DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 (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.
Response to Restriction Requirement
2. Applicant's election of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-20, is acknowledged. Claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-20 are now subject to examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 33 of page 4, "5A" should be changed to --5B--. On line 3 of page 7, the word --plasma-- should be inserted after "mode". On line 18 of page 7, the word --the-- should be inserted before "size". On line 21 of page 7, the word "implementation" should be changed to --implementations--, and note that the same change should also be made on line 25 of this page. On line 3 of page 8, "FIGURE 2" should be changed to
--FIGURES 2A and 2B--, and note that the same change should also be made on lines 17, 18, 29 and 31 of this page. On line 19 of page 9, the word "implementations" should be changed to --implementation--. On line 23 of page 9, the word "electrode" should be changed to --electrodes--. On line 24 of page 9, "FIGURE" should be changed to
--FIGURES--. On line 25 of page 9, "1A" should be changed to --2A--. On line 31 of page 9, "240" should be changed to --300--, and on line 35 of page 9, "FIGURE" should be changed to --FIGURES--. On line 18 of page 10, the word "FIGURES" is misspelled. On line 34 of page 10, the word "for" should be changed to --of--. On line 5 of page 11, "FIGURE" should be changed to --FIGURES--, and note that the same change is also needed on lines 6, 7 and 16 of this page. On line 6 of page 11, "1A" should be changed to --2A-- (both occurrences), and note that the same change is also needed on line 13 of this page. On line 10 of page 12, the word "comprise" should be changed to
--comprises--, and also on this page, the word "than" should be changed to --as--. On line 25 of page 12, "FIGURE" should be changed to --FIGURES--. On line 7 of page 13, "FIGURE" should again be changed to --FIGURES--, and note that the same change should also be made on line 16 of this page. On line 18 of page 13, "(" should be deleted. On line 21 of page 13, "1 to 4, 6" should be changed to --2A to 4, 6A, 6B--. On line 7 of page 14, "complimentary" should be changed to --complementary--. On line 32 of page 15, the first occurrence of the word "or" should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On the first line of claim 15, the word --for-- should be inserted after "method", and also on this line, a paragraph break should be inserted before the word "generating".
On the last line of claim 15, the word "at" should be changed to --a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On the last line of claim 11, the recitation of "0.2 to 20 mm, such as 0.5 to 10 millimeters" is indefinite because it cannot be determined if applicant is claiming the distance from the electrode to the discharge gap being 0.2 to 20 mm or the distance from the electrode to the discharge gap being 0.5 to 10 millimeters. In order to overcome this rejection, claim 11 should be amended so as to delete either "0.2 to 20 mm" or "0.5 to 10 mm". Note the same problem on the last two lines of claim 12, i.e., claim 12 should be amended so as to delete either "greater than 5 Watt" or "greater than 8 Watt".
On line 3 of claim 15, "the power supply to the plasma" lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopwood, U.S. Patent No. 7,728,253.
As to claim 1, Hopwood discloses, in figure 7,
a system for spectrometry of a sample in a plasma (the recitation of "for spectrometry of a sample in a plasma" is just intended use preamble language), comprising:
a split ring resonator (SRR), having a discharge gap (note the discharge gap between first and second arms 15 of Hopwood's split ring resonator, i.e., where the plasma 12 is formed);
an electrode (72) arranged in proximity to, but spaced apart from, the discharge gap such that, when sufficient power is supplied to a plasma generated in the discharge gap, the plasma extends towards and couples with the electrode, so that the plasma is established in a region between the discharge gap and the electrode (note that during operation of Hopwood's figure 7 system, when sufficient power is supplied to plasma 12 which is generated in the discharge gap, the plasma 12 will extend towards and couple with the either of the two electrodes 72, so that the plasma 12 is established in a region between the discharge gap and electrodes 72); and
a delivery system, for introduction of a sample into the plasma established in the region between the discharge gap and the electrode (note that in Hopwood's figure 7 system there will inherently be a delivery system for introduction of the gas sample referred to in column 2, on lines 61-62 thereof);
wherein the system is configured to direct an output from the plasma to a spectrometer for analysis (the recitation of the system being configured to direct an output from the plasma to a spectrometer for analysis is similarly just a statement of intended use, note applicant's claim 7 as evidence of this).
As to claim 5, the above-noted inherent delivery system in Hopwood's figure 7 system will inherently comprise a conduit for passing the above-noted sample therethrough to supply the sample into the plasma 12 which has been established within the region between the discharge gap and electrodes 72.
As to claim 8, the recitation of the output from the plasma being either electromagnetic radiation or ions is again just a statement of intended use, i.e., if the recitation on the last two lines of independent claim 1 is just intended use, then any further description of the output from the plasma is by necessity also just intended use.
As to claim 9, the recitation that the system is for optical emission spectrometry (OES) or mass spectrometry (MS) is again just a statement of intended use, i.e., if the recitation on the first line of independent claim 1 is just intended use, then any further description of of what the system is for is by necessity also just intended use.
As to claim 13, the claimed power supply can be read on the combination of the three components 11, 13 and Bias T shown in figure 7 of Hopwood.
As to claim 14, note that Hopwood's electrodes 72 are for conducting electric current when the system is in use, and note further that electrodes 72 are metallic components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 10-12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopwood, supra.
As to claim 6, although Hopwood does not disclose that split ring resonator SRR comprises a hollow channel arranged therethrough, wherein the hollow channel is configured to supply a gas to the discharge gap, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a split ring resonator typically comprises a hollow channel arranged therethrough, wherein the hollow channel is configured to supply a gas to the discharge gap of the split ring resonator, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Sieber et al (USPAP 2009/0102886), cited on the attached PTO-892 form, note paragraph [0079] of this reference, the motivation for using such a teaching by Sieber et al is to use any specific delivery system for implementing the above-noted inherent delivery system in figure 7 of Hopwood.
As to claim 7, although Hopwood does not disclose the claimed spectrometer arranged to receive the output from plasma 12, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art to use a spectrometer to receive the output from plasma generated by a resonator, note what is indicated in the Background section of the present application, i.e., the description from page 1, line 11 through page 3, line 21.
As to claim 10, although Hopwood does not disclose the claimed optics arranged to direct the output from the plasma to a spectrometer, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art to use optics to direct an output from plasma (such as Hopwood's plasma 12) to a spectrometer, i.e., such was old and well-known in the art when performing optical emission spectrometry (OES), again note what is indicated in the Background section of the present application, i.e., the description from page 1, line 11 through page 3, line 21.
As to claim 11, although Hopwood does not disclose that electrodes 72 shown in figure 7 of this reference are spaced apart from the discharge gap by a distance of 0.2 to 20 mm, or by a distance of 0.5 to 10 mm, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the distance between the electrodes 72 and the above-noted discharge gap could be set to any values desired, note that it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 12, although Hopwood does not disclose that the power supplied by the above-noted power supply is specifically greater than 5 Watts or greater than 8 Watts, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the power provided by the power supply could be set to any value desired, as noted above, that it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claims 15 and 18-20, the limitations of these methods claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 5-14.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-4, 16 and 17 are 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: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the limitation that the delivery system comprises the electrode and the electrode is configured to introduce the sample into the plasma established in the region between the discharge gap and the electrode, as recited in claims 2, 16 and 17, and claims 3 and 4 are allowable in view of their dependencies on allowable claim 2.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 4 of USP 9,054,491 shows another example of a conventional split ring resonator for use in plasma generation.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 March 9, 2026