DETAILED ACTION
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 20, 31, 32, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, --a-- should be added before “pump” in line 3; --the-- should be added before “pump” in line 9; and “,” should be deleted from the last line.
In claim 31, --the-- should be added before “sample” in line 2.
In claim 32, --the-- should be added before “changed” in line 3 and before “pump” in the last line.
In claim 37, “wherein” should be deleted from line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-38 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.
In claim 20, it is not clear which one of the first modulation frequency and the second modulation frequency recited in respective lines 2 and 7 is being referred to by a “modulation frequency” of the pump beam recited in line 16.
In claim 32, it is not clear if the step of sweeping a modulation frequency recited in lines 2-4 is in addition the steps recited in base claim 20, or if it describes steps in base claim 20.
In claim 35, is not clear which one of the first modulation frequency and the second modulation frequency recited in line 3 is being referred to by a “modulation frequency” of the pump beam recited in lines 15-16.
Claims 21-31, 33, 34, and 36-38 re rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the following in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims:
A method of measuring a property of a sample, the method comprising determining a first proportionality constant based on the first change in reflectance of the sample versus pump beam power; determining a second proportionality constant based on the second change in reflectance of the sample versus pump beam power; and determining the property of the sample based on the first proportionality constant, the second proportionality constant, and a thermal model, the thermal model being a function of a modulation frequency of the pump beam and a diameter of the pump beam (claim 20).
A system for measuring a property of a sample, the system comprising a processor, operably coupled to the detector, to determine a first proportionality constant based on the first change in magnitude of the reflected probe beam, a second proportionality constant based on the second change in magnitude of the reflected probe beam, and the property of the sample based on the first proportionality constant, the second proportionality constant, and a thermal model, the thermal model being a function of a modulation frequency of the pump beam, a diameter of the pump beam, and a diameter of the probe beam (claim 35).
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon by the examiner are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure by disclosing measuring a thermal property of a sample, but do not disclose the allowable subject matter stated above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
7/15/26
Prosecution Insights