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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 14 recite a first and second polarizer and it is not clear if the polarizers are elements of the claim system or are elements intended to be used in conjunction with the claimed system. Claim 1 clearly recites the process chamber, laser, magnet and detector are elements since each of these elements are listed by a separate indented line. Claim 1 also recites "wherein the laser beam is directed through a first polarizer….and enter a second polarizer." As these polarizers are not listed by a separate indented line like the other positively listed elements, nor stated that the system "comprises" the polarizer, it is not clear if the polarizers are elements of the system or not. The same applies to the "a lock-in amplifier" in claims 6 and 14.
The same applies to the polarizers in claims 6 and 14, and all the dependent claims by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 6, or 14.
For claims 9 and 10, the same applies to the "attenuating polarizer" and the "reference detector." Claim 10 appears to have a typographical error of "and to and."
For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as the polarizers and reference detector being an element of the system.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are dependent on a claim to the structure of a system; however, the claims only recite a purpose of the system and do not further limit the structure of the system of the claims they depend from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al ("Sensitive and selective detection of OH radicals using Faraday rotation spectroscopy at 2.8 µm").
Zhao shows the following:
1. A system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a process chamber (gas absorption cell);
a laser source (DFB diode laser) to provide a laser beam having an initial polarization, wherein the laser beam is directed through a first polarizer (polarizer) and then into the process chamber;
a magnet (solenoid) surrounding the process chamber, wherein the magnet provides a Faraday rotation of the laser beam, the laser beam to exit the process chamber and enter a second polarizer (analyzer); and
a detector (detector) to detect a polarization rotation for lock-in detection (the purpose does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a function generator (laser controller, PC) coupled to the laser source.
3. The system of claim 2, further comprising: an audio amplifier (audio amplifier) coupled to the function generator, the audio amplifier coupled to the magnet.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the lock-in detection is for OH detection (the purpose of lock-in detection does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the OH detection is without H2O interference (the purpose of the detection does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
6. A system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a process chamber (gas absorption cell);
a laser source (DFB diode laser) to provide a laser beam having an initial polarization, wherein the laser beam is directed through a first polarizer and then into the process chamber;
a magnet (solenoid) surrounding the process chamber, wherein the magnet provides a Faraday rotation of the laser beam, the laser beam to exit the process chamber and enter a second polarizer (analyzer); and
a detector (detector) to detect a polarization rotation, the detector to provide the detected polarization rotation to a lock-in amplifier (the purpose does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
7. The system of claim 6, further comprising: a function generator (laser controller, PC) coupled to the laser source.
8. The system of claim 6, further comprising: an audio amplifier (audio amplifier) coupled to the lock-in amplifier, the audio amplifier coupled to the magnet.
11. The system of claim 7, further comprising: an audio amplifier (audio amplifier) coupled to the function generator, the audio amplifier coupled to the magnet.
12. The system of claim 6, wherein the detector is for OH detection (the purpose of lock-in detection does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the OH detection is without H2O interference (the purpose of the detection does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Official notice.
Zhao shows all the elements of claim 6 as discussed above but does not show a reference detector. Official notice is taken that Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a reference detector in order to duplicate the measurement of the detector and thereby verify the measurement.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Diab (US 2002/0049372).
Zhao show the following:
14. A system including a magneto-optical sensor for a process (Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a process chamber (gas absorption cell);
a laser source (DFB diode laser) to provide a laser beam having an initial polarization, wherein the laser beam is directed through a first polarizer and then into the process chamber;
a (solenoid) surrounding the process chamber, wherein the (analyzer);
a detector (detector) to detect a polarization rotation, the detector to provide the detected polarization rotation to a lock-in amplifier.
Zhao does not show that the solenoid coil is a Helmholtz coil.
Diab shows Faraday rotation spectroscope where a Helmholtz coil is used to provide a magnetic field (para. [0064]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use a Helmholtz coil for the predictable result of producing a magnetic field to cause Faraday rotation of the laser light.
As to claim 6, Zhao does not show the process chamber is coupled to a vacuum pump. Official notice is taken that vacuum pumps were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a vacuum pump in order to change the contents of the cell with new samples.
17. The system of claim 14, further comprising: a function generator (laser controller, PC) coupled to the laser source.
18. The system of claim 17, further comprising: an audio amplifier (audio amplifier) coupled to the function generator, the audio amplifier coupled to the Helmholtz coil.
19. The system of claim 14, wherein the detector is for OH detection (the purpose of lock-in detection does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the OH detection is without H2O interference (the purpose of the detection does not impart any particular structure to the claimed system and does not serve to distinguish from Zhao).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest a system comprising all the elements as recited in claim 6 in combination with an attenuating polarizer coupled to the second polarizer.
With respect to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest a system comprising all the elements as recited in claim 14 in combination with a remote plasma source coupled to the process chamber.
Conclusion
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