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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-6 and 8-16, and the addition of new claims 17-21. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 remain pending in the application. Claim 7 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 29 December 2025, have overcome the objections to claims 2-16. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 29 December 2025, have overcome the rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 13-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 29 December 2025, have overcome the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 with regards to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks filed 29 December 2025, applicant argues:
As previously discussed above, Wang et al. does not teach and does not suggest a second light source that is arranged collinearly with a central axis of a radiation detector as claimed. Winkler et al. also does not provide any teaching or suggestion as to a second light source and a radiation detector that are arranged as featured in the present invention. Winkler et al. discloses a measuring device with two identical radiation sources 1, 2 and two radiation detectors 3, 4 to compensate for drift. The first radiation source 1 of Winkler et al. is directed through an infrared-transparent window 12 onto a plane mirror 13 outside a gas-tight housing 40, and the beam reflected by the plane mirror 13 passes through the infrared-transparent window 12 onto a beam splitter 5. According to Winkler et al., the beam splitter 5 splits both the radiation from the first radiation source 1 reflected by the plane mirror 13 and the radiation from the second radiation source 2 between the two radiation detectors 3, 4. The first radiation detector 1 of Winkler et al. is used as a measurement detector, and the second radiation detector 3 is used as a reference detector to compensate for drift. Although Winkler discloses a second light source, the second radiation source 2 is not arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector 4 as claimed. Winkler et al. directs a person of ordinary skill in the art toward providing two light sources with two corresponding different radiation detectors, and not two light sources that illuminate the same radiation detector as featured in the present invention. In order for the radiation from the second radiation source 2 to fall on the second radiation detector 3 in Winkler et al., the second light source 2 must necessarily be arranged non-collinearly with the first radiation detector 4 (see Fig. 1 of Winkler et al). As such, the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest each of the features recited in the claimed combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner favorably consider the claims as now presented.
In response, the examiner argues that claim 1 of the instant application does not require the radiation detector to receive radiation from the radiation source. The examiner agrees with applicant’s argument that the Wang et al. reference does not teach nor suggest a second light source that is arranged collinearly with a central axis of a radiation detector. However, the Winkler et al. reference (US Patent No. 5,923,035) does teach a second light source that emits a second light in a direction of a radiation detector and that is arranged collinear to a central axis of the radiation detector (see Winkler et al. Fig. 1 showing second light source 2 arranged collinear to the central axis of radiation detector 3, the central axis of the radiation detector being interpreted by the examiner as meaning the axis that is normal to the face of the radiation detector). Both the light from the first source 1 and second source 2 are separated by beam splitter 5 and sent to each radiation detector 3 and 4, each of the radiation detectors having their own interference filters which pass certain wavelengths of light (see Winkler et al. col. 2 line 66-col. 3 line 21).
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion that radiation detector 4 is the detector making the sample measurement and radiation detector 3 is the detector making the reference measurement (see applicant’s arguments outlined above, the examiner assumes the recitation “first radiation detector 1” is intended to say ‘first radiation detector 4’). Winkler et al. recites, on col. 3 lines 5-13, that radiation detector 3, whose central axis is collinear to second light source 2, comprises interference filter 100 whose spectral passband is in the range of absorption of the gas to be detected. Whereas radiation detector 4 comprises interference filter 10 whose spectral passband has “no absorption lines either of the gas to be measured or of other gases usually contained in the atmosphere to be measured” (Winkler et al. col. 3 lines 9-13). Thus, radiation detector 3 is the measurement detector and radiation detector 4 is the reference detector of Winkler et al.
Since radiation detector 3 of Winkler et al. passes light generated by light source 1 after passing through a measurement gas and being reflected by plane mirror 13, has a central axis that is arranged collinear to the second light source 2, wherein the second light source 2 emits light in a direction of the radiation detector 3, and claim 1 of the instant application does not require the claimed radiation detector, which receives measurement light from the light source and deflecting mirror, to be collinear with any other optical element in the optical measuring device of instant claim 1, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the radiation detector setup of the optical measuring device of the Wang et al. reference with the radiation detector set up of Winkler et al. such that the optical measuring device of Wang et al. includes the a second light source that is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector, as doing so beneficially provides the optical measuring device of Wang et al. with the structure to automatically compensate for drift observed in absorption measurements (see Winkler et al. col. 4 lines 58-64).
