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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/05/26, with respect to restriction/election have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction/election has been withdrawn. Claim 1-12, 15-19 and 23, will be considered for examination.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within 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, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “optical assembly; laser monitoring unit; processing module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element “optical assembly” as found in claim 15 is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim limitation “optical assembly configured to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer " invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “A non-circular cross-sectional beam shape may be generated by the use of astigmatic optics within the optical assembly of the respective self-mixing interferometer. A cross-sectional shape of each laser beam may be substantially elliptical. The major axis of the elliptical cross-section of one such laser beam may be oblique to (e.g., substantially perpendicular to, or other angle) major axis of the elliptical
cross-section of another such laser beam…page 9”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer”. The use of the term " optical assembly" is not adequate structure for performing the limitation “to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer” because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “optical assembly” refers “to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer” and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Claim element “laser monitoring unit” as found in claim 15 is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim limitation “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 " invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “The interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit may, in any aspect of the invention, comprise 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 …page 7”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “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”. The use of the term " laser monitoring unit " is not adequate structure for performing the limitation “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” because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “laser monitoring unit” refers “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” and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Claim element “processing module” as found in claim 15 is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim limitation “processing module configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a structure in data describing the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency " invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “The processing module may be configured, in any aspect of the invention, to determine the values of different time points within the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer representing any one or more of: a starting time at the beginning of the waveform; an ending time at the end of the waveform …page 8”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a structure in data describing the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency”. The use of the term "processing module" is not adequate structure for performing the limitation “to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a structure in data describing the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency” because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “processing module” refers “to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a structure in data describing the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency” and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Accordingly, claim 1 is explicitly rejected as being indefinite, and claims 2-12 and 15-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-12 and 15-19 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of removing noise from the appearance signals. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-12 and 15-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutlu et al. (US 20200319082 A1) (herein after Mutlu)[cited in the IDS filed by the applicant] in view of Freishlad et al. (US 20070091318 A1) (herein after Freishlad).
As to claim(s) 1, Mutlu discloses a self-mixing interferometer configured to monitor particulate material within a monitored region of space comprising:
a laser cavity assembly (The self-mixing interferometry sensor 402 may include an electromagnetic radiation source 416… in fig. 4, [¶0049]);
an optical assembly (404, one or more optical elements) configured to bathe the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer ([¶0048]);
a laser monitoring unit (422, photodetector) 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 (¶0050);
a processing module (circuitry (e.g., an ASIC or processor) associated with a self-mixing interferometry sensor…¶0072) configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a structure in data describing (FIGS. 4-8B. However, the self-mixing interference signal provided by the self-mixing interferometry sensor 402 may include particle speed information for particles passing through each of the measurement regions 414-1, 414-2, 414-3…¶0066) (¶0072-0073).
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
Mutlu discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency”.
However, Freishlad from the same field of endeavor discloses a processor (17) (¶0113 @fig.1) wherein an interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency (the interferometry signal and/or the data acquired from it are transformed into an n-dimensional function comprising an independent frequency variable and an independent time variable. According to another related aspect of the invention, the interferometry signal and/or data from it are transformed to an n-dimensional function having an independent scale variable and an independent time variable…¶0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu such that the interferometric signal in the frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least the part of the interferometric signal comprises the waveform of changing frequency; as taught by Freishlad, for the advantages such as: ensures effective, quick and accurate non-contact analysis of the characteristics of test object surface by reducing the processing demands while obtaining accurate and reliable results.
As of claim 2, Mutlu discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The self-mixing interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the data describing the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof describes a wavelet scalogram of the interferometric signal.”.
However, Freishlad from the same field of endeavor discloses a data describing the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof describes a wavelet scalogram of the interferometric signal (The result from the time-scale analysis is an n-dimensional function, preferably a 2-dimensional ("2-D") function, called a scalogram. Both techniques result in an n-dimensional transformed signal having an independent frequency or scale variable and an independent time variable …¶0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu such that the data describing the interferometric signal in the frequency-space transformation thereof describes the wavelet scalogram of the interferometric signal; as taught by Freishlad, for the advantages such as: ensures effective, quick and accurate non-contact analysis of the characteristics of test object surface by reducing the processing demands while obtaining accurate and reliable results.
As of claim 3, Mutlu already discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the processing module is configured to determine a property of the particulate material within the monitored region (¶0066).
Mutlu discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “a continuous change in the frequency of said waveform.”.
However, Freishlad from the same field of endeavor discloses a 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 interferometry signal and/or the data acquired from it are transformed into an n-dimensional function comprising an independent frequency variable and an independent time variable. According to another related aspect of the invention, the interferometry signal and/or data from it are transformed to an n-dimensional function having an independent scale variable and an independent time variable…¶0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu such that determine the property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to the continuous change in the frequency of said waveform; as taught by Freishlad, for the advantages such as: ensures effective, quick and accurate non-contact analysis of the characteristics of test object surface by reducing the processing demands while obtaining accurate and reliable results.
As of claim 4, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein 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 (¶0048).
As of claim 5, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the property of the particulate material comprises a property of the path thereof within the monitored region (¶0041, 0048).
As of claim 6, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the property of the path comprises a distance to said particulate material relative from the interferometer (¶0045, 0048).
As of claim 7, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the property of the path comprises a speed of said particulate material relative to the interferometer (¶0041).
As of claim 8, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the property of the path comprises a direction of said particulate material relative to the interferometer (¶0041, 0047).
As of claim 9, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the processing module is configured to determine a size and/or a size distribution of said particulate material within the region of space (¶0045).
As of claim 10, Mutlu discloses the self-mixing interferometer wherein the processing module is configured to determine a concentration of said particulate material within the region of space (¶0041, 0047).
As to claim(s) 23, Mutlu discloses method for monitoring particulate material within a monitored region of space using self-mixing interferometry comprising:
providing an interferometer comprising a laser cavity assembly (The self-mixing interferometry sensor 402 may include an electromagnetic radiation source 416… in fig. 4, [¶0049]) and
an optical assembly (404, one or more optical elements); bathing the monitored region with laser light of the interferometer ([¶0048]);
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 (¶0050);
by a processing module (circuitry (e.g., an ASIC or processor) associated with a self-mixing interferometry sensor…¶0072) determining a property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to a structure in data describing (FIGS. 4-8B. However, the self-mixing interference signal provided by the self-mixing interferometry sensor 402 may include particle speed information for particles passing through each of the measurement regions 414-1, 414-2, 414-3…¶0066) (¶0072-0073).
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
Mutlu discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “the interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency”.
However, Freishlad from the same field of endeavor discloses a processor (17) (¶0113 @fig.1) wherein an interferometric signal in a frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a waveform of changing frequency (the interferometry signal and/or the data acquired from it are transformed into an n-dimensional function comprising an independent frequency variable and an independent time variable. According to another related aspect of the invention, the interferometry signal and/or data from it are transformed to an n-dimensional function having an independent scale variable and an independent time variable…¶0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu such that the interferometric signal in the frequency-space transformation thereof wherein at least the part of the interferometric signal comprises the waveform of changing frequency; as taught by Freishlad, for the advantages such as: ensures effective, quick and accurate non-contact analysis of the characteristics of test object surface by reducing the processing demands while obtaining accurate and reliable results.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutlu et al. in view of Freishlad et al. and further in view of RAKIC et al. (US 20160202180 A1) (herein after RAKIC).
As of claims 11-12, Mutlu when modified by Freishlad discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The self-mixing interferometer according to claim 1, wherein 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 self-mixing interferometer according to claim 1, wherein 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.”.
However, RAKIC from the same field of endeavor discloses a voltage waveform signal (34) 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 (¶0078); 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 (¶0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu when modified by Freishlad such that the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit comprises the voltage waveform signal at least the part of which continuously changes in frequency and corresponds to the voltage across the electrical drive terminals of the laser cavity of the laser cavity assembly; the interferometric signal generated by the interferometer and acquired by the laser monitoring unit comprises the optical output power signal at least the part of which continuously changes in frequency and corresponds to the optical output power of the laser cavity of the laser cavity assembly; as taught by RAKIC, for the advantages such as: determine phase and amplitude changes associated with material properties of the target.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutlu et al. in view of Freishlad et al. and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 20120062876 A1) (herein after Bennett).
As of claim 16, Mutlu when modified by Freishlad discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The self-mixing interferometer according to claim 1, wherein said waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a chirped waveform.”.
However, Bennett from the same field of endeavor discloses a waveform within at least a part of the interferometric signal comprises a chirped waveform (¶0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu when modified by Freishlad such that said waveform within at least the part of the interferometric signal comprises the chirped waveform; as taught by Bennett, for the advantages such as: to provide a time-scaled replica of the intensity and/or frequency information contained in one or more received desired signals.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutlu et al. in view of Freishlad et al. and further in view of Hill (US 20070279637 A1) (herein after Hill).
As of claims 17-19, Mutlu when modified by Freishlad discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The self-mixing interferometer according to claim 1, wherein 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.
The self-mixing interferometer according to claim 17, wherein the two or more laser beams are configured to overlap within the monitored region to define an overlap region and the 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 self-mixing interferometer according to claim 17, wherein the 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”.
However, Hill from the same field of endeavor discloses a laser cavity assembly is configured to output two or more laser beams comprising different respective cross-sectional beam shapes and/or different beam directions (¶0088-0089); wherein the two or more laser beams are configured to overlap within the monitored region to define an overlap region and the 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 (¶0006, 0094; 0096);
the 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 (¶0110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Mutlu when modified by Freishlad such that the laser cavity assembly is configured to output two or more laser beams comprising different respective cross-sectional beam shapes and/or different beam directions; the two or more laser beams are configured to overlap within the monitored region to define the overlap region and the processing module is configured to determine the 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 processing module is configured to determine the property of the particulate material within the monitored region according to differences in said respective cross-sectional beam shapes; as taught by Hill, for the advantages such as: in order to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 15, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the 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” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877