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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 10 are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan-Dong et al. “Detection of RadioCarbon Dioxide with Double Resonance Absorption Spectroscopy”, Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics, May 20, 2021, pg1 – 8 in view of Shen et al. (CN 111224310 A; pub. Jun. 3, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: An apparatus for quantitatively detecting isotopologue of carbon dioxide using dual-photon absorption (pg.1 abstract, pg.5 col.1 III. 1st para), comprising:
a laser source (pg.3 fig.1b Probe laser), a laser frequency stabilizer (pg.3 col.2 L2-13), a sample chamber (pg.3 col.1 2nd para.), a signal detector (pg.2 col.2 II – pg.3 col.1 1st para., pg.3 fig.1b Det in front of Ref laser), and a signal analyzer (pg.3 fig.1b DAQ), wherein:
the sample chamber comprises an optical resonator and a piezoelectric; the laser source is configured to output a laser beam (pg.3 col.1 2nd para.);
the laser frequency stabilizer is configured to lock the laser beam to a mode frequency of the optical resonator (pg.3 col.2 L2-8);
the piezoelectric configured to adjust a length of the optical resonator to alter the mode frequency of the optical resonator to match energy levels of a target molecular isotopologue (pg.2 col.2 2nd para. teaches the cavity is tuned to match CO2, pg.3 col.1 2nd para.);
the signal detector is configured to detect a transmission intensity of the light beam passing the optical resonator to obtain a dual-photon absorption signal (Abstract, pg.3 fig.1b Det connected to DAQ); and
the signal analyzer is configured to analyze and process the dual-photon absorption signal to obtain a concentration of the target molecular isotopologue (Abstract, pg.3 col.1 2nd para.).
Yan-Dong et al. are silent about: a piezoelectric ceramic.
In a similar field of endeavor Shen et al. disclose: a piezoelectric ceramic (para. [0011], [0025]) motivated by the benefits for a device that is chemically inert, long-term reliability in harsh environments.
In light of the benefits for a device that is chemically inert, long-term reliability in harsh environments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the piezoelectric ceramic of Shen et al. in the apparatus of Yan-Dong et al.
Regarding claim 3, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: a fineness of the optical resonator is higher than 60000 (pg.3 col.1 2nd para.).
Regarding claim 4, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: the energy levels of the target molecular isotopologue comprise energy levels of dual-photon absorption, and
an energy level representing single-photon absorption is between the energy levels of dual-photon absorption (pg.1 Abstract, fig.1a).
Regarding claim 5, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: energy of a photon having the mode frequency matching the energy levels of the target molecular isotopologue is equal to a half of an energy difference between the energy levels of the target molecular isotopologue (pg.1 Abstract, fig.1a).
Regarding claim 6, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: fluctuations of temperature of the optical resonator are less than 10mK (pg.3 col.1 2nd para.).
Regarding claim 7, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: the sample chamber further comprises: a temperature controller, configured to control temperature of the optical resonator (pg.3 col.1 2nd para.).
Regarding claim 10, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: A spectrometer, comprising the apparatus according to claim 1 (pg.1 Abstract).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan-Dong et al. “Detection of RadioCarbon Dioxide with Double Resonance Absorption Spectroscopy”, Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics, May 20, 2021, pg1 – 8 in view of Shen et al. (CN 111224310 A; pub. Jun. 3, 2020) and further in view of Vodopyanov et al. (US 2011/0058248 A1; pub. Mar. 10, 2011).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the laser beam is a continuous infrared laser beam, and a power of the laser beam is greater than 100mW.
In a similar field of endeavor Vodopyanov et al. disclose: the laser beam is a continuous infrared laser beam (para. [0035], [0074]), and a power of the laser beam is greater than 100mW (para. [0081]) motivated by benefits for a compact, low-cost device that exhibits low power consumption (Vodopyanov et al. para. [0040]).
In light of the benefits for a compact, low-cost device that exhibits low power consumption as taught by Vodopyanov et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laser of Vodopyanov et al. in the apparatus of Yan-Dong et al. and Shen et al.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan-Dong et al. “Detection of RadioCarbon Dioxide with Double Resonance Absorption Spectroscopy”, Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics, May 20, 2021, pg1 – 8 in view of Shen et al. (CN 111224310 A; pub. Jun. 3, 2020) and further in view of Shulian et al. (CN 102253389 A; pub. Nov. 23, 2011).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: the signal detector comprises a detector and a signal amplifier which are integrated; the detector is configured to detect the transmission intensity of the light beam passing the optical resonator to obtain the dual-photon absorption signal; the signal amplifier is configured to amplify the obtained dual-photon absorption signal.
In a similar field of endeavor Shulian et al. disclose: the signal detector comprises a detector (fig.1 items 42 & 43) and a signal amplifier (fig.1 item 44), the detector is configured to detect the transmission intensity of the light beam passing the optical resonator (fig.1 item 12) motivated by the benefits for increasing detector sensitivity.
In light of the benefits for increasing detector sensitivity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detector & amplifier combination of Shulian et al. in the apparatus of Yan-Dong et al. and Shen et al.
Shulian et al. are silent about: a detector and a signal amplifier which are integrated. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a detector and a signal amplifier which are integrated motivated by the benefits for a compact device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan-Dong et al. “Detection of RadioCarbon Dioxide with Double Resonance Absorption Spectroscopy”, Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics, May 20, 2021, pg1 – 8 in view of Shen et al. (CN 111224310 A; pub. Jun. 3, 2020) and further in view of Jourdainne (US 2018/0059003 A1; pub. Mar. 1, 2018).
Regarding claim 9, Yan-Dong et al. disclose: the signal analyzer is configured to: invoke a signal processing program to analyze and process the dual-photon absorption signal to obtain the concentration of the target molecular isotopologue (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: display the concentration of the target molecular isotopologue via an interactive interface.
In a similar field of endeavor Jourdainne discloses: display the concentration of the target molecular isotopologue via an interactive interface (para. [0097]-[0098]) motivated by the benefits for a portable apparatus.
In light of the benefits for a portable apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the display of Jourdainne in the apparatus of Yan-Dong et al. and Shen et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights