does not teach the light guide expands between the sample gas cuvette and the detector arrangement. However, it is known in the art as taught by Iwanaka. Iwanaka teaches a waveguide between a light source and a detector (Figure 2 has electrons hitting scintillator 109 and producing photons, which are guided by waveguide 110 to detector 111), in which the light guide expands between the light source [the sample gas cuvette of Mace] and the detector arrangement (Figure 2, “paragraph 0039 an optical path is expanded by the light guide 110”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the light guide expand between the sample gas cuvette and the detector arrangement, in order to avoid detector saturation.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MNH, and further in view of Konishi et al (United States Patent 5596210).
As to claims 12-13, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of a silicon window arranged on the light inlet side (claim 12) or the light exit side (claim 13) of the light guide element. However, it is known in the art as taught by Konishi. Konishi teaches a light guide with an end cap (interpreted as a window) comprising a silicon layer (Figure 8, column 8:3-5 “A reflection preventing film 106 of silicon dioxide, for example, is also formed at the light emitting end of the light guide 10”) and the silicon window is arranged on the light inlet side or the light exit side of the light guide element (Abstract “Reflection preventing films of silicon dioxide are formed on both the output end and the input end of the light guide.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a silicon window arranged on the light inlet side or the light exit side of the light guide element, in order to enhance the transmission efficiency.
As to claims 14, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of an inlet silicon window arranged on a light inlet side of the light guide element and an outlet silicon window is arranged on the light guide element on a light exit side. However, it is known in the art as taught by Konishi. Konishi teaches a light guide with an end cap (interpreted as a window) comprising a silicon layer (Figure 8, column 8:3-5 “A reflection preventing film 106 of silicon dioxide, for example, is also formed at the light emitting end of the light guide 10”) and such silicon windows are arranged on both the light inlet side and the light exit side of the light guide element (Abstract “Reflection preventing films of silicon dioxide are formed on both the output end and the input end of the light guide.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have an inlet silicon window arranged on a light inlet side of the light guide element and an outlet silicon window arranged on the light guide element on a light exit side, in order to enhance the transmission efficiency.
MNH as modified by Konishi above does not teach an optical path outside the sample gas cuvette and/or a length of the light guide element is reduced by a value in a range of 2.0 to 4.0 times a cumulative thicknesses of the silicon windows. However, MNH as modified by Konishi teaches all of the claimed elements (e.g. light guide element, windows, etc) as indicated above, and the dimensions of these elements would obviously affect the overall performance of the invention. As such the dimensions and respective values of those dimensions are therefore results-effective variables and it would be obvious to change those variables to one of a finite number of possibilities (e.g. the respective length of the light guide and thickness of the window), in order to maintain a desired optical path length. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed dimensions would be modified to insure a desired path length.
As to claim 15, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of an inlet silicon window is arranged on a light inlet side of the light guide element and an outlet silicon window is arranged on the light guide element on a light exit side. However, it is known in the art as taught by Konishi. Konishi teaches a light guide with an end cap (interpreted as a window) comprising a silicon layer (Figure 8, column 8:3-5 “A reflection preventing film 106 of silicon dioxide, for example, is also formed at the light emitting end of the light guide 10”) and such silicon windows are arranged on both the light inlet side and the light exit side of the light guide element (Abstract “Reflection preventing films of silicon dioxide are formed on both the output end and the input end of the light guide.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have an inlet silicon window arranged on a light inlet side of the light guide element and an outlet silicon window arranged on the light guide element on a light exit side, in order to enhance the transmission efficiency.
MNH as modified by Konishi above does not teach a ratio of the length of the light guide element to the length of the sample gas cuvette is reduced according to the cumulative thicknesses of the silicon windows. However, MNH as modified by Konishi teaches all of the claimed elements (e.g. light guide element, windows, etc) as indicated above, and the dimensions of these elements would obviously affect the overall performance of the invention. As such the dimensions and ratio of those dimensions are therefore results-effective variables and it would be obvious to change those variables to one of a finite number of possibilities (e.g. the respective length of the light guide and thickness of the window), in order to maintain a desired optical path length. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed dimensions would be modified to insure a desired path length.
As to claim 16, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of an inlet silicon window is arranged on the light guide element on a light inlet side. However, it is known in the art as taught by Konishi. Konishi teaches a light guide with an end cap (interpreted as a window) comprising a silicon layer (Figure 8, column 8:3-5 “A reflection preventing film 106 of silicon dioxide, for example, is also formed at the light emitting end of the light guide 10”) and such a silicon window is arranged on the light inlet side of the light guide element (Abstract “Reflection preventing films of silicon dioxide are formed on both the output end and the input end of the light guide.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have an inlet silicon window is arranged on the light guide element on a light inlet side, in order to enhance the transmission efficiency.
MNH as modified by Konishi does not teach the inlet silicon window replaces a portion of the light guide element and a thickness of the inlet silicon window is less than the replaced portion of the light guide element. However, MNH as modified by Konishi teaches all of the claimed elements (e.g. light guide element, windows, etc) as indicated above, and the dimensions of these elements would obviously affect the overall performance of the invention. As such the dimensions and sum of those dimensions are therefore results-effective variables and it would be obvious to change those variables to one of a finite number of possibilities (e.g. the respective length of the light guide and thickness of the window), in order to maintain a desired optical path length. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed dimensions would be modified to insure a desired path length.
As to claim 17, MNH teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of an outlet silicon window is arranged on the light guide element on a light exit side. However, it is known in the art as taught by Konishi. Konishi teaches a light guide with an end cap (interpreted as a window) comprising a silicon layer (Figure 8, column 8:3-5 “A reflection preventing film 106 of silicon dioxide, for example, is also formed at the light emitting end of the light guide 10”) and such a silicon window is arranged on the light exit side of the light guide element (Abstract “Reflection preventing films of silicon dioxide are formed on both the output end and the input end of the light guide.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have an outlet silicon window is arranged on the light guide element on a light exit side, in order to enhance the transmission efficiency.
MNH as modified by Konishi does not teach the outlet silicon window replaces a portion of the light guide element and a thickness of the outlet silicon window is less than the replaced portion of the light guide element. However, MNH as modified by Konishi teaches all of the claimed elements (e.g. light guide element, windows, etc) as indicated above, and the dimensions of these elements would obviously affect the overall performance of the invention. As such the dimensions and sum of those dimensions are therefore results-effective variables and it would be obvious to change those variables to one of a finite number of possibilities (e.g. the respective length of the light guide and thickness of the window), in order to maintain a desired optical path length. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In this case the claimed dimensions would be modified to insure a desired path length.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877