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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0324281 A1) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 2581979 Y, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations) further in view of Deng (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0113065 A1).
As to claim 1, Liu discloses and show in figure 4, a gas measurement apparatus configured to measure a gas concentration by laser absorption spectroscopy, the gas measurement apparatus comprising (Abstract, where the examiner notes that the intended use of “to measure a gas concentration” does not distinguish the claims from the prior art as it is merely an intended use, please see MPEP 2114(II)):
a first corner cube or first right angle prism (first right-angle prism disclosed) ([0037], ll. 1-7);
a second corner cube or second right angle prism (second right-angle prism disclosed) disposed opposite the first corner cube or first right angle prism (explicitly shown in figure 4) ([0037], ll. 1-7);
a laser source (laser clearly labeled in figure 4 and disclose as laser source 8) configured to emit a laser beam to the first corner cube or first right angle prism ([0037], ll. 1-5); and
a light receiving element (detector, and disclosed as photoelectric detector 10)) configured to receive the laser beam that has been reflected multiple times through a target gas between the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the second corner cube or second right angle prism (explicitly shown in figure 4) ([0037]),
wherein the second corner cube or second right angle prism is disposed so that a centerline that is parallel to incident and exit light centering at an incident position and an exit position of the first corner cube or first right angle prism is displaced from a centerline that is parallel to incident and exit light centering at an incident position and an exit position of the second corner cube or second right angle prism (i.e. prism deviation explicitly shown) ([0030]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose a gas measurement apparatus, wherein when a first direction denotes a direction in which the centerline of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the centerline of the second corner cube or second right angle prism are displaced, a third direction denotes a direction in which the laser beam is incident on the first corner cube or first right angle prism, and a second direction denotes a direction orthogonal to the first direction and the third direction, the laser source is disposed in a position that is displaced from a center to the second direction by a predetermined distance such that optical paths of the laser beam passing through the target gas becomes two rows.
However, Xiao does disclose and show in figures 2 and 3, and in (page 2, ll. 49-57) the use of a similar corner cube based reflectors (1 and 11). Where the light source (18, which if not implicit can obviously be a laser to maintain a collimated beam as shown in figure 2. Further Liu disclosed the laser limitation as noted above) that forms a beam (16). Where said beam is a predetermined distance offset in a second direction so that the laser beam forms two row through the gas. All the directions as described by the instant claim are explicitly shown in figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu wherein when a first direction denotes a direction in which the centerline of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the centerline of the second corner cube or second right angle prism are displaced, a third direction denotes a direction in which the laser beam is incident on the first corner cube or first right angle prism, and a second direction denotes a direction orthogonal to the first direction and the third direction, the laser source is disposed in a position that is displaced from a center to the second direction by a predetermined distance such that optical paths of the laser beam passing through the target gas becomes two rows in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one possible and predictable geometric arrangement of the reflectors one can provide more optical path length through the gas under test to increase signal to noise by allowing for more potential absorption in for example low density gas (page 2, ll. 15-22).
Liu n view of Xiao does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser source emits the laser beam obliquely with respect to an incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism.
However, Deng does disclose and show in figure 2 and in ([0038], ll. 16-22; [0060], ll. 10-15; [0061], ll. 13-16) where the angle of the incident light to the set of reflectors (right angle prisms as shown) can be set to a “certain angle”. Further Deng discloses that setting the angle between the reflector mirrors which likewise applies to the right angle prisms allows for the basic concept of modulating the light propagation path to be larger or smaller in the sample area 100. Further Deng discloses and additional advantage of using input light being at an angle relative to a first reflective surface is to provide the advantage of reducing interreference light (i.e. avoiding creation of a Fabry-Perot type cavity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu n view of Xiao wherein the laser source emits the laser beam obliquely with respect to an incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy in using input light at an angle one can avoid interference effects (increasing the signal output and avoiding a form of noise) while further obviously allowing with varying input angles obvious modulation of the light path length of the beam through the sample area between the two reflectors. In other words as known in the art if one is measuring a more absorptive sample optical path lengths needs to be reduced so sufficient intensity can be detected, in contrast if the sample is less absorptive as commonly known path length through the sample can be increased to ensure sufficient time for the sample to interact with the inspection beam.
As to claim 2, Liu disclose a gas measurement apparatus, wherein a number of reflections of the laser beam between the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the second corner cube or second right angle prism can be adjusted by a distance by which the centerline of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the centerline of the second corner cube or second right angle prism are displaced ([0030]).
As to claim 4, Liu discloses a gas measurement apparatus, wherein an incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and an incident surface of the second corner cube or second right angle prism are close in contact with window glass provided in a pipe with the target gas inside ([0032], [0034], where the examiner is interpreting a “cylindrical box-like structure of Liu as a “pipe” as claimed).
As to claims 7-8, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser source is disposed in a position that is displaced from a center of the first corner cube or first right angle prism to the second direction by a predetermined distance such that optical paths of the laser beam passing through the target gas become two rows or wherein the two rows are positioned on one side and an opposite side of the center of the first corner cube or first right angle prism in the second direction, respectively.
However, Xiao does disclose and show in figures 2 and 3, and in (page 2, ll. 49-57; page 2, l. 60 thru page 3, l. 4) the use of a similar corner cube based reflectors (1 and 11). Where the light source (18, which if not implicit can obviously be a laser to maintain a collimated beam as shown in figure 2. Further Liu disclosed the laser limitation as noted above) that forms a beam (16). Where said beam is a predetermined distance offset in a second direction so that the laser beam forms two row through the gas. All the directions as described by the instant claim are explicitly shown in figure 2. As explicitly shown the laser source (i.e. light output from parallel light converter 22) is offset from the center of the corner cubes, this is also explicitly shown in figure 3. Further, figure 2 explicitly shows where the two rows are positioned opposite the center running vertical (i.e. second direction) of each corner cube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu wherein the laser source is disposed in a position that is displaced from a center of the first corner cube or first right angle prism to the second direction by a predetermined distance such that optical paths of the laser beam passing through the target gas become two rows or wherein the two rows are positioned on one side and an opposite side of the center of the first corner cube or first right angle prism in the second direction, respectively in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one possible and predictable geometric arrangement of the reflectors one can provide more optical path length through the gas under test to increase signal to noise by allowing for more potential absorption in for example low density gas (page 2, ll. 15-22).
As to claims 9 and 10, Liu in view of Xiao does not explicitly disclose a gas measurement apparatus, wherein the laser source emits the laser beam obliquely with respect to the incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism such that the number of reflections is adjusted by changing an angle of the laser beam emitted by the laser source with respect to the incident surface without changing the positions of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the second corner cube or second right angle prism or where the gas measurement apparatus, wherein the incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism is substantially parallel to an incident surface of the second corner cube or second right angle prism.
However, Deng does disclose and show in figure 2 and in ([0038], ll. 16-22; [0060], ll. 10-15; [0061], ll. 13-16) where the angle of the incident light to the set of reflectors (right angle prisms as shown) can be set to a “certain angle”. Further Deng discloses that setting the angle between the reflector mirrors which likewise applies to the right angle prisms allows for the basic concept of modulating the light propagation path to be larger or smaller in the sample area 100. Further Deng discloses and additional advantage of using input light being at an angle relative to a first reflective surface is to provide the advantage of reducing interreference light (i.e. avoiding creation of a Fabry-Perot type cavity). Lastly, Deng discloses and shows the two incident surfaces are parallel in figure 18. Further as disclosed they can be angled between 0-360 degrees through adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu n view of Xiao a gas measurement apparatus, wherein the laser source emits the laser beam obliquely with respect to the incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism such that the number of reflections is adjusted by changing an angle of the laser beam emitted by the laser source with respect to the incident surface without changing the positions of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and the second corner cube or second right angle prism or where the gas measurement apparatus, wherein the incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism is substantially parallel to an incident surface of the second corner cube or second right angle prism in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy in using input light at an angle one can avoid interference effects (increasing the signal output and avoiding a form of noise) while further obviously allowing with varying input angles obvious modulation of the light path length of the beam through the sample area between the two reflectors. In other words as known in the art if one is measuring a more absorptive sample optical path lengths needs to be reduced so sufficient intensity can be detected, in contrast if the sample is less absorptive as commonly known path length through the sample can be increased to ensure sufficient time for the sample to interact with the inspection beam
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view Xiao in view of Deng further in view of Takagi et al. (JP 2008-026229 A, where the examiner is using a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claim 3, Liu, does appear to disclose wherein the laser source emits the laser beam obliquely with respect to an incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism (Fig. 8(b) shows a top down view where the laser light is not perfectly parallel going into the reflecting prism).
Simply for compact prosecution the examiner will not interpret Liu to explicitly anticipate the noted limitation as such
Liu in view of Xiao further in view of Deng fails to teach or disclose wherein an incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and an incident surface of the second corner cube or second right angle prism are inclined with respect to a plane perpendicular to a direction in which the laser source emits the laser beam to the first corner cube.
However, Takagi does disclose and show in figure 3(a-e) and in ([0031]-[0037]) multiple corner cube orientations that teach both that one corner cube can be inclined relative to another (3d) or that the laser is emitted obliquely with respect to the incident surface, 3(c-d). Further Takagi disclose that this multiple alignment positions simply allows one of ordinary skill in the art to control the path length through the sample under test and vary it as desired.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Xiao wherein an incident surface of the first corner cube or first right angle prism and an incident surface of the second corner cube or second right angle prism are inclined with respect to a plane perpendicular to a direction in which the laser source emits the laser beam to the first corner cube in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and expected results in that obviously in changing the light redirecting elements orientation one can obviously modulate the optical path through the sample under test, this is not only obvious in spectroscopy but simply optical systems in general. As such, this configuration is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to enable light path length varying through changing densities/concentrations of samples under test to avoid over or under absorption of the laser input beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights