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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: coupling interface (Claim 16); optical component (Claim 16), positioning element (Claim 23); orientation means (Claim 27).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the orientation means (Claim 27; no reference number in the figures) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 16-17, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eklin et al. (2004/0051866).
Claim 16
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) an exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) for an optical emission spectrometer (Para. 0001, 0042-0043), comprising: a sample carrier (Ref. 5, Ref. 502; end of the shielding tube) defining a sample plane (sample plane would be the perpendicular area at the end of shielding tube Ref. 502) for positioning a sample (Fig. 1, Ref. 102) to be analyzed (Fig. 2, Ref. 207), said sample carrier having an aperture (Fig. 5, Ref. 502, shielding tube creates an aperture); an electrode (Fig. 5, Ref. 501) arranged in a distance to the sample plane (distance between Ref. 501 and the end of Ref. 502) in the region of the aperture (Fig. 5, Ref. 502 shielding tube creating an aperture) such that a spark can be generated between the electrode (Fig. 5, Ref. 501) and a sample (Fig. 1, Ref. 102) positioned in the sample plane for emitting light (Para. 0002-0003); and, a coupling interface (Fig. 5, Ref. 510) for mechanically coupling the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) with the optical emission spectrometer (See Fig. 6; Para. 0043), wherein the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) further comprises an optical component (Fig. 6, Ref. 509) for influencing the emitted light (Para. 0040-0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
768
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 17
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the exchangeable spark unit comprises a mirror as the optical component (See Fig. 1, Ref. 106).
Claim 26
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) comprises fixing means (Fig. 5, Ref. 510; attachment means) for mechanically fixing the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) to an optical emission spectrometer in a mechanically coupled state (Para. 0042), in particular including one or more screws, and/or that the exchangeable spark unit comprises a positioning pin or a receiving space for receiving a positioning pin for positioning the exchangeable spark unit with respect to the optical emission spectrometer (Fig. 5, Ref. 510; attachment means acts like positioning pin for attaching the attachment head; para. 0042-0043).
Claim 27
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) comprises an orientation means (See Fig. 5, flat surface that runs across between Ref. 510) to reach a defined angular orientation (attaching Ref. 601 will define an angular orientation) between the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 601) and the spectrometer when in a mechanically coupled state (Para. 0043).
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) 18-20, 24-25, 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklin et al. (2004/0051866).
Claim 18
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the claimed invention except for the exchangeable spark unit includes a first hollow space for light to pass from the spark to be generated to the mirror and a second hollow space for light to pass from the mirror towards a light outlet of the exchangeable spark unit, wherein an angle a between a longitudinal extension of the first hollow space and a longitudinal extension of the second hollow space is between 45 and 120 degrees, in particular between 90 and 110 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with angle alignments listed above since it was well known in the art that different angles are necessary to separate the emitted light into its components and therefore optimize the signal-to-noise ratio for accurate measurements. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 19-20
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the claimed invention except for the mirror is configured to reflect incident light having an angle between 5 and 20 degrees with respect to the sample plane and/or that the mirror is arranged such that light reflected by the mirror runs essentially vertically downwards. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with the mirror angles listed above since it was well known in the art that mirror angles are crucial for efficient light collection, precise focusing, proper alignment of the optical path, therefore providing optimal spectral resolution. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 24-25
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the claimed invention except for the exchangeable spark unit comprises a gas inlet arranged in the second hollow space; the exchangeable spark unit comprises a gas outlet arranged in a third hollow space through which the electrode extends. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with gas inlet/outlets since it was well known in the art that strategically positioning inlets and outlets around the electrode and sample help manage the spark chamber atmosphere and sample residue, therefore maintaining analytical accuracy and instrument longevity. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 28
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the claimed invention except for the sample carrier is made from an electrically conductive material and comprises an electrical contact for applying an electrical potential to the sample positioned on the sample carrier via the sample carrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with electrically conductive material and applying electrical potential to the sample since it was well known in the art that that using electrically conductive material helps facilitate the electrical discharge and the electrical potential acts as the primary energy source to transform a solid sample into light-emitting plasma, therefore making it necessary for analysis. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 29
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the claimed invention except for an optical emission spectrometer, in particular a Czerny-Turner spectrometer, wherein the optical emission spectrometer comprises a coupling interface to which the coupling interface of the exchangeable spark unit can be mechanically coupled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with a Czerny-Turner spectrometer since it was well known in the art that such spectrometer serves critical functions regarding the electrode-sample interface, therefore providing efficient light collection and collimation and aberration correction for better resolution. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 30-31
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) discloses the claimed invention except for detecting the distance between the electrode and the sample plane and, if the distance deviates from a desired distance, adjusting a mounting position of the electrode; detecting a height of the exchangeable spark unit and, if the height deviates from a desired height, adjusting the height of the exchangeable spark unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with detecting a distance or height of the electrode or exchangeable spark unit since it was well known in the art that monitoring or adjusting distance or height of the electrode or spark unit is critical for ensuring measurement reproducibility, accuracy, and efficiency, therefore preventing short circuits and atmosphere contamination. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) in view of DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820).
Claim 21
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show the exchangeable spark unit comprises a window for allowing light to pass towards the optical emission spectrometer while closing a hollow space for light to pass through the exchangeable spark unit. DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820) shows that it is known to provide the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) comprises a window (Fig. 1, Ref. 30) for allowing light to pass towards the optical emission spectrometer while closing a hollow space for light to pass through the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) for a spark emission spectrometer with separable spark chamber. It would have been obvious to combine the device of Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with the window of DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of allowing light of the relevant wavelength to pass through to the detector and therefore protecting the sensitive internal optics from the sample and the potential harsh environment in the sample chamber.
Claim 22
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) and DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820) discloses the claimed invention except for the window is configured as a further optical component, in particular as a filter that allows only a part of the incident light to be passed to the optical emission spectrometer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) and DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820) with filter window since it was well known in the art that using a filter window will isolate specific wavelengths emitted by the sample and blocking intense background light, therefore improving the signal-to-noise ratio and enhancing spectral resolution. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known
Claim 23
Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show a bearing surface and the exchangeable spark unit comprises a positioning element for positioning the bearing surface in the exchangeable spark unit such that the distance between the electrode and the sample plane is determined by the positioning element. DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820) shows that it is known to provide a bearing surface (Fig. 1, Ref. 12) and the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) comprises a positioning element (Fig. 1, Ref. 13) for positioning the bearing surface (Fig. 1, Ref. 12) in the exchangeable spark unit (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) such that the distance between the electrode (Fig. 1, Ref. 13) and the sample plane is determined by the positioning element (Fig. 1, Ref. 13) for a spark emission spectrometer with spark chamber. It would have been obvious to combine the device of Eklin et al. (2004/0051866) with the bearing surface and positioning element of DOMINICK et al. (2021/0285820) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a stable repeatable high-energy discharge that vaporizes and excites atoms consistently, therefore minimizing losses and ensures consistent atomization/excitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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 at 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 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 8, 2026