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 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a first substance being methane and a second substance being ethane, does not reasonably provide enablement for any first and second substances. Not all elements have a quasi-periodic absorption band which is required in order to properly perform the method. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use or perform the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. There is no suggestion in the specification that the claimed method and device was intended to be or enabled to broadly applied to any and all chemical sensing since the specification only provides examples and support for methane and ethane in combination and must be restricted to elements that have a quasi-periodic absorption band.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16, 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “to thereby determine the concentration of the first substance” and likewise for the second substance, is indefinite. It is unclear if this determining of concentration is a step in the claim or an intended step after performing the detecting, but not within the scope of the method. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “in the vicinity of” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claim 4, the limitation discloses “a center wavelength of 3.22 nanometers” and “a center wavelength of 3.35 nanometers” that is not supported in the specification. The examiner believes this to be a typo and should read microns. P.0044 in the specification discloses 3.22 microns and 3.35 microns for the bandpass filters which also matches with the general understanding of the absorption bands of methane and ethane. Correction is required but for the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim to mean 3.22 µm and 3.35µm.
With respect to claim 15 and 16, the limitation discloses “means for serially switching the position of the combination” that evokes 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification fails to clearly define what is meant by the means. P.0044 of the specification discloses “The combination switching may be done mechanically, electro- mechanically and other ways as known to one skilled in the art. Merely by way of example, the switching may be done using a lever mechanism, a solenoid and various other means.” A structure must be clearly associated with the function in order that one of ordinary skill understands the metes and bounds of the limitation. Mere examples do no positively define the “means”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novikov U.S. Patent #7,253,896 in view of Apel U.S. Patent #7,835,005.
With respect to claim 1, Novikov discloses a method of determining concentration of a first substance within a sample comprising:
Exposing the sample to radiation (Col.1, l 51-59)
Filtering the radiation transmitted from the sample using a first filter having a number of pass bands at wavelengths corresponding to absorption peak in a desired quasi-periodic absorption spectrum of the first substance to be detected, and modulating the wavelengths of the pass bands of the first filter (Col.1, l 56-64, Col.8, l 32-39, Col.1, l 10-13)
Filtering the radiation transmitted from the sample using a second filter having a number of pass bands at wavelengths corresponding to absorption peaks in a desired quasi-periodic absorption spectrum of the first substance to be detected, and modulating the wavelengths of the pass bands of the second filter (Col.1, l 64-67, Col.8, l 32-39)
Detecting the filtered radiation of the first filter, the detection being performed in accordance with the modulation of the first filter to determining the difference in the maximum and the minimum intensities of the radiation transmitted by the sample to thereby determine the concentration of the first substance (Col.2, l 4-9, l 26-31)
Detecting the filtered radiation of the second filter (Col.2, l 4-9, l 26-31, Figure 6A)
However, Novikov fails to disclose determining the concentration of a second substance within a sample, a second filter based on the absorption spectrum of the second substance, and detecting the filtered radiation from the second filter to determine the concentration of the second substance.
Martin discloses a method for multi-channel gas concentration measurements comprising:
Exposing the sample to radiation (P.0014)
Filtering the radiation transmitted from the sample using a first filter having a number of pass bands at wavelengths corresponding to absorption spectrum of the first substance to be detected (P.0014, first interference filter, P.0017, P.0026)
Filtering the radiation transmitted from the sample using a second filter having a number of pass bands at wavelengths corresponding to the absorption spectrum of the second substance to be detected (P.0014, second interference filter, P.0017, P.0026)
Detecting the filtered radiation of the first filter to thereby determine the concentration of the first substance (P.0014, P.0026, P.0007, P.0025)
Detecting the filtered radiation of the second filter to thereby determine the concentration of the second substance (P.0014, P.0026, P.0007, P.0025)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the multi-channel filtering honed for multiple substances as in Martin for the filter of Novikov since multiplying the single first filter of Novikov into multiple filters as in Martin would allow a plurality of substances to be measured at the same time with high resolution and high sensitivity (P.0005).
With respect to claim 2, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
The step of filtering the radiation transmitted from the sample using a first filter comprises a first bandpass filter allowing only wavelengths in the vicinity of the desired absorption spectra of the first substance to pass and a first birefringent crystal having transmission peaks corresponding to the desired quasi-periodic absorption peaks of the absorption spectra of the first substance (Col.7, l 10-20, 34-43)
However, Novikov fails to disclose the step of filtering the radiation transmitted from the sample using a second filter.
Martin discloses:
A second bandpass filter allowing only wavelengths in the vicinity of the desired absorption spectra of the second substance to pass (P.0008, P.0014, P.0025)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to multiple the working parts of Novikov to have a second filter as in Martin in order to measure a second substance of interest as described with respect to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 3, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 2 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
The first substance is methane (Col.7, l 13-15)
However, Novikov is silent with respect to the second substance being ethane.
Martin discloses:
The first substance is methane (P.0027)
The second substance is ethane (P.0027, ethane = CxHy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to measure ethane along with methane since their absorption peaks are known to be close and differentiating between the two allows for distinguishing between fossil fuel emissions and natural gas leaks. See evidence in “Intercomparison of commercial analyzers for atmospheric ethane and methane observations”.
With respect to claim 4, Novikov in view of Martin disclose all of the limitations as applied to claims 1-3 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
The first bandpass filter has a center wavelength of 3.25 micrometers (Col.7, l 13-15)
In addition, Martin discloses:
The first bandpass filter has a center wavelength of 3.32 micrometers (P.0027)
The second bandpass filter has a center wavelength of 3.45 micrometers (P.0027)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have one filter at the peak of methane and one filter at the peak of ethane if these are the two substances being measured as discussed in claim 3 above. The exact center wavelength varies a little based upon temperature and instrumentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the optimum peak for the desired substances since this is well known in common spectroscopy practice to identify the specific substances.
It should be noted that the claim actually says 3.22 nanometers and 3.35 nanometers however the examiner believes this to be a typo since the specification says the peak at 3.22 micrometers and 3.35 micrometers and the peaks of methane and ethane are in the range of 3.22 micrometers and 3.35 micrometers, not nanometers.
With respect to claim 5, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the l imitations as applied to claim 3 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
Tuning the birefringent crystal rotationally (Col.8, l 48-53)
Tuning the birefringent crystal thermally (Col.14, l 34-41, 55-57)
However, Novikov fails to disclose tuning the first and second crystal in different manners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to tune the two birefringent crystals in separate manners since doing so protect the validity of the other and allows independent control. If both were controlled thermally, it would be challenging to thermally isolate the crystals from each other such that it would be different to not have thermal control of one, affect the other.
With respect to claim 8, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1-2. In addition, Novikov discloses:
In the path of the radiation transmitted from the sample, directing a first portion of the radiation to the first birefringent crystal and second birefringent crystal (Figure 6A, first crystal = 61, second crystal = 62)
Wherein the steps of detecting the radiation of the first crystal and the radiation of the second crystal occurs concurrently (Figure 6A, Col.13, l 3-7)
However, Novikov fails to disclose directing a first portion of the radiation to a first bandpass filter and first birefringent crystal and a second portion to a second filter and second crystal.
Martin discloses:
In the path of the radiation transmitted from the sample, directing a first portion of the radiation to the first bandpass filter and directing a second portion of the radiation to the second bandpass filter (P.0085)
Wherein the steps of detecting the filtered radiation of the first filter and detecting radiation of the second filter occurs concurrently (P.0085, P.0069, wherein parallel integration time = concurrently)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to concurrently measure radiation through the corresponding filter and crystal. Wherein Novikov discloses matching crystals with filters and Martin discloses having two filters, both Novikov and Martin disclose concurrent measurements through two different paths that save time. For all the reasons noted above, multiplying the filter/crystal pairing of Novikov as in Martin to match multiple substances is obvious.
With respect to claim 9 and 11, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1-3 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
The step of tuning at least one of the first and second crystals by dividing the birefringent crystal into two parts, with one part fixed and the other part angularly tuned/ rotating the crystals opposite directions to each other (Figure 8A, Figure 7B, Col.8, l 48-53, rotating = angularly tuned)
With respect to claim 12, Novikov discloses a filter and spectrometer comprising:
A radiation source for supplying radiation to a sample to be measured (Col.1, l 56-59, Col.7 l 5-6, Figure 2, radiation source 11)
A gas cell adapted to contain the sample (Col.7, l 8-13, Figure 2, gas cell 13)
A controlled interference polarization filter section for filtering radiation transmitted by the sample, the controlled interference polarization filter section comprising first and second filters (Col.7, l 16-20, Figure 2, cIPF 15)
The first filter comprising a first bandpass filter allowing only wavelengths in the vicinity of the desired absorption spectra of the first substance to pass (Figure 2, filter 14, Col.7, l 11-13)
A first birefringent crystal having transmission peaks corresponding to desired quasi-periodic absorption peaks of the absorption spectra of the first substance (Col.8, l 24-26, birefringent crystal S, Figure 6A, first crystal = 61)
A second birefringent crystal having transmission peaks corresponding to desired quasi-periodic absorption peaks of the absorption spectra of the first substance (Col.8, l 24-26, birefringent crystal S, Figure 6A second crystal = 62)
A detector assembly comprising a radiation detector for detecting the filtered radiation and generating a radiation signal in accordance with the detected radiation (Figure 2, detector 16, Col.7, l 25-27)
However, Novikov fails to disclose a second bandpass filter and a second birefringent crystal having a transmission peak corresponding to a second substance.
Martin discloses a multi-channel gas sensor comprising:
The first filter comprising a first bandpass filter allowing only wavelengths in the vicinity of the desired absorption spectra of the first substance to pass (Figure 3, first filter = 350, P.0101)
The second filter comprising a second bandpass filter allowing only wavelengths in the vicinity of the desired absorption spectra of the second substance to pass (Figure 3, second filter = 360, P.0101)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to multiply the working parts of Novikov (the filter and coordinating birefringence crystal) in order to detect multiple substances as taught by Martin (P.0008, P.0004) that saves money and space while maintaining sensitivity.
With respect to claim 13, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. However, Novikov and Martin fail to disclose an acoustic-optic modulator adapted to modulate the wavelengths of the pass bands of the first and second filters.
The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that acousto-optic modulated filters (AOTFs) are well known in the art for modulating passbands of filters to controllably and flexibly adapt a filter to different wavelengths for different spectroscopic measurements. For evidence, see U.S. Patent #5099123 and U.S. Patent #5,737,076.
With respect to claim 14, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
The controlled interference polarization filter section further comprises input and output polarizers (Figure 3A, P1 and P1, Col.7, l 44-46, Col.8, l 10-13)
With respect to claim 17, Novikov in view of Martin discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
Means for directing a first portion of the radiation a first birefringent crystal and a directing a second portion of the radiation to the second birefringent crystal (Figure 6A, first portion = 65a, second portion = 65b, means = polarizing p1)
The detector assembly comprises a first radiation detector for detecting the filtered radiation and generating a radiation signal in accordance with the detected radiation and in accordance with the detected radiation (Col.13, l 3-7)
Wherein the detection of the filtered radiation of the first and second filters occurs concurrently (Col.13, l 13-17)
However Novikov fails to disclose the means directs the first and second portions through first and second bandpass filters and a second detector for detecting the second radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to multiple the working parts of an invention and as taught by Martin above. Multiplying the beams of Novikov to pass through their own respective filters, crystals and to their own detectors is simply a manner of multiplying the components of Novikov to account for separately measuring different substances as in Martin.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novikov U.S. Patent #7,253,896 in view of Apel U.S. Patent #7,835,005 and further in view Williams U.S. Patent #5,811,812.
With respect to claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, Novikov in view of Apel disclose all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 2 above. However, Novikov and Apel fail to disclose serially switching the position of the filter/birefringent crystal combination or blocking the first or second portions to allow serially detecting of the filtered radiation.
Williams discloses a multi-gas analyzer comprising:
In the path of the radiation, serially switching the position of the first bandpass filter with the second bandpass filter (Figure 1A, Figure 1B, filter wheel 105, Col.2, l 14-17)
Switching at least one shutter to block the first or second portions of radiation to allow serially detecting of the filtered radiation from the first and second filters (Col.2, l 14-40, shutter = filters 130, 135, 140)
Williams also discloses the art recognized equivalency of the filter wheel versus a multiple path detection system (shown in Williams Figure 10). Williams argues that the multiple path detection system is a better option for mechanical and sensitivity reasons (Col.2, l 65- Col.3, l 13) but nonetheless the filter allows for a wide variety of distinct IR absorption bands for a larger variety of species. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the rotating wheel of Williams that selectively blocks certain portions to serially switch the desired filter in the path for the multipath filter design of Apel since they are art recognized equivalents to performing the same function.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novikov U.S. Patent #7,253,896 in view of Apel U.S. Patent #7,835,005 and further in view Wang et al. U.S. Patent #6,992,809.
With respect to claim 10, Novikov in view of Apel discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 9 above. In addition, Novikov discloses:
the birefringent crystal for methane has a first crystal part thicker than a second crystal part, angularly tuning the crystal (Col.7, l 13-15, Col.8, l 24-53)
However, Novikov fails to disclose one part of the crystal is fixed and the second part is angularly tuned.
Wang discloses a multi-conjugate liquid crystal tunable filter comprising:
a birefringent crystal has a first crystal part thicker than a second crystal part, where the first crystal part is fixed and the second crystal part is angularly tuned (Col.7, l 29-34, Col.9, 6-12, Figure 7, liquid crystal element in substage II = first crystal part, fixed retarder = second crystal part)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Lyot birefringence crystals of Wang for the cIPF of Novikov since the crystal of Wang provides endless tunability resulting in increased free spectral range with high finesse for improved versatility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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 at 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.
REBECCA CAROLE. BRYANT
Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights