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
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 2/13/26, with respect to the objection to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 2/13/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-16 has been withdrawn
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26,with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The arguments are directed toward new limitations which have not yet been considered by the examiner.
The new limitation “wherein the detection cell is gas-sealed from the measuring section” is taught by Dehe, detection chamber 3 Figs. 1-2. The limitation “such that it functions as an acoustic resonator” is taught by Dehe [0048-0049, 0072] wherein the dimensions (height, depth, width) are chosen to promote acoustic resonance [therein] and therefore is taught as an acoustic resonator.
Applicant’s arguments, page 10, regarding a modulation frequency dependent upon the cell dimensions have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The cell of Dehe is such that the dimensions (height, depth, width) are chosen to promote acoustic resonance [therein] and therefore is taught as an acoustic resonator. The wavelength of the modulation irradiation is chosen based on the absorption spectrum of the gas to-be-detected [0023] and the dimensions of the chamber are chosen to promote acoustic resonance. Therefore, the geometry is directly linked to the resonance and the resonance is directly linked to the modulation frequency. Thus, while not explicitly stated in the art, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose a modulation frequency based on the absorption spectrum of the gas to-be-detected [0023], which is further specified by Bierl to be as close as possible to the absorption peak, and further optimize the cell dimensions to promote resonance because the geometry has been recognized as a result-effective variable and therefore obvious to optimize.
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 1-6, 8-18 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.
The term “substantially gas-sealed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The cell is either gas-sealed or is not gas-sealed. Claims 2-6, 8-18 depend from claim 1 and are rejected.
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, 4-6, 9-10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe et al. (US20220299427) in view of Bierl et al. (US20210341434).
Claim 1: Dehe teaches a gas sensor for determining a concentration of at least one gas in a gas mixture, the gas sensor comprising: at least one light source (IR emitter 9, Figs. 1-6), which is operable to be intensity modulatable (modulated IR radiation 11 [0210]); a measuring section (measurement path 13 [0210]), into which the gas mixture to be investigated is enabled to flow; a substantially 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, and is dimensioned such that it forms and functions as an acoustic resonator ([0048-0049]), and wherein a reference gas mixture containing at least one reference gas is filled into the detection cell ([0210] The detection chamber 3 preferably contains a reference gas); a detection unit ([0209] sensor channel 7, wherein the sensor (not shown) is present), which is configured to register pressure and/or density fluctuations in the detection cell ([0208-0209] sound pressure waves); and an electronic data processing/evaluation unit, which is configured to determine the concentration of the at least one gas in the measuring section, based on the registered pressure and/or density fluctuations in the detection cell, wherein the gas sensor is configured such that light emitted from the at least one 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 ([0165]).
Dehe fails to teach wherein an intensity of the emitted light is modulated with a modulation frequency which differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell formed as the acoustic resonator by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the mode.
However, Dehe teaches that the wavelength of the modulation irradiation is chosen based on the absorption spectrum of the gas to-be-detected [0023] and the dimensions of the chamber are chosen to promote acoustic resonance. Therefore, the geometry is directly linked to the resonance and the resonance is directly linked to the modulation frequency. While not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose a modulation frequency based on the absorption spectrum of the gas to-be-detected (Dehe [0023]) and further optimize the cell dimensions to promote resonance because the geometry has been recognized as a result-effective variable and therefore obvious to optimize.
Choosing the a radiation frequency with more specificity is taught by Bierl. Bierl teaches that it is known to match the frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the absorption peak P [0043], therefore, less than 0.5 times the half-width mode.
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 radiation frequency as close as possible to the peak absorption frequency, including one that differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the mode in order to achieve higher amplitudes of the resultant acoustic wave (Bierl [0043]).
Claim 4: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. 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]).
Claim 5: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. 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.
Claim 6: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Dehe teaches wherein the at least one light source includes at least two light sources, each intensity modulatable and operable to excite mechanical oscillations in mutually differing gases in the gas mixture ([0038, 0168] Preferably, the IR emitter radiates in a modulated and wavelength-selective manner into the reference chamber. For example, if a gas component (e.g. CO.sub.2 concentration) is to be determined in this gas mixture, preferably it is excited at the specific wavelength for the gas component (e.g. CO.sub.2). [0174]. For example, a wavelength-sensitive infrared emitter may be a tunable laser and/or include multiple lasers of different wavelengths.); wherein the at least one reference gas of the reference gas mixture includes at least two different reference gases ([0038] one or more predetermined wavelengths, [0163-0165, 0173-0174]); such that the gas sensor functions as a multi-gas sensor, capable of determining concentrations of at least two different gases in the gas or the gas mixture ([0163-0165, 0173-0174]).
Claim 9: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Dehe teaches wherein the at least one light source is at least one of: a light emitting diode ([0035] The infrared radiation can preferably also be generated by a light-emitting diode (LED) emitting in the desired infrared spectral range and/or a laser.); 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.
Claim 10: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1. Dehe fails to teach 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.
However, Bierl teaches that it is known to match the frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the absorption peak P [0043].
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 radiation frequency as close as possible to the peak absorption frequency, including one that differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.25 times the half-width of the mode in order to achieve higher amplitudes of the resultant acoustic wave (Bierl [0043]).
Claim 17: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 3. Dehe teaches wherein the volume of the second chamber essentially equals the volume of the first chamber ([0049], Fig. 1, 2).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Riddle (US20080011055).
Claim 2: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1, wherein the detection cell includes: 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).
Dehe in view of Bierl 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 Dehe in view of Bierl in order to reduce the size of the device and thereby reduce the cost and weight (Riddle [0030]).
Claim 3: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Riddle teaches the gas sensor according to claim 2. 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).
Claims 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig (US20210349056).
Claim 8: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches the gas sensor according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the electronic data processing/evaluation unit includes at least one frequency selective amplifier.
However, Konig teaches a lock-in amplifier (which is frequency-selective) as part of the photoacoustic control and evaluation unit 8.
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 frequency-selective amplifier, such as a lock-in amplifier taught by Konig, with the device of Dehe in view of Bierl, in order to improve the signal to noise ratio (Konig [0064]).
Claim 11: Dehe in view of Bierl teaches a method for determining a concentration of at least one gas in a gas mixture using the gas sensor according to claim 1. Dehe teaches emitting light (IR emitter 9, Figs. 1-2); 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 one gas in the gas mixture, the at least one gas in the measuring section is 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 one reference gas is excited to execute mechanical oscillations in the detection cell; registering pressure and/or density fluctuations caused in the detection cell as a measurement signal (sensor channel 7), wherein the pressure and/or density fluctuations are caused by the mechanical oscillations of the at least one reference gas in the detection cell ([0208-0209and determining the concentration of the at least one gas by the data processing/evaluation unit, based on the pressure and/or density fluctuations present in the detection cell ([0210]).
Dehe fails to teach wherein an intensity of the emitted light is modulated with a modulation frequency which differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the mode.
However, Bierl teaches that it is known to match the frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the absorption peak P [0043].
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 radiation frequency as close as possible to the peak absorption frequency, including one that differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the mode in order to achieve higher amplitudes of the resultant acoustic wave (Bierl [0043]).
Dehe in view of Bierl fails to teach transmitting the measurement signal registered by the detection unit to the data processing/evaluation unit.
However, Konig teaches a photoacoustic control and evaluation unit 8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an evaluation unit, as taught by Konig, with the device of Dehe in view of Bierl, in order to improve the signal to noise ratio (Konig [0064]).
Claim 12: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig teaches the method according to claim 11. Dehe teaches wherein the at least one light source includes a first light source and a second light source, each intensity modulatable and operable to excite mechanical oscillations in mutually differing gases in the gas mixture, the method further comprising: modulating the intensity of the emitted light of the first light source with a first modulation frequency; modulating the intensity of the emitted light of the second light source with a second modulation frequency, wherein the first modulation frequency differs from the second modulation frequency; assigning a determined concentration to a gas based on the pressure and/or density fluctuation caused by the gas using a frequency-based analysis ([0038, 0164-0165, 0168] Preferably, the IR emitter radiates in a modulated and wavelength-selective manner into the reference chamber. For example, if a gas component (e.g. CO.sub.2 concentration) is to be determined in this gas mixture, preferably it is excited at the specific wavelength for the gas component (e.g. CO.sub.2). [0174]. For example, a wavelength-sensitive infrared emitter may be a tunable laser and/or include multiple lasers of different wavelengths.).
Claim 14: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig teaches the method according to claim 12. Dehe fails to teach wherein 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 by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the acoustic mode.
However, Bierl teaches that it is known to match the frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the absorption peak P [0043].
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 radiation frequency as close as possible to the peak absorption frequency, including one that differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the mode in order to achieve higher amplitudes of the resultant acoustic wave (Bierl [0043]).
Claim 15: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig teaches the method according to claim 12. Dehe fails to teach wherein the first modulation frequency differs from the resonant frequency of a first acoustic mode of the acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the first acoustic mode, wherein the second modulation frequency differs from the resonant frequency of a second acoustic mode of the acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times the half-width of the second acoustic mode, and wherein the second modulation frequency is greater than the first modulation frequency.
However, Bierl teaches that it is known to match the frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the absorption peak P [0043].
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 radiation frequency as close as possible to the peak absorption frequency, including one that differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times, or 0.25 times, the half-width of the mode in order to achieve higher amplitudes of the resultant acoustic wave (Bierl [0043]).
Claim 16: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig teaches the method according to claim 12. Dehe in view of Bierl teach applying a frequency selective amplification before the frequency-based analysis.
However, Konig teaches a lock-in amplifier (which is frequency-selective) as part of the photoacoustic control and evaluation unit 8.
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 frequency-selective amplifier before the frequency-based analysis, such as a lock-in amplifier taught by Konig, with the device of Dehe in view of Bierl, in order to improve the signal to noise ratio (Konig [0064]).
Claim 18: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig teaches the method according to claim 15. Dehe fails to teach wherein the first acoustic mode is the acoustic fundamental mode.
However, Bierl teaches that it is known to match the frequency of electromagnetic radiation to the absorption peak P [0043], therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to match a resonant frequency to a peak absorption frequency, i.e. a frequency at which the to-be-detected species has a relative maximum, i.e. a natural frequency.
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 radiation frequency as close as possible to the peak absorption frequency, including one that differs from a resonant frequency of a mode of an acoustic resonance of the detection cell by less than 0.5 times, or 0.25 times, the half-width of the mode in order to achieve higher amplitudes of the resultant acoustic wave (Bierl [0043]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig further in view of Biesinger (US20220107263).
Claim 13: Dehe in view of Bierl further in view of Konig teaches the method according to claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the first modulation frequency and the second modulation frequency differ from one another by at least 10 Hz.
However, Biesinger teaches that the two resonant wavelengths can be used to detect CO2 and CH4, wherein the respective modulation frequencies are more than 10Hz apart [0073] In this way, the modulatable IR emitter can advantageously simultaneously provide IR radiation or photoacoustic spectroscopy of two or more gases. A first resonance wavelength can be, for example, approximately 2.4 μm in order to detect CO.sub.2, while a second resonance wavelength can be approximately 3 μm in order to detect methane, for example. These wavelengths correspond to frequencies which are more than 10Hz different.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use first and second modulation frequencies which are more than 10Hz apart, as taught by Biesinger, for the obvious benefit of detecting a plurality of gases.
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 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
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/27/26
Prosecution Insights