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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the traverse of the taking of Official notice, the traverse is not found sufficient because Applicant has not stated why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See MPEP 2114.03(C).
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, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, and 13-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “without an active illumination source” which is not described in the specification and is unclear what constitutes an active illumination source and an non-active illumination source. It appears the term “active” means some act is performed that produces light. If so, it appears to conflict with the disclosed “flare” which is made by an act. Furthermore, it is not clear how this imposes a structural limitation to the collimating assembly. The same indefiniteness applies to dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10, 11, and 13.
Claims 1 and 14 recite a newly introduced term “single-element photodetector” and is presumed to be broader than the disclosed “single-pixel photon multispectral imager” and “single detector.” The use of the word “element” does not limit what is and what is not a “single-element photodetector.” This term does not appear to exclude a single linear-array photodetector
Claim 14 is drawn to a method and recites the step of “processing the first beam with a first single-element photodetector….to identify different bands of light to calculate a combustion efficiency” and it is not clear if the step requires the act of identifying the different bands of light and the act of calculating a combustion efficiency. The use of “to identify” and “to calculate” appear to only recite an intention of performing the acts. The acts of identifying and calculating are not listed separately by an indented line and do not use a present participle consistent with the other positively listed steps. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that these acts are not required to be performed.
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.
Claim 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites the detectors to be parts of a detector array while conflicting with claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from and requires that the detectors are single-element photodetectors. The disclosure does not appear to show the combination as required by claim 6.
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) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, and 13-16, as interpreted by the Examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,473,162) in view of Sohma et al. (KR 910006273), Zondlo et al. (US 2022/0187203), Chang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,276,321), and Qing et al. (CN 110361352).
Busch shows an apparatus for infrared emission detection of a gas as follows:
The apparatus comprising:
a collimating assembly having a (collimating lens 427) configured to receive light emitted by the combustion source and producing a collimated beam, wherein the light is received passively from the combustion source (421) without an active illumination source,
PNG
media_image1.png
344
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a splitting assembly comprising:
a first beam splitter (426) configured to accept the collimated beam
a first narrowband filter (428) that receives the first beam, the first narrowband filter allowing light having a wavelength from
a second narrowband filter (402) that receives the third beam, the second narrowband filter allowing light having a wavelength from
a first detector (429) for processing the first beam after the first beam has passed through the first narrowband filter;
a second detector (429) for processing the third beam after the third beam has passed through the second narrowband filter; and
Busch does not show 1) a broadband filter, 2) detection of a third channel (additional beam splitter, filter, and detector), 3) filters with wavelength bands to be 3200 nm to 3400 nm, 4190 nm to 4330 nm, and 4700 nm to 4800 nm, and 4) the collimating lens to be a plurality of lenses.
Detection of additional bands with an additional detection channel:
PNG
media_image2.png
170
208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sohma shows a device for monitoring exhaust gas having a third detection channel (e.g. Fig. 16c). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to add another detection channel with a beam splitter, filter, and detector to the apparatus of Busch in order to detect additional wavelength bands.
Detection of wavelengths 3200 nm to 3400 nm, 4190 nm to 4330 nm, and 4700 nm to 4800 nm:
Zondlo shows a spectroscopic device and an interest in detecting methane which absorbs wavelength of 3300 nm and in the range of 3200 nm to 3400 nm (see paras. [0025], [0083], [0087]) and an interest in detecting carbon monoxide which absorbs wavelengths in the range of 4782 to 4785 nm (see para. [0087]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to select a filter of Chang to allow light of 3200 nm to 3400 nm and another filter to allow light of 4782 to 4785 nm in order to detect methane and carbon monoxide, respectively.
Qing shows an interest to detect carbon dioxide which absorbs 4200 nm to 4300 nm (see passage discussing Figs. 7 or 8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to select a filter of Chang to allow light of 4200 nm to 4300 nm in order to detect carbon dioxide.
Broadband filter and plurality of lenses:
Regarding the broadband filter, it is taken to be admitted prior art that broadband filters for filtering out ambient light of wavelengths outside of interest was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a broadband filter to filter out wavelengths of no interest and/or shape.
Regarding the collimating assembly having a plurality of lenses. it is taken to be admitted prior art that using multiple lenses to collimate light was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use a plurality of lenses in order to select and make adjustable the desired aperture, input and output diameters of the beam, i.e. telescope).
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first beam splitter or the second beam splitter is a dichroic filter or dichroic mirror (Busch does not show that the beam splitters are dichroic filter/mirrors. Sohma shows the use of dichroic filters 490, 491, 492 to split beams. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use dichroic filter in order to predictably split the beams for their respective channels).
5. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the bandpass width of each narrowband filter is lower than or equal to 200 nm (Busch, column 41, lines 9-11).
6. The apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the first beam splitter is a diffraction grating configured to accept and process the collimated beam and produce a diffracted collimated light including the first beam and the second beam (Busch does not show that the beam splitter is a diffraction grating. Official notice is taken that it was well know to use a diffraction grating as a beam splitter. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious predictably use a diffraction grating as the beam splitter of Busch); and
wherein the first detector and the second detector are parts of a detector array (two detectors make up a detector array 80).
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one interest band is a hydrocarbon band, a carbon dioxide band 4190-4330 nm, or a carbon monoxide band (see discussion for claim 1).
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses of the collimating assembly includes a first telescope lens and a second telescope lens, the first telescope lens being configured to accept light from the light source and produce a telescope beam directed to the second telescope lens, the second telescope lens producing the collimated beam (see discussion for claim 1).
10. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a scanning system configured to accept the collimated beam from the collimating assembly and redirect the collimated beam to the broadband filter, wherein the scanning system includes a fast-steering mirror (column 61, lines 24-25: " A computer-controlled scanning monochromator (Zhang, et al., 1992) was used "; Busch does not show a collimating assembly upstream of the fast-steering mirror. It is taken to be admitted prior art that collimating lenses were well known. Chan shows input beam 62 is columnar in Fig. 3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a collimating lens at the entrance of the spectrometer in order collect sufficient amount of light and concentrate the light to the fast-steering mirror).
11. As discussed above for claim 1, Chang, Qing, and Zondlo show all the elements including a scanning mirror but does not show that the scanning mirror is a MEMS scanner. It is taken to be admitted prior art that MEMS scanners were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a MEMS scanner in place of the scanning mirror in order to make the spectrometer smaller.
13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the broadband filter is a dichroic filter (See discussion of claim 1 for the broadband filter. The discussion does not show the broadband filter is a dichroic filter. Official notice is taken that dichroic filters were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use dichroic filters for the predictable result of filtering unwanted wavelengths.
14. (see elements cited for claim 1 above where the recited acts flow from the function of the cited elements).
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising filtering, via a broadband filter, the collimated beam to allow light having a wavelength from 3 pm to 5 pm to pass through the broadband filter and block light having a wavelength below 3 pm or above 5 pm (see discussion of the broadband filter for claim 1 above).
16. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a scanning system configured to accept the collimated beam from the collimating assembly and redirect the collimated beam to the broadband filter, wherein the scanning system includes a dual wedge prism (Busch does not show that the rotating polygon mirror includes a dual wedge prism. Official notice is taken that prismatic mirrors were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use two prismatic mirrors attached together to form the polygon mirror for the ease of using mirrors that are readily available on the market or the predictable result of a polygon mirror.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Do et al. (WO 2021/085716) shows spectroscopic measurement of a flame with two channels by using a beam splitter (160) and two filters (170, 180).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights