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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 26-27, 33-34, and 37-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, Line 3- The Examiner assumes that “second group of reflecting surface” should actually be --second group of reflecting surfaces--.
Claim 27, Line 2- The Examiner assumes that “one of absorption wavelengths” should actually be --one of the absorption wavelengths--.
Claim 33, Line 3- The Examiner assumes that “window, and” should actually be --window[[,]; and--.
Claim 34, Line 6- The Examiner assumes that “detector; and” should actually be --detector; [[and]]--.
Claim 34, Line 8- The Examiner assumes that “detector.” should actually be --detector[[.]; and--.
Claim 37, Line 3- The Examiner assumes that “reflector comprises a first group” should actually be --reflector comprising--.
Claim 38, Line 2- The Examiner assumes that “one of absorption wavelengths” should actually be --one of the absorption wavelengths--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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 21-26 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (US 7,705,988), hereinafter Richman, in view of Magnussen, Jr. et al. (US 5,148,239, disclosed in IDS 15 November 2024), hereinafter Magnussen.
Claim 21: Richman discloses a method of analyzing constituents in a gas flow (405) (using the apparatus of Fig. 22) (Col. 1, Lines 14-17), the method comprising:
transmitting a beam of light emitted by a light emitter (401/414) through the gas flow (405) (Col. 21, Lines 63-67);
focusing a first portion of the beam of light transmitted through the gas flow (405) on a first light detector (407) (Col. 22, Lines 3-6);
focusing a second portion of the beam of light transmitted through the gas flow (405) on a second light detector (423) (Col. 22, Lines 3-6); and
analyzing (at 426) constituents in the gas flow (405) based on a first signal received from the first light detector (407) and a second signal received from the second light detector (423) (Col. 22, Lines 6-9).
Richman is silent with respect to redirecting the first and second portions of the beam transmitted through the gas flow onto, respectively, first and second light detectors.
Magnussen, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical flow cell detection, discloses a method (using apparatus 10, Fig. 1a) comprising:
transmitting a beam of light (20) emitted by a light emitter (12) (Col. 3, Lines 50-55);
redirecting the beam of light (22) on a first light detector (30) (Col. 3, Lines 50-55); and
redirecting the beam of light (24) on a second light detector (32) (Col. 3, Lines 50-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method by redirecting the first and second portions of the beam of light for the purpose of practicing gas analysis with an apparatus that is more compact.
Claim 22: Richman discloses estimating a concentration of a target gas molecule (Col. 5, Lines 45-48), but is silent with respect to an electronic processor connected to the first and second light detectors.
Magnussen, however, discloses, by an electronic processor (implicit) connected to the first light detector (30) and the second light detector (32): generating a differential signal using a first signal received from the first light detector (30) and a second signal received from the second light detector (32) (Magnussen: Col. 5, Lines 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method with an electronic processor to generate a differential signal for the purpose of ascertaining information about the constituents in the gas flow.
Claim 23: Richman further discloses wherein analyzing constituents in the gas flow (405) comprises detecting molecules in the gas flow (405) based on their absorption wavelength bands using the differential signal (well-known gas detection method: “Then the quantity of target gas in the transmission path through the sample can be determined by measuring the change in received intensity when the laser's wavelength corresponds to the wavelength of the optical absorption line of the target gas”, Col. Lines 29-33).
Claim 24: Richman further discloses transforming the beam of light generated by the said light emitter (401/414) into a collimated beam of light (via 404) before transmitting the beam of light through in the gas flow (405) (Col. 21, Lines 63-67).
Claims 25-26: Richman is silent with respect to redirecting and focusing the first and second portions of the beam of light with a concave segmented reflector.
Magnussen, however, discloses wherein redirecting and focusing the first portion (22) and the second portion (24) of the beam of light comprises reflecting the beam of light transmitted through the gas flow off of a concave segmented reflector (18) comprising a first group of reflecting surfaces (S1) and a second group of reflecting surfaces (S2) (Magnussen: Col. 3, Lines 50-55; Col. 4, Lines 3-4),
wherein the first group of reflecting surfaces (S1) and the second group of reflecting surfaces (S2) form a plurality of grooves (evident from Fig. 1a of Magnussen), and a reflecting surface of the first group of reflecting surfaces (S1) or the second group of reflecting surfaces has a parabolic shape (Magnussen: Col. 4, Lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method by using a concave segmented reflector for redirecting and focusing the first and second portions of the beam of light for the purpose of efficiently detecting the transmitted light to accurately characterize the gas flow.
Claim 34: Richman discloses a method of analyzing constituents in a sample (405) (using the apparatus of Fig. 22) (Col. 1, Lines 14-17), the method comprising:
transmitting a beam of light emitted by a light emitter (401/414) through a sample chamber (405) adapted for supporting interaction of the beam of light received from a light emitter (401/414) with the sample (405) (Col. 21, Lines 63-67);
focusing a first portion of the beam of light transmitted through the sample chamber (405) on a first light detector (407) (Col. 22, Lines 3-6);
focusing a second portion of the beam of light transmitted through the sample chamber (405) on a second light detector (423) (Col. 22, Lines 3-6); and
analyzing (at 426) constituents in the sample (405) based on a first signal generated the first light detector (407) and a second signal generated by the second light detector (423) (Col. 22, Lines 6-9).
Richman is silent with respect to redirecting the first and second portions of the beam transmitted through the sample chamber onto, respectively, first and second light detectors.
Magnussen, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical flow cell detection, discloses a method (using apparatus 10, Fig. 1a) comprising:
transmitting a beam of light (20) emitted by a light emitter (12) (Col. 3, Lines 50-55);
redirecting the beam of light (22) on a first light detector (30) (Col. 3, Lines 50-55); and
redirecting the beam of light (24) on a second light detector (32) (Col. 3, Lines 50-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method by redirecting the first and second portions of the beam of light for the purpose of practicing sample analysis with an apparatus that is more compact.
Claim 35: Richman discloses estimating a concentration of a target gas molecule (Col. 5, Lines 45-48), but is silent with respect to an electronic processor connected to the first and second light detectors.
Magnussen, however, discloses, by an electronic processor (implicit) connected to the first light detector (30) and the second light detector (32): generating a differential signal using a first signal received from the first light detector (30) and a second signal received from the second light detector (32) (Magnussen: Col. 5, Lines 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method with an electronic processor to generate a differential signal for the purpose of ascertaining information about the constituents in the gas flow.
Claim 36: Richman further discloses wherein analyzing constituents in the sample (405) comprises detecting molecules in the sample (405) based on their absorption wavelength bands using the differential signal (well-known gas detection method: “Then the quantity of target gas in the transmission path through the sample can be determined by measuring the change in received intensity when the laser's wavelength corresponds to the wavelength of the optical absorption line of the target gas”, Col. 1, Lines 29-33).
Claim 37: Richman, in view of Magnussen, further discloses wherein redirecting and focusing the first portion (22) and the second portion (24) of the beam of light comprises reflecting the beam of light transmitted through the sample off of a concave segmented reflector (18) comprising a first group of reflecting surfaces (S1) and a second group of reflecting surfaces (S2) (Magnussen: Col. 3, Lines 50-55; Col. 4, Lines 3-4).
Claims 27-30, 32-33, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman, in view of Magnussen as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Daniels et al. (US 2006/0009707, disclosed in IDS 15 November 2024), hereinafter Daniels.
Claim 27: Richman is silent with respect to a bandpass filter covering the first light detector.
Daniels, however, in the same field of endeavor of gas measurement systems, discloses wherein a first light detector (340) is covered by a bandpass filter (356) configured to transmit light having wavelengths within at least one of absorption wavelength bands of a target gas molecule [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s first light detector by covering it with a bandpass filter for the purpose of accurately determining in the level of a target gas (Daniels [0070]).
Claims 28-29: Richman does not explicitly disclose the identity of the target gas molecule.
Daniels, however, discloses wherein the target gas molecule is carbon dioxide molecule (Daniels [0070]), wherein the at least one of absorption wavelength bands is located near 4.2 micrometer (implicit since carbon dioxide has an absorption band near 4.2 μm: Daniels [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method to use a carbon dioxide molecule as the target gas molecule for the purpose of using the method in medical applications, such as for a nasal cannula.
Claim 30: Richman does not explicitly disclose wherein a power difference is less than 5% of the total power carried by the beam of light.
Daniels, however, discloses wherein, in the absence of the target molecule in the sample chamber, a difference between the power carried by the first portion of the beam of light and the power carried by the second portion of the beam of light is less than 5% of the total power carried by the beam of light (evident since the absence of the target molecule means there is no significant absorption of the beam of light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method by ensuring a very low power difference for the purpose of accurately determining in the level of a target gas (Daniels [0070]).
Claims 32-33: Richman further discloses wherein the gas flow is supported by a sample chamber (405), the sample chamber (405) configured to enable interaction of the beam of light emitted by the light emitter (401/414) with the gas flow (“the invention can also be beneficially employed in apparatus wherein a sample of gas to be measured is drawn into a sample measurement chamber in order to be illuminated and measured using the approaches described”, Col. 21, Lines 4-8), but does not explicitly disclose that the sample chamber is part of an airway adapter.
Daniels, however, in the same field of endeavor of gas measurement systems, discloses wherein a sample chamber (47) is part of an airway adapter (40, Fig. 3) [0053], wherein the airway adapter comprises:
a gas entrance port (44) and a gas exit port (46) (Daniels [0053]);
an entrance window (58) (Daniels [0054]); and
an exit window (60) to allow transmission of light through the sample chamber (47) along a transverse direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction (Daniels [0054]); and
wherein the sample chamber (47) is configured to support the gas flow along a longitudinal direction from the entrance port (44) to the exit port (46) (Daniels [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s sample chamber to be in an airway adapter for the purpose of applying the method to ensure the air safety of medical patients using a nasal cannula.
Claim 38: Richman is silent with respect to a bandpass filter covering the first light detector.
Daniels, however, in the same field of endeavor of gas measurement systems, discloses wherein a first light detector (340) is covered by a bandpass filter (356) configured to transmit light having wavelengths within at least one of absorption wavelength bands of a target molecule [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s first light detector by covering it with a bandpass filter for the purpose of accurately determining in the level of a target gas (Daniels [0070]).
Claim 39: Richman is silent with respect to wherein the second light detector is covered by a second filter.
Daniels, however, discloses wherein a second light detector (345) is covered by a second filter (358) configured to transmit light having wavelengths not overlapping with the at least one absorption wavelength bands of the target molecule (evident since the second light detector 345 is a reference detector: Daniels [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s second light detector by covering it with a bandpass filter for the purpose of accurately determining in the level of a target gas (Daniels [0070]).
Claim 40: Richman does not explicitly disclose wherein a power difference is less than 5% of the total power carried by the beam of light.
Daniels, however, discloses wherein, in the absence of the target molecule in the sample chamber, a difference between the power carried by the first portion of the beam of light and the power carried by the second portion of the beam of light is less than 5% of the total power carried by the beam of light (evident since the absence of the target molecule means there is no significant absorption of the beam of light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method by ensuring a very low power difference for the purpose of accurately determining in the level of a target gas (Daniels [0070]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman, in view of Magnussen as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kowarz et al. (US 2007/0146700), hereinafter Kowarz.
Claim 31: Richman is silent with respect to forming an anamorphic image.
Kowarz, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging systems, discloses forming an anamorphic image of a radiative region of a light emitter on a light detector (56) [0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richman’s method by forming an anamorphic image on each light detector for the purpose of more easily ascertaining the constituents of the gas flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877