Thus, the amendments to instant claim 1 are not obvious in view of the Wang et al. reference modified by the Winkler et al. reference. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 8, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, each of these claims recite identical subject matter other than the wording of the limitations surrounding the second light source configuration (see claim 1 lines 10-13 and claim 17 lines 9-13). Lines 10-11 of claim 1 and lines 9-10 of claim 17 recite identical the identical limitation “a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector”. The claims differ in wording regarding the arrangement of the second light source with respect to the radiation detector. Claim 1 recites “wherein the second light source is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector” on lines 12-13, whereas claim 17 recites “wherein the second light source has a second light source longitudinal axis, wherein the second light source longitudinal axis aligned with a central axis of the radiation detector” on lines 11-13. The specification does not specify what the “longitudinal axis” of the second light source is, however, the examiner assumes the longitudinal axis is referring to the optical axis of the second light source in terms of its emission direction, as shown in Fig. 2 of the instant application. The arrangement shown in Fig. 2 has the alignment between the central axis of the radiation detector and the longitudinal axis of the second light source as being collinear, as claimed in claim 1. Additionally, the specification and drawings of the instant application do not describe or show any other possible arrangements between the second light source and the radiation detector. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that, despite the difference in wording, the limitations on lines 12-13 of claim 1 and lines 11-13 of claim 17 describe the same structure between the second light source and the radiation detector. Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are duplicate claims.
Claims 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the second light source longitudinal axis aligned with a central axis” on line 12, which should be amended to recite “the second light source longitudinal axis is aligned with a central axis” to improve grammatical clarity. Claims 18-21 depend on claim 17 and are therefore also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 103411921 A, of record), hereinafter Wang, in view of Winkler et al. (US Patent No. 5,923,035, of record), hereinafter Winkler.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an optical measuring device (Fig. 1, abstract) for determining the concentration of measurement gas in a sample gas by light absorption (abstract, paragraph 0001, 0028-0037) the optical measuring device comprising:
a light source (Fig. 1 laser 1);
a deflecting mirror (Fig. 1 reflecting unit 11);
a primary mirror (Fig. 1 hyperboloid secondary mirror 62 is equivalent to the claimed “primary mirror”);
a secondary mirror (Fig. 1 paraboloid primary mirror 61 is equivalent to the claimed “secondary mirror”);
a radiation detector (Fig. 1 detection unit 2);
a housing (Fig. 1 housing 4),
wherein a section (Fig. 1 open space 12) between the light source and the deflecting mirror is arranged (see Fig. 1) and configured to receive the sample gas (paragraph 0025-0027; it is implicit that the gas to be measured is received in open space 12),
wherein the light source is arranged and configured to emit light in a direction of the deflecting mirror (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0027),
wherein the deflecting mirror is arranged and configured to act as a collimator for incident light (see Fig. 1 wherein light reflected from unit 11 is collimated) and to deflect incident light in a direction of the primary mirror (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0027),
wherein the primary mirror and the secondary mirror are arranged and configured to direct light deflected by the deflecting mirror onto the radiation detector (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0027),
wherein respective optical axes of the light source, deflecting mirror, primary mirror and secondary mirror are collinear to each other (see Fig. 1; laser 1, unit 11, and mirrors 61 and 62 are collinear with each other in the device of Wang),
wherein the light source, the primary mirror, the secondary mirror and the radiation detector are arranged in the housing (see Fig. 1),
wherein the deflecting mirror is arranged outside the housing (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the housing comprises a translucent window (Fig. 1 shell 9, paragraph 0022, 0027) which is arranged in a light beam path between the light source and the deflecting mirror (see Fig. 1).
Wang does not teach a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector, wherein the second light source is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector.
Winkler, which relates to optical measuring devices for gas absorption, teaches an optical measuring device (Winkler: Fig. 1) having a second light source (Winkler: Fig. 1 second light source 2) configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector (see Winkler Fig. 1, col. 2 line 67-col. 3 line 21, claim 1; the second light source 2 is configured such that it emits light into a direction of radiation detector 3), wherein the second light source is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector (see Winkler Fig. 1, second light source 2 is collinear to central axis of detector 3). Radiation detector 3 of Winkler is described as making sample measurements using the light collected from plane mirror 13 (see Winkler col. 3 line 5-17). Thus, radiation detector 3 of Winkler corresponds to the radiation detector of the instant claim 1, as radiation detector 3 is both collinear with the second light source 2 and passes and collects light reflected from plane mirror 13 of a gas sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical measuring device of Wang with the optical measuring device of Winkler to include a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector, wherein the second light source is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector, as doing so beneficially provides the optical measuring device of Wang with the structure to automatically compensate for drift observed in absorption measurements (see Winkler col. 4 lines 58-64).
Regarding claim 4, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the primary mirror and the secondary mirror are configured as a Cassegrain telescope arrangement (see Fig. 1, mirrors 61 and 62 are inherently in a Cassegrain telescope arrangement).
Regarding claim 5, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches the Cassegrain telescope arrangement has no optical elements other than the primary mirror and the secondary mirror (see Fig. 1 wherein the only optical elements that are part of the Cassegrain telescope arrangement are mirrors 61, 62).
Regarding claim 6, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches the primary mirror has a central recess (see Fig. 1, light passes through recess of mirror 62) configured to direct light deflected by the secondary mirror through the central recess onto the radiation detector (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches a second radiation detector (Winkler: Fig. 1 radiation detector 4); and a beam splitter (Winkler: Fig. 1 radiation detector 5), wherein the beam splitter is arranged in the light beam path in front of the radiation detector (see Winkler Fig. 1 where the beam splitter is in front of the radiation detector in terms of the light beam path) and is configured to guide a part of the light in the direction of the radiation detector and to guide another part of the light in a direction of the second radiation detector (see Winkler Fig. 1, col. 2 line 67-col. 3 line 21).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches an optical measuring device (Fig. 1, abstract) for determining the concentration of measurement gas in a sample gas by light absorption (abstract, paragraph 0001, 0028-0037), the optical measuring device comprising:
a light source (Fig. 1 laser 1);
a deflecting mirror (Fig. 1 reflecting unit 11);
a primary mirror (Fig. 1 hyperboloid secondary mirror 62 is equivalent to the claimed “primary mirror”);
a secondary mirror (Fig. 1 paraboloid primary mirror 61 is equivalent to the claimed “secondary mirror”);
a radiation detector (Fig. 1 detection unit 2);
a housing (Fig. 1 housing 4);
wherein a section (Fig. 1 open space 12) between the light source and the deflecting mirror is arranged (see Fig. 1) and configured to receive the sample gas (paragraph 0025-0027; it is implicit that the gas to be measured is received in open space 12),
wherein the light source is arranged and configured to emit light in a direction of the deflecting mirror (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0027),
wherein the deflecting mirror is arranged and configured to act as a collimator for incident light (see Fig. 1 wherein light reflected from unit 11 is collimated) and to deflect incident light in a direction of the primary mirror (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0027),
wherein the primary mirror and the secondary mirror are arranged and configured to direct light deflected by the deflecting mirror onto the radiation detector (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0027),
wherein respective optical axes of the light source, deflecting mirror, primary mirror and secondary mirror are collinear to each other (see Fig. 1; laser 1, unit 11, and mirrors 61 and 62 are collinear with each other in the device of Wang),
wherein the light source, the primary mirror, the secondary mirror and the radiation detector are arranged in the housing (see Fig. 1),
wherein the deflecting mirror is arranged outside the housing (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the housing comprises a translucent window (Fig. 1 shell 9, paragraph 0022, 0027) which is arranged in a light beam path between the light source and the deflecting mirror (see Fig. 1).
Wang does not teach a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector, wherein the second light source has a second light source longitudinal axis, wherein the second light source longitudinal axis aligned with a central axis of the radiation detector.
Winkler, which relates to optical measuring devices for gas absorption, teaches an optical measuring device (Winkler: Fig. 1) having a second light source (Winkler: Fig. 1 second light source 2) configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector (see Winkler Fig. 1, col. 2 line 67-col. 3 line 21, claim 1; the second light source 2 is configured such that it emits light into a direction of radiation detector 3), wherein the second light source has a second light source longitudinal axis (see Winkler Fig. 1, the longitudinal axis of source 2 being defined as the axis of which its light travels towards radiation detector 3), wherein the second light source longitudinal axis is aligned with a central axis of the radiation detector (see Winkler Fig. 1). Radiation detector 3 of Winkler is described as making sample measurements using the light collected from plane mirror 13 (see Winkler col. 3 line 5-17). Thus, radiation detector 3 of Winkler corresponds to the radiation detector of the instant claim 1, as radiation detector 3 both has a central axis aligned with the longitudinal axis of the second light source 2 and passes and collects light reflected from plane mirror 13 of a gas sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical measuring device of Wang with the optical measuring device of Winkler to include a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector, wherein the second light source has a second light source longitudinal axis, wherein the second light source longitudinal axis aligned with a central axis of the radiation detector, as doing so beneficially provides the optical measuring device of Wang with the structure to automatically compensate for drift observed in absorption measurements (see Winkler col. 4 lines 58-64).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newbury (WO 94/16311 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a distance between the light source and the deflecting mirror is variable along the optical axis of the deflecting mirror, whereby an absorption length is adjustable.
Newbury, which relates to optical measuring devices for gas absorption, teaches a distance between a light source and a deflecting mirror is variable along the optical axis of the deflecting mirror (see Newbury pg. 7 third paragraph, pg. 16 fifth paragraph through pg. 17 first paragraph which discuss adjusting the position of the retroreflector or optical components (which includes a light source), thus making the distance variable), whereby an absorption length is adjustable (see Newbury pg. 7 third paragraph, pg. 16 fifth paragraph through pg. 17 first paragraph; altering the position of the retroreflector and/or optical components inherently makes the absorption length adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical measuring device of Wang (as modified by Winkler) to have a distance between the light source and the deflecting mirror is variable along the optical axis of the deflecting mirror, whereby an absorption length is adjustable, as taught by Newbury, for the benefit of acquiring the best visual alignment between the light source and deflecting mirror of Wang (as modified by Winkler) (see Newbury pg. 16 fifth paragraph through pg. 17 first paragraph).
Claims 9, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Winkler as applied to claims 1, 8, and 17 above, and further in view of Thorpe et al. (US 2020/0124477 A1, of record), hereinafter Thorpe.
Regarding claim 9, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 8, as outlined above, but does not teach the radiation detector and/or the second radiation detector is a multi-channel detector.
Thorpe, which is related to optical measuring devices, teaches a radiation detector that is a multi-channel detector (Thorpe: paragraph 0009, 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the radiation detector and/or the second radiation detector of Wang (as modified by Winkler) to be a multi-channel detector, as taught by Thorpe, for the benefit of maximizing the capture of light and spatial resolution of the system (see Thorpe paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 11, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the radiation detector is a multi-channel detector.
Thorpe, which is related to optical measuring devices, teaches a radiation detector that is a multi-channel detector (Thorpe: paragraph 0009, 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the radiation detector of Wang (as modified by Winkler) to be a multi-channel detector, as taught by Thorpe, for the benefit of maximizing the capture of light and spatial resolution of the system (see Thorpe paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 18, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 17, as outlined above, but does not teach the radiation detector is a multi-channel detector.
Thorpe, which is related to optical measuring devices, teaches a radiation detector that is a multi-channel detector (Thorpe: paragraph 0009, 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the radiation detector of Wang (as modified by Winkler) to be a multi-channel detector, as taught by Thorpe, for the benefit of maximizing the capture of light and spatial resolution of the system (see Thorpe paragraph 0052).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (CN 202083627 U, of record), hereinafter Wei.
Regarding claim 16, Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach an optical waveguide arranged in a light beam path in front of the radiation detector.
Wei, which relates to optical measuring devices for gas absorption, teaches an optical waveguide (Wei: Fig. 1 receiving optical fibers 5, 7) arranged in a light beam path in front of a radiation detector (see Wei: Fig. 1 wherein receiving fiber 5 feeds into spectrometer 9, see also paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical measuring device of Wang (as modified by Winkler) to have an optical waveguide arranged in a light beam path in front of the radiation detector, as taught by Wei, for the benefit of improving the adjustability of the optical measuring system of Wang (as modified by Winkler) (see Wei paragraph 0007).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Winkler and Thorpe as applied to claims 17-18 above, and further in view of Hawker et al. (US 2025/0155673 A1), hereinafter Hawker.
Regarding claim 19, Wang, as modified by Winkler and Thorpe, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 18, as outlined above, but does not teach structured portions of an optical surface of the secondary mirror and/or an optical surface of the primary mirror are spherical, hyperbolic or parabolic.
Hawker, which relates to telescope alignment systems for optical measurement applications, teaches structured portions of an optical surface of a mirror are spherical (Hawker: Fig. 2 facet 104 on mirror 102, see also paragraphs 0031-0033 describing facets with a spherical structure).
Therefore, since Hawker recites that the faceted mirror can be used in a Cassegrain telescope (Hawker: paragraph 0038) configuration similar to that of Wang, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical surface of the primary and/or secondary mirror to have structured portions that are spherical in shape, as taught by Hawker, for the benefit of improving the focusing of measurement light onto the radiation detector of Wang (as modified by Winkler and Thorpe) (see e.g. Hawker paragraphs 0033, 0046).
Regarding claim 20, Wang, as modified by Winkler and Thorpe, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 18, as outlined above, but does not teach structured portions of an optical surface of the secondary mirror and/or an optical surface of the primary mirror are configured as facets and/or as grooves.
Hawker, which relates to telescope alignment systems for optical measurement applications, teaches structured portions of an optical surface of a mirror are configured as facets and/or as grooves (Hawker: Fig. 2 facet 104 on mirror 102, see also paragraphs 0031-0033).
Therefore, since Hawker recites that the faceted mirror can be used in a Cassegrain telescope (Hawker: paragraph 0038) configuration similar to that of Wang, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical surface of the primary and/or secondary mirror to have structured portions configured as facets, as taught by Hawker, for the benefit of improving the focusing of measurement light onto the radiation detector of Wang (as modified by Winkler and Thorpe) (see e.g. Hawker paragraphs 0033, 0046).
Regarding claim 21, Wang, as modified by Winkler, Thorpe, and Hawker, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 20, as outlined above, and further teaches the facets are configured as a hexagonal elevation or recess (see Hawker Fig. 3, paragraphs 0033), wherein a facet surface bounded by edges of the facet is convex, concave and/or flat (Hawker: paragraphs 0033).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, and 12-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the optical measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the radiation detector is located on the optical axis of the primary mirror and secondary mirror (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Wang, as modified by Winkler, teaches the optical measuring device according to claim 1 (outlined above). However, the modification of the Wang optical measuring device to include a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector, wherein the second light source is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector, as taught by Winkler, would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to having the radiation detector perpendicular to the optical axis of the primary and secondary mirrors of Wang (see Winkler Fig. 1 light source 2 and radiation detector 3). Further, attempting to modify the arrangement of the second light source and radiation detector of Wang (as modified by Winkler) would result in the second light source obstructing the field of view radiation detector such that collecting light from the deflecting, primary, and secondary mirrors would be infeasible.
Harder (DE 3823021 A1) teaches an optical measuring device with a similar configuration to that of the optical measuring device of Wang et al. (see Harder Fig. 1, abstract). Harder further teaches the use of additional laser diodes that emit beams (15, 16 in Fig. 1) which is detected by a radiation receiver (19) (see Harder paragraphs 0029, 0036). However, Harder does not teach the optical measuring device receives or analyzes gas samples of any kind. Additionally, light from the light source (8) is not configured to be received by the radiation receiver (19), it instead is receiving by an imaging unit (31, paragraph 0033) (see Harder Fig. 1, abstract). Furthermore, Harder does not teach a second light source configured to emit a second light in a direction of the radiation detector, wherein the second light source is arranged collinearly with a central axis of the radiation detector.
Additionally, the remaining references cited on applicant’s information disclosure statement and previously made of record by the examiner, that are not specifically mentioned above, have been reconsidered by the examiner. None of these references teach the bolded and/or underlined limitations outlined above, in combination with the remaining limitations from the claim.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 2 is indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the optical measuring device according to claim 8, wherein an optical surface of the secondary mirror and/or an optical surface of the primary mirror comprises structured portions configured to enlarge a radiation distribution on the radiation detector and/or to enlarge a radiation distribution on the second radiation detector (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
See examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in the non-final office action mailed 01 October 2025 for a full discussion regarding the allowability of claim 10.
Therefore, claim 10 is indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the optical measuring device according to claim 1, wherein an optical surface of the secondary mirror and/or an optical surface of the primary mirror comprises structured portions configured to enlarge a radiation distribution on the radiation detector (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
See examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in the non-final office action mailed 01 October 2025 for a full discussion regarding the allowability of claim 12.
Therefore, claim 12 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 13-15 depend on claim 12 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877