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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 12 and 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ”a distance D of an edge of injection aperture” should be “a distance D of an edge of the injection aperture”.
In claim 2, “while forming anyone of a third looped spot pattern” should be “while forming any one of a third looped spot pattern”.
In claim 12, “in a range of 0.01 radians and 0.015 radians or -0.01 radians and -0.015 radians” should be “in a range of 0.01 radians to 0.015 radians or -0.01 radians to -0.015 radians”
In claim 30, “the mechanism comprise” should be “the mechanism comprises”.
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:
“mechanism” in claims 21 and 27.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 cites “wherein N is in a range of 25 to 20000”. The range 25 to 20000 is not supported by the specification. The specification discloses N is up to fifty ([0128], [0141], [0154]))
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.
Claim 23-27, 31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang(Jiang, G.S., Wang, 2024. Methane gas sensor based on a novel dual‐path multipass cell. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 66(1), p.e33794.) in view of Herriott (1965. Folded optical delay lines. Applied Optics, 4(8), pp.883-889.)
Regarding claim 23, Jiang teaches an optical system (Abstract) comprising: a multipass cell comprising an optical cavity between respective surfaces of a first mirror having an injection aperture (EH1) and a second mirror (page 2, left col.) spaced apart from the first mirror by a physical length between 1 cm and 50 cm (fig. 1: 375 mm apart), wherein the first mirror and the second mirror are non-astigmatic (the mirrors are spherical, hence non-astigmatic as defined by the instant applicant) and have a radius of curvature between 5 cm and 50 cm (fig. 1: radius of curvature of 300 mm); and a light source (laser, page 3, right col., fig.3) optically coupled with the multipass cell (fig. 3)so that a light beam output by the light source travels along an injection path at an injection angle through the injection aperture into the optical cavity (page 2, right col.: incident angles of light are (-4.4,5.6) and (2.8, -3.8)), wherein the injection angle induces: 1) non-paraxial propagation of the light beam between the first mirror and the second mirror for an intracavity propagation length between 10 meters and 2000 meters (page 2, without paraxial approximation), but fails to disclose and 2) a precession of the reflections of the light beam relative to the respective center of each of the first mirror and the second mirror.
However, Herriott, from the same field of endeavor teaches a precession of the reflections of the light beam relative to the respective center of each of the first mirror and the second mirror (figs. 4 and 14, page 885, right col.: For this case there are only four spots per ellipse with a small precession of the ellipse each time around caused by the bent mirror.).
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 Jiang by incorporating a precession of the reflections of the light beam relative to the respective center of each of the first mirror and the second mirror in order to provide a much larger number of passes.
Regarding claim 24, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the optical system of claim 23, wherein the precession of the reflections of the light beam produce a first cumulative spot pattern on the first mirror and a second cumulative spot pattern on the second mirror, wherein each cumulative spot pattern is a cumulation of a plurality (N) of individual looped spot patterns (Herriott: page 883, right col., figs 4, 14).
Regarding claim 25, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the optical system of claim 24, wherein each individual looped spot pattern of the first cumulative spot pattern extends around the center of the first mirror (Herriott: fig. 14).
Regarding claim 26, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the optical system of claim 24, wherein each individual looped spot pattern of the second cumulative spot pattern extends around the center of the second mirror (Herriott’s analysis and figures are symmetric, therefore Herriot reads on the claim as in claim 25).
Regarding claim 27, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the optical system of claim 23, further comprising a mechanism configured to change the injection angle to thereby change at least one of the intracavity propagation length (Jiang: Abstract, page 2, right col.).
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 incorporates all the limitations of claim 23 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 23 apply to claim 31. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 35, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the method of claim 31, further comprising changing the injection angle to produce a desired intracavity propagation length (Jiang: Abstract, page 2, right col).
Claim 28-30, 32-33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang(Jiang, G.S., Wang, 2024. Methane gas sensor based on a novel dual‐path multipass cell. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 66(1), p.e33794.) in view of Herriott (1965. Folded optical delay lines. Applied Optics, 4(8), pp.883-889.), and further in view of Katsumata (US 20220260816 A1).
Regarding claims 28-29, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the optical system of claim 27, but fails to disclose wherein the mechanism comprises one or more of a motor or a gimbal associated with an assembly of the first mirror and the second mirror, the motor or the gimbal configured to adjust the orientation of the assembly relative to the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium; wherein the mechanism comprises one or more of a motor or a gimbal associated with the light source, the motor or the gimbal configured to adjust the orientation of the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium.
However, Katsumata teaches wherein the mechanism associated with an assembly of the first mirror and the second mirror, configured to adjust the orientation of the assembly relative to the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium ([0068]-[0070], [0081]); wherein the mechanism associated with the light source, configured to adjust the orientation of the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium ([0068]-[0070], [0081]).
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 Jiang by incorporating wherein the mechanism ( drives 7 and 8) associated with an assembly of the first mirror and the second mirror, configured to adjust the orientation of the assembly relative to the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium; wherein the mechanism associated with the light source, configured to adjust the orientation of the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium in order to adjust the optical path length.
Jiang, when modified by Herriot and Katsumata, fails to disclose the mechanism comprises one or more of a motor or a gimbal.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katsumata by incorporating the mechanism comprises one or more of a motor or a gimbal for a repeatable and controllable injection angle selection.
Regarding claim 30, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the optical system of claim 27, but fails to disclose further comprising an optics assembly optically coupled with the light source and configured to receive the light beam and direct the light beam through the injection aperture, wherein the mechanism comprise a motor or gimbal associated with the optics assembly, the motor or the gimbal configured to adjust the orientation of the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium.
However, Katsumata teaches further comprising an optics assembly (6,7) optically coupled with the light source (11) and configured to receive the light beam and direct the light beam through the injection aperture (53), the mechanism to adjust the orientation of the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium ([0066], [0068], [0081]).
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 Jiang by incorporating further comprising an optics assembly optically coupled with the light source and configured to receive the light beam and direct the light beam through the injection aperture. the mechanism to adjust the orientation of the injection path while maintaining an overlap between the light beam and the injection aperture that produces an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium in order to adjust the optical path length.
Jiang, when modified by Herriot and Katsumata, fails to disclose the mechanism comprise a motor or gimbal associated with the optics assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katsumata by incorporating the mechanism comprise a motor or gimbal associated with the optics assembly for a repeatable and controllable injection angle selection.
Regarding claim 32, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the method of claim 31, but fails to disclose further comprising changing the injection angle to produce an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium.
However, Katsumata teaches further comprising changing the injection angle to produce an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium ([0068]-[0070], [0081]).
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 Jiang by incorporating further comprising changing the injection angle to produce an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium for an efficient measurement method.
Regarding claim 33, Jiang, when modified by Herriot and Katsumata teaches the method of claim 32, wherein the light source is a coherent light source (jiang: page 3, right col.: laser is known for coherent light), but fails to disclose the intensity criterium is at least 50% of the intensity of the light beam output by the coherent light source.
However, it is well-known that efficient coupling aims to maximize transmitted power.
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 Jiang by incorporating the intensity criterium is at least 50% of the intensity of the light beam output by the coherent light source as an arbitrary design choice for an efficient measurement method.
Regarding claim 36, Jiang, when modified by Herriot teaches the method of claim 31, further comprising changing the injection angle to produce a desired intracavity propagation length (Jiang: Abstract, page 2, right col), but fails to disclose further comprising changing the injection angle to produce an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium.
However, Katsumata teaches further comprising changing the injection angle to produce an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium ([0068]-[0070], [0081]).
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 Jiang by incorporating further comprising changing the injection angle to produce an intensity of light within the optical cavity that satisfies an intensity criterium for an efficient measurement method.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang(Jiang, G.S., Wang, 2024. Methane gas sensor based on a novel dual‐path multipass cell. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 66(1), p.e33794.) in view of Herriott (1965. Folded optical delay lines. Applied Optics, 4(8), pp.883-889.), and further in view of Katsumata (US 20220260816 A1), and further in view of Paul (US 6795190 B1).
Regarding claim 34, Jiang, when modified by Herriot and Katsumata teaches the method of claim 32, wherein the light source is a non-coherent light source and the intensity criterium is at least 50% of the intensity of the light beam output by the non-coherent light source.
However, Paul (US 6795190 B1) from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the light source is a non-coherent light source (lamp) (claim 1. Lamps are known for providing non-coherent light).
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 Jiang by incorporating wherein the light source is a non-coherent light source providing predictable results of lower cost apparatus.
Jiang, when modified by Herriot and Paul, fails to disclose the intensity criterium is at least 50% of the intensity of the light beam output by the non-coherent light source.
However, it is well-known that efficient coupling aims to maximize transmitted power.
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 Jiang by incorporating the intensity criterium is at least 50% of the intensity of the light beam output by the non-coherent light source as an arbitrary design choice for ensuring sufficient cavity intensity for detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-8 and 10-22 are allowable if the above objection is overcome .
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim1, the prior art of record (So (US 20120242989 A1), Richter (US 20110164251 A1), Herriot (Herriott, D.R. and Schulte, H.J., 1965. Folded optical delay lines. Applied Optics, 4(8), pp.883-889.) and whether considered individually or in combination, do not render obvious the claim subject matter “while forming the second individual looped spot pattern a central light ray of the light beam is not within a distance D of an edge of injection aperture or an edge of the collection aperture, where D is greater than 0.1 of the diameter of the injection aperture or the diameter of the collection aperture”
Claims 2-8 and 10-22 would be allowable due to dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1:
So teaches an optical system (Abstract) comprising: multipass cell (10) comprising: an optical cavity between respective surfaces of a first mirror (12) and a second mirror spaced apart from the first mirror (14), a central axis that extends through a center of the first mirror and a center of the second mirror ([0041], fig. 5), an injection aperture (11) through the first mirror, and a collection aperture (13) ([0039], fig. 4); a light source (laser) arranged relative to the multipass cell to output a light beam along an injection path at an injection angle through the injection aperture into the optical cavity ([0015], [0039]); and a detector arranged relative to the collection aperture to receive the light beam (inherently, there is a detector to receive the output beam as shown in fig. 1 and described in [0006]), wherein the multipass cell and the injection angle are configured such that intracavity propagation of the light beam produces a cumulative spot pattern on the first mirror that is a cumulation of a plurality (N) of individual looped spot patterns, ([0035], figs. 4, 7 and 9), but fails to disclose where each individual looped spot pattern extends around the center of the first mirror and the individual looped spot patterns precess relative to the center of the first mirror such that, while forming the second individual looped spot pattern a central light ray of the light beam is not within a distance D of an edge of injection aperture or an edge of the collection aperture, where D is greater than 0.1 of the diameter of the injection aperture or the diameter of the collection aperture.
Richter teaches where each individual looped spot pattern extends around the center of the first mirror ([0024], fig. 3) and the individual looped spot patterns precess relative to the center of the first mirror such that
Herriot teaches the individual looped spot patterns precess relative to the center of the first mirror (fig. 14, page 885, right col.: For this case there are only four spots per ellipse with a small precession of the ellipse each time around caused by the bent mirror. ).
None of the reference cited in this action discusses a relationship including a separation between an aperture diameter and a loop pattern.
The combination fails to disclose “while forming the second individual looped spot pattern a central light ray of the light beam is not within a distance D of an edge of injection aperture or an edge of the collection aperture, where D is greater than 0.1 of the diameter of the injection aperture or the diameter of the collection aperture”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights