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
The amendment filled on 12/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim interpretation of 35 U.S.C § 112(f) of Claim 1 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103, filed on 12/11/2025:
In pages 4-5, applicant argues that “In rejecting independent claim 1, the Office action relies on Zare and Li. With regard to Zare, the Office action cites the AOM 44 as allegedly being equivalent to the claimed acousto-optic modulator, and cites the optical diagnostic elements 70 as allegedly being equivalent to the claimed second detector. However, the Office action states that Zare is silent about the "control unit determines a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal of the second detector." Instead, the Office action relies on Li for allegedly teaching this feature. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Li does not include an acousto-optic modulator (AOM), and, as such, does not teach or suggest any "second detector" that detects an intensity of the zeroth order light of the AOM. As such, there also is no teaching or suggestion of any controller that determines a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal of the second detector as set forth by claim 1.
In pages 6-7, applicant argues that As noted, Li does not include an acousto-optic modulator (AOM), and, as such, does not include the claimed "second detector" that detects an intensity of the zeroth order light of the AOM. As such, Li fails to disclose that a starting point of the ring-down signal is determined based on an output signal of a "second detector" that detects the zeroth order light of the AOM. 2. It is further noted that the Office action appears to equate the reference laser beam 126 of Li with the zeroth order light of the AOM of claim 1. However, the reference laser beam 126 of Li is not the same as the zeroth order light of an AOM, since Li does not include an AOM. 3. Indeed, as Li teaches away from the use of an AOM, it is unclear how the teachings of Li would suggest modification of an AOM based gas absorption spectroscopy device (like Zare) to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that an AOM is an acousto-optic modulator while an AOS is an acousto-optic switch. Li's disclosure teaches eliminating AOM, emphasizing that the AOM is expensive and has a complex structure. For example, Paragraph [0011] of Li states "this technique enhances the efficiency of the decay time measurement, however, is relatively costly and complicated due to the use of PZT and AOS." Paragraph [0033] of Li states (emphasis added): "elements employed in the conventional CW-CRD schemes, such as optical isolator, PZT, AOS, are eliminated." Accordingly, Li's disclosure specifically highlights the elimination of AOS/AOM. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Li's technology with Zare's device, since Li teaches the elimination of AOM, while Zare's device is equipped with AOM. 4. It is further noted that Li teaches data acquisition ( e.g., by DAQ 151) in response to a square-wave signal. For example, as explained in Paragraph [0027] of Li: "a squarewave signal generated by the function generation unit 101 is used to modulate the excitation voltage of the semiconductor laser 103 to switch on and off the laser output and as a reference signal to trigger the data acquisition unit 151 to start acquiring data. The output of the semiconductor laser 103 is switched off at the negative step of each modulation period," and in Paragraph [0028]: "After the semiconductor laser 103 is switched off, the exponential decay of the optical cavity output signal is detected by the photo-detector 142." Accordingly, Li teaches that the function generation unit 101 (e.g., the square-wave signal) triggers the detection of exponential decay, but Li does not teach an acousto-optic modulator that outputs zeroth order light to the outside in the OFF state as claimed. Li further fails to teach the claimed second detector that detects an intensity of the zeroth order light. Instead, Li teaches a reference laser beam 126 that is detected by photo-detector 133, and the output signal 134 of the photo-detector 133 is used to adjust the power of the reference laser beam 126. Accordingly, Li also fails to teach a control unit that determines a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal of the second detector as claimed.
Examiner response to arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103:
In response to applicant’s arguments mention above regarding (a-b) , the examiner respectfully disagrees since Applicant arguments are focused in the elements/limitations disclosed by the second reference Li even though the first reference Zare previously discloses all these limitations and elements such as an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) and second detector that detects an intensity of the zeroth order light of the AOM, ([Col. 6, lines 52-61], [Col. 10, lines 14-27], Zare). Moreover, the second reference it’s used in the previous and current rejection to teach “wherein the controller is configured to determine a starting point of a ring-down signal based on an output of the second detector”, [0015, 0025-0027]. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
To facilitate an understanding of the rejection, Zare discloses all the structure claimed in claim 1 including: resonator, light source, (AOM), first detector, second detector and a controller that detect zeroth order light of the AOM, detecting ring-down signal. The claim include a functional recitation generated by the controller that Zare it’s silent about. Therefore, a functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Even though the Examiner agree with the Applicant about the device of Li do not comprise a AOM, the device of Li comprises a modulator and a controller that determine the starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal. Additionally as stated above, the second reference Li et al. is used only to teach a functional limitation that is perform by the controller such as configured to determine a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal. Therefore, in a 103 rejection a Phosita would be motivated to combine Li’s technology ring-down cavity that is in the same field of endeavor of Zare to teach a functional limitation particularly of the controller to be configured to determine a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal as disclosed in the previous and current rejection.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Li teaches away from the use of an AOM, the examiner respectfully disagrees since the previous/current rejection do not modify an AOM based absorption device, the current and previous rejection modified the functional limitation of the controller as cited above. Additionally, Applicant cited paragraphs [0011, 0033] of Li as examples of “teaching away”. However, paragraph [0011] in the background section of Li discloses “The CW laser beam is switched off by an acousto-optic switch (AOS) when the amplitude of the cavity output signal exceeds a predefined threshold and the subsequent decay of the cavity output is recorded to determine the decay time and the cavity losses. This technique enhances the efficiency of the decay time measurement, however, is relatively costly and complicated due to the use of PZT and AOS.”, Such as, the cited paragraph [0011] discloses an specific event wherein the signal exceed a predefined threshold to determine the decay time and the cavity losses “not claimed in the current claim 1” and also discloses that this technique enhances the efficiency of the decay time measurement. Therefore even though costly and complicated the teachings do not preclude a PHOSITA TO use this device to perform the claimed limitation. Paragraph 0033, do not disclose the elimination of the controller and/or the detector used in the previous/current rejection as part of the 103 rejection to modify the controller to teach a functional limitation of Zare. Also, the examiner submits that 2nd reference Li does not change the principle of operation of the primary reference, Zare or renders the reference inoperable for its intended purpose. See MPEP § 2143.01.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”; and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. Thus, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, prior arts must be considered in entirely, including discloses that teach away from the claims, MPEP § 2143.01-02.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zare et al. (US 5903358 A), hereafter Zare, in view of Li et al. (US 2012/0154815 A1), hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Zare teaches a gas absorption spectroscopy device (Fig. 1 element 20) for measuring a target component in a gas (Fig. 1 element 38) using a cavity ring-down spectroscopy method, [Col. 3, lines 66-67] - [Col. 4, lines 1-2] the gas absorption spectroscopy device comprising:
a resonator (Fig. 1 element 30) including at least two mirrors (Fig. 1 elements 32 + 34, [Col. 6, lines 22-32]);
a light source (Fig. 1 element 22) configured to emit laser light (Fig. 1 element 24) to irradiate the resonator (30) with the laser light, [Col. 6, lines 10-12, 22-24].
a first detector (Fig. 1 element 50) configured to detect light from the resonator (30), [Col. 6, lines 63-66]
an acousto-optic modulator (Fig. 1 element 44 “AOM) disposed in an optical path between the light source (22) and the resonator (30), (as shown in Fig. 1), the acousto-optic modulator configured to be switchable between an ON state in which the laser light from the light source is output to the resonator and an OFF state in which the laser light from the light source is not output to the resonator; , (the switching function of AOM 44 is performed by turning on and off the beam 47 to be incident on the resonator element 30, [Col. 8, lines 2-4], [Col. 10, lines 14-27]) and
a controller (Fig. 1 element 58 that comprises elements 80 + 54, [Col. 7, lines 17-19) configured to acquire, as a ring-down signal to be used to measure the target component, (the device measure the time-dependence of the intracavity light intensity and ring-down rates for a spectrum of light wavelengths. The Absorption spectra is used for evaluating known compositions or for trace species detection. [Col. 5. Lines 63-67], an output signal of the first detector after the acousto-optic modulator is switched from the ON state to the OFF state (the output signal from the detector 50 is a ring-down signal therefor is after element 44 is switch from On to Off, [Col. 7, lines 1-15]), wherein
the acousto-optic modulator (Fig. 1 element 44) configured to output first order light (Fig. 1 element 47) to the resonator (30) in the ON state, [Col. 10, lines 14-24] and outputs zeroth order light (Fig. 1 element 48) to the outside in the OFF state, (the AOM 44 generate zero order light element 48, that on/off switching or modulation, the AOM effectively transfers optical power between the zero-order and first-order beams by turning the RF power on and off., [Col. 10, lines 14-27])
the gas absorption spectroscopy device further comprising a second detector (Fig. 1 element 70 that comprise elements 74 + 76) is configured to detect an intensity of the zeroth order light (Fig. 1 element 48), (element 70 comprises a wavelength meter , an interferometer, as also the device can measure transverse spatial distribution of diagnostic beam 48, [Col. 6, lines 52-61]),
Even though Zare discloses a control unit (fig. 1 element 58) and output signal from a second detector (Fig. 1 element 70), Zare is silent about the controller configured to determine a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal of the second detector.
However, Li related to optical measurement devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the controller (Fig. 1 element 152, [0025]) configured to determine a starting point of the ring-down signal, [0015] based on an output signal of the second detector (Fig. 1 element 133), element 133 emit a reference signal 134 that is sent to element 151 to trigger the starting of data acquisition of ring-down signal, [0025-0027]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zare by including the controller configured to determine a starting point of the ring-down signal based on an output signal of the second detector (as taught by Li) for several advantages such as: the used of the reference signal allow to optimized the measuring accuracy, ([0026], Li).
Regarding claim 5, Zare in the combination outlined above teaches the gas absorption spectroscopy device according to claim 1.
Zare further teaches a wavelength detection device (Fig. 1 element 74) that detects a wavelength of the zeroth order light (48), [col. 6, lines 52-62].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zare in view of Li and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2022/0011221 A1), hereafter Yoshida.
Regarding claim 6, Zare in the combination outlined above teaches the gas absorption spectroscopy device according to claim 1.
The modified device of Zare is silent about wherein the gas absorption spectroscopy device is configured to measure a concentration of 14CO2, which is a radioisotope of carbon dioxide.
However, Yoshida related to optical measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the gas absorption spectroscopy device (Fig. 1, [0039]) is configured to measure a concentration of 14CO2, which is a radioisotope of carbon dioxide, [0040, 0053].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Zare by including wherein the gas absorption spectroscopy device is configured to measure a concentration of 14CO2, which is a radioisotope of carbon dioxide (as taught by Yoshida) for several advantages such as: the device perform measurements of Caron dioxide isotope as reducing the vibration of the resonator to prevent perturbation in the distance between the mirror thus allow to improve the analytical accuracy of the measurement, ([0137], Yoshida).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zare in view of Li and further in view of Mazzotti et al. (US 2018/0275049 A1), hereafter Mazzotti.
Regarding claim 7, Zare in the combination outlined above teaches the gas absorption spectroscopy device according to claim 1.
The modified device of Zare is silent about wherein saturated absorption is caused in a gas provided in the resonator, the control unit measures a concentration of the target component using the cavity ring-down spectroscopy method that employs the saturated absorption by the gas provided in the resonator.
However, Mazzotti related to optical measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein saturated absorption is caused in a gas provided in the resonator, the control unit measures a concentration of the target component using the cavity ring-down spectroscopy method that employs the saturated absorption by the gas provided in the resonator, (he device perform ring-down spectroscopy in saturated-absorption condition, for measuring a first concentration of a gas through a measurement of the spectrum of a molecular transition of said gas in a resonant cavity, [0193-0194]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Zare by including wherein saturated absorption is caused in a gas provided in the resonator, the control unit measures a concentration of the target component using the cavity ring-down spectroscopy method that employs the saturated absorption by the gas provided in the resonator (as taught by Mazzotti) for several advantages such as: the device performing SCAR spectroscopy that allows to minimizes the errors that are introduced in the detected decay as non-monochrome condition of the wave emitted by the laser which is incident onto the cavity, imperfect immediacy of the interruption of the wave to be “turned off” to measure the ring-down time, the fluctuations of the resonant frequency of the cavity, the imperfect matching of the spatial mode of the incident wave emitted by the laser to the cavity mode, which can also vary overtime; [0028] the reflectivity inhomogeneity of the mirrors forming the cavity, thus increasing the accuracy of the device, ([0023-0025], Mazzotti).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “wherein when the output signal of the first detector reaches a first threshold value in a state in which the acousto-optic modulator is in the ON state, the control unit switches the acousto-optic modulator to the OFF state, and the control unit sets, as the starting point of the ring-down signal, a timing at which a detection value by the second detector satisfies a predetermined starting point condition after switching the acousto-optic modulator to the OFF state”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 3-4 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 2 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877