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 filed on 08/03/2026 have been fully considered.
The objections to specification are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejections 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All of the pending independent claims have been amended to recite, “wherein the lamp is operated using the operating voltage and the operating current.” The applicant has not explained where support for this new negative limitation may be found. Further, upon review of the disclosure, no explicit or inherent support was found for this limitation. It is noted that the specification does not disclose that the same operating voltage and operating current of the PID are themselves used to operate the lamp, as now required by the amened claims. Rather, the specification distinguishes between the voltage/current applied to the PID and to the lamp and states that, the current applied to the PID and the to the lamp are “essentially proportional to each other” (para. [0011]); and “the voltage applied to the lamp is essentially proportional to the voltage applied to the PID” (para. [0012]). Thus, the specification’s descriptions of corresponding/proportional PID and lamp operating voltages/currents cannot be reasonably interpreted to indicate that that the same singular operating voltage and operating current recited for the PID are used to operate the lamp.
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 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, 3, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,967,485 B1 [hereinafter Hsueh] in view of US4914356A [hereinafter Cockram].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hsueh teaches a process for detecting an operating state of a photoionization detector, which detector comprises a lamp for generating ultraviolet light (Abstract: a calibration process of a photo-ionization detector, for measuring the UV lamp performance), the process comprising the steps of:
changing an operating voltage of the photoionization detector in a voltage range and measuring a resulting operating current of the photoionization detector (5: 36-47, 6: 56-65; 7:5-9: “an AC power signal applied to electrodes 114 has a voltage amplitude VDR of about 500 to 1300 Vpp… the voltage amplitude or frequency of the drive signal can be changed to alter the UV intensity,” specifically, setting the UV lamp drive power to a first (lowest) power level and record a signal value “which can be a direct measurement of the ion current resulting from ionization” , then incrementally changing the drive power to a next level and repeating the recording step);
evaluating an operating state of the photoionization detector based on a course of an operating current (1: 30-32; 6:27-32: “a lamp failure can be detected from the difference between the measurement signal at the selected lamp drive level and the measurement signal at a higher lamp drive level,” where the measurement signals represents the magnitude of the measured current, such that evaluating differences between measurement signals corresponds to evaluating changes in the measured operating current),
wherein the lamp is operated using the operating voltage (since the AC voltage applied to the electrodes 114 creates the alternating electric field that excites the gas in lamp 110 and produces the flow discharge, the lamp is operated using the recited operating voltage);
and generating a result value which comprises information about an operating state of the photoionization detector in relation to a switched-on state of the lamp (3:19-20; 4:16-22: “A failure prevention process increases drive power in response to an indication that the UV lamp is not operating”, i.e., generating an evacuation result indicating the lamp is not operating (not on)).
Hsueh teaches the measured operating current of the detector is the current results from ionization of the span gas. However, Hsueh does not expressly teach wherein the lamp is operated using the operating current.
Cockram teaches that ignition of a gas-discharge lamp causes a changed in the electrical operating current associated with the lamp, and that such current change can be used to determine that ignition has occurred (5:60-68 and 6:1-2). Thus, in the modified system, the changes in electrical operating current drawn during lamp operation can be measured and used to determine the lamp operating states.
Hsueh teaches determining the operating state of its UV lamp indirectly from the ionization current produces as a consequence of UV emission. Cockram teaches that the operating state of a gas discharge lamp can instead be determined directly from the electrical operating current associated with power lamp. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Hsueh to determine the operating state of the UV lamp from the electrical operating current drawn during lamp operation, as taught by Cockram, because such current sensing provides a more direct indication of lamp ignition independent of the downstream ionization response of the sample gas, thereby providing a more direct an reliable indication of whether the lamp has ignited.
Regarding Claim 11:
Hsueh teaches: a photoionization detector comprising a lamp for generating ultraviolet light and a device (Abstract: a photo-ionization detector includes a UV lamp), the device comprising:
a power supply unit (Fig. 3C- voltage regulator 336) configured to change an operating voltage;
a measuring unit configured to measure a resulting operating current (6-7: 66-67 and 1-2: circuitry/controller that “digitizing the measurement signal from detector 130 and writing the digital measurement to a memory location 322 corresponding to the current drive power level”); and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 3C- Micro-controller 310) configured to evaluate an operating state of the photoionization detector based on a course of the operating current and to generate a result value which comprises information about an operating state of the photoionization detector in relation to a switched-on state of the lamp (3:19-20; 4:16-22; 6:27-32: “a lamp failure can be detected from the difference between the measurement signal at the selected lamp drive level and the measurement signal at a higher lamp drive level,” and “A failure prevention process increases drive power in response to an indication that the UV lamp is not operating”, i.e., generating an indication of the lamp is not operating (not on) from the evaluation results);
wherein the lamp is operated using the operating voltage (since then AC voltage applied to the electrodes 114 creates the alternating electric field that excites the gas in lamp 110 and produces the flow discharge, the lamp is operated using the recited operating voltage);
Hsueh teaches the measured operating current of the detector as the current results from ionization of the span gas. However, Hsueh does not expressly teach wherein the lamp is operated using the operating current.
Cockram teaches that ignition of a gas-discharge lamp causes a changed in the electrical operating current associated with the lamp, and that such current change can be used to determine that ignition has occurred (5:60-68 and 6:1-2). Thus, in the modified system, the changes in electrical operating current drawn during lamp operation, can be measured and used to determine the lamp operating states.
Hsueh teaches determining the operating state of its UV lamp indirectly from the ionization current produces as a consequence of UV emission. Cockram teaches that the operating state of a gas discharge lamp can instead be determined directly from the electrical operating current associated with power lamp. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Hsueh to determine the operating state of the UV lamp from the electrical operating current drawn during lamp operation, as taught by Cockram, because such current sensing provides a more direct indication of lamp ignition independent of the downstream ionization response of the sample gas, thereby providing a more direct an reliable indication of whether the lamp has ignited.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 1 and the photoionization detector of claim 11, respectively. Hsueh further teaches wherein the evaluation of the operating state of the photoionization detector is carried out based on the course of the operating current as a function of the change in the operating voltage and/or based on the course of the operating current as a time course of the operating current (5: 36-47, 6: 56-65; 7:5-9: Hsueh records current related measurement signals (measured current) at different lamp drive power levels and the drive signal can differ in voltage amplitude, causing different UV intensities, indicating a relationship between the changed voltage and the measured current).
Regarding Claim 6:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 1. Hsueh further teaches wherein the following is repeated at least once changing the operating voltage of the photoionization detector in the voltage range and measuring the resulting operating current of the photoionization detector; evaluating the operating state of the photoionization detector based on the course of the operating current; and generating the result value which comprises information about an operating state of the photoionization detector in relation to a switched-on state of the lamp (4: 16-22; 7:11-14: “The changing of the drive power in step 430 and the recording of the measurement signal in Step 420 are repeated until decision Step 425 determines that a measurement signal value has been recorded for the last drive power level,” and to prevent a PID failure, “sensing whether a lamp in the detector is operating properly when a first drive signal is applied, and in response to the lamp not operating properly, applying a second drive signal that provides more power to the lamp than does the first drive signal”).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh in view of Cockram, further in view of JP 2002078364A [hereinafter JSTA].
Regarding Claims 2 and 13:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 1 and the photoionization detector of claim 11, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the operating voltage of the photoionization detector is changed continuously or in discrete, at least essentially equidistant steps in a range from 0 volts to a typical operating voltage of the photoionization detector. JSTA teaches wherein the operating voltage of the photoionization detector is changed continuously or in discrete, at least essentially equidistant steps in a range from 0 volts to a typical operating voltage of the photoionization detector (Fig. 21: JSTA teaches evaluating a current-voltage relationship by measuring output current density J over a range of output voltage V. For example, Fig. 21 plots output current density
J
0
(y-axis) against output voltage
V
0
(x-axis), while
V
0
starts at 0 and increment 1v at each step).
Hsueh teaches changing the operating drive condition in successive drive levels and measuring the resulting ion current related signals. JSTA teaches obtaining a current-voltage relationship over discrete voltage points, as shown in Figs. 20 and 21, with voltages points spaced in 1V increments. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Hsueh’s incremental drive level change using discrete, essentially equidistant voltage steps, as taught in JSTA, to obtain a sufficiently resolved current course and detect small changes or sharp transitions in measured current.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 1 and the photoionization detector of claim 11, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the result value is characterized as erroneous if the course of the operating current comprises an unexpected course.
Hsueh in view of JSTA teaches that wherein the result value is characterized as erroneous if the course of the operating current comprises an unexpected course: Hsueh teaches a failure prevention process outputs an indicator when determines that the UV lamp is not operating; JSTA teaches as shown in Fig. 20 current density-voltage graph, the output current intensity J0 “rapidly increases in the vicinity of the output voltage V0 from -1 to -2V…A rapid increase in J0 means the start of ignition mode operation, ie the start of discharge between the electrodes” (para. [128]). Therefore, in the combined system, if the applied voltage is increased but the expected rapid current increase does not occur on the current density-voltage graph, the failure prevention process would output an indicator, e.g., an error message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to treat the absence of the expected sharp current increase as an erroneous/lamp failure result so that when repeated voltages increase does not produce the expected current transition, the system would reasonably identify the lamp as not properly entering the ignited state and output an error message.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 1 and the photoionization detector of claim 11, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein in the event that the result value indicates an operating state with the lamp of the photoionization detector switched on, an ignition voltage is determined. JSTA teaches wherein in the event that the result value indicates an operating state with the lamp of the photoionization detector switched on, an ignition voltage is determined (paras. [72, 97, 128]: “Electrons generated in the potential valley between the electrodes by light irradiation are accelerated by the electron sheath in front of the collector,” “when the ignition mode occurs… the output current increases remarkably.” “When TE=1600K, J0 rapidly increases in the vicinity of the output voltage V0 from -1 to -2V…A rapid increase in J0 means the start of ignition mode operation, ie the start of discharge between the electrodes…a certain voltage VD between both electrodes (hereinafter referred to as an ignition start voltage) satisfies the condition for generating multi-steps or cumulative ionization, and discharge is started”).
Hsueh teaches changing the PID/UV lamp drive condition and measuring ion current related signals resulting from the ionization. JSTA teaches that a rapid increase in current density in a current-voltage characteristics indicates the start of ignition/discharge, and the corresponding voltage is the ignition start voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to identify the voltage corresponding to a sharp change in the measured current responses as an ignition voltage, because both references use ionization-caused current behavior to identify transition into an operating/ignited state, and the voltage at the transition provides a useful electric reference for confirming the drive level at which the lamp first becomes operative, detecting insufficient drive, and supporting later lamp condition evaluation.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh in view of Cockram and JSTA, further in view of US 4,005,336 [hereinafter Casella].
In the following claims, the term “sensor vitality” is interpreted as a health or remaining-use indicator of the PID, determined from the ignition voltage of the PID lamp. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which ties sensor vitality to the PID (instead of the gas sensor 31 outside the PID assembly 1), and states that “the ignition voltage can provide a user with information about the sensor vitality of the PID,” and that the sensor vitality indicates whether “the PID will fail in the foreseeable future, i.e., will no long be able to measure.”
Regarding Claims 8 and 17:
Hsueh in view of Cockram and JSTA teaches the process of claim 7 and the photoionization detector of claim 16, respectively. However, the combined references does not specifically note that wherein the ignition voltage is used to determine a sensor vitality. Casella teaches wherein the ignition voltage is used to determine a sensor vitality (1: 48-54: “… so as to apply an ignition pulse to start discharge through the lamp, and the device being responsive to increase in lamp ignition voltage with age to provide an increased ignition pulse voltage,” demonstrating the ignition voltage increases with lamp age/life increases).
Hsueh in view of Cockram and JSTA teaches determining an ignition voltage from a current voltage relationship, and preventing PID failure by determining whether the UV lamp is operating properly and increasing drive power when the lamp is not operating properly. Casella teaches that the ignition volage of a discharged lamp changes over the life of the lamp and is directly related to lamp aging and failure, such that a lamp eventually fails when the required ignition volage exceeds the available supply voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use the determined ignition voltage from Hsueh/JSTA to determine the vitality condition of the PID lamp, as taught by Casella. Using such a known diagnostic relationship in a PID failure prevention process would have been a combination of known techniques to predictably identify lamp degradation and prevent PID measurement failure.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18:
Hsueh in view of Cockram, JSTA, and Casella teaches the process of claim 8 and the photoionization detector of claim 17, respectively. Casella further teaches wherein the determination of the sensor vitality is based on defined voltage ranges, wherein a sensor vitality value is assigned to each voltage range and wherein the determined ignition voltage is assigned to one of the defined voltage ranges (Fig. 6; 3: 54-65: Fig. 6 shows a graphic relationship between peak ignition voltage and hours of lamp life, as seen in Fig. 6, at first 50 operating hours of the lamp, the ignition volage is below the voltage supplies (around 175 volts); during lamp’s life expectancy (before 1200 operating hours), the required ignition volage is gradually increased to the same amount the volage supply (250-300 volts); after that and before the lamp extinction, , the lamp requires higher than the previous supplied voltage to ignite and will fail if the supplied voltage not increased, accordingly, different sensor vitality values can be associated with different ignition voltage ranges (e.g., ignition voltage around or below 175 is very healthy, between 250- 300 is normal healthy, and beyond 300 is failure).
Claims 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh in view of Cockram, further in view of US20170072854A1 [hereinafter Cornlius].
Regarding Claim 5:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the result value is forwarded to an output unit. Cornlius teaches wherein the result value is forwarded to an output unit (para. [0013]: “a light failure detection system that accepts five (5) Lite Drive Inputs 20, monitors the current 25 and voltage levels 30 on each circuit and passes these inputs to output ports 35… The light failure detection is indicated to the operator using the Light failure signal or lit-out output 40”).
Hsueh teaches determining whether the PID lamp is operating properly based on measured currents and voltages, and preventing loss of measurement function when UV lamp is not operating properly. Cornlius teaches outputting a light failure determination using a light failure signal and fault indicator light. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to forward the lamp operating failure results from Hsueh, to the light failure determination unit so the results can be presented by the fault indicator light, as taught in Cornlius, because outputting the result would allow the operator to take further corrective action, to prevent or recover from PID measurement failure. This would have been a combination of known lamp failure detection and output indication techniques to yield the predictable result of communicating the detected lamp failure state.
Regarding Claim 12:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches the process of claim 11. However, the combined references not specifically note that wherein the device further comprises at least one data interface which is configured to forward information from the evaluation unit (Fig. 1 and para. [0029]: the microcontroller 120 monitors both the voltage 25 and current 30, and forward the information to a light failure indicator switch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to forward the lamp operating failure results from the evaluation unit of Hsueh to an output unit via the microcontroller, so the results can be presented by the fault indicator light, as taught in Cornlius, because outputting the result would allow the operator to take further corrective action, to prevent or recover from PID measurement failure. This would have been a combination of known lamp failure detection and output indication techniques to yield the predictable result of communicating the detected lamp failure state.
Regarding Claim 20:
Hsueh in view of Cockram teaches a gas measuring device comprises a power supply unit, a measuring unit, and evaluation unit performing correspond processes, as discussed in claim 11.
However, the combined references do not specifically note an output unit for displaying the result value. Cornlius teaches an output unit for displaying the result value Para. [0011]: “displaying an indication of light failure if the measured current is below or above the adjusted threshold current value by the predetermined value)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to forward the lamp operating failure results from Hsueh, to an output unit for display, as taught in Cornlius, because outputting the result for display would allow the operator to take further corrective action, to prevent or recover from PID measurement failure. This would have been a combination of known lamp failure detection and output indication techniques to yield the predictable result of communicating the detected lamp failure state
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh in view of Cockram, JSTA and Casella, further in view of US20100327763A1 [hereinafter Yao].
Regarding Claim 10:
Hsueh in view of Cockram, Casella and JSTA teaches the process of claim 8. However, the combined references not specifically note that wherein the determined sensor vitality is forwarded to an output unit. Yao teaches wherein the determined sensor vitality is forwarded to an output unit (Fig. 4 and paras. [0026-0027]: after the end-of -life signal 164 is evaluated by comparator 166, which generates comparator output signal 166a indicating whether at least one lamp has reached an end-of-life condition, and this comparator output is provided to logic circuit 169, for subsequent control measures applied to the system).
Hsueh in view of Cockram, JSTA and Casella teaches determining a PID/lamp vitality condition from the determined ignition voltage, which reflects the lamp’s health, aging, and likelihood of failure. Yao teaches outputting a lamp condition/end-of-life determination through an output signal and a comparator unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to forward the determined PID health condition, from the combined processes, to the output unit taught in Yao, because outputting the vitality condition would allow the operator to perform further procedures to maintain or recalibrate the PID before complete PID measurement failure occurs. This would have been a combination of known lamp condition determination and output signaling techniques to yield the predictable result for communicating the lamp/PID health condition for failure prevention or recovery.
Regarding Claim 19:
Hsueh in view of Cockram, JSTA, and Casella teaches the photoionization detector of claim 17. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the device further comprises at least one data interface which is configured to forward information from the evaluation unit wherein the determined sensor vitality is forwarded to the at least one data interface. Yao teaches wherein the device further comprises at least one data interface which is configured to forward information from the evaluation unit wherein the determined sensor vitality is forwarded to the at least one data interface (Fig. 4 and paras. [0026-0027]: after the end-of -life signal 164 is evaluated by comparator 166, which generates comparator output signal 166a indicating whether at least one lamp has reached an end-of-life condition, and this comparator output forwarded to the provided to logic circuit 169 via signal interface and path between the comparator circuitry and the logic circuitry, for subsequent control measures applied to the system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to forward the determined PID health condition, from the combined processes, to the output unit via the signal interface and path, as taught in Yao, because outputting the vitality condition would allow the operator to perform further procedures to maintain or recalibrate the PID before complete PID measurement failure occurs. This would have been a combination of known lamp condition determination and output signaling techniques to yield the predictable result for communicating the lamp/PID health condition for failure prevention or recovery.
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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights