DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12117431 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than the patent, therefore, the patented claims anticipate the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to the patented claims as follows:
Instant application
USPAT 12117431 B2
1-20
1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0084990 A1 by Coates (hereinafter Coates) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0233008 A1 by Sarkisov et al. (hereinafter Sarkisov).
Regarding Claim 1, Coates teaches an optical spectral sensing device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a measurement chamber (Fig. 1 @ 11, Par. [0038]) configured to measure a gas sample (Abstract, Par. [0003 and 0038]);
a light source (Fig. 1 @ 10, Par. [0038]);
a detector system (Abstract) comprising a detector (Fig. 1 @ 13, Par. [0038]), the detector system being configured to receive light traveling from the light source (Fig. 1 @ 10, Par. [0038]) to the detector (Fig. 1 @ 13, Par. [0038]) to measure the gas sample (Abstract, Par. [0003 and 0038]); and
electronics associated with the detector system to provide direct output of properties of the gas sample (Abstract, Par. [0012], Claim 1) (Also see Par. [0043]) but does not explicitly teach modulated light traveling from the light source, wherein an output signal of the detector system is synchronized with the modulated light traveling from the light source to the detector system.
However, Sarkisov teaches the light source may be pulse modulated and sensed by a lock-in amplifier and detector synchronized to the pulse signal that drives the light source (Par. [0025]).
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 Cotes by Sarkisov as taught above such that modulated light traveling from the light source, wherein an output signal of the detector system is synchronized with the modulated light traveling from the light source to the detector system is accomplished in order to improve the sensitivity of the sensor (Sarkisov, Par. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 2, Coates teaches a processor having a memory device in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores gas sample data and calibration equations (Par. [0012-0013, 0020-0021, 0042, 0048], Claims 1, 15), wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to the detector system, wherein the processor is configured to calculate, based on the output signal generated by the detector system, a value of a concentration of at least one gas component of the gas sample (Par. [0003, 0005, 0012-0013, 0020, 0042], Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Coates teaches the detector of the detector system has a first channel, wherein the detector system is configured to communicate with a digital signal from the first channel to the processor (inherently teaches), wherein the digital signal is evaluated relative to one or more reference signals (Claim 12), and wherein a concentration of one or more gases present in the gas sample are calculated from one or more stored calibration equations for each species measured (Par. [0003, 0005, 0013, 0020, 0042, 0048], Claims 1, 15).
Regarding Claim 4, Coates teaches the light source is modulated to produce the modulated light (See Claim 1 rejection), the modulated light being modulated at a frequency (Par. [0055]: Electronic pulse generator 219 drives the light source 210, Par. [0055]: Pulse generator 219 generates a train of periodic pulses 27 that cause light source 210 to generate periodic flashes of light thus teaches modulated at a frequency) but does not explicitly teach between 10 Hz and 100 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum range disclosed in order to ensure a sufficient resolution when detecting gas analytes, and since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Coates as modified by Sarkisov teaches additional channels (Sarkisov, Abstract. Claims 11 and 13), wherein the detector system is configured to communicate with one or more digital signals from each of the additional channels to the processor, wherein each of the one or more digital signals are evaluated relative to the one or more reference signals (See Claim 3 rejection. Same technique can be applied to achieve the limitation), and wherein each of the first channel and the additional channels are configured to filter a separate and distinct wavelength (Sarkisov, Abstract, Par. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 6, Coates teaches the detector system being operably coupled with the measurement chamber and the light source (Fig. 1, See Claim 1 rejection), and the device further comprising an extractor configured to draw the gas sample continuously through the measurement chamber (Fig. 1 @ 11, Par. [0007, [0012]: drawn into the measurement area by an integrated pumping or suction device, [0038], [0045]: suction process).
Regarding Claim 7, Coates teaches a processor having a memory device in communication with the processor for storing gas sample data, wherein the processor is communicatively coupled with a sensor, wherein the memory device includes one or more mode programs (Par. [0012-0013, 0020-0021, 0042, 0048], Claims 1, 15. Inherently teaches program), wherein a first mode program (inherently teaches a first mode program) is initiated by the processor to detect a presence of a pre-determined gas using the sensor, wherein the pre-determined gas is detected by using one or more statistical correlation algorithms and gas sample data to determine the presence of the pre-determined gas (Par. [0042]: The onboard electronics that form part of the spectral engine (FIGS. 3 to 5) provide for the primary data acquisition from the spectral sensing/detection devices (i.e. the pre-determined gas). In order to complete an analysis, it is usually necessary to extract the relevant intensity information from one or more predefined regions of a spectrum (i.e. the pre-determined gas). This intensity data is further manipulated by one or more numerical functions, which normally include unique calibration data (calibration data is derived from the pre-determined gas) for the species being measured).
Regarding Claim 9, Coates teaches the detector system is responsive to light in a range of ultraviolet to 12 μm (Par. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 10, Coates teaches the device is configured to detect combustion gas components (Examiner interprets as an intended use).
Regarding Claim 11, Coates teaches the device is configured to detect natural gas (Par. [0003, 0006. 0038]).
Regarding Claim 12, Coates teaches the device is configured to detect poisonous gases or vapors (Par. [0018, 0038]).
Regarding Claim 13, Coates teaches at least one light filter for configuring the device to detect a specific chemical compound (Abstract, [Par. 0024]).
Regarding Claim 14, Coates teaches the device is configured as an integrated sensor system for detecting multiple gases, wherein the multiple gases are of one of environmental, industrial, commercial, and automotive interest (Abstract, Par. [0003], Claims 11, 13).
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coates in view of Sarkisov as applied to Claim 7 above and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2015/0300163 A1 by Tips et al. (hereinafter Tips).
Regarding Claim 8, Coates teaches the sensor further analyzes the predetermined gas by initiating a second mode program (inherently teaches a second mode program) to determine a concentration of the pre-determined gas (Par. [0003]. See Claim 7 rejection), but does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor initiates an alert to a user indicating a potentially dangerous gas condition when the concentration of the pre-determined gas reaches a predetermined threshold.
However, Tips teaches the information handling system of the DAPU 222 may notify an operator when concentration of one or more selected materials exceeds a preset threshold value (Par. [0031, 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 Cotes as modified by Sarkisov by Tips as taught above such that the sensor initiates an alert to a user indicating a potentially dangerous gas condition when the concentration of the pre-determined gas reaches a predetermined threshold in order to notify operator that concentration of one or more selected materials exceeds a preset threshold value by a visual or audio notification such as, for example, sounding an alarm or illuminating a warning light (Tips, Par. [0031, 0070]).
Additional Prior Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system.
US Patent Pub. No. 20110072886 A1 by Caneau et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 15-20 would be allowable once the Double Patenting rejection set forth in this Office Action is overcome.
Reason for Allowance
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
9. As to claim 15, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “encoding light passing through the sample using a light source, the light being modulated to differentiate from ambient thermal radiation” along with all other limitations of claim 15.
10. Caneau (US 2011/0072886 A1) teaches an optical filter but fails to teach the claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877