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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 16 February 2026, with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9-11, filed 16 February 2026, with respect to claims 1-9 and 12-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §103 rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-23 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of newly-found art.
Beier et al. (WO 2010/130474) disclose an optical analysis device comprising:
a housing (200/400) having an upper shell (400), a lower shell (200), and a seal between the upper and lower shells [0051], and
an optical measuring arrangement (see Fig. 3) with a plurality of components (10,20,40,90,100) arranged in an interior space of the housing (200/400) [0050].
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 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2010/130474), hereinafter Beier.
Claim 1: Beier discloses an optical analysis device (5, Figs. 3-4,9) for determining at least one characteristic of a medium, the optical analysis device (5) comprising:
a housing (200/400) having at least one entry/exit area (270) for an entry and/or an exit of optical radiation [0044,0051], an upper shell (400) having a first surface [0051], a lower shell (200) having a second surface [0051], and a seal (“The upper shell 400 and the lower shell 200 are preferably sealed against each other to prevent the ingress of moisture or dust.” [0051]); and
an optical measuring arrangement (see Fig. 3) with a plurality of components (10,20,40,90,100) arranged in an interior space of the housing (200/400) [0050],
wherein the housing (200/400) has a mechanical interface (110-116, see Fig. 2) configured to accurately position and detachably mount the optical analysis device (5) at a location of operation in a process environment (prior to soldering, the interface is detachable: “The arrangement thus formed is placed on the surface 600 of a printed circuit board 610, wherein the connecting contacts 110-116 are passed through holes in the printed circuit board 610. Subsequently, the connecting contacts 110-116 are soldered to the back 620 of the circuit board 610 using conductive traces” [0069]).
Beier does not explicitly disclose a first material that makes the first and second surfaces.
However, Beier discloses that “[t]he device preferably has an upper shell which is tightly, preferably dust- and moistureproof, mounted on the lower shell” [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s first and second surfaces to be made of a common, first material for the purpose of eliminating any optical discontinuities between the upper and lower shells.
Beier does not explicitly disclose a second material that makes the seal.
However, Beier does disclose that “a seal can also be inserted in the connection area between
the lower shell 200 and the upper shell 400” [0051]. Beier further discloses the use of rubber or plastic as a sealing material (“The bushings 260 can, for example, be equipped with appropriate rubber or plastic seals.” [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s seal to be made of a second material that is rubber or plastic for the purpose of using a material that is well-known to provide sealing properties, such as in a gasket. It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first material to be something other than rubber or plastic since these malleable, insulating materials are ill-suited for use as an optical housing.
Beier does not explicitly disclose the first surface being detachably arranged on the second surface.
However, Beier does disclose the seal between the first and second surfaces (“The upper shell 400 and the lower shell 200 are preferably sealed against each other to prevent the ingress of moisture or dust.” [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s optical analysis device such that the seal allows for detachment of the upper and lower shells for the purpose of accessing the components within for alignment, adjustment, or replacement.
Beier also does not explicitly disclose wherein a first portion of the first surface is in direct contact with a first portion of the second surface and a second portion of the first surface is separated from a second portion of the second surface by the seal.
However, such an arrangement appears to be a mere design choice which results from a particular placement of the seal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s optical analysis device by placing the seal such that a first portion of the first surface is in direct contact with a first portion of the second surface and a second portion of the first surface is separated from a second portion of the second surface by the seal for the purpose of using the configuration that provides a dust-tight connection while still allowing detachment of the shells from each other.
Claim 2: Beier further discloses wherein the mechanical interface (110-116) is arranged in a connection area of the housing (200/400) which spatially overlaps with the at least one entry/exit area (270) (evident from Fig. 3 that the spatial extent of the mechanical interface 110-116 overlaps with the entry/exit area 270).
Claim 3: Beier further discloses wherein the components (10,20,40,90,100) of the optical measuring arrangement are arranged together on a component carrier in the interior of the housing (200/400) (using the mechanical interface 110-116, see Fig. 3) [0069].
Claim 4: Beier further discloses wherein the component carrier is detachably attached in the interior of the housing (200/400) (prior to soldering, the interface is detachable: “The arrangement thus formed is placed on the surface 600 of a printed circuit board 610, wherein the connecting contacts 110-116 are passed through holes in the printed circuit board 610. Subsequently, the connecting contacts 110-116 are soldered to the back 620 of the circuit board 610 using conductive traces” [0069]).
Claim 5: Beier discloses a housing (200/400) for components (10,20,40,90,100) of a measuring arrangement for optical determination of at least one characteristic of a medium (Figs. 3-4,9), the housing (200/400) comprising:
an upper shell (400) having a first surface [0051];
a lower shell (200) having a second surface [0051]; and
a seal (“The upper shell 400 and the lower shell 200 are preferably sealed against each other to prevent the ingress of moisture or dust.” [0051]);
a component carrier (see Fig. 3) configured to mount the components (10,20,40,90,100) [0050]; and
at least one entry/exit area for entry and/or exit of optical radiation [0044],
wherein the housing (200/400) has a mechanical interface (110-116, see Fig. 2) configured to accurately position and detachably attach the housing (200/400) at a location of operation to an outer wall of a process chamber (prior to soldering, the interface is detachable: “The arrangement thus formed is placed on the surface 600 of a printed circuit board 610, wherein the connecting contacts 110-116 are passed through holes in the printed circuit board 610. Subsequently, the connecting contacts 110-116 are soldered to the back 620 of the circuit board 610 using conductive traces” [0069]),
Beier does not explicitly disclose a first material that makes the first and second surfaces.
However, Beier discloses that “[t]he device preferably has an upper shell which is tightly, preferably dust- and moistureproof, mounted on the lower shell” [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s first and second surfaces to be made of a common, first material for the purpose of eliminating any optical discontinuities between the upper and lower shells.
Beier does not explicitly disclose a second material that makes the seal.
However, Beier does disclose that “a seal can also be inserted in the connection area between
the lower shell 200 and the upper shell 400” [0051]. Beier further discloses the use of rubber or plastic as a sealing material (“The bushings 260 can, for example, be equipped with appropriate rubber or plastic seals.” [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s seal to be made of a second material that is rubber or plastic for the purpose of using a material that is well-known to provide sealing properties, such as in a gasket. It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first material to be something other than rubber or plastic since these malleable, insulating materials are ill-suited for use as an optical housing.
Beier does not explicitly disclose the first surface being detachably arranged on the second surface.
However, Beier does disclose the seal between the first and second surfaces (“The upper shell 400 and the lower shell 200 are preferably sealed against each other to prevent the ingress of moisture or dust.” [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s optical analysis device such that the seal allows for detachment of the upper and lower shells for the purpose of accessing the components within for alignment, adjustment, or replacement.
Beier also does not explicitly disclose wherein a first portion of the first surface is in direct contact with a first portion of the second surface and a second portion of the first surface is separated from a second portion of the second surface by the seal.
However, such an arrangement appears to be a mere design choice which results from a particular placement of the seal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s optical analysis device by placing the seal such that a first portion of the first surface is in direct contact with a first portion of the second surface and a second portion of the first surface is separated from a second portion of the second surface by the seal for the purpose of using the configuration that provides a dust-tight connection while still allowing detachment of the shells from each other.
Claim 6: Beier further discloses wherein the mechanical interface (110-116) includes fastening elements (“connecting contacts” [0069]), and wherein at least one of the fastening elements is fastened in a connection area (210/220) of the housing (200/400) (evident from Fig. 3).
Claim 8: Beier further discloses wherein the connection area (210/220) and the at least one entry/exit area (270) spatially overlap (evident from Fig. 3 that the spatial extent of the connection area 210/220 overlaps with the entry/exit area 270).
Claim 9: Beier does not explicitly disclose wherein the component carrier is fixed in a closed inner space of the housing.
However, the Court has held that it is not inventive to make an object integral (i.e. fixed), since doing so is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s optical analysis device to make the component carrier fixed inside the housing for the purpose of preventing inaccurate measurements through vibrations or misalignment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Mander et al. (US 2014/0218718), hereinafter Mander.
Claim 7: Beier is silent with respect to the mechanical interface being a bayonet mount.
Mander, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of coupling two measurement elements. Mander discloses the use of a bayonet mount as a coupling structure between a calibration device (700) and an optical analysis device (100) [0167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s detachable connection to be formed by a bayonet mount for the purpose of using a well-known coupling structure for accurate calibration without risk of errors due to vibrations or misalignment.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karlsson et al. (US 2015/0367432), hereinafter Karlsson.
Claims 12-13: Beier is silent with respect to the use of locking screws or locking pins.
Karlsson, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of ensuring air-tight packages. Karlsson discloses wherein a seal (25) for a packaging (38) is secured against loss/slipping with locking screws or locking pins [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s seal with to use locking screws or locking pins for the purpose of that the components inside the housing/packaging are not affected by environmental factors.
Claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gussakovsky (US 2022/0107265), hereinafter Gussakovsky.
Claim 14: Beier is silent with respect to a cooling device within the housing.
Gussakovsky, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometry, discloses a housing (20, Fig. 1) for a spectrometer (16), wherein the housing (20) includes a cooling device (24) [0078].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s housing with a cooling device for the purpose of preventing the components from overheating, which would compromise the accuracy of measurements.
Claim 15: Beier, in view of Gussakovsky, further discloses wherein the cooling device (24) is arranged in a cavity formed between the component carrier and a base plate (heat sink 26) of the housing (20) in the interior of the housing (20) (“a thermoelectric cooler (TEC) 24 whose cold side is thermally coupled to the spectrometer 16 to extract heat therefrom, and whose hot side is thermally coupled to a heat sink 26 to transfer the extracted thereto”, Gussakovsky [0078]).
Claim 17: Beier, in view of Gussakovsky, further discloses wherein the cooling device (24) is configured such that a cooling medium first reaches at least one of the components and subsequently reaches the at least one entry/exit area for the entry/exit of optical radiation (“a thermoelectric cooler (TEC) 24 whose cold side is thermally coupled to the spectrometer 16 to extract heat therefrom, and whose hot side is thermally coupled to a heat sink 26 to transfer the extracted thereto”, Gussakovsky [0078]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier, in view of Gussakovsky as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Butscher et al. (US 2017/0231114), hereinafter Butscher.
Claim 16: Beier, in view of Gussakovsky, discloses a cooling device comprising a thermoelectric cooler (24) (Gussakovsky [0078]), but is silent with respect to a cooling line through which a cooling medium can flow.
Butscher, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of keeping measurement systems cooled. Butscher discloses wherein a thermoelectric cooler may be replaced and/or supplemented by a cooling line through which a cooling medium flows [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s cooling device with a cooling line for the purpose of providing the most efficient cooling to the components. Replacement of the thermoelectric cooler with a cooling line through which a cooling medium flows constitutes a mere substitution of parts.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Goldring et al. (US 2018/0143073), hereinafter Goldring.
Claim 18: Beier is silent with respect to a position coding on the component carrier.
Goldring, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometry, discloses the use of a coding (indication layer) for positionally and/or angularly accurate positioning of the components of a spectrometer [0291].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s component carrier with a coding to guide the positioning for the purpose of optimizing the measurement efficiency of the spectrometer.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hruska et al. (US 2017/0284930), hereinafter Hruska.
Claim 19: Beier discloses a system (Figs. 3-4,9) for determining at least one characteristic of a medium in a process chamber, the system comprising:
an optical analysis device (5) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), which is detachably attached at the location of operation in the process chamber (via the mechanical interface 110-116, which, prior to soldering, is detachable: “The arrangement thus formed is placed on the surface 600 of a printed circuit board 610, wherein the connecting contacts 110-116 are passed through holes in the printed circuit board 610. Subsequently, the connecting contacts 110-116 are soldered to the back 620 of the circuit board 610 using conductive traces” [0069]).
Beier is silent with respect to a calibration device.
Hruska, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical analysis, discloses a system for determining at least one characteristic of a medium in a process chamber, the system comprising:
an optical analysis device (100, Fig. 1), which can be detachably attached at the location of operation in the process chamber (“when attaching spectrometer 110 to light pipe 120, an end of spectrometer 110 may be inserted into cavity 140 through opening 146” [0021]); and
a calibration device (“spectroscopic assembly 210 may include a calibration unit to perform a calibration of spectrometer 212” [0028]),
wherein an interface (bottom portion of spectrometer 110) provided on the housing (110) of the optical analysis device (100) enables the optical analysis device (100) to be attached to the calibration device in a positionally accurate and detachable manner (“spectrometer 212 may perform a calibration of spectrometer 212 by obtaining a set of calibration measurements, such as performing a calibration measurement without a sample enclosed by light pipe 214” [0060]).
The Examiner notes that the spectroscopic assembly 210, the spectrometer 212, and the light pipe 214 of Fig. 2 correspond to the example implementation 100, the spectrometer 110, and the light pipe 120 of Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s system with the calibration device of Hruska for the purpose of obtaining measurements that are readily comparable to other measurements over time and account for any system fluctuations.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier, in view of Hruska as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Carvalho Sousa et al. (US 2015/0369725), hereinafter Carvalho Sousa.
Claim 20: Beier, in view of Hruska, further discloses wherein, to establish the detachable connection between the calibration device and optical analysis device (100), a fastening element (inherent in the attachment of spectrometer 110 to light pipe 120) is provided on the housing (110) of the optical analysis device (100) (“when attaching spectrometer 110 to light pipe 120, an end of spectrometer 110 may be inserted into cavity 140 through opening 146”, Hruska [0021]), but is silent with respect to the fastening element engaging in a counter element fastened to the calibration device.
Carvalho Sousa, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometry, discloses the use of a fastening element engaging in a counter element (“Any type of mechanical fastener or mechanical coupling may also be used, mechanisms such as rotate-to-lock” [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s fastening element to engage in a counter element fastened to the calibration device for the purpose of securely coupling the calibration device to the spectrometer for accurate calibration without risk of errors due to vibrations or misalignment.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier, in view of Hruska as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Mander.
Claim 21: Beier is silent with respect to the detachable connection between the calibration device and the optical analysis device being formed by a bayonet mount.
Mander, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of coupling two measurement elements. Mander discloses the use of a bayonet mount as a coupling structure between a calibration device (700) and an optical analysis device (100) [0167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s detachable connection to be formed by a bayonet mount for the purpose of using a well-known coupling structure for accurate calibration without risk of errors due to vibrations or misalignment.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Pipper et al. (US 2012/0064534), hereinafter Pipper.
Claim 22: Beier discloses a thermo-electric cooler/heater to control a temperature of the sample (and thus avoid thermal fluctuations of the optical measuring arrangement) [0081], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the interior of the optical analysis device is filled with a thermally conductive bulk material.
Pipper, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of performing optical analysis without thermal degradation. Pipper discloses the use of thermally conductive bulk materials with high heat deflection temperatures [0112].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to Beier’s optical analysis device to be filled with a thermally conductive bulk material for the purpose of stabilizing the internal temperature by deflecting heat (Pipper [0112]).
Claim 23: Beier does not explicitly disclose wherein the interior of the housing is filled with a thermally conductive bulk material.
Pipper, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of performing optical analysis without thermal degradation. Pipper discloses the use of thermally conductive bulk materials with high heat deflection temperatures [0112].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beier’s housing to be filled with a thermally conductive bulk material for the purpose of stabilizing the internal temperature by deflecting heat (Pipper [0112]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877