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
Objection to Title
The Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the title, however, the title is still highly vague and only describes the field of endeavor with innumerable number of references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Considering the amendment to claim 5, the rejection of claims 6 and 7 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues applying the light source of Belkin to the device of Kitagishi would destroy the principle operation of Kitagishi’s device. This is not found persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill to modify a quantum cascade laser to operate in pulse mode. See list of citations of relevant art in the Conclusion section below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title is highly vague and provides little informative value for a person of ordinary skill in the art whether the document warrants further review. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
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) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagishi et al. (JP 2014194344) in view of Ozcan et al. (US 2021/0142170), Belkin et al. (US 2015/0311665), and Grundfest et al. (US 2019/0117109).
Kitagishi shows a measurement device using terahertz wave as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1. A spectroscopic analysis device (Abstract) comprising:
a support portion (SMP) that supports a sample so as to include a predetermined support area;
a light source that emits a terahertz wave in a predetermined frequency range (Description of Fig. 3: "The pulsed light source 10 generates pulsed light for driving the emitter unit 40");
a first off-axis parabolic mirror (off-axis parabolic mirror 60) that collimates the terahertz wave emitted from the light source;
a first lens (convex lens 61) that focuses the terahertz wave onto the support area, the terahertz wave being collimated by the first off-axis parabolic mirror; and
a photodetector (antenna unit 50) that detects the terahertz wave with which the sample is irradiated,
an outer diameter of the support area is 0.5 mm or more and 3.5 mm or less (Section G. Measurement example: "The measurement results shown in FIG. 11 are results (time waveform and absorption spectrum) obtained by measuring 2.5 mg of D-maltose powder in a measurement cell 300 (diameter 3 mm)").
As indicated by the strikeouts above, Kitagishi does not show 1) a quantum cascade laser with a movable diffraction grating, 2) the distance from the light source to the sample support, and 3) the diameter of the lens.
Quantum cascade laser with movable grating
Regarding the quantum cascade laser, Belkin shows the generation of terahertz radiation using a difference-frequency generation quantum cascade laser which generates a first light of a first frequency and a second light of a second frequency, and that emits the terahertz wave of a difference frequency between the first frequency and the second frequency (see Abstract) and includes a movable diffraction grating (Para. [0028]: "The external diffraction grating 101 can be manipulated (e.g., mechanical rotation, translation, etc.)").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use Belkin's quantum cascade laser in order to have a source that is widely tunable in the terahertz range (Para. [0009]).
Distance between source and support
Ozcan shows an all-optical Diffractive Deep Neural Network that operates in the terahertz range and teaches, "the distance between the object and the source planes was selected as approximately 81 mm, 173 mm, and 457 mm to provide a beam spot size of ˜20 mm, ˜40 mm, and ˜104 mm". Para. [0144].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to select the distance between the object and source planes to be less than 81mm (or about 12 mm if the same proportions apply) in order to produce a beam spot size corresponding to Kitagishi's 3 mm diameter sample cell.
Lens diameter
Grundfest shows terahertz sensing of corneal tissue water content wherein 50 mm diameter lenses are used to focus the radiation onto the target (Fig. 16B, para. [0201]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to make the focusing lens of Kitagishi to be approximately 50 mm for the predictable result of focusing the beam onto the target.
2. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second lens (Kitagishi lens 63) that collimates the terahertz wave with which the sample is irradiated.
3. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second off-axis parabolic mirror (Kitagishi parabolic mirror 62) that focuses the terahertz wave onto the photodetector, the sample being irradiated with the terahertz wave.
7. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 1, wherein a position of each of the support portion and the photodetector is fixed when the movable diffraction grating changes the angle of the diffraction grating pattern (Kitagishi and Belkin do not teach the support and photodetector must be moved when the diffraction grating is moved. Furthermore, this claim is directed to how the diffraction grating is intended to be operated. The claim does not impart any particular structure and therefore does not structurally distinguish.).
8. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 1, wherein a position of each of the first off-axis parabolic mirror and the first lens is fixed when the movable diffraction grating changes the angle of the diffraction grating pattern (Kitagishi and Belkin do not teach the first off-axis parabolic mirror and the first lens must be moved when the diffraction grating is moved. Furthermore, this claim is directed to how the diffraction grating is intended to be operated. The claim does not impart any particular structure and therefore does not structurally distinguish.).
9. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the frequency range is 0.5 THz or more and 5.0 THz or less (Background-Art, first paragraph: "Terahertz waves are mainly electromagnetic waves having a frequency of about 0.1 to 10 THz" See Fig. 11B).
10. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the quantum cascade laser element includes a semiconductor substrate that is an InP single crystal substrate, and a semiconductor layer including an active layer. (Para. [0027]: “substrate 101 that may be comprised of a III-V semiconductor compound, such as InP”)
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagishi, Ozcan, Belkin, and Grundfest as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youssef et al. (US 2022/0373458).
With respect to claim 4, Kitagishi, Ozcan, Belkin, and Grundfest show all the limitations as discussed for claim 1 above and Kitagishi further shows at least the light source, the first off-axis parabolic mirror, the first lens, and the photodetector are disposed inside the housing (100) in Figure 3.
Kitagishi, Ozcan, Belkin, and Grundfest do not show the housing to be filled with inert gas or evacuated.
Youssef shows a terahertz spectroscopy system where the system is enclosed in a chamber 200 filled with inert gas to displace water and oxygen from the environment because Thz waves are sensitive to water molecules.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to fill the Kitagishi's chamber with inert gas in order to remove detrimental effects of water molecules in normal air inside the chamber.
5. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 4, wherein the support portion is disposed outside the housing (See Fig. 3, sample support SMP outside housing 100), the housing includes a first wall and a second wall facing the support area on both sides of the support area, the first wall is provided with a first window portion that transmits the terahertz wave, and the second wall is provided with a second window portion that transmits the terahertz wave.
Kitagishi teaches the measurement cell to also be operated in transmission mode rather than reflection of Fig. 3. See discussion of Figs. 9 and 10. As such, it is implicit that the first condensing lens 61 is on one side of the sample cell 300 (e.g. top) while the convex lens 63 is at the transmission (opposite) side of the sample cell 300 (e.g. bottom). Since Kitagishi shows walls being used to support the lenses, it would be obvious to use walls to support the lenses on opposite sides of the sample cell, thus arriving at claim 5.
6. The spectroscopic analysis device according to claim 5, wherein when viewed in a direction in which the support area and the first wall face each other, an outer diameter of the first window portion is 1 time or more and 10 times or less the outer diameter of the support area (As discussed above for claim 1, an example of the diameter of the lens is near 50 mm and the sample cell is near 3 mm, the ratio is 16.7. With the diameters being merely examples and there being no limits set forth by Kitagishi or Grundfest, it would be reasonable for the ratio being less than 10.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagishi, Ozcan, Belkin, and Grundfest as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouchi et al. (US 2007/0195921).
Kitagishi et al. show all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above and further shows:
a housing (Fig. 3, 100) in which a replacement with an inert gas or an evacuation is performed, wherein at least the light source, the first off-axis parabolic mirror, the first lens, and the photodetector are disposed inside the housing,
the support portion (Fig. 3, 100) is disposed outside the housing,
the photodetector detects the terahertz wave that has transmitted through the sample (Fig. 9).
Although Kitagishi shows an embodiment by transmission in Figs. 9 and 10, this embodiment uses a reflective surface and does not explicitly show a completely transmission embodiment. Therefore, Kitagishi also does now show the two walls facing each other with the sample interposed therebetween.
Ouchi shows detection apparatus using terahertz wave embodied in reflection (Fig. 3) similar to Kitagishi and embodied in transmission (Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Kitagishi arranged to be in transmission like that of Ouchi’s Fig. 1 for the predictable result of detecting transmissive objects. In modifying Kitagishi, one of ordinary skill would have also housed the components within the walls of the housing with the sample outside the housing like that of Fig. 3. The lenses would be facing each other and mounted on walls. Accordingly, the walls holding the lenses would also be facing each other, arriving at the limitation
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan et al. (US 2014/0103904 A1, “The present invention belongs to the field of terahertz technology and…method for a pulsed terahertz quantum-cascade laser (THz QCL)”);
Edamura et al. (US 2019/0052058 A1, “The controller is configured to pulse-drive the quantum cascade laser…”); and
Bambeck (US 7,414,726, “the quantum cascade laser system is operable in a pulsed mode”).
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 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