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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
Some of the applicant’s amendments were successful in overcoming the rejections under 35 USC 112. Those rejections have been withdrawn. However, as described below, the amendments introduce a new issue under 35 USC 112.
With respect to claims 12 and 17, the applicant attempted to correct the issue to claim 17 by the amendment to claim 12. However, even though the mask is direct to a laser spectroscopy assembly, only the mask itself is claimed as the invention. The components of the laser spectroscopy assembly, in this case the laser and the input optic, are not structurally included in the claimed optical mask. 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 and now includes claims 12 with respect to the new claim amendments.
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 “an angle selected such that the 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.” The examiner disagrees. The baffles of Nourbakhash do in fact achieve the intended result, since there is such a wide range of angles that could have been selected instead. With the exception of the maximum (90 degree for maximum reflections), any other selected angle would decrease the number of reflections between the two surfaces. However, the amendment does introduce an issue under 35 USC 112 as described below.
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.
Claim 1, 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 1, 12, 17, and 21, the limitation “an angle of the surface is selected such that the 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” is indefinite. The laser light, input optic, and laser spectroscopy assembly are not part of the claimed device so therefore cannot be used to structurally limit the device. The specification does not disclose an angle of the surface that would reflect light from any and all input optics of all laser spectroscopy systems. Additionally, the structural relationship between the mask and the laser spectroscopy assembly and input optic cannot be defined and therefore cannot serve to limit the device. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 1, 12, 17, and 21, the limitation “an angle of the surface is selected such that the 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” is indefinite since it fails to provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim. The limitation is worded as a result to be achieved, rather than the actual limitation. Without reciting the particular structure, material or steps that achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means of resolving a problem may not be commensurate in scope with an enabling disclosure. In this case, the wording that the angle reduces the reflected light compared to if that angle had not been selected allows for a much broader range of options, excluding the most extreme possibility. All other options except the most extreme amount of reflection would inherently decrease the number of reflections. This is not commensurate with the disclosure and fails to provide a clear claim scope. Correction is required.
Any claims dependent upon the rejected claims are likewise rejected for containing the same claim language or failing to correct the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend.
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 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)
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)
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 (Col.2, l 53-59)
However, Nourbakhsh fails to disclose there is an absorbent coating on a side surface of 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.
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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, and 22, Nourbakhsh discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12. In addition, Nourbakhsh discloses:
4, 17, 22- the angle is selected such that laser light reflected from the input optic is reflected away from the input optic by the surface and does not intersect 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)
6, 16- an integer multiple of the angle is not equal to 90 (Figure 1, angle of baffle walls is not an integer of 90, clearly less than 90°)
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 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
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