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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
“System and Method for Reducing Etalon Noise with Optical Mask”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in light of the amendments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to rejections under 35 USC 112, the “input optic” lacks antecedent basis as described below and was not previously addressed.
With respect to claims 12 and 17, the limitations directed toward a relationship of components relies upon the laser spectroscopy assembly, in this case the laser and the input optic, are not structurally included in the claimed system. For example, a printer is located at a height to convenient for a user, is limited to a printer that is used by a user, however, there may be one or more user heights since no specific user is part of the claimed structure creating a plurality of different interpretations, the existence of which causes the claim to be indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, Appeal 2007-3300 (November 19, 2008) This rejection remains.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art, the arguments and amendments were not successful in overcoming the rejection of claims as unpatentable over Nourbakhsh as described below. Applicant argues that Nourbakhsh fails to disclose a collimator. As discussed in the interview, collimators are well known in the art and the addition of a collimator to a known structure is not sufficiently novel to overcome the prior art. The applicant argues that the addition of a collimator would be hindsight. The examiner disagrees. Collimators are well known in the art and Nourbaksh is very clear that the goal is to direct as much focused light from the source through the device. Adding a collimator in front of the light source, prior to the baffles, would help in this case to contain the LED generated light (which is well known to have a divergent beam spread) to the entry into the device of Nourbaksh. Those of ordinary skill in the art readily use collimators as needed to redirect and control light.
The applicant argues that the specific angles of claims 6 and 16 are not mere optimization. The examiner disagrees. Unless the applicant can provide some surprising revelation that their specific angles work differently than expected or some long felt need in the art for these angles, the optimization argument stands. Especially considering that the applicant doesn’t have specific angles, but rather a broad range of angles, the unexpected results argument would be challenging to make.
The rejection stands in response to the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 12 and 21, the limitation “the input optic” lacks antecedent basis. There is no previously disclosed input optic. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “an entry” is the same as the input optic. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 17, the limitation “configured to reflect the laser light away from the input optic of the laser spectroscopy assembly” is indefinite. Since the input optic itself is not part of the claimed apparatus, it cannot define components of the apparatus. The structural relationship between the surfaces of the baffles and the input optic is not defined by the claim since the input optic is not part of the structure of the system. Any limitations on the baffles based upon the input optic is indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nourbakhsh U.S. Patent #10,935,480.
With respect to claims 1 and 21, Nourbakhsh discloses an optical sensor head comprising:
Providing/ A gas cell comprising a cell body, the cell body comprising an input optic (Figure 1, cell body = detection chamber 106, Col.3, l 44-47, input optic = collimating lens 110)
Providing/ A light source configured to emit laser light into the gas cell, wherein the laser light is in a wavelength range (Figure 1, light source 102)
Providing/ An optical mask positioned in an optical path of the laser light and positioned between the gas cell and the light source, (Figure 1, mask= baffles 104)
Aligning and facing/ The optical mask comprising a surface forming an angle with the input optic, the angle being unequal to zero or 90° and an entry defined in the surface and sized to admit the focused or redirected laser light therethrough (Figure 1 and 2, input optic = collimating lens 110, side angle of the mask is not perpendicular or parallel to the entry surface of the lens)
An absorbent side surface facing the input optic (Col.6, l 12-14, Col.5, l 48-53, wherein at least some photons are absorbed by side walls)
Positioning/ The entry is positioned in the optical path and the optical mask is configured to reduce noise from etalons by at least partially absorbing reflected light caused by parallel surfaces in the optical path, thereby preventing reflections of etalons back to the light source (Col.2, l 53-59)
However, Nourbakhsh fails to disclose there is an absorbent coating on a side surface of the baffles and a collimator between the light source and the baffles. Instead, Nourbakhsh discloses only that the surfaces are at least partially absorbent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention whether the surface is made of a fabricated material with a property or coated with a material with a property are art recognized equivalents. Nourbakhsh is silent as to whether the baffles are coated with or made of materials that are absorbent but one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of selecting the means for manufacturing an absorbent element, whether through a material selection or a coating selection.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a collimator in front of the LED 102 of Nourbakhsh since LEDs require a collimator to redirect the divergent light and reduce the spread. Nourbakhsh uses baffles to help align and redirect the light flow from the source so it makes sense that adding a well-known optical component like a collimator in front of the light source would additionally pursue that goal in a low cost effective manner that has long been used in the art for that purpose.
With respect to claim 12, Nourbakhsh discloses an optical particle sensor head comprising:
An optical mask (Figure 1, Figure 2, baffle 104)
A surface being conical or pyramidal, the surface comprising an apex (Figure 2, surface = conical, apex = input aperture)
An absorbent side of the surface facing the input optic of the laser spectroscopy assembly (Figure 1, Figure 2, input optic = collimating lens 110, side of the surface = sides of the baffles 104, Col.6, l 12-14, Col.5, l 48-53, wherein at least some photons are absorbed)
An entry defined in the surface at the apex and sized to admit laser light therethrough (Figure 2, entry = input aperture 103)
Wherein the optical mask is configured to reduce noise from etalons caused by parallel surfaces and/or quasi parallel surfaces in an optical path of a laser spectroscopy assembly (Col.2, l 41-61, wherein with the structure as claimed being similar, the functionality is inherently the same, MPEP 2112.01)
Wherein the angle is selected such that a number of times that the laser light reflected by the input optic and further reflected by the surface intersects with the input optic is reduced from the number of times the laser light is reflected had the angle not been selected (inherent, there are any possible options “had the angle not been selected” such that the number of reflections is less than a maximum number of reflections)
However, Nourbakhsh fails to disclose there is an absorbent coating on the surface and only discloses that the surface is at least partially absorbent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention whether the surface is made of a fabricated material with a property or coated with a material with a property are art recognized equivalents. Nourbakhsh is silent as to whether the baffles are coated with or made of materials that are absorbent but one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of selecting the means for manufacturing an absorbent element, whether through a material selection or a coating selection.
It should be noted that the limitations drawn to the laser spectroscopy are not structurally limiting on the claim. The claim fails to disclose that the laser spectroscopy assembly, including the laser source, is actually part of the structure claimed but rather the optical mask is intended to be part of a laser spectroscopy assembly. This is different than claiming a laser spectroscopy assembly with an optical mask.
With respect to claim 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 22, Nourbakhsh discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12. In addition, Nourbakhsh discloses:
4, 17, 22- the angle of the surface is configured to reflect the laser light away from the input optic of the laser spectroscopy assembly without intersecting the input optic (Col.6, l 8-14, wherein stray light is not reflected toward the photodiodes which is the same direction as the input optic, Figure 2, wherein surface 107 of the baffle reflects light away from the input optic)
7- an interior side of the surface faces the input optic (Figure 1, interior side = surface 104 facing in towards collimation lens 110)
8- an exterior side of the surface faces the input optic (Figure 1, exterior side of surface = angle 107, input optic = collimation lens 110)
9, 18- The surface is conical (Col.3, l 21-23)
10, 19- The optical mask defines an aperture as the entry (Col.3, l 30-33)
With respect to claim 6 and 16, Nourbaksh discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 12 above. However, Nourbaksh is silent with respect to the angle of the baffles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an optimum angle of baffles to minimize light reentry through the cone as is the shared goal of Nourbaksh (Col.3, l 32-37) and the current application. Optimizing the result effective variable, the angle of the baffle, involves only ordinary skill in the art since the general conditions of the claim are met. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, and 23, Nourbakhsh discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. In addition, Nourbakhsh discloses:
The sides of the surface are absorbent (Col.6, l 12, Col.2, l 33-35)
However, Nourbakhsh fails to disclose the surface has an absorbent coating has a reflectance of 50% or less in a wavelength range of the laser light, that the absorbent coating has a reflectance of 1% or less, or that the surface is fabricated with a material having a reflectance of 50% or less in a wavelength range of the laser light source.
Nourbakhsh doesn’t disclose a certain percentage of reflectance of the absorbent coating however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make an absorbent element as minimally reflective as possible. At minimum, a reflectance less than 50% would be required to call it an absorbing surface, otherwise it would be a reflecting surface. Maximizing the percentage of absorbance would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a variable including the desirability of an efficiently absorbing surface with a reflectance of 1% or less.
With respect to claim 11 and 20, Nourbakhsh discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12. However, Nourbakhsh fails to disclose the surface is pyramidal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a pyramidal surface rather than a conical surface as they are art recognized equivalents. Pyramidal surfaces built from flat surfaces may be less expensive than conical ones and used for directing beams to a finite number of directions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights