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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/1/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/1/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-18 under 5 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-18 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-11, 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the initial matter, page 3, applicant states that the requirement for a difference in modulation frequencies to be at least 10Hz and [said frequencies] differ from an acoustic mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times a half-width of the acoustic mode achieves increased sensitivity and allows separation of the signals.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification discusses “better separation of the measurement signals” is attributed to the amplification of signals [0048, 0082, 0091].
Applicant argues, beginning page 4, that Dehe and Bierl fails to teach at least two independently modulatable light sources. These arguments are directed toward new claim limitations which have not yet been considered by the examiner: (claim 1) an intensity of the emitted light of the first light source is modulatable with a first modulation frequency and an intensity of the emitted light of the second light source is modulatable with a second modulation frequency, wherein the first modulation frequency differs from the second modulation frequency by at least 10 Hz, (claim 11) the intensity of the mitted light from is modulatable with the first modulation frequency and the intensity of the emitted light of the second light source is modulatable with the second modulation frequency, wherein the first modulation frequency differs from the second modulation frequency by at least 10 Hz.. These limitations are taught by Miklos et al. (US20100045991) lasers 5, 6 and modulation using fm1 and fm2.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 depends from canceled claim 15. Further, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the first acoustic mode”. For purposes of examination, claim 18 will be treated as depending from claim 11, and the first acoustic mode will be interpreted as “the acoustic mode” of claim 1, lines 29-31.
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 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, 4-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklos et al. (US20100045991) in view of Dehe et al. (US20220299427).
Claim 1: Mikols teaches a gas sensor (see Fig. 1) for determining a concentration of at least two gases in a gas mixture, such that the gas sensor functions as a multi-gas sensor, the gas sensor comprising: a first light source (laser 5) and a second light source (laser 6), which are each independently intensity-modulatable and operable to excite mechanical oscillations of the at least two gases in the gas mixture ([0021], claim 6: both the sinusoidal and rectangle functions are intensity modulation); a photoacoustic cell (photoacoustic cell 4, Fig. 1) wherein a reference gas mixture ([0002, 0025] substances to be investigated, called contaminants in [0023] and claim 9) containing at least two reference gases is filled into the detection cell (the device includes four light sources 5, 6, 7, 8 to emit different wavelengths to detect several different contaminants, therefore at least four gases); a detection unit (sound pressure sensor 3), which is configured to register pressure and/or density fluctuations in the photoacoustic cell ([0025]); and an electronic data processing/evaluation unit (computer 10) including at least one frequency selective amplifier (the computer 10 acts as a frequency-selective amplifier and is a recognized equivalent to a frequency-selective amplifier [0003-0006, 0022] and therefore would have been obvious to use either computer or frequency-selective amplifier), which is configured to determine the concentration of the at least one gas two gases in the measuring section based on the registered pressure and/or density fluctuations in the detection cell caused by the respective reference gas using a frequency-based analysis ([0002, 0017]), and to apply a frequency selective amplification before the frequency-based analysis ([0003] There, those signal components that correspond to the modulation frequency are amplified. The modulation frequency is adjusted depending on the determined photoacoustic signal.), wherein the gas sensor is configured such that light emitted from the first light source and the second light source is radiated into the photoacoustic cell (Fig. 1 shows the lasers 5, 6, 7, 8 directed toward the photoacoustic cell 4), and wherein an intensity of the emitted light of the first light source is modulated modulatable with a first modulation frequency and an intensity of the emitted light of the second light source is modulatable with a second modulation frequency (first modulation frequency fm1, second modulation frequency fm2), wherein the first modulation frequency differs from the second modulation frequency by at least 10 Hz ([0025] fm1=6400Hz; fm2=6350.6Hz), wherein both the first modulation frequency and the second modulation frequency differ from a resonant frequency of a same acoustic mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell formed as the acoustic resonator by less than a half-width of the acoustic mode ([0020] the half-width is 440Hz; the resonance of the cell is 6600Hz). The modulation frequencies are not within 0.5 times the half-width of the resonant frequency of the cell, the choice of modulation frequencies is a result-effective variable and therefore obvious to optimize based on the desired half-width and/or Q-factor in combination with a suitable scanning frequency [0020].
Miklos fails to teach a measuring section into which the gas mixture is enabled to flow; a gas-sealed detection cell including an optical window, wherein the detection cell is gas-sealed from the measuring section and from an environment of the gas sensor, and is dimensioned such that it forms and functions as an acoustic resonator, wherein the gas sensor is configured such that light emitted from the first light source and the second light source is radiated into the measuring section; wherein at least a portion of the radiated light passes through the measuring section and then through the optical window into the detection cell.
However, Dehe teaches a photoacoustic gas sensor including a measuring section (measurement path 13 [0210]) into which the gas mixture is enabled to flow; a gas-sealed detection cell (detection chamber 3) including an optical window (the IR radiation travels from the emitter 9 through the measurement path 13 and into the detection chamber 3, therefore while not being labeled a ”window”, the detection chamber must be a window in that it allows the passage of IR radiation), wherein the detection cell is gas-sealed from the measuring section (the detection chamber 3 is sealed from the measurement path 13, Figs. 1, 2) and from an environment of the gas sensor (the chambers 3, 5 are enclosed from the environment), and is dimensioned such that it forms and functions as an acoustic resonator ([0048-0049]), wherein the gas sensor is configured such that light emitted from the first light source and the second light source is radiated into the measuring section (Fig. 1-2, the IR radiation travels from the emitter 9 through the measurement path 13 and into the detection chamber 3); wherein at least a portion of the radiated light passes through the measuring section and then through the optical window into the detection cell ([0165]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the chambers of Dehe with the device of Miklos in order to reduce damage to the detection sensor due to heat (Dehe [0006]).
Claim 4: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Miklos fails to teach wherein the detection unit includes an acoustic receiving unit configured to detect soundwaves generated in the detection cell.
However, Dehe teaches wherein the detection unit (sensor channel 7) includes an acoustic receiving unit ([0209] sensor channel 7, wherein the sensor (not shown) is present) configured to detect soundwaves generated in the detection cell ([0055, 0064, 0072, 0208-0209]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the chambers of Dehe with the device of Miklos in order to reduce damage to the detection sensor due to heat (Dehe [0006]).
Claim 5: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Miklos fails to teach wherein the detection unit includes a flow sensor configured to determine a flow of the reference gas mixture in the guide channel.
Dehe teaches wherein the detection unit includes a flow sensor ([0023, 0123-0124]) configured to determine a flow of the reference gas mixture in the guide channel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Dehe with the device of Miklos for the obvious benefit of detecting pressure (Dehe [0023]).
Claim 9: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Miklos teaches wherein the at least one light source is at least one of: a light emitting diode; an infrared light emitting diode or a UV light emitting diode; a laser diode; an organic light emitting diode; and a light emitting diode with optical resonator ([0021, 0025] diode lasers).
Claim 10: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Miklos teaches wherein the intensity of the emitted light is modulated with a modulation frequency which differs from the resonant frequency of the mode of the acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.25 times the half-width of the mode (The modulation frequencies fm1 and fm2 are not within 0.25 times the half-width of the resonant frequency of the cell. However, the choice of modulation frequencies is a result-effective variable and therefore obvious to optimize based on the desired half-width and/or Q-factor in combination with a suitable scanning frequency [0020]).
Claim 11: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the device of claim 1. Miklos teaches emitting light with the first light source and the second light source (lasers 5, 6), wherein the intensity of the emitted light of the first light source is modulatable with the first modulation frequency and the intensity of the emitted light of the second light source is modulatable with the second modulation frequency ([0021], claim 6: both the sinusoidal and rectangle functions are intensity modulation), wherein the first modulation frequency differs from the second modulation frequency by at least 10 Hz ([0025] fm1=6400Hz; fm2=6350.6Hz), and wherein both the first modulation frequency and the second modulation frequency differ from the resonant frequency of the same acoustic mode of the acoustic resonance of the detection cell formed as the acoustic resonator by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the acoustic mode ([0020] the half-width is 440Hz; the resonance of the cell is 6600Hz). The modulation frequencies are not within 0.5 times the half-width of the resonant frequency of the cell, the choice of modulation frequencies is a result-effective variable and therefore obvious to optimize based on the desired half-width and/or Q-factor in combination with a suitable scanning frequency [0020]; registering pressure and/or density fluctuations caused in the photoacoustic cell as a measurement signal, wherein the pressure and/or density fluctuations are caused by the mechanical oscillations of the at least two reference gases (sound pressure sensor 3 [0025]); transmitting the measurement signal registered by the detection unit to the electronic data processing/evaluation unit (computer 10, Fig. 1, ); and determining the concentration ([0002, 0017]) of the at least two gases by the electronic data processing/evaluation unit, based on the pressure and/or density fluctuations present in the detection cell caused by the respective reference gas using a frequency-based analysis, and applying a frequency selective amplification ([0003] There, those signal components that correspond to the modulation frequency are amplified. The modulation frequency is adjusted depending on the determined photoacoustic signal.), before the frequency-based analysis (the computer 10 acts as a frequency-selective amplifier and is a recognized equivalent to a frequency-selective amplifier [0003-0006, 0022] and would have been obvious to use either computer or frequency-selective amplifier; claims 8-9).
Miklos fails to teach radiating the emitted light into the measuring section, which is passed through by the radiated light, wherein, in the presence of the at least two gases in the mixture, the at least two gases in the measuring section is are excited to execute mechanical oscillations by absorption of a portion of the radiated light; radiating a portion of the light not absorbed in the measuring section through the optical window into the detection cell, wherein by absorption in the detection cell the at least two reference gases are excited to execute mechanical oscillations in the detection cell.
However, Dehe teaches radiating the emitted light into the measuring section (measurement path 13 [0210]), which is passed through by the radiated light (see Figs. 1-2), wherein, in the presence of the at least two gases in the mixture, the at least two gases in the measuring section is are excited to execute mechanical oscillations by absorption of a portion of the radiated light ([0023, 0163-0165]); radiating a portion of the light not absorbed in the measuring section through the optical window into the detection cell ([0208-0210]), wherein by absorption in the detection cell the at least two reference gases are excited to execute mechanical oscillations in the detection cell ([0023, 0163-0165]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the chambers of Dehe with the device of Miklos in order to reduce damage to the detection sensor due to heat (Dehe [0006]).
Claims 2, 3, 17 are rejected under Miklos in view of Dehe further in view of Riddle (US20080011055).
Claim 2: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the device of claim 1. Miklos fails to teach wherein the detection cell includes: at least a first chamber including the optical window, and a guide channel extending away from the first chamber, wherein a cross-sectional area of the guide channel is less than a cross-sectional area of the first chamber, and wherein the first chamber and the guide channel are dimensioned in combination such that the detection cell forms and functions as an acoustic Helmholtz resonator.
Dehe teaches wherein the detection cell (detection chamber 3) includes: at least a first chamber (detection chamber 3) including the optical window, and a guide channel (sensor channel 7) extending away from the first chamber, wherein a cross-sectional area of the guide channel is less than a cross-sectional area of the first chamber (see Figs. 1-2).
Miklos in view of Dehe fails to explicitly teach wherein the first chamber and the guide channel are dimensioned in combination such that the detection cell forms and functions as an acoustic Helmholtz resonator.
However, Riddle teaches a photoacoustic resonator (Figs. 1a, 1b) which is dimensioned as a Helmholtz resonator [0029-0030].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Helmholtz resonator, as taught by Riddle, with the device of Miklos in view of Dehe in order to reduce the size of the device and thereby reduce the cost and weight (Riddle [0030]).
Claim 3: Miklos in view of Dehe further in view of Riddle teaches the device of claim 2. Miklos fails to teach wherein the detection cell includes a second chamber, and the guide channel extends between the first chamber and the second chamber, wherein the first chamber communicates with the second chamber exclusively via the guide channel.
Dehe teaches wherein the detection cell includes a second chamber (reference chamber 5), and the guide channel (sensor channel 7) extends between the first chamber and the second chamber (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the first chamber communicates with the second chamber, especially exclusively via the guide channel (Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the chambers of Dehe with the device of Miklos in order to reduce damage to the detection sensor due to heat (Dehe [0006]).
Claim 17: Miklos in view of Dehe further in view of Riddle teaches the device of claim 3. Miklos fails to teach wherein the volume of the second chamber equals the volume of the first chamber.
However, Dehe teaches wherein the volume of the second chamber essentially equals the volume of the first chamber ([0049], Fig. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the chambers of Dehe with the device of Miklos in order to reduce damage to the detection sensor due to heat (Dehe [0006]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklos in view of Dehe further in view of Reingruber et al. (US11231394).
Claim 18, as best understood: Miklos in view of Dehe teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the acoustic mode is the acoustic fundamental mode.
However, Reingruber teaches using the fundamental frequency teaches a photoacoustic measuring cell wherein the acoustic mode is result effective. Reingruber teaches “useful frequency”, this is a resonant frequency of the measuring cell and in general, the useful frequency coincides with the excitation frequency of the laser of the measuring cell (col. 2, lines 22-27) and further exciting the photoacoustic cell 5 with a fundamental frequency of the useful frequency (col. 6, lines 19-29). Therefore, it is known to use the fundamental frequency of the resonant frequency of the measuring cell in photoacoustic measurement and detection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the acoustic fundamental mode with the device of claim 1 in order to use the most effective excitation frequency for the measuring gas and desired measurement property (Reingruber col. 2, lines 22-34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/25/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
