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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged and has been accepted by the Examiner. Claims 1-18 and 22 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Regarding the interpretation of a processing module under 35 USC 112(f), the examiner finds the amendment to be sufficient. The interpretation of this limitation under 35 USC 112(f) is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2-18, and 22 under 35 USC 112(b), the amendments made to these claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection made in the previous Office action. The rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s request for the non-statutory double patenting rejection in view of the selected claims of co-pending Application Nos. 18/720,049 and 18/720,037 be held in abeyance, the examiner has decided to uphold the rejection in view of the selected claims of co-pending Application No. 18/720,037 as the amendments to the claims in the co-pending application entered 02/18/2026 have been deemed in condition for allowance in the Office action dated 04/16/2026. The non-statutory double patenting rejection in view of the selected claims of co-pending Application No. 18/720,049 will not be maintained at this time due to the amendments to the claims of the instant application filed 02/18/2026.
Regarding the rejection of at least claims 1 and 22 under 35 USC 102, the examiner finds applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments presented on 02/18/2026 to be persuasive. The rejection is hereby withdrawn, and a discussion of the allowability of the claims can be found below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1). Similarities in the claim have been bolded below:
Claim 1 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 1 of copending application, 18/720,037
A self-mixing interferometer configured to monitor particulate material within a monitored region of space comprising:
A self-mixing interferometer configured to monitor particulate material within a monitored region of space comprising:
a laser cavity assembly;
a laser cavity assembly;
an optical assembly configured to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer possessing wavefronts;
an optical assembly configured to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer possessing wavefronts having different directions at different respective locations within the monitored region;
a laser monitoring unit configured to acquire an interferometric signal generated by the interferometer in response to light returned to the laser cavity assembly from said wavefronts by said particulate material;
a laser monitoring unit configured to acquire an interferometric signal generated by the interferometer in response to light returned to the laser cavity assembly from said wavefronts by said particulate material;
a computer processing module configured to determine a reference wavefront corresponding to a position that the particulate material enters into the laser light in the monitored region, and a property of the particulate material within the monitored region based on the reference wavefront and according to a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal at least a part of which comprises a waveform of changing frequency.
a computer processing module configured to determine a reference wavefront corresponding to a position that the particulate material enters into the laser light in the monitored region, and a property of the particulate material within the monitored region based on the reference wavefront and according to changes in the frequency of a waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signal.
Claim 1 of copending application '037 does not teach performing a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal. However, in the same field of endeavor of self-mixing interferometry particulate sensors, Mutlu teaches perform a wavelet transformation of the self-mixing interference signal (paragraph [0073]). Wavelet transformations are a known mathematical tool and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of how to perform one. At the time of filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to reasonably apply a wavelet transformation to the interferometric signal and achieve the predictable result of transforming the data into frequency-space while also maintaining a high time or frequency resolution of the signal.
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to apply a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal as taught in Mutlu in order to achieve the predictable result of transforming the signal into frequency-space while maintaining a high time or frequency resolution of the signal.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 2 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 3 of copending application, 18/720,037
the computer processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a continuous change in the frequency of said waveform.
the computer processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a continuous change in the frequency of said waveform.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 3 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 1 of copending application, 18/720,037
the optical assembly is configured to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer possessing a wavefronts having different directions at different respective locations within the monitored region.
an optical assembly configured to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer possessing wavefronts having different directions at different respective locations within the monitored region;
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 4 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 3 of copending application, 18/720,037
the property of the particulate material comprises a property of the path thereof within the monitored region.
the property of the particulate material comprises a property of the path thereof within the monitored region.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 5 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 4 of copending application, 18/720,037
the property of the path comprises a distance to said particulate material relative from the interferometer.
the property of the path comprises a distance to said particulate material relative from the interferometer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 6 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 5 of copending application, 18/720,037
the property of the path comprises a speed of said particulate material relative to the interferometer.
the property of the path comprises a speed of said particulate material relative to the interferometer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 7 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 6 of copending application, 18/720,037
the property of the path comprises a direction of said particulate material relative to the interferometer.
the property of the path comprises a direction of said particulate material relative to the interferometer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 8 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 7 of copending application, 18/720,037
the computer processing module is configured to determine a size and/or a size distribution of said particulate material within the region of space.
the computer processing module is configured to determine a size and/or a size distribution of said particulate material within the region of space.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 9 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 8 of copending application, 18/720,037
the computer processing module is configured to determine a concentration of said particulate material within the region of space.
the computer processing module is configured to determine a concentration of said particulate material within the region of space.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 10 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 9 of copending application, 18/720,037
the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit comprises a voltage waveform signal at least a part of which continuously changes in frequency and corresponds to a voltage across the electrical drive terminals of a laser cavity of the laser cavity assembly.
the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit comprises a voltage waveform signal at least a part of which continuously changes in frequency and corresponds to a voltage across the electrical drive terminals of a laser cavity of the laser cavity assembly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 11 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 10 of copending application, 18/720,037
the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit comprises an optical output power signal at least a part of which continuously changes in frequency and corresponds to an optical output power of a laser cavity of the laser cavity assembly.
the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit comprises an optical output power signal at least a part of which continuously changes in frequency and corresponds to an optical output power of a laser cavity of the laser cavity assembly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 12 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 11 of copending application, 18/720,037
the optical assembly is configured to bathe the monitored region with a static divergent and/or convergent beam of said laser light possessing a curved wavefront in which the monitored region comprises regions other than the focal region of said laser light.
the optical assembly is configured to bathe the monitored region with a static divergent and/or convergent beam of said laser light possessing a curved wavefront in which the monitored region comprises regions other than a focal region of said laser light.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 13 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 12 of copending application, 18/720,037
the optical assembly is configured to bathe the monitored region with a beam of said laser light possessing a substantially flat wavefront moved across the monitored region to a plurality of different directions.
the optical assembly is configured to bathe the monitored region with a beam of said laser light possessing a substantially flat wavefront moved across the monitored region to a plurality of different directions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 14 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 13 of copending application, 18/720,037
said laser cavity assembly is configured to output a laser beam in each of two or more different directions, wherein the computer processing module is configured to determine two or three mutually orthogonal components of a velocity of particulate material through the monitored region according to said changes in the frequency of a waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signals generated respectively by the laser cavity assembly when in each of the two or more different directions and/or according to the number of wave cycles within the respective waveforms.
said laser cavity assembly is configured to output a laser beam in each of two or more different directions, wherein the computer processing module is configured to determine two or three mutually orthogonal components of a velocity of particulate material through the monitored region according to said changes in the frequency of a waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signals generated respectively by the laser cavity assembly when in each of the two or more different directions and/or according to the number of wave cycles within the respective waveforms.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 15 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 14 of copending application, 18/720,037
said waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a chirped waveform.
said waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a chirped waveform.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 16 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 15 of copending application, 18/720,037
said laser cavity assembly is configured to output two or more laser beams comprising different respective cross-sectional beam shapes and/or different beam directions.
said laser cavity assembly is configured to output two or more laser beams comprising different respective cross-sectional beam shapes and/or different beam directions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 17 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 16 of copending application, 18/720,037
the two or more laser beams are configured to overlap within the monitored region to define an overlap region and the computer processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the overlap region in response to light returned to the laser cavity assembly concurrently from said wavefronts of said two or more laser.
the two or more laser beams are configured to overlap within the monitored region to define an overlap region and the computer processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the overlap region in response to light returned to the laser cavity assembly concurrently from said wavefronts of said two or more laser beams.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1) as explained above in claim 1. Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 18 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 17 of copending application, 18/720,037
the computer processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to differences in said respective cross-sectional beam shapes.
the computer processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to differences in said respective cross-sectional beam shapes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 22 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/720,037 (reference application) in view of Mutlu (US 2020/0319082 A1). Similarities in the claims have been bolded below:
Claim 22 of current application, 18/720,021
Claim 21 of copending application, 18/720,037
A method for monitoring particulate material within a monitored region of space using self-mixing interferometry comprising:
A method for monitoring particulate material within a monitored region of space using self-mixing interferometry comprising:
providing an interferometer comprising a laser cavity assembly and an optical assembly;
providing an interferometer comprising a laser cavity assembly and an optical assembly;
bathing the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer possessing wavefronts;
bathing the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer possessing wavefronts having different directions at different respective locations within the monitored region;
acquiring an interferometric signal generated by the interferometer in response to light returned to the laser cavity assembly from said wavefronts by said particulate material;
acquiring an interferometric signal generated by the interferometer in response to light returned to the laser cavity assembly from said wavefronts by said particulate material;
by a computer processing module, determining a reference wavefront corresponding to a position that the particulate material enters into the laser light in the monitored region, and a property of the particulate material within the monitored region based on the reference wavefront and according to a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal at least a part of which comprises a waveform of changing frequency.
by a computer processing module, determining a reference wavefront corresponding to a position that the particulate material enters into the laser light in the monitored region, and a property of the particulate material within the monitored region based on the reference wavefront and according to changes in the frequency of a waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signal.
Claim 21 of copending application '037 does not teach performing a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal. However, in the same field of endeavor of self-mixing interferometry particulate sensors, Mutlu teaches perform a wavelet transformation of the self-mixing interference signal (paragraph [0073]). Wavelet transformations are a known mathematical tool and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of how to perform one. At the time of filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply a wavelet transformation to the interferometric signal and achieve the predictable result of transforming the data into frequency-space while also maintaining a high time or frequency resolution of the signal.
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to apply a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal as taught in Mutlu in order to achieve the predictable result of transforming the signal into frequency-space while maintaining a high time or frequency resolution of the signal.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action, or by filing a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a self-mixing interferometer configured to monitor particulate material within a monitored region of space comprising, among other essential features, a computer processing module configured to determine a reference wavefront corresponding to a position that the particulate material enters into the laser light in the monitored region, and a property of the particulate material within the monitored region based on the reference wavefront and according to a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal at least a part of which comprises a waveform of changing frequency. Claims 2-18 are allowable by virtue of dependency.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for monitoring particulate material within a monitored region of space using self-mixing interferometry comprising, among other essential features, by a computer processing module, determining a reference wavefront corresponding to a position that the particulate material enters into the laser light in the monitored region, and a property of the particulate material within the monitored region based on the reference wavefront and according to a wavelet transformation of the interferometric signal at least a part of which comprises a waveform of changing frequency.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights