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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims Status
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC §101 Claim Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claims below are considered to be in a statutory category (process or machine).
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claim 1 includes abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) below.
“1. A method for fitting a spectrum in an off-axis integrated cavity disturbed by radio frequency noise, comprising:
setting a single mode output light field of a laser;
obtaining a maximum cutoff frequency and a power spectral density of radio frequency white noise generated by a radio frequency noise source, and converting a disturbance of the radio frequency white noise in electricity to a phase disturbance of the light field to obtain a converted power spectral density;
determining a laser power spectrum according to the set light field, and the maximum cutoff frequency and the converted power spectral density of the radio frequency white noise;
obtaining a length and a cavity mirror reflectivity of an off-axis integrated cavity system, and an initial light intensity and a real-time light intensity when the off-axis integrated cavity system runs; and
constructing a forward fitting model containing a spectral absorption coefficient of the radio frequency white noise when the cavity mirror reflectivity of the off-axis integrated cavity system approaches 1, the forward fitting model being represented as a functional relationship of a spectral absorption coefficient inside the cavity and the laser power spectrum, the length of the off-axis integrated cavity system, and the initial light intensity and the real-time light intensity when the off-axis integrated cavity system runs.”
The highlighted steps indicated as abstract ideas are considered to be equivalent to mathematical steps and fundamental aspect of mathematics or directed to mental processes performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation and opinion).
The step of “setting a single mode output light field of a laser” is directed to an abstract idea, namely the step comprising the mathematical equation (1) from Specification para [0024], and [0025]. The “determining” step and the “constructing a forward fitting model” step are also mathematical calculations and/or mental processes.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claims are not directed to any particular practical application.
The additional elements in the claim, namely the “obtaining” steps, are just data gathering steps which are necessary to carry out the mathematical calculations, so they are insignificant extra solution activity. The claim does not recite a particular machine that carries out the steps of the method, nor does it produce a real-world transformation of any particular article.
Under step 2B, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons given with regard to the prong 2 analysis. Claim 1 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-6 merely extend the details of the abstract idea with more details of the mathematical concepts, so they are not integrated into a particular practical application either.
Claim 7 comprises further additional elements, namely “a processor”, “a memory” and “processor being connected to the memory through a communication bus, wherein the processor is configured to call and execute a program stored in the memory; and the memory is configured to store the program”. This is merely adding generic computer components of a processing system to be used as a tool to carry out the method. The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 2-7 are similarly rejected as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Qixin et al., “Off-axis integrated cavity output spectroscopy for real-time methane measurements with an integrated wavelength-tunable light source” discloses 2. Theory:
a laser beam is directed into the cavity with the off-axis manner, the laser beam is reflected alternately by the two cavity mirrors. When the re-entrant condition (0<(1-L/R1)(1-L/r2)<1, where L is the cavity length, R1 and R2 are the radii of curvature of the cavity mirrors) is satisfied, the transmission light intensity of the empty cavity can be written
PNG
media_image1.png
39
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Io is the incident laser power, Cp is the cavity coupling parameter, R is the reflection coefficient of the cavity mirror, T is the transmission coefficient of the cavity mirror, c is the speed of light and τ represents the cavity ring down time.
Jingjing Wang, et.al., High-sensitivity off-axis integrated cavity output spectroscopy implementing wavelength modulation and white noise perturbation” discloses a power-adjustable RF white noise source (Shenzhen Dakofeng Technology Co., Ltd. NF-1000) was used to generate white noise at different power levels within the bandwidth of 10 MHz to 1.0 GHz. The RF white noise was first filtered with a 70 MHz low-pass filter (Crystek Corporation, CLPFL-0070-BNC) and then injected into the current control terminal of the laser via a bias-tee (Thorlabs, LM14S2-BT). The low cutoff frequency of the bias-T is 500 MHz. An InGaAs photodetector (Thorlabs, FGA10) was used to receive the output signal from the OA-ICOS cavity. The signal from the photodetector was sent to a lock-in amplifier for demodulation. The second harmonic () signal from the demodulation was digitalized through an acquisition card (NI 6210) and transmitted to a laptop for trace gas concentration retrieval (See page 4, lines 1-9).
Paul et al., (Pat.6795190B1) disclose Col. 6, lines 2-15, where following rate equation describing the change in the intracavity power
PNG
media_image2.png
51
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where Il is the incident laser power, Cp us a cavity coupling parameter, R and T are the mirror intensity reflection and transmission coefficients, L is the cavity length, and c is the speed of light. The factor of 2 in the loss term accounts for the fact that the light leaves through both mirrors, while only enters through one. Cp has a value between 0 and 1, and generally depends on the mode quality of the light source and the degree of mode matching between the cavity and the laser.
Baer (US Pub.20070076209A1) discloses the light is introduced into the cavity in an off-axis alignment to systematically eliminate cavity resonances, while preserving the absorption signal amplifying properties of such cavities. Hydrogen absorption is measured is terms of cavity output, as in the ICOS technique (Abstract).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of fitting spectrum in an off-axis integrated cavity distributed by radio frequency noise having the steps of:
“constructing a forward fitting model containing a spectral absorption coefficient of the radio frequency white noise when the cavity mirror reflectivity of the off-axis integrated cavity system approaches 1, the forward fitting model being represented as a functional relationship of a spectral absorption coefficient inside the cavity and the laser power spectrum, the length of the off-axis integrated cavity system, and the initial light intensity and the real-time light intensity when the off-axis integrated cavity system runs.”
Claim 1 is therefore distinguishable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-7 are similarly distinguishable over prior art as being dependent from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights