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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 102 rejections. Therefore, the previous 102 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new 103 rejections have been made, partially based on newly cited prior art (see below for details).
Claim Objections
Claims 85-87 are objected to because the claims are numbered 85-87, where the claims should be numbered 86-88. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 66-73, 75-79, and 100-102 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.
Claim 66 recites the limitation “the flow cell” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear whether this refers to any flow cell or whether it requires the previously mentioned beam0particle interaction region to be in a flow cell. This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claim to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, the claim is interpreted as comprising a flow cell comprising the beam-particle interaction region of line 3.
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.
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 66-67, 69-70, 72-73, 83-86, 89-90, and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe (US 20040169867 A1) in view of Novotny (WO 2007100785 A2).
Regarding claims 66 and 83, Sharpe teaches a particle detection system (figure 1 and paragraphs 29-31) comprising:
an optical source (12) for generating a beam of electromagnetic radiation (13);
a beam-particle interaction region (region around 22 in figure 1; paragraph 25);
a beam shaping optical system (24) configured to direct the beam into the beam- particle interaction region, thereby generating scattered electromagnetic radiation via interaction of the beam with one or more particles in the beam- particle interaction region (paragraphs 25 and 28; figure 1);
a first photosensor (14), the first photosensor being configured to receive at least some of the scattered electromagnetic radiation from the beam-particle interaction region (figure 1; paragraphs 37 and 24);
an active-control beam alignment system comprising:
a second photosensor (28), the second photosensor configured to monitor a displacement error and/or an angular error of the beam and produce a beam error signal (30);
a closed loop control system configured to receive the beam error signal and produce a beam correction signal (46; paragraph 31);
an actuator system (paragraph 31; 23) configured to receive the beam correction signal (46) and in response, correct an alignment of one or more optical components (24) of the particle detection system (paragraph 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sharpe doesn’t explicitly teach the first photosensor comprises an optical detector array, wherein the optical source, beam shaping optical system and optical detector array are configured for interferometric detection of the particles.
Like Sharpe (and like the instant application), Novotny is directed to a particle detection system and optical measurement system and teaches the first photosensor comprises an optical detector array, wherein the optical source, beam shaping optical system and optical detector array are configured for interferometric detection of the particles (paragraphs 31-33 and abstract). Additionally, Novotny teaches this provides benefit of real-time reliable detection sensitivity for nanoscale particles, including size and composition (paragraphs 1-15).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the first photosensor comprises an optical detector array, wherein the optical source, beam shaping optical system and optical detector array are configured for interferometric detection of the particles in order to ensure real-time reliable detection sensitivity for nanoscale particles, including size and composition.
Regarding claims 67 and 84, Sharpe teaches the second photosensor is a quadrant- cell photosensor (paragraph 29).
Regarding claims 69 and 85, Sharpe teaches the actuator system comprises one or more driven nanopositioners (paragraph 31).
Sharpe doesn’t explicitly teach the positioner is piezo-electric-driven. Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measurements to have piezo-electric actuators/positioners. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that nanopositioner is piezo-electric-driven in order to ensure accurate and precise positioning.
Regarding claims 70 and 86, Sharpe teaches the actuator system is configured to adjust a position of a mirror (24) in the optical path of the beam (paragraphs 28 and 31).
Regarding claims 72 and 89, Sharpe teaches the active-control beam alignment system comprises a beam splitter (26) configured to split the beam into a sample beam (27; paragraph 29) and a particle interrogation beam, the sample beam being incident on the second photodetector (28) and the particle interrogation beam being directed through the active- control beam alignment system and towards the beam-particle interaction region (12; figure 1).
Regarding claims 73 and 90, Sharpe teaches the closed loop control system is a first closed loop control system, the beam error signal is a first beam error signal, the beam correction signal is a first beam correction signal, the actuator system is a first actuator system, and wherein the active-control beam alignment system comprises: a third photodetector (43) configured to monitor the displacement error and/or the angular error of the beam and produce a second beam error signal; a second closed loop control system configured to receive the second beam error signal (44) and produce a second beam correction signal (paragraphs 30-31); and a second actuator system configured to receive the second beam correction signal and in response, correct the alignment of the one or more optical components of the particle detection system (paragraph 31).
Regarding claims 80 and 97, Sharpe teaches the beam-particle interaction region is configured to flow a particle-containing fluid therethrough (figure 2).
Regarding claims 81 and 98, Sharpe teaches the particle-containing fluid is a liquid or a gas (paragraph 24; figure 2).
Regarding claim 101, in the above combination the system is configured to provide heterodyne interferometric detection of said particles by collecting an off-axis scattered portion of the scattered electromagnetic radiation via the first photosensor and combining the off-axis scattered light scattered electromagnetic radiation with a reference beam to create an interferometric signal (Novotny: paragraphs 31-33 and abstract).
Claims 68, 75-76, 78, 85, 90, and 92-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe and Novotny, as applied to claims 67, 73, 83, and 90 above, and further in view of Ortyn (US 20020057432 A1).
Regarding claims 68 and 85, Sharpe teaches the quadrant-cell photosensor comprises four individual sub-photosensors arranged as a quadrant, each sub-photosensor producing an individual signal (“quadrant photodiode sensor that generates photocurrent in each quadrant” in paragraph 29).
Sharpe suggests the closed loop control system is configured to calculate a magnitude and direction of the displacement error and/or the angular error of the beam by comparing the signals from each sub-photosensor (“By comparing the photocurrent generated in each quadrant, directional change in two axis (25) can be detected” in paragraph 29; note that direction change in two axis [as seen in figure 1, element 25] implicitly gives both the magnitude and direction). Additionally, like Sharpe (and like Applicant), Ortyn is directed to particle analyzes and is also directed to the problem of using quadrant detectors for beam alignment and teaches calculate a magnitude and direction of the displacement error and/or the angular error of the beam (figures 21-22; magnitude is implied by comparing with a threshold in paragraph 84 and direction is described in paragraphs 69 and 72).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
546
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
551
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
704
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the above closed loop control system configured to calculate a magnitude and direction of the displacement error and/or the angular error of the beam by comparing the signals from each sub-photosensor in order to ensure accurate alignment of the beam, which facilitates accurate measurements.
Regarding claims 74 and 90, in the above combination the second closed loop control system is configured to operate independently (as illustrated at figure 18 of Ortyn, each quad cell is at a distinct position, receiving distinct optical beams, and as explained in paragraph 73, the angle quad cell only detects angular errors and is not affected by position errors, so it’s operating independently to determine independent information; Sharpe, paragraphs 29-31) of the first closed loop control system.
Regarding claims 75 and 92, in the above combination the first closed loop control system is configured to monitor and adjust for the displacement error of the beam (position in the horizontal and vertical directions in paragraphs 69-75 of Ortyn; Sharpe, paragraphs 29-31).
Regarding claims 76 and 93, in the above combination the second closed loop control system is configured to monitor and adjust for the angular error of the beam (paragraphs 69-75 of Ortyn).
Regarding claims 78 and 94, in the above combination the second closed loop control system is downstream of the first, wherein downstream is defined as closer to the beam-particle interaction region on an optical path from the optical source to the beam-particle interaction region (Ortyn, paragraph 80, where the sampling is as it enters the cavity, which is the beam-particle interaction region; it’s clear that one quad cell is close to the cavity than the other, so the closer one is considered the second).
Claims 71 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe and Novotny, as applied to claims 70 and 83 above, and further in view of Prater (US 20190120753 A1).
Regarding claims 71 and 87, Sharpe doesn’t explicitly teach the mirror is a fast steering mirror.
However, Sharpe teaches the mirror is a beam-steering mirror (paragraph 28). Like Sharpe (and like Applicant), Prater is directed to optical measurement systems and methods featuring a beam steering mirror and teaches that having the beam steering mirror be a fast steering mirror provides the benefit of completing mirror movements quickly (paragraph 151; for context, see paragraph 76).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the mirror is a fast steering mirror in order to complete mirror movements quickly.
Claims 78, and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe and Novotny, as applied to claims 73 and 90 above, and further in view of Clark (US 5923418 A).
Regarding claims 74 and 90, Sharpe doesn’t explicitly the second closed loop control system is configured to operate independently of the first closed loop control system.
Like Sharpe (and like Applicant), Clark is directed to the problem of controlling the direction and position of a light beam using quadrant detectors (16, 17) and teaches having the second control system configured to operate independently of the first control system (figure 1; column 5, lines 20-60).
PNG
media_image6.png
436
838
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add another second closed loop control system in order to provide additional control over the light beam by aligning a second mirror since errors can be due to misalignment of multiple mirrors.
PNG
media_image6.png
436
838
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 78 and 95, the above combination comprises: a first beam splitter (14) and a first actuated mirror (18), wherein the first closed loop control system is configured to monitor for error in the beam via a first sample beam split out by the first beam splitter and make adjustments via the first actuated mirror; and a second beam splitter (15) and a second actuated mirror (19), wherein the second closed loop control system is configured to monitor for error in the beam via a second sample beam split out by the second beam splitter and make adjustments via the second actuated mirror (figure 1 of Clark).
Claims 79 and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe and Novotny, as applied to claims 66 and 83 above, and further in view of Coston (JP 2009088528 A) and Liu (US 20200093415 A1).
Regarding claims 79 and 96, Sharpe doesn’t explicitly teach the active-control beam alignment system provides control of the beam to within 5 microradians or less at a frequency of 250 Hz or greater.
However, as can be seen in the cited sections above, it is desired in the art to have precise control and alignment even when the beam/mirror is moving fast and therefore one would be motivated to make the beam control as precise as possible (as few radians as possible) even at a high frequency. For example, Coston and Liu are both in the art of beam control and teach the following: Coston is directed to controlling beams and correcting for beam errors and teaches “A position error and a beam directivity error of 3 microradians can be realized” on page 12, paragraph 5. Liu teaches, “After passing through the Iris Pair for system alignment, the beam entered a scanning module composed of a 16 kHz resonant mirror and a galvanometer mirror. The scanning angle of the resonant scanner was 5 degrees. The excited light was expanded by a set of relaying lenses so that it just filled the back aperture of the objective lens. The excitation beam was reflected by a 900-nm edged dichroic beam splitter (DM 900 SP) and focused by an objective lens (63×/NA 1.15. Zeiss) to excite biological tissues.” (paragraph 126)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above such that the active-control beam alignment system provides control of the beam to within 5 microradians or less at a frequency of 250 Hz or greater in order to have precise control and alignment even when the beam/mirror is moving fast and therefore one would be motivated to make the beam control as precise as possible (as few radians as possible) even at a high frequency.
Claims 100, 102-103, and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe and Novotny, as applied to claims 66 and 83 above, and further in view of Shamir (US 20150260628 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 100, 102-103, and 105, Sharpe doesn’t explicitly teach the optical detector array comprises one or more forward-looking, on-axis detector pairs configured for differential detection (claims 100 and 103); the beam shaping optical system is configured to output a structured beam characterized by a plurality of intensity lobes, and spatial intensity profile having a centerline decrease in intensity, and wherein individual segmented detector regions of the optical detector array are each positioned over different intensity lobes of a structured beam (claims 102 and 105).
Like Sharpe (and like the instant application), Shamir is directed to a particle detection system and optical measurement system and teaches the first photosensor comprises an optical detector array, wherein the optical source, beam shaping optical system and optical detector array are configured for interferometric detection of the particles (figure 1; paragraph 39); the optical detector array comprises one or more forward-looking, on-axis detector pairs (7 and 8) configured for differential detection (paragraphs 39 and 60); the beam shaping optical system is configured to output a structured beam characterized by a plurality of intensity lobes (paragraph 39), and spatial intensity profile having a centerline decrease in intensity (paragraph 39), and wherein individual segmented detector regions of the optical detector array are each positioned over different intensity lobes of a structured beam (paragraphs 39 and 17; and figure 1). Additionally, Shamir teaches this provides the benefit of “the ability to resolve small particles and the ability to measure low concentration using measurements based on single particle interactions” (paragraph 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
248
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical detector array comprises one or more forward-looking, on-axis detector pairs configured for differential detection; the beam shaping optical system is configured to output a structured beam characterized by a plurality of intensity lobes, and spatial intensity profile having a centerline decrease in intensity, and wherein individual segmented detector regions of the optical detector array are each positioned over different intensity lobes of a structured beam – in order to provide “the ability to resolve small particles and the ability to measure low concentration using measurements based on single particle interactions.”
Additional Prior Art
Sutton (US 20090231588 A1) [0156] It is important that the detector unit 20 is accurately aligned with the transmitter unit 10. The transmitter unit 10 produces a relatively narrow beam 30 with a divergence of preferably less than 0.1.degree. in order to maximise the intensity of the radiation reaching the detector 22. On the other hand, the detector 22 has a wide reception range, i.e. it will detect radiation incident on it from a relatively wide arc, e.g. about 1.degree.. Because the beam 30 is narrow, if it is not properly aligned with the detector 22, the intensity of the radiation reaching the detector falls away sharply and it is then much harder to detect the attenuation of the beam caused by target gas in the measurement path. However, the alignment between the transmitter and detector units 10, 20 can change relatively rapidly; for example, the transmitter and detector units could be located on an offshore oil platform and the twisting of the structure of the oil platform in high winds and rough seas can result in misalignment. This misalignment may vary since the detector unit will sway with respect to the transmitter unit 10 at a frequency dictated by the structure of the oil platform. The movement of the detector unit and/or the transmitter unit can have a frequency of several Hz up to several hundred Hz and the present invention can track such movement and align the transmitted beam to the detector unit to compensate for the movement, as discussed below.
Straw (US 20140070113 A1) discloses quad cell detector 210 is for fast steering mirror 202 and quad cell detector 215 is for fast steering mirror 203 (figure 3 and paragraphs 23-24)
PNG
media_image8.png
552
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
494
670
media_image9.png
Greyscale
JP 2012047464; cited by Applicant
PNG
media_image10.png
426
686
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
260
290
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 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, 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877