DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application, where the independent claim has been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 1/12/2026.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4- Claims 1-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovde et al. (US Patent No. 9110006) in view of Tan (US Patent No. 7646485)
As to amended claims 1-5, 7, Hovde teaches a gas absorption spectrometer that measures a gas component (Abstract, Col/ll. 1/48-61, 7/44-8/67 and Figs. 2-6), the gas absorption spectrometer comprising: a resonator including at least two mirrors (optical cavity 12); a light source (24/46 OR 62/64) that emits laser beams for irradiation of the resonator (Figs. 2-3; through lens 48); a photodetector (14 of 30 or 60 and its corresponding electronics) that detects light emitted from the resonator (Figs. 2-3; through lens 50); at least one light transmissive member in a form of a plate arranged in an optical path (lens 50 or plate 32), the optical path being defined between the resonator and the photodetector (Figs. 2-3); and a control device (38/40/52) that measures a target component in gas present in the resonator based on an output signal from the photodetector (Col/ll. 1/48-61, 7/44-8/67), wherein the light transmissive member has a first surface facing the resonator in the optical path, and a second surface facing the photodetector in the optical path (Figs. 2-3; either component, i.e. lens or filter, do present these two surfaces), and at least one of the first surface and the second surface is a non-flat surface (lens 50 presents two curved, i.e. non flat, surface); (claim 5) wherein the control device measures the target component in gas by cavity ring-down spectroscopy (Col/ll. 7/5-10 and 9/1-21 for ex.)
Hovde does not teach expressly the non-flat surface having bumps and dips for irregular reflection and light scattering; (claim 2) wherein the second surface is the non-flat surface; (claim 3) wherein the first surface is a flat surface inclined with respect to the optical path; (claim 4) wherein the first surface is the non-flat surface; (claim 7) wherein: the second surface is the non-flat surface having the bumps and dips, and the first surface is a flat surface not having the bumps and dips, even though the Examiner submits there is no ideal smooth manufactured optical surface and that there is always a minimum of surface roughness that the manufacturing step of polishing cannot handle, given the resolution of the used polishing grit size. Any commercially available optical lens/filter presents a minimum amount of surface roughness, which results in inherent irregular reflection/transmission and light scattering.
In addition, and to enforce the obviousness status of this claim, Tan, which in a similar field of endeavor, teaches methods and apparatus for enhancing accuracy of CRDS measurements (Abstract, Figs. 1-6), wherein a cavity with mirrors (602-604) is used with light source (601/608) and detectors (606 and/or 610). Tan teaches clearly, Col/ll. 7/1-14, that any optical scattering of light is detrimental and unwanted for an optimal performance of a cavity ring-down inside the cavity and to establish an optical resonance inside the CRDS apparatus. One PHOSITA, interested in a spectroscopy detection system and application, similar to Hoyde’s, would find it obvious to consider the surface of any optical component outside the cavity to present roughness, and scattering, so that no light reflection from outside the cavity is directly injected into the cavity, i.e. by using causing optical irregular reflection and scattering on the surfaces outside the cavity, to preserve quality optical resonance only between the optical component inside the cavity and the mirrors of the cavity (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hovde in view of Tan’s suggestions so that the non-flat surface having bumps and dips for irregular reflection and light scattering; wherein the second surface is the non-flat surface; wherein the first surface is a flat surface inclined with respect to the optical path; wherein the first surface is the non-flat surface; wherein: the second surface is the non-flat surface having the bumps and dips, and the first surface is a flat surface not having the bumps and dips, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the CRDS measurements by avoiding direct reflections from the flat surfaces outside of the cavity.
As to claim 6, the combination of Hovde and Tan teaches absorption spectrometer according to claim 5.
The combination does not teach expressly further comprising a switch arranged between the light source and the resonator, the switch being switched between an on state in which laser beams from the light source are outputted to the resonator and an off state in which laser beams from the light source are not outputted to the resonator, wherein the control device measures the target component based on the output signal from the photodetector after the switch is switched from the on state to the off state.
However, Hovde teaches using a lock-in amplifying modulation apparatus (24/52/36) for filtering noise and increasing the signal to noise (SNR) of the signals (Col/ll. 6/60-7/43). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a mechanical shutter, necessary for the lock-in amplification light modulation and as a mere replacement for Hovde’s digital frequency modulation insured by (24/52), the shutter being placed between the light source of Hovde and cavity (12), to cause the light to be on and off and the measurements/calculations being performed during the off status of the light (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hovde in view of Tan’s suggestions so that the apparatus comprises a switch arranged between the light source and the resonator, the switch being switched between an on state in which laser beams from the light source are outputted to the resonator and an off state in which laser beams from the light source are not outputted to the resonator, wherein the control device measures the target component based on the output signal from the photodetector after the switch is switched from the on state to the off state, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the SNR of the CRDS measurements.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights