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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/26/26 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 08/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s amendments, some of the rejections under 35 USC 112 were overcome. However, new rejections have been presented with respect to the new claimed limitations.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Nourbakhsh, the rejection is not overcome.
The applicant argues that Nourbakhsh fails to disclose “a gas cell comprising parallel surfaces and/or quasi-parallel surfaces, wherein one of the parallel surfaces and/or quasi-parallel surface is a surface of the input optic positioned at an interior surface of the gas cell”. The examiner disagrees. The applicant is reading limitations into the claim that are not there. Specifically, applicant is relying on: a chamber wall “opposite” and parallel to the input optic or that every path leaving the chamber be parallel to the input optic. This is not what the claim says. The claim requires only parallel or quasi-parallel surfaces. The indefiniteness of “quasi-parallel” not withstanding, Nourbakhsh still discloses parallel surfaces, the input face collimating lens 110 wherein the inside and outside of that face are opposing parallel surfaces. At the very least, the interior face of this element is one of those faces. Branching oblique sensor paths do not establish that no surface of the chamber is parallel or quasi-parallel to another.
Applicant further argues that Norbakhsh’s narrow end aperture on a conical baffle does not satisfy “an apex”. The examiner disagrees. The claim is not drawn to a mathematical point or an unbroken cone tip. The “apex entry” as a practical limitation is a small opening at the end of the narrow end of a cone or pyramid. A flat face of that opening does not prohibit the limitation; the entry is still positioned at the apex of the pyramid or cone. Applicant’s own Figure 3A shows this, a fine aperture at the tip, not a geometric point with zero area.
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, the limitation “wherein the optical mask is configured between a gas cell and a collimator to reduce noise from etalons by at least partially absorbing reflected light caused by parallel surfaces and or quasi-parallel surfaces in the optical path” is indefinite. Claim 12 is directed to an optical mask per se. Neither a gas cell nor a collimator are positively recited as part of the claimed optical mas, Limitations that define the mask only by its relationship to unclaimed structure of a laser spectroscopy assembly do not distinctly claim the structure of the mask because those relationships depend on components that are not part of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 12, the limitation ‘wherein the surface forms an angle with the entry, the angle is unequal to zero or 90 degrees” is indefinite. The entry is defined in the surface at the apex. It is unclear what geometric relationship is meant by an “angle” between the surface an an aperture formed in that surface.
Further, with respect to claim 1 and 12, the limitation “preventing reflection of etalons back to the collimator” is indefinite. An etalon is an interference phenomenon arising from multiple reflections between parallel or quasi parallel surfaces; it is not an object that itself “reflected”. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim preventing reflected light (that would otherwise form etalon fringes) from returning to the collimator, or something else.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “quasi-parallel” is a term of degree not defined in the specification. The degree of deviation between parallel and “quasi-parallel” is not defined. Clarification is required.
The balance of claims are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiency.
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, the gas cell further comprising parallel surfaces and/or quasi-parallel surfaces, wherein one of the parallel surfaces and/or quasi-parallel surfaces is a surface of the input optic positioned at an interior surface of the gas cell (Figure 1, cell body = detection chamber 106, Col.3, l 44-47, input optic = collimating lens 110, parallel surfaces = 122A, 122B, walls around 106)
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 conical surface forming an angle with the input optic, the angle being unequal to zero or 90° and an entry defined in the conical 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 surface on a side surface of the optical mask 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 entry (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
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