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 .
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 21, 23-26 and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10-12, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, 14, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 19 and 27-29 is objected to.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 14-16, 21, 23-26, and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, 19-20, and 27-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,862. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the patented claims.
Claims 1, 6, and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 22, 37 and 40 of co-pending Application No. 18/774,723 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6-8, 18 and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 30, 32-33 and 35-37 of co-pending Application No. 18/821,845 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 18 and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 22-28 of co-pending Application No. 18/762,420 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20, 22 and 25 of co-pending Application No. 18/892,075 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 6-9 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 18, and 20-25 of co-pending Application No. 18/930,095 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8, 12, 18 and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 25, and 27-29 of co-pending Application No. 19/020,938 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/187,630 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-12, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,193,690 to Levenson et al.
In regards to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-12, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26 and 31-32, Levenson discloses and shows in Figures 3-4, a system and method comprising:
a first light source (10) configured to produce a first beam of light at a first frequency (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59);
a second light source (16) configured to produce a second beam of light at a second frequency, wherein the first and second frequencies are offset by a frequency offset Ω (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59);
one or more optical elements configured to:
direct the first and second beams of light to a sample (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59); and
collect a Raman signal produced by the sample in response to the first and second beams of light (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59);
an optical receiver configured to detect the Raman signal, the optical receiver comprising:
a third light source (60) configured to produce a third beam of light at a third frequency (col. 6, ll. 4-11); and
one or more optical detectors (24), wherein each detector is configured to coherently mix a portion of the Raman signal with at least a portion of the third beam of light to produce an electronic signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42), wherein the portion of the Raman signal that is coherently mixed with the third beam of light comprises optical frequency components of the Raman signal within a particular frequency range of the third frequency, wherein the particular frequency range is based on an electronic bandwidth of the detector (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; wherein the system is configured to detect “particular Raman modes” by a “means for detecting”; further a detector will inherently have a detection bandwidth); and
a processor (28) configured to determine a characteristic of the electronic signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42);
[claim 2] wherein the particular frequency range extends from approximately ν3 − Δf to approximately ν3 + Δf, wherein ν3 is the third frequency, and Δf is the electronic bandwidth of the detector (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; wherein the system is configured to detect “particular Raman modes” by a “means for detecting”; further a detector will inherently have a detection bandwidth);
[claim 7] wherein: the electronic signal comprises a photocurrent signal produced by the detector (col. 3, ll. 25-59); and the optical receiver further comprises: an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the photocurrent signal to produce a voltage signal corresponding to the photocurrent signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59); and a digitizer configured to produce a digital representation of the voltage signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59; wherein the detector provides a signal to be integrated and amplified, and then displayed on a monitor, such as an oscilloscope);
[claim 8] wherein the processor is configured to determine the characteristic of the electronic signal based on the digital representation of the voltage signal, wherein the characteristic of the electronic signal comprises one or more of: a peak amplitude, an average amplitude, an amplitude at a particular frequency, an amplitude at a particular time, an amplitude at a frequency center, an amplitude at a temporal center, an area, a frequency, a phase, and a polarization (col. 3, ll. 25-59; wherein oscilloscopes are understood to provide wave representations of obtained signals, which include an amplitude, frequency, and phase);
[claim 10] wherein the processor is further configured to associate a Raman frequency shift with the determined characteristic of the electronic signal, wherein the Raman frequency shift equals ν1 − ν3, wherein ν1 is the first frequency, and ν3 is the third frequency (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37);
[claim 11] wherein the electronic signal comprises a photocurrent signal corresponding to the coherent mixing of the portion of the Raman signal and the third beam of light (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; col. 4, ll. 37-43);
[claim 12] wherein the electronic signal comprises a coherent-mixing term that is proportional to a product of (i) an amplitude of an electric field of the Raman signal and (ii) an amplitude of an electric field of the third beam of light (col. 4, ll. 14-43) (Equation 1);
[claim 16] wherein:
the third frequency is ν3 (col. 5, ll. 39 to col. 6, ll. 15);
the third light source is further configured to change the frequency of the third beam of light by a frequency change ΔF to a frequency ν3+ΔF (col. 5, ll. 39 to col. 6, ll. 15);
the detector is further configured to coherently mix another portion of the Raman signal with at least a portion of the third beam of light at the frequency ν3+ΔF to produce another electronic signal (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; col. 5, ll. 39 to col. 6, ll. 15); and
the processor is further configured to determine a characteristic of the another electronic signal (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42);
[claim 17] wherein:
the third light source comprises a wavelength-tunable laser, wherein the third light source is further configured to sequentially change the frequency of the third beam of light to a plurality of different frequencies (col. 5, ll. 39 to col. 6, ll. 15);
the detector is further configured to coherently mix another portion of the Raman signal with at least a portion of one of the different frequencies of the third beam of light to produce a corresponding one of a plurality of electronic signals (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; col. 5, ll. 39 to col. 6, ll. 15); and
the processor is further configured to determine a characteristic of each of the plurality of electronic signals (col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42);
[claim 18] wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the determined characteristics of the electronic signals, (i) whether a particular material is present in the sample or (ii) an amount or a concentration of the particular material in the sample (col. 1, ll. 13-68; col. 2, ll. 4-37; col. 6, ll. 12-15);
[claim 20] wherein the processor is further configured to determine a Raman spectrum based on the determined characteristics of the electronic signals (col. 1, ll. 27 to col. 2, ll. 37; col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42);
[claim 21] wherein: the frequency offset Ω is approximately equal to a vibrational frequency of a particular material; and the processor is further configured to determine an amount or a concentration of the particular material in the sample based on the determined Raman spectrum (col. 1, ll. 13-68; col. 2, ll. 4-37; col. 6, ll. 12-15);
[claim 22] wherein the first light source or the second light source comprises a wavelength-tunable laser, wherein the frequency offset Ω is adjustable by changing a wavelength of the wavelength-tunable laser (col. 5, ll. 39 to col. 6, ll. 15);
[claims 24, 25, 26] wherein: the frequency offset Ω is approximately equal to a vibrational frequency of a particular material; and the processor is further configured to determine, based on the characteristic of the electronic signal, (i) whether the particular material is present in the sample or (ii) an amount or a concentration of the particular material in the sample (col. 1, ll. 13-68; col. 2, ll. 4-37; col. 6, ll. 12-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of US Patent 5,565,982 to Lee et al.
In regards to claims 3-6 and 9, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising:
[claim 3] wherein the electronic signal produced by the detector comprises one or more electronic frequency components, each electronic frequency component having a frequency less than or equal to Δf, wherein Δf is the electronic bandwidth of the detector;
[claim 4] wherein the detector has an electronic bandwidth between approximately 100 megahertz (MHz) and approximately 10 gigahertz (GHz);
[claim 5] wherein the electronic signal comprises one or more electronic frequency components less than or equal to approximately 10 gigahertz (GHz);
[claim 6] wherein the detector comprises a PN photodiode, PIN photodiode, avalanche photodiode (APD), single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD), silicon photomultiplier (SiPM), or photomultiplier tube (PMT);
[claim 9] wherein the voltage signal is a time-domain signal, and the processor is further configured to determine a Fourier transform of the digital representation of the voltage signal to determine a frequency-domain representation of the voltage signal.
However, Lee teaches and shows in Figure 1, a time-resolved spectroscopy system and method, which utilizes digital processing elements and techniques (abstract). The system further comprises various well-known light sources, detectors and processing techniques, such as avalanche photodiodes (APD), tunable laser diodes and Fourier transform processing (col. 4, ll. 40 to col. 5, ll. 15; col. 8, ll. 7-20; col. 10, ll. 1-53). The laser diodes are explicitly disclosed as having a wavelength range between 750-820 nm; and the APD detectors are explicitly disclosed as having: a bandwidth of 2-3 gigahertz; and a spectral response range from 350 nm to 1,050 nm. The APD detectors are explicitly disclosed as being commercially available (col. 10, ll. 12-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the well-known light sources, detectors and processing methods discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical elements to obtain a desired or optimized system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of US Publication 2017/0052015 to Swanson et al.
In regards to claim 14, Levenson discloses a heterodyne Raman spectroscopy system that may utilize a tunable laser source (col. 5, ll. 39-42).
Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 14] wherein the first, second, or third frequency is adjustable over a frequency range corresponding to a wavelength range having a width between approximately 10 nanometers (nm) and approximately 100 nm.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which may utilize a tunable laser source that may have a scan range of 100 nm.
Further, it has been held that finding the optimal or working ranges of a variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the tunable laser source discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical components to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of US Publication 2009/0213370 to Kim et al.
In regards to claim 30, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system wherein:
the optical receiver is further configured to detect residual light from the first beam of light after the first beam of light has interacted with the sample, wherein the optical receiver further comprises: a fourth light source configured to produce a fourth beam of light at a fourth frequency, wherein the fourth frequency is within 50 GHz of the first frequency; and an additional optical detector configured to coherently mix at least a portion of the residual light with at least a portion of the fourth beam of light to produce an additional electronic signal; and the processor is further configured to determine a characteristic of the additional electronic signal.
However, Kim teaches and shows in Figure 7, a coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering spectrometer which utilizes a pump light source, a Stokes light source, a first reference light source, a second reference light source and a plurality of detectors (par. 17, 56-64); wherein the plurality of reference light sources provide reference light at frequencies above and below an anti-Stokes frequency and provide the advantage of simultaneously examining both spectral regions of a sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the light sources and detectors discussed above for the advantage of simultaneously examining spectral regions of a sample above and below an anti-Stokes frequency, to obtain a desired or optimized system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of “Terahertz Coherent Raman Spectrscopy of Dimethyl Sulfoxide and Water Mixtures Using Frequency Chirped Pulses” by Nakae et al.
In regards to claim 23, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 23] wherein the frequency offset Ω is between approximately 5 terahertz (THz) and approximately 100 THz.
However, Nakae teaches and shows in Figure 1, a Raman spectroscopy system and method which utilizes light in the Terahertz frequency region below 25 THz (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the Terahertz radiation discussed above for the advantage of imaging desired molecular interactions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, 19 and 27-29 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.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, the Raman spectroscopy system further comprising the “coherent-mixing term” described by the mathematical equation, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to claims 15, 19, 27-29, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, the Raman spectroscopy system further comprising the specific light source frequency limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877