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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-15 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.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Lucas does not show “wherein the cylindrical probe is connected to the casing unit so that the center axis is coaxial with the oscillation axis of the laser light”. The applicant argues that the dotted line doesn’t mean it’s necessarily meeting this limitation. However, it’s shown central, and for most optics it would be known to center it around the laser axis if for no reason other than to allow the maximum amount of room on either side through the probe for the beam to travel through. Thus, it appears that should be sufficient to meet the scope.
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: optical fiber light receiver, an angle adjustment mechanism, a spectral optical element, a processor, a cooling mechanism, in claims 1, 7, 8, & 10.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, & 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al (PGPub 2003/0234928) (Lucas) in view of Day et al (US PAT 9,952,100) (Day).
Regarding Claim 1, Lucas discloses an optical device for laser emission spectroscopic analysis, which is used for analyzing a component of molten metal (Fig. 1, Paragraph 28), comprising:
a casing unit (see fig. 1) that has a laser oscillator oscillating laser light (14), a condenser lens (13) condensing the laser light and on which the laser light emitted from the laser oscillator is directly incident, and an optical fiber light receiver (22) receiving light emitted from plasma generated by irradiating the laser light onto the molten metal at a light-receiving end surface (Paragraph 38). The laser light is directly incident on the condenser lens because it is not redirected to other uses or split in any way; and
a cylindrical probe (18) that is connected to the casing unit so that a center axis is parallel to an oscillation axis of the laser light in the laser oscillator (See fig. 1), supplies inert gas to an opening end located downstream of the laser light traveling direction and guides the laser light toward the opening end to irradiate on the molten metal (Paragraphs 38 & 50). A tube describes a cylindrical hollow pipe. The laser and probe are both shown in to extend in the same direction thus the center axis of the probe is parallel to the axis of the laser light in the laser oscillator;
wherein a surface normal direction at the light-receiving end surface of the optical fiber light receiver is parallel to the oscillation axis of the laser light (See fig. 1). Where the fiber is shown interfacing with the casing it meets this limitation;
wherein the cylindrical probe is connected to the casing unit so that the center axis is coaxial with the oscillation axis of the laser light (See fig. 1). The fiber (22) is attached to the case such that the dotted line of the light going into the fiber line is parallel to the dotted line that represents the laser emitting the laser light thus this limitation is met;
Lucas fails to explicitly show the laser oscillator is directly incident without redirection on the condenser lens;
However, Day discloses a handheld libs spectrometer (fig. 1) that directly illuminates a lens (14) without redirection that condenses the light onto a sample (18);
Further, the examiner notes that Day also shows a casing (360, Fig. 18) with a probe (320) attached with aa cylindrical beam channel (326) and a condenser lens (324) where the laser beam (336) is shown coaxial to the center of the channel;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas with the laser oscillator is directly incident without redirection on the condenser lens because this is one of many obvious configurations and would be chosen because it allows for the laser to be directly beamed onto the sample without redirection which might be done for reasons such as packaging constraints or to have as few intervening optics as possible between the beam and the sample to prevent intensity loss.
Regarding Claim 4, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned. Further, Lucas discloses wherein at least a part of the light emission is incident on the light-receiving end surface of the optical fiber light receiver in a state where the light is not condensed. In Lucas the emission light that goes directly through the center of the lens (20) will not be diffracted thus it will not be condensed and this meets the limitation.
Regarding Claim 5, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser oscillator is a diode-pumped laser oscillator;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas as modified by day with wherein the laser oscillator is a diode-pumped laser oscillator because this laser if functionally equivalent to the one disclosed and would be chosen based upon such factors as availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 6, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the condenser lens has an antireflection film on its surface to prevent reflection of the laser light;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas as modified by Day with wherein the condenser lens has an antireflection film on its surface to prevent reflection of the laser light because such coatings are commonplace on lenses and are used because the reduce noise in the measurement caused by those reflections thus improving the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement.
Regarding Claims 8 & 13, Lucas as modified by Day as modified by day discloses the aforementioned. Further, Lucas discloses a spectral optical unit (24) that spectrally disperses the light emission guided by the optical fiber light receiver (Paragraph 43);
a detector (26) that detects the light emission spectrally dispersed by the spectral optical unit (Paragraph 43); and
a component analysis unit (28) that analyzes components of molten metal based on detection results of the light emission by the detector (Paragraphs 38 & 44).
Regarding Claim 9, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned. Further, Lucas discloses wherein the detector is an image intensifier charge-coupled device detector (Paragraph 43).
Regarding Claim 10, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a cooling mechanism that cools an inside of the casing unit;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas as modified by Day with a cooling mechanism that cools an inside of the casing unit because maintaining the temperature in an optical measurement device in a hot environment reduces error and noise in the measurement that those temperatures can cause via such mechanisms as thermal expansion of the lenses and noise induced on the detectors by the heat.
Regarding Claim 11, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose which analyzes molten metal in a plating bath for molten metal plating;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas as modified by Day with which analyzes molten metal in a plating bath for molten metal plating because one would want to analyze the molten liquid in a plating bath for such reasons as quality control of the plating process.
Regarding Claim 12, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned. Further, Lucas discloses wherein the molten metal plating is hot-dip galvanizing (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Lucas as modified by Day as modified by day discloses the aforementioned. Further, Lucas discloses a hot- dip galvanizing equipment to apply hot-dip galvanizing (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 15, Lucas as modified by Day as modified by day discloses the aforementioned. Further, Lucas as modified by Day discloses wherein the surface normal direction at the light-receiving end surface of the optical fiber light receiver is parallel to the oscillation axis of the laser light extending from the laser oscillator to the molten metal, the oscillation axis extending in a constant (or single) direction from the laser oscillator to the molten metal;
This would be obvious in combination given that one would combine Lucas with day one would switch the positions of the laser (14) and the fiber receiver (22) in Lucas and thus producing a surface normal that is also parallel to the oscillation axis;
The reasons for combination remain the same.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas as modified by day in view of Day and further in view of Kim (US PAT 4,986,658) (Kim).
Regarding Claim 3, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the condenser lens is provided at a connection part between the casing unit and the cylindrical probe;
However, Kim discloses an optics block (16) provided at a connection part between the casing unit and the cylindrical probe (See modified Fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
815
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas with wherein the condenser lens is provided at a connection part between the casing unit and the cylindrical probe because using a common set of optics in block allows for a smaller package and lets parts to be aligned.
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Day and further in view of Ishimitsu (PGPub 2020/0064187) (Ishimitsu)
Regarding Claim 7, Lucas as modified by Day discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose an angle adjustment mechanism that adjusts a lens optical axis direction of the condenser lens by changing an attachment angle of the condenser lens;
However, Ishimitsu discloses an angle adjustment mechanism (89) that adjusts a lens optical axis direction of the condenser lens by changing an attachment angle of the condenser lens (Paragraphs 45 & 46);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lucas as modified by Day with an angle adjustment mechanism that adjusts a lens optical axis direction of the condenser lens by changing an attachment angle of the condenser lens because such a mechanism allows for the easy correction of a misaligned lens which improves the quality of the measurement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 October 2, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights