DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 23 and 25 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.
Regarding Claims 23 and 25, recite the limitation "the optical element" in line 1-2 and line 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-11, 13-16, 23, 25, 27-31, 33, 41-56, 63-64 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4188126 Boisde et al. (hereinafter Boisde).
Regarding Claim 1, Boisde teaches an apparatus for gas detection and/or measurement using absorption spectroscopy (Fig.1), comprising (Fig. 1-6):
a gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) with at least one gas exchange port (Fig. 1 @ 18, 20);
at least one source of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1 @ 12), the source being arranged to transmit a diverging beam of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, 2 @ 4, A0, 6) in a direction to pass through the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16);
at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14) for detecting electromagnetic radiation that is incident on the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14); and
at least first (Fig. 1 @ M1) and second (Fig. 1 @ M2) mirrors arranged within the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16), in opposed relation to each other (Fig. 1, 2 @ M1, M2, illustrates such configuration), wherein at least the first mirror is a curved mirror (Fig. 1, 2 @ M1, is the curved mirror) and wherein the opposed mirrors (Fig. 1, 2 @ M1, M2) are arranged to reflect the transmitted beam in a folded optical path (Fig. 2 @ M1, M2, illustrates such configuration) through the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) between the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) and at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10) such that the reflected beam passes through the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) with a substantially equal path length (Col. 1, line 22-26: photometers have been proposed which have two generally plane mirrors disposed on either side of the vessel in such a way that the light beam can pass to and fro between the mirrors, the optical path being lengthened for the same overall dimensions) and is reflected towards the at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14);
wherein at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) is located at a position that is offset from a central optical axis (Fig. 2 @ A0) that passes through the centre of curvature (Fig. 2 @ C1) of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1), such that transmitted electromagnetic radiation is incident on a first surface region of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) at a non-zero angle (Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6, M1, illustrates such configuration) relative to a direction normal to the first surface region (Fig. 2 @ M1, illustrates such configuration) and such that the transmitted electromagnetic radiation that is incident on the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1,)is reflected away from the source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) towards the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2), and wherein the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M12) is arranged to reflect the electromagnetic radiation towards a second surface region of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1).
Regarding Claim 2, Boisde teaches the curved first mirror and second mirror are arranged to reflect the transmitted (See Claim 1 rejection) beam such that the reflected beam converges towards the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Boisde teaches the offset source (Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6. Also see Claim 1 rejection) position (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) is located in between the first (Fig. 2 @ M1) and second (Fig. 2 @ M2) mirrors.
Regarding Claim 4, Boisde teaches the first (Fig. 2 @ M1) and second (Fig. 2 @ M2) mirrors are arranged with a common axis of symmetry (Fig. 2 @ Z) passing through a centre of curvature of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ C1), which axis of symmetry is parallel to the central optical axis of the transmitted beam, such that the transmitted beam is reflected in a folded optical path (Fig. 2 @ M1, M2, illustrates such configuration) that is substantially symmetrical (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) about the common axis of symmetry (Fig. 2 @ Z).
Regarding Claim 5, Boisde teaches the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) is located at a distance from the source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) that is less than the radius of curvature (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1).
Regarding Claim 6, Boisde teaches the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) of electromagnetic radiation is located at a distance from the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) which is approximately equal to half the radius of curvature (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) of that first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) such that the diverging beam (Fig. 1, 2 @ 4, A0, 6) of electromagnetic radiation from the source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) that is incident on the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) is reflected as an approximately parallel beam (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 7, Boisde teaches the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) is a planar or curved second mirror (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) positioned in opposed relation to a first spherical mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) such that the approximately parallel beam is reflected off (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) and is incident on the first spherical mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) for a second time (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration), and is then reflected as a converging beam (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) towards a detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10), wherein the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10) is located at a distance from the first spherical mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) which is approximately half the radius of curvature (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) of the first spherical mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1).
Regarding Claim 8, Boisde teaches the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) is located at a distance from the spherical mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) which is approximately half the radius of curvature (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) of the spherical mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1).
Regarding Claim 9, Boisde teaches the first mirror comprises (Fig. 2 @ M1) a plurality of separated surface regions of the same spherical surface (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 10, Boisde teaches the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12) and at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 12) are mounted on a common substrate or sub-mount (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration) and are arranged approximately co-planar with each other in a plane that is either parallel to the plane of an approximately planar second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) or perpendicular to a plane which is normal to the centre of a concave second mirror (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 11, Boisde teaches having approximate central reflectional and/or rotational symmetry such that the transmitted beam follows a substantially equal optical path length (Col. 1, line 22-26: photometers have been proposed which have two generally plane mirrors disposed on either side of the vessel in such a way that the light beam can pass to and fro between the mirrors, the optical path being lengthened for the same overall dimensions) between the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) and at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10).
Regarding Claim 13, Boisde teaches at least one optical element (Fig. 1 @ 2) which comprises an inlet window (Fig. 1 @ 12, down arrow from 12 to 30) and outlet window (Fig. 1 @ 14, up arrow from 30 to 14) for electromagnetic radiation to pass into and out of the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16).
Regarding Claim 14, Boisde teaches the window or windows (See Claim 13 rejection) are mounted at a non-zero tilt angle (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration) relative to an approximately planar second mirror (Fig. 1, 2 @ M2) or relative to a direction perpendicular to a plane which is normal to the centre of a cylindrically concave second mirror (Fig. 1, 2 @ M2).
Regarding Claim 15, Boisde teaches the window or windows (See Claim 13 rejection) are mounted at the Brewster (polarisation) angle (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration. Note: transmitted through the medium with no reflection thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 16, Boisde teaches the at least one source of electromagnetic radiation (See Claim 1 rejection) is a laser (Col. 6, line 5-9).
Regarding Claim 23, Boisde teaches a gas contained in the space between the optical element (Fig. 1 @ 2) and the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12) of electromagnetic radiation and/or the space between the at least one optical element (Fig. 1 @ 2) and the at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14) of electromagnetic radiation is used to provide a lock-line and/or verification and/or calibration line for the gas to be measured (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, Boisde teaches a magnetic field source is arranged to apply a permanent and/or transient magnetic field and/or an electric field source is arranged to apply a permanent and/or transient electric field across the sample cell and/ or across the space between the optical element and the at least one source of electromagnetic radiation and/or across the space between the at least one optical element and the at least one detector (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 27, Boisde teaches the at least one gas exchange port (Fig. 1 @ 18, 20) of the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) comprises one or more gas inlets (Fig. 1 @ 18) and one or more gas outlets (Fig. 1 @ 20), wherein the gas inlets are attached to gas conduits and arranged such that the sample gas flows in through the at least one gas inlet and out through the at least one gas outlet (Fig. 1) or wherein the at least one gas inlet and the at least one gas outlet consist of at least one diffusive element.
Regarding Claim 28, Boisde teaches more than one source and/or detector (Fig. 6 @ 48, 52).
Regarding Claim 29, Boisde teaches at least one auxiliary optical detector, wherein reflected light not on the main optical measurement path is passed through at least one auxiliary optical element to at least one auxiliary optical detector for the purposes of obtaining a line-lock and/or validation reading (Col. 6, line 16-21: A first detector 48, set on the absorption peak of the substance to be detected, receives the light transmitted by fibre 46 through an optical wedge 50. A second detector 52, set to the valley of the absorption curve, receives the light transmitted by fibre 44).
Regarding Claim 30, Boisde teaches the reflected light that is not on the main optical measurement path is light reflected from a window or reflective element inside or outside the sample cell (Col. 6, line 16-21: A first detector 48, set on the absorption peak of the substance to be detected, receives the light transmitted by fibre 46 through an optical wedge 50. A second detector 52, set to the valley of the absorption curve, receives the light transmitted by fibre 44).
Regarding Claim 31, Boisde teaches said at least one auxiliary optical element is a cuvette containing the gas of interest and/or an optical filter (Col. 6, line 16-21: A first detector 48, set on the absorption peak of the substance to be detected, receives the light transmitted by fibre 46 through an optical wedge 50 (i.e. an optical filter). A second detector 52, set to the valley of the absorption curve, receives the light transmitted by fibre 44).
Regarding Claim 33, Boisde teaches the source and/or detector is remote-mounted and the electromagnetic radiation is conducted to and/or from the device using at least one light guide or fibre optic cable (Fig. 1 @ 4, 8).
Regarding Claim 41, Boisde teaches an apparatus for gas detection and/or measurement using absorption spectroscopy (See Claim 1 rejection), the apparatus comprising:
a gas cell with at least one gas exchange port (See Claim 1 rejection);
at least one source of electromagnetic radiation, the source being arranged to transmit a beam of electromagnetic radiation in a direction to pass through the gas cell (See Claim 1 rejection);
at least one detector for detecting electromagnetic radiation that is incident on the detector (See Claim 1 rejection); and
at least first and second mirrors arranged within the gas cell in opposed relation to each other, wherein at least the first mirror is a curved mirror and wherein the opposed mirrors are arranged to create a reflected optical path through the gas cell between the at least one source and at least one detector (See Claim 1 rejection);
wherein at least one source is located between the opposed mirrors at a position that is offset from a centre of curvature of the first mirror such that transmitted electromagnetic radiation that is incident on the first mirror is reflected away from the source towards the second mirror (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 42, Boisde teaches a spectroscopic analyser for analysing an output signal from the at least one detector to detect the presence and/or measure a parameter of one or more gas species within the gas cell (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 43, Boisde teaches the first (Fig. 2 @ M1) and second mirrors (Fig. 2 @ M2) are curved mirrors and the at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10) is located between the opposed mirrors at a position that is offset from a centre of curvature of the first and second mirrors (Fig. 1, 2, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 44, Boisde teaches the first mirror (Fig. 1, 2 @ M1) is a spherical mirror (Fig. 1, 2, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 45, Boisde teaches the second mirror (Fig. 1, 2 @ M2) is a spherical mirror (Fig. 1, 2, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 46, Boisde teaches the at least one source transmits a diverging beam towards the first mirror and the mirrors are arranged to automatically converge the diverging beam towards the at least one detector (See Claim 1, 2 rejection. Also see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 47, Boisde teaches the diverging beam of electromagnetic radiation is incident on a first surface region of the first mirror at a non-zero angle relative to a direction normal to the first surface region (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 48, Boisde teaches the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) is arranged such that electromagnetic radiation reflected from the first surface region of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) is incident on a first surface region of the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) at a non-zero angle (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) relative to a direction normal to the first surface region of the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) so as to reflect incident radiation towards a second surface region of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1), and is then reflected by the second surface region of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) towards a second surface region of the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1), and is then incident on the second mirror to be reflected by the second mirror (Fig. 2 @ M2) (Abstract, Col. 4, line 24-29: In FIG. 2, this conjugation takes place after three reflections, but it is obvious that this relatively small number has only been chosen here to simplify the drawing and that in practice it is advantageously much larger because the optical path, i.e. the sensitivity of the apparatus, increases with the number of reflections, thus teaches the limitation) towards the at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10), thereby to form a reflected optical path through the gas cell with automatic convergence of the transmitted diverging beam towards the at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10).
Regarding Claim 49, Boisde teaches the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12) and at least one detector (Fig. 1 @ 14) are co-located within a housing between the opposed mirrors (Fig. 2 @ M1, M2).
Regarding Claim 50, Boisde teaches the housing comprises at least first (Fig. 1 @ 4) and second (Fig. 1 @ 8) optical elements on opposite sides of the housing, wherein the first optical element (Fig. 1 @ 4) is optically aligned with a source (Fig. 1 @ 12) for allowing transmission of electromagnetic radiation from the source (Fig. 1 @ 12) into the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16), and the second optical element (Fig. 1 @ 8) is optically aligned with a detector (Fig. 1 @ 14) for allowing reflected electromagnetic radiation to pass from the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) towards the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14).
Regarding Claim 51, Boisde teaches the source (Fig. 1 @ 12) is arranged to transmit electromagnetic radiation in a transmission direction through the first optical element (Fig. 1 @ 4) into the gas cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) towards the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1), and the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14) is arranged on an opposite side of the source (Fig. 1 @ 12) from the transmission direction to detect electromagnetic radiation reflected from the second mirror (Fig. 1 @ M2) towards the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14) through the second optical element (Fig. 1 @ 8) from a direction opposite to the transmission direction.
Regarding Claim 52, Boisde teaches the first optical element (Fig. 1, 2 @ 4) is a window arranged at a non-zero tilt angle relative to the transmission direction (Fig. 1, 2 @ 4, illustrates such configuration), and second optical element (Fig. 1, 2 @ 8) is a window arranged at a non-zero tilt angle relative to the direction of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, 2 @ 8, illustrates such configuration)that is reflected towards the detector (Fig. 1 @ 14).
Regarding Claim 53, Boisde teaches the windows are mounted at the Brewster polarisation angle relative to the direction of electromagnetic radiation that is incident on them (Fig. 1, 2, illustrates such configuration. Note: transmitted through the medium with no reflection thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 54, Boisde teaches the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) is located at a distance from the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) that is less than a first radius of curvature (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1).
Regarding Claim 55, Boisde teaches the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1) is arranged within the gas cell (Fig. 2 @ 16) at a distance from the at least one source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) of approximately half the first radius of curvature (Fig. 2, illustrates such configuration) of the first mirror (Fig. 2 @ M1).
Regarding Claim 56, Boisde teaches substantially all radiation that is incident on the detector has an equal path length within the gas cell (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 63, Boisde teaches a magnetic field source is arranged to apply a permanent and/or transient magnetic field and/or an electric field source is arranged to apply a permanent and/or transient electric field across the gas cell (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 64, Boisde teaches a magnetic field source is arranged to apply a permanent and/or transient magnetic field and/or an electric field source is arranged to apply a permanent and/or transient electric field (Fig. 1) across a space between a source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Fig. 2 @ Fig. 2 @ 4, A0, 6) and its optically aligned first optical element (Fig. 1, 2 @ M1) and/or across a space between a detector (Fig. 1 @ 14, Fig. 2 @ 8, A3, 10) and its optically aligned second optical element (Fig. 1, 2 @ M2).
Regarding Claim 66, Boisde teaches more than one source and/or detector (See Claim 28 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisde in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0223015 A1 by Phillips et al. (hereinafter Phillip).
Regarding Claim 12, Boisde teaches mirrors located in the optical path between the source and the detector (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach further comprising two or more additional mirrors located in the optical path between the source and the detector.
However Phillip teaches two or more additional mirrors (Fig. 2 @ 58, 62, Par. [0065]) located in the optical path between the source (Fig. 2 @ 14, Par. [0065]) and the detector (Fig. 2 @ 30, Par. [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boisde by Phillip as taught above such that two or more additional mirrors located in the optical path between the source and the detector is accomplished in order to route the beam properly in order to obtain a predictable result.
8. Claims 17-19, 21-22, 24, 26, 32, 38, 57-58, 60-62, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisde.
Regarding Claim 17, Boisde teaches the laser and absorption spectroscopy is used to determine at least one parameter of at least one gas (Abstract. Also see Claim 16 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation, and wherein direct absorption spectroscopy is used to determine at least one parameter of at least one gas.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation which provides a stabilized electromagnetic radiation.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 18, Boisde teaches the laser and measure at least one parameter of at least one gas (Abstract. Also see Claim 16 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation, and wherein wavelength modulation spectroscopy is used to measure at least one parameter of at least one gas.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation, and wherein wavelength modulation spectroscopy is used to measure at least one parameter of at least one gas in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic, and wherein wavelength modulation spectroscopy is used to measure at least one parameter of at least one gas which provides a stabilized electromagnetic radiation and accurate detection.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a tunable diode laser (TDL) and current and/or temperature is used to tune the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation, and wherein wavelength modulation spectroscopy is used to measure at least one parameter of at least one gas is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 19, Boisde teaches the at least one source of electromagnetic radiation (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is a broadband source.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a broadband source in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a broadband source provides multiple wavelength for multiple detection.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a broadband source is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claims 21-22, Boisde teaches the at least one source and at least one detector (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach are mounted on the same printed circuit board (PCB) and wherein the PCB is mounted parallel to the second mirror.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a PCB for mounting optical components in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a PCB provides optical interconnects to send signal further without losing quality.
The examiner takes Official Notice that at least one source and at least one detector are mounted on the same printed circuit board (PCB) and wherein the PCB is mounted parallel to the second mirror is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 24, Boisde teaches the electromagnetic radiation (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach at least one bandpass filter is provided to limit the transmission band of the electromagnetic radiation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a bandpass filter in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a bandpass filter limits the bandwidth of the output signal to the band allocated for the transmission.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a bandpass filter is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 26, Boisde teaches the space between the source of electromagnetic radiation and the at least one optical element and/or the space between the electromagnetic radiation detector and the at least one optical element is sealed (Fig. 1) but does not explicitly teach flushed with a purge gas and/or scrubbed of any spectroscopically absorbing gas at the wavelengths of interest.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a purge gas in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a purge gas removes impurities from the system.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a purge gas is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 32, Boisde teaches gas cell and the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1. Also see Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach at least one volume located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation and outside the gas cell is either sealed and scrubbed to remove impurities and/or purged with a non-optically absorbing purge gas.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a purge gas in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a purge gas removes impurities from the system.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a purge gas is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 38, Boisde teaches the at least one source and/or at least one detector (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is a bare chip mounted directly on a PCB in a chip-on-board (COB) configuration.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a bare chip mounted directly on a PCB in a chip-on-board (COB) configuration in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that this technique provides direct connection between the chip and the PCB to avoid noise.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a bare chip mounted directly on a PCB in a chip-on-board (COB) configuration is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 57, Boisde teaches the at least one source of electromagnetic radiation is a laser (See Claim 1 rejection) or a broadband source (See Claim 19 rejection).
Regarding Claim 58, Boisde teaches the spectroscopic analyser is adapted to determine at least one parameter of at least one gas via direct absorption spectroscopy (See Claim 17 rejection) or via wavelength modulation spectroscopy (See Claim 18 rejection).
Regarding Claim 60, Boisde teaches the at least one source and at least one detector (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach are mounted on opposite sides of the same printed circuit board (PCB).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a PCB for mounting optical components on opposite sides of the same printed circuit board (PCB) in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a PCB provides optical interconnects to send signal further without losing quality.
The examiner takes Official Notice that at least one source and at least one detector are mounted on opposite sides of the same printed circuit board (PCB) is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 61, Boisde teaches at least one bandpass filter is provided to limit the transmission band of the electromagnetic radiation (See Claim 24 rejection).
Regarding Claim 62, Boisde teaches the at least one bandpass filter (See Claim 61 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is provided in a housing located within the gas cell at a point of convergence of the reflected radiation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange parts for different configurations in order to obtain a predictable result, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 65, Boisde teaches a space between a source of electromagnetic radiation and the optically aligned first optical element, and/or a space between the electromagnetic radiation detector and the optically aligned second optical element, is sealed and flushed with a purge gas and/or scrubbed of interferent gases (See Claim 26 rejection).
9. Claims 20 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisde in view of US Patent No. 4707696 by Task et al. (hereinafter Task).
Regarding Claim 20, Boisde teaches the inside surface of the sample cell (Fig. 1 @ 16) but does not explicitly teach is roughened and/or coated with an electromagnetic radiation absorbing layer to absorb electromagnetic radiation, thereby to mitigate potential interference with the signal.
However, Task teaches the inside surface (Fig. 1 @ 12a) of the sample cell (Fig. 1 @ 11) is roughened and/or coated with an electromagnetic radiation absorbing layer to absorb electromagnetic radiation (Col. 3, line 17-21: the interior surfaces 12a of housing 11 defining chamber 12 may comprise a coated or painted layer of light absorbing material, such as flat black paint, black felt, black velvet, or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boisde by Task as taught above such that the inside surface of the sample cell is roughened and/or coated with an electromagnetic radiation absorbing layer to absorb electromagnetic radiation, thereby to mitigate potential interference with the signal is accomplished in order to block specular light reflection from the interior housing 11 surfaces (Task, Col. 3, line 16-17).
Regarding Claim 59, Boisde as modified by Task teaches the inside surface of the gas cell other than the mirrors is roughened and/or coated with an electromagnetic radiation absorbing layer to absorb electromagnetic radiation (See Claim 20 rejection).
10. Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisde in view of US Patent No. 4885469 by Yamagishi et al. (hereinafter Yamagishi).
Regarding Claim 34, Boisde teaches gas cell and the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1. Also see Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach at least one volume within the apparatus, which volume is located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation but outside the gas cell, is filled with an interfering optically absorbing gas.
However, Yamagishi teaches at least one volume (Fig. 3 @ 8b) within the apparatus, which volume is located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation but outside the gas cell (Fig. 3 @ 2), is filled with an interfering optically absorbing gas (Col. 1, line 62-63: gas filter cells 8a, 8b for absorbing the interfering component gases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boisde by Yamagishi as taught above such that at least one volume within the apparatus, which volume is located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation but outside the gas cell, is filled with an interfering optically absorbing gas is accomplished in order to reduce the influences of the interfering components (Yamagishi, Col. 1, line 67-68 to Col. 2, line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 35, Boisde teaches gas cell and the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1. Also see Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach at least one volume within the apparatus, which volume is located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation but outside the gas cell, is filled with an optically transmissive filler material.
However, Yamagishi teaches at least one volume (Fig. 3 @ 8b) within the apparatus, which volume is located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation but outside the gas cell (Fig. 3 @ 2), is filled with an interfering optically transmissive filler material (Col. 1, line 62-63: gas filter cells 8a, 8b for absorbing the interfering component gases, i.e. the optically transmissive filler material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boisde by Yamagishi as taught above such that at least one volume within the apparatus, which volume is located in the optical path of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation but outside the gas cell, is filled with an optically transmissive filler material is accomplished in order to reduce the influences of the interfering components (Yamagishi, Col. 1, line 67-68 to Col. 2, line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 36, Boisde as modified by Yamagishi teaches the optically transmissive filler material (See Claim 35 rejection) is refractive index matched to at least one optical element that it is in contact with (Fig. 3 @ 8b, 5. Light is reaching to detector 5 passing through 8b without any refraction thus teaches refractive index matched to at least one optical element (i.e. the window, light passing through to the detector) that it is in contact with).
11. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisde in view of US Patent pub. No. 2018/0374906 A1 by Everaerts et al. (hereinafter Everaerts).
Regarding Claim 37, Boisde teaches the optically transmissive filler material (See Claim 35 rejection) but does not explicitly teach chemical and physical properties of the optically transmissive filler material and/or application of reduced pressure is used to minimise the presence of voids within the filler material structure.
However, Everaerts teaches chemical and physical properties of the optically transmissive filler material and/or application of reduced pressure is used to minimise the presence of voids within the filler material structure (Par. [0014, 0017, 0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boisde by Everaerts as taught above such that chemical and physical properties of the optically transmissive filler material and/or application of reduced pressure is used to minimise the presence of voids within the filler material structure is accomplished in order to avoid the presence of air gaps (Everaerts, Par. [0014]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 39 and 40 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.
Reason for Allowance
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
13. As to Claim 39, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “wherein stray reflections are used to increase the overall optical throughput and improve signal to noise, where no suppression of reflections is used and/or enhancement of stray reflections is made” along with all other limitations of claim 39.
14. Boisde (US 4188126) teaches an apparatus for gas detection and/or measurement using absorption spectroscopy but fails to teach the claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877