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 Amendment
The amendment filed 07/20/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejections of claim 1 are withdrawn.
Claim 9 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Claim 15 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hankiewicz (WO 2013034482 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 11-12 of claim 15 recites “…changing the path length of the laser beam by oscillatory movement through the translatory and/or rotary movement of the carrier….”, which has insufficient antecedent basis for the claim limitation “translatory and/or rotary movement.” Lines 11-12 of claim 15 should instead recite “…changing the path length of the laser beam by oscillatory movement through [[the]] a translatory and/or rotary movement of the carrier….”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Evaluation unit in claims 1 and 15. Here the word “unit” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “configured to receive an electrical signal, to analyze the electrical signal, and to transmit instructions”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
Examples of structures corresponding to “evaluation unit” was found in the specification in paragraph [0029] where an evaluation unit has a measuring circuit and evaluation electronics.
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 § 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 1-24 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.
Line 18 of claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one optical surface" in “…different optical path lengths by the at least partial reflection on at least one optical surface…”. It is unclear whether “at least one optical surface” is referring to the “at least one optical surface” that is recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1 or another optical surface altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the optical surfaces are the same optical surfaces. Therefore, line 18 of claim 1 should instead recite “…different optical path lengths by the at least partial reflection on the at least one optical surface…”.
Claims 2-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Line 13 of Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first optical element" in “…laser light source is mounted or the first optical element is mounted”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite “a first optical element”, however, claim 8 does recite “a first optical element.” Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 15 is actually dependent on claim 1 or claim 8. As best understood and therefore interpreted, “the first optical element” should instead recite “the [[first]] optical element” to properly reference the optical element as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankiewicz (WO 2013034482 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Taniguchi (US 20190195784 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hankiewicz teaches a spectrometer (laser spectrometer from [0001]) comprising:
a laser light source (Fig. 4: Laser diode 4 [0021]) configured to generate coherent radiation (A laser has coherent radiation), including a tunable diode laser with a coherent laser output ([0001]: Laser spectrometer includes a wavelength-tunable laser diode.), wherein the laser light source is configured to modulate the frequency of the coherent laser output ([0001]: Laser diode is wavelength tunable.)
a photodetector (Fig. 4: Monitor detector 25 detects intensity of light [0012]) arranged to receive an optical signal from the laser output after traversing a path length (Shown in Fig. 4 and described in [0012] and [0021]);
at least one optical element (Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17) arranged along the path length between the laser output and the photodetector (shown in Fig. 4), wherein the at least one optical element includes at least one optical surface (MEMS mirror has an optical surface); and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 4: evaluation device 27) electrically connected to the photodetector (Fig. 4: monitor detector 25) and configured to receive an electrical signal from the photodetector (shown in Fig. 4 and described in [0021]), to analyze the electrical signal ([0012] and [0021]), and to transmit instructions to a controller (Fig. 4: control device 18) electrically connected to the evaluation unit (shown in Fig. 4 and described in [0021]),
wherein the laser light source and/or the at least one optical element (Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17) is mounted on a movable carrier ([0021]: “In the event of deviations of the detected position and alignment from a desired position and alignment, an evaluation device 27 generates a control signal 28 for the control device 18 in order to set, in the case of the MEMS mirror 17, an inclination and/or translation offset 29 about which the oscillatory tilting movement 19 takes place.” MEMS mirror 17 is shown to be on a carrier in Fig. 4 for oscillation movements), wherein the carrier (Shown in Fig. 4) is moved by the controller (Fig. 4: control device 18) via control signals ([0021]: Control device may tilt the MEMS mirror), wherein the movement of the carrier is an oscillatory movement with an amplitude ([0006]: Control device excites MEMS mirror to oscillate tilting movements; see also [0008]) and/or frequency and changes the path length of the radiation such that interference signals which arise on the at least one optical element as optical interference due to a superposition of rays of different optical path lengths by the at least partial reflection on the at least one optical surface are suppressed ([0002], [0005] and [0019]: Interference patterns due to multiple reflections of light between surfaces of optical devices are suppressed.; [0005-0008]: Interference suppression is achieved with movable MEMS mirror where tilting the MEMS mirror to different positions provides different optical path lengths between the MEMS mirror and the region of the collimator lens.), and
wherein the suppression is affected by interference between the radiation emitted from the laser light source and the change in the path length of the beam path due to the movement of the movable carrier ([0005-0008]).
Hankiewicz appears to be silent to having a drive that moves the carrier and is driven by a controller.
Taniguchi, related to a gas analyzing apparatus, does teach a drive (Fig. 3: piezo vibration unit 49 [0056-0057]) that moves elements and is driven by a controller (control circuit from [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz so that there is a drive that moves the carrier and is driven by a controller, as disclosed by Taniguchi. Using a drive to move elements where the drive is driven by a controller is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (drive driven by a controller to move elements) to yield predictable results (for actuating/moving elements as needed) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 2, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the movable carrier (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: element which oscillates MEMS mirror 17 as shown with element 19) has a rotator, wherein the rotator is rotatable by less than 10° continuously or stepwise about the x, y or z axis or any combination thereof;
and/or the movable carrier (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: element that moves MEMS mirror) includes a translator (Taniguchi, piezo vibration unit 49 from [0056-0057]), wherein the translator is movable continuously or stepwise along the x, y or z axis or any combination thereof (Taniguchi, [0051]: Piezo vibration unit can be moved along the optical axis direction (x-axis direction).; [0082]: “As compared with the measurement frequency, the actuating unit 36 can make the frequency of the vibration of the piezo vibration unit 38 lower. Accordingly, the piezo vibration unit 38 as the actuator is not necessary to be operated at high speed, the piezo vibration unit 38 is easy to be stably operated.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the amplitude is a multiple of the laser wavelength.
Taniguchi does teach that the amplitude is a multiple of the laser wavelength ([0049]: “The actuating unit 36 may cause two states where the laser light emitting element 31 is at different positions by n/2 times the wavelength of the laser light 1 (where, n is integer). Similarly, the actuating unit 47 may cause two states where the light receiving element 41 is at different positions by n/2 times the wavelength of the laser light 1 (where, n is integer).”; [0086]: “As a vibration waveform indicating a position to which the laser light emitting element 31 is moved, combining a plurality of waveforms having different amplitudes that satisfy the relationship λ*n/2 (n is integer) enables noise reduction, regardless of optical systems existing between the laser light emitting element 31 and the light receiving element 41.”; [0087]: “If the optical element gets vibrated with an amplitude of integer multiple of the minimum amplitude (λ/2) that can remove the interference, an interference removal effect works.” Choice of n, which is an integer, of 2, 4, 6, would have the amplitude be a multiple of the laser wavelength.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi (for claim 1) so that the amplitude is a multiple of the laser wavelength, as disclosed by Taniguchi. The advantage of having the amplitude be a multiple of the laser wavelength is that interference can be removed or the noise is reduced regardless of optical systems existing between the light emitting element and the light receiving element ([0086-0087] from Taniguchi).
Regarding Clam 4, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the movement of the carrier is temporally sinusoidal, sawtooth-shaped, triangular, or rectangular.
Taniguchi does teach that the movement of the carrier is temporally sinusoidal, sawtooth-shaped, triangular ([0017]: “The actuating unit may control a vibration waveform indicating which position the optical element is moved to, with a triangular wave.”) or rectangular ([0018]: “The actuating unit may control a vibration waveform indicating which position the optical element is moved to, with a rectangular wave.”; [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz so that the movement of the carrier is temporally sinusoidal, sawtooth-shaped, triangular, or rectangular, as disclosed by Taniguchi. The advantage of controlling the moving position of an optical element with a triangular wave is that interference noise can be removed efficiently ([0079] from Taniguchi).
Regarding Claim 6, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 1) appears to be silent to a wavelength of the laser light source is between the mid-infrared range and visible range.
Taniguchi, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 15, does teach that a wavelength of the laser light source is between the mid-infrared range ([0090]: “Depending on components of the measuring object gas, either one of the first light emitting element 51 and the second light emitting element 52 may be a near-infrared light emitting element having a light-emitting wavelength band of 0.7 to 2.5 μm, whereas the other one may be a mid-infrared light emitting element having a light-emitting wavelength band of 3 to 10 μm.”) and the visible range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi (from claim 1) so that a wavelength of the laser light source is between the mid-infrared range and visible range, as disclosed by Taniguchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose a wavelength range dependent on components of the gas being measured ([0090] from Taniguchi).
Regarding Claim 7, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the spectrometer includes four optical elements (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17, two reflectors 24, and collimator lens 12)
Regarding Claim 8, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the at least one optical element is a first optical element (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17), which is arranged adjacent the laser light source along the path length from the laser output to the photodetector or is an initial optical element along this path length (Hankiewicz, Shown in Fig. 4 where light from laser diode 4 is incident onto MEMS mirror 17).
Regarding Claim 10, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the spectrometer is an absorption spectrometer (Hankiewicz, [0001]: Invention is related to a laser spectrometer that determines concentration of gas by measuring absorption.).
Regarding Claim 11, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches the evaluation unit (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: evaluation device 27).
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the evaluation unit comprises a measuring circuit and evaluation electronics configured
to modulate the frequency of the coherent laser output and
to convert the optical signal into an electrical signal on the photodetector and to record the electrical signal, wherein
the electrical signal is used to determine the concentration of at least one gas to be analyzed.
Taniguchi does teach a light receiving signal processing unit (element 60 in Fig. 8) comprises a measuring circuit and evaluation electronics (Fig. 8: elements 61-65 make up a measuring circuit and evaluation electronics) configured to modulate the frequency of the coherent laser output and to convert the optical signal into an electrical signal on the photodetector and to record the electrical signal ([0067]: “The light receiving signal processing unit 60 includes an I-V converter 61, an oscillator 62, a synchronization detecting circuit 63, a low pass filter 64A, a low pass filter 64B, and an operating unit 65. The I-V converter 61 converts the output of the light receiving element 41 into a voltage output. The low pass filter 64A removes higher harmonic noise components from the voltage output. The output signal of the low pass filter 64A is input to the synchronization detecting circuit 63. The synchronization detecting circuit 63 adds, to the output signal of the low pass filter 64A, a 2f signal (double-wave signal) from the oscillator 62 and extracts only an amplitude of the double-frequency component of the modulated signal of the laser light 1. Noise removal and amplification are performed on the output signal of the synchronization detecting circuit 63 in the low pass filter 64B, and the resultant signal is transmitted to the operating unit 65.”; [0045]), wherein the electrical signal is used to determine the concentration of at least one gas to be analyzed ([0067]: “In the operating unit 65, operation processing to detect the gas concentration is performed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi (for claim 1) so that the evaluation unit comprises a measuring circuit and evaluation electronics configured to modulate the frequency of the coherent laser output and to convert the optical signal into an electrical signal on the photodetector and to record the electrical signal, wherein the electrical signal is used to determine the concentration of at least one gas to be analyzed, as disclosed by Taniguchi. Processing/evaluation units comprised of circuits and electronics is well-known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (Processing/evaluation units comprised of circuits and electronics) to yield predictable results (for processing and analyzing data/signals) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 12, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the control signals for moving one or more carriers (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: element that tilts MEMS mirror 17) are converted into a rotary and/or translatory movement by an actuator (Taniguchi, [0056]: “The actuating unit 47 may include a piezo vibration unit 49 using the piezo element. The actuating unit 47 may have a control circuit therein to control the piezo vibration unit 49. The piezo vibration unit 49 is deformed by voltage applied on the piezo vibration unit 49 by the control circuit, which allows the light receiving element 41 etc. that are connected to the piezo vibration unit 49 to be moved along the optical axis direction (X-axis direction). Here, for the actuating unit 47, actuators except piezo elements may be used.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches an analysis device for measuring the concentration of at least one gas (Hankiewicz, [0001] and [0016] describes how the invention is related to a laser spectrometer for measuring concentration of gas.), wherein the analysis device comprises a spectrometer according to claim 1 (Hankiewicz, shown in Figs. 1 and 4 and described in [0001] and [0016]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches a method for suppressing interference signals of a spectrometer (Hankiewicz, [0005-0008] and [0019]) according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches directing the coherent laser output from the laser light source (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: laser diode 4 outputs coherent laser) onto the photodetector (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: monitor detector 25) after traversing the path length (Hankiewicz, Shown in Fig. 4);
modulating the frequency of the coherent laser output (Hankiewicz, [0001]: Laser diode is a tuneable wavelength laser diode);
measuring the optical signal on the photodetector (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: monitor detector 25 [0012]);
converting the optical signal into the electrical signal (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: Monitor detector 25 measures intensity of light where an optical signal would necessarily be converted into an electrical signal for analysis.);
transmitting the electrical signal of the photodetector to the evaluation unit (Hankiewicz, shown in Fig. 4 and described in [0021] where signal from monitor detector is sent to evaluation device);
transmitting one or more instructions to the controller (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: control device 18) electrically connected to the evaluation unit (Hankiewicz, shown in Fig. 4 and described in [0021]);
changing the path length of the laser beam by oscillatory movement (Hankiewicz, [0008]) through the translatory (Taniguchi, [0056]) and/or rotary movement of a carrier controlled by a controller (Hankiewicz, control device from [0018]), on which the laser is mounted or the first optical element is mounted (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17 is mounted on a carrier for oscillating tilting movements 19), wherein the movement is adapted such that interference signals, which arise on the at least one optical element due to scattering and/or reflection, are suppressed (Hankiewicz, [0002], [0005] and [0019]: Interference patterns due to multiple reflections of light between surfaces of optical devices are suppressed.; [0005-0008]: Interference suppression is achieved with movable MEMS mirror where tilting the MEMS mirror to different positions provides different optical path lengths between the MEMS mirror and the region of the collimator lens.); and
determining the electrical signal of the photodetector (Hankiewicz, [0012]: Monitor detector 25 measures intensity of light which is evaluated with evaluation device 27 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the at least one optical element (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17) is a refractive or reflective optical element (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17 reflects light).
Regarding Claim 18, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the amplitude is 2 to 10 times the laser wavelength.
Taniguchi does teach that the amplitude is 2 to 10 times the laser wavelength ([0049]: “The actuating unit moves the optical element with an amplitude of n/2 times the wavelength λ of the laser light 1. Specifically, the actuating unit 36 for the light emitting unit moves the laser light emitting element 31 with an amplitude of n/2 times the wavelength λ of the laser light 1…The actuating unit 36 may cause two states where the laser light emitting element 31 is at different positions by n/2 times the wavelength of the laser light 1 (where, n is integer).” N is an integer where choice of n equal to or greater than 4 would satisfy the following equation, so that the amplitude is 2 to 10 times the laser wavelength:
n/2 * λ where n ≥ 4 results in an amplitude that is 2 to 10 times the laser wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi (for claim 1) so that the amplitude is 2 to 10 times the laser wavelength, as disclosed by Taniguchi. The advantage of having the amplitude be a multiple of the laser wavelength is that interference can be removed or the noise is reduced regardless of optical systems existing between the light emitting element and the light receiving element ([0086-0087] from Taniguchi).
Regarding Claim 19, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the amplitude is between 0.5 µm and 50 µm.
Taniguchi does teach that the amplitude is between 0.5 µm and 50 µm ([0075]: “Specifically, the actuating unit 36 vibrates the laser light emitting element 31 with an amplitude of n/2 times the wavelength X of the laser light 1 in the optical axis direction (X-axis direction). The actuating unit 36 moves the laser light emitting element 31 to the positions of ±λ/4. If the wavelength is within 1.6 to 2 μm, the laser light emitting element 31 is moved to the position of within ±0.4 to ±0.5 μm approximately.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi (for claim 1) so that the amplitude is between 0.5 µm and 50 µm, as disclosed by Taniguchi. The above-mentioned amplitude range is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (having an amplitude range between 0.5 µm and 50 µm) to yield predictable results (for use with a near-infrared light emitting element ([0075] and [0090] from Taniguchi).) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 21, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the spectrometer is a tunable diode laser absorption spectrometer (Hankiewicz, [0001]: Invention is related to a laser spectrometer that determines concentration of gas by measuring absorption.).
Regarding Claim 22, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 12.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the actuator is selected from a piezo actuator (Taniguchi, [0051]: “The actuating unit 36 may include a piezo vibration unit 38 using a piezo element. The piezo vibration unit 38 is an exemplary actuator.”), an electromechanical drive, a hydraulic drive, and/or a pneumatic drive.
Regarding Claim 23, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 11.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi (for claim 11) appears to be silent to the electrical signal is used to determine a pressure and/or a temperature.
Taniguchi does teach that the electrical signal is used to determine a pressure and/or a temperature ([0062]: “The thermistor 208 is a temperature detecting element to detect the temperature of the laser light emitting element 31.” Shown in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi (for claim 11) so that the electrical signal is used to determine a pressure and/or a temperature, as disclosed by Taniguchi. The advantage of using the electrical signal to determine temperature of a laser light emitting element is that the temperature can be maintained at a constant level which enables control of the wavelength of the laser light ([0062] from Taniguchi).
Regarding Claim 24, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the method of claim 15.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches that the concentration of at least one gas is determined (Hankiewicz, [0001] describes how the invention is related to a laser spectrometer that can measure the concentration of gas).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankiewicz (WO 2013034482 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Taniguchi (US 20190195784 A1) in view of Mannila (US 2024/0247783 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi appears to be silent to the frequency of movement of the carrier is greater than 1 KHz.
Mannila, related to spectroscopy and a spectrometer, does teach that the frequency of movement of the carrier is greater than 1 KHz ([0029]: “The central mirror and the actuator moving the central mirror may be implemented e.g. by MEMS technology. MEMS means micro-electro-mechanical system. The frequency of mechanical oscillation of the central mirror may be e.g. in the range of 0.1 Hz to 20 kHz.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi so that the frequency of movement of the carrier is greater than 1 KHz, as disclosed by Mannila. The above-mentioned configuration is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (range of frequency of oscillation of actuators) to yield predictable results (to actuate optical elements) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 20, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi appears to be silent to the frequency of movement of the carrier is between 2 and 50 KHz.
Mannila, related to spectroscopy and a spectrometer, does teach that the frequency of movement of the carrier is between 2 and 50 kHz ([0029]: “The central mirror and the actuator moving the central mirror may be implemented e.g. by MEMS technology. MEMS means micro-electro-mechanical system. The frequency of mechanical oscillation of the central mirror may be e.g. in the range of 0.1 Hz to 20 kHz.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi so that the frequency of movement of the carrier is between 2 and 50 kHz, as disclosed by Mannila. The above-mentioned configuration is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (range of frequency of oscillation of actuators) to yield predictable results (to actuate optical elements) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankiewicz (WO 2013034482 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Taniguchi (US 20190195784 A1) in view of Abbink (US 20030023152 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches the at least one optical element (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17).
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi appears to be silent to the at least one optical element includes a back reflector arrangement with at least one reflector element or a cross-stack in the path length between the laser light source and the photodetector, wherein the back reflector arrangement is fixedly mounted.
Abbink, related to a spectroscopy system, does teach an optical element that includes a back reflector arrangement (Fig. 32: fixed retro-reflector 238) with at least one reflector element (Retro-reflector is reflective) or a cross-stack in the path length between the laser light source and the photodetector, wherein the back reflector arrangement is fixedly mounted ([0207]: Retro-reflected 238 is fixed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi so that the at least one optical element includes a back reflector arrangement with at least one reflector element or a cross-stack in the path length between the laser and the photodetector, wherein the back reflector arrangement is fixedly mounted, as disclosed by Abbink. The advantage of having a fixedly mounted back reflector arrangement is that in combination with other moving optical elements, one can modify the optical path length difference between the optical elements ([0207] from Abbink).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankiewicz (WO 2013034482 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Taniguchi (US 20190195784 A1) in view of Wang (US 20060100490 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 1.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi further teaches the at least one optical element (Hankiewicz, Fig. 4: MEMS mirror 17).
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi appears to be silent to the at least one optical element has an anti-reflective coating.
Wang, related to spectroscopy, does teach that the at least one optical element has an anti-reflective coating ([0108]: “Antireflection coatings can be used to further reduce the light reflection on the surfaces of the Optical Plate 1320.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi so that the at least one optical element has an anti-reflective coating, as disclosed by Wang. The advantage of an antireflection coating is that it can reduce light reflections, as needed, on the surface of an optical element ([0108] from Wang).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankiewicz (WO 2013034482 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Taniguchi (US 20190195784 A1) in view of Prescha (DE 102004018529 A1, where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claim 17, Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi teaches the spectrometer according to claim 2.
Hankiewicz modified by Taniguchi appears to be silent to having a rotator where the rotator is rotatable by less than 2°.
Prescha, related to laser absorption spectroscopy, does teach a rotator (Motor from [0007] which pivots a mirror 22 where pivot means to turn or rotate (definition taken from vocabulary.com).) that is rotatable by less than 2° ([0007]: “Preferably, the laser beam is guided via a mirror which can be pivoted independently by motor about two axes and forms the beam deflection means. This mirror can be pivoted precisely and almost without play by two precision motors through a maximum angle of 1° about both axes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankiewicz combined with Taniguchi so that there is a rotator where the rotator is rotatable by less than 2°, as discloses by Prescha. The advantage of having a rotator where the rotator is rotatable by less than 2° is that a mirror can be pivoted precisely ([0007] from Prescha).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
