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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-7, 9-16, 18 and 17-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatenable over claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 of application no. 17532127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims. See Chart below.
INSTANT APPLICATION (19/065, 158)
APLICATION (17,532,127)
CLAIM 1
CLAIM 2
CLAIM 3
CLAIM 4
CLAIM 5
CLAIM 6
CLAIM 7
CLAIM 9
CLAIM 10
CLAIM 11
CLAIM 12
CLAIM 13
CLAIM 14
CLAIM 15
CLAIM 16
CLAIM 18
CLAIM 1
CLAIMS 1, 8
CLAIM 2
CLAIM 3
CLAIM 4
CLAIM 5
CLAIM 6
CLAIM 1
CLAIMS 10, 11
CLAIMS 12, 13
CLAIMS 11, 13
CLAIM 8
CLAIM 14
CLAIM 15
CLAIM 16
CLAIM 16
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Xiaohui, Benjamin W. Smith, and Nicoló Omenetto. "Relative spectral response calibration of a spectrometer system for laser induced breakdown spectroscopy using the argon branching ratio method." Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 29.4 (2014): 657-664 (hereinafter Li), in view of WO2014118326A2 (hereinafter Karl).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method for a detector of a spectrometer comprising a source of line spectra (fig. 1(b) the laser-induced plasma), the source of line spectra being configurable to emit at least one branched pair of spectral lines (p. 2 para 1, eqn. 2, and para 3) from an excited species (fig. 1(b) argon plasmas), the diagnostic testing method comprising: the detector diagnostic measurement comprising: measuring an intensity of a first spectral line emitted by an excited species of the source of line spectra using the detector (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); and measuring an intensity of a second spectral line emitted by the excited species of the source of line spectra using the detector (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); wherein the first and second spectral lines emitted by the excited species of the source of line spectra form a branched pair of spectral lines (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); “wherein the spectrometer is controlled in order to vary the intensity of the first and second spectral lines incident on the detector for the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (p. 3 col 1 last para lines 12-17); and diagnosing an operating condition as either normal or irregular based on a ratio of the measured intensity of the first spectral line to the measured intensity of the second spectral line (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18).
Li fails to teach “performing a plurality of detector diagnostic measurements and for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements”.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “performing a plurality of detector diagnostic measurements and for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have “performing a plurality of detector diagnostic measurements and for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the source of line spectra, the detector (p. 2 col 2 last para lines 9-11), and one or more optical elements between the source of line spectra and the detector is controlled in order to vary the intensity of the first and second spectral lines incident on the detector for the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements (p. 3 col 1 last para lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 3, wherein the source of line spectra is a plasma source (fig. 1(b)).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 4, wherein controlling the plasma source in order to vary the intensity of the first and second spectral lines comprises controlling one or more of: a plasma power, a plasma gas flow rate (the pressure is proportional to the plasma gas flow rate; p. 659 col 1 last para last line to col 2 para 1 lines 1-2), a nebulizer gas flow rate, and a cooling gas flow rate.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement of the intensity of the first spectral line is performed at the same time as the measurement of the intensity of the second spectral line (p. 659 col 1 last para lines 15-17; the spectrometer disperses the light into different wavelengths simultaneously, thus measuring the two spectra at the same time).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches “a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, further comprising performing a further using different pair of spectral lines emitted by an excited species of the source of line spectra wherein the different pair of spectral lines emitted by the excited species of the source of line spectra form a different branched pair of spectral lines to the first and second spectral lines” (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18; data shows in fig. 8).
Li does not teach plurality of detector diagnostic measurements.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have “plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein the diagnostic testing method is performed on one or more of: a photomultiplier tube detector, a charge coupled detector (CCD) (p. 659 col 1 para 1 last line), a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) detector, and a charge injection device (CID) detector.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein the excited species are provided by one or more of:a standard solution having a known concentration nebulised into the plasma; or a plasma gas species(p. 659 col 1 para 1 last line; Li used Ar gas plasma).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches a spectrometer (Fig. 1b shows the spectrometer system) system comprising: a source of line spectra (Fig. 1b; the line spectra of an argon gas plasmas) configured to emit at least one branched pair of spectral lines from an excited species (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); a detector (Fig. 1b element “ICCD 576S”); and a controller (Fig. 1b element “IT-138 Detector controller”), wherein the controller is configured to cause the spectrometer to perform a diagnostic test of the detector (p. 659 col 1 lines 3-11; the controller controls the operation of the spectrometer system) comprising: causing the spectrometer to perform a plurality of detector diagnostic measurements (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18), wherein for each diagnostic detector measurement: the detector is configured to measure an intensity of a first spectral line emitted by an excited species of the source of line spectra (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); the detector is configured to measure an intensity of a second spectral line emitted by the excited species of the source of line spectra (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); wherein the first and second spectral lines emitted by the excited species of the source of line spectra form a branched pair of spectral lines (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18); wherein the controller is configured to control the spectrometer in order to vary the intensity of the first and second spectral lines incident on the detector for the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements (p. 658 col 1 para 2 lines 1-7; the results of the calibration is shown in Fig. 5; p. 3 col 1 last para lines 12-15); and the controller is further configured to diagnose an operating condition as either normal or irregular based on a ratio of the intensity of the first spectral line to the intensity of the second spectral line (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18).
Li does not teach for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have “for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches a spectrometer system as recited in claim 18, wherein: the controller is further configured to, if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed: determine whether the first spectral line and/or the second spectral line forming a branched pair of spectral lines are subject to a self-absorption phenomenon (p. 3 col 1 para 3); and if self-absorption of the first and/or second spectral line is determined, control the spectrometer so as to repeat the diagnostic method using a different pair of branched spectral lines having different wavelengths (p. 3 col 1 para 3, p. 6 col 1 para 2).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Karl, and further in view of WO2018085841A1 (hereinafter Rik).
Regarding claim 2, Li does not teach a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein a normal operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is linear, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities and an irregular operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein a normal operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is linear, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein a normal operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is linear, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Li, when modified by Karl, does not teach an irregular operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities.
Rik, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches an irregular operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities (para [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rik to Li, when modified by Karl, to have teaches an irregular operating condition corresponds to a detector response that is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities in order to enhance the efficiency of the sensors (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 7, wherein a normal operating condition corresponds to, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities of the first spectral line, the second spectral line (this is shown in fig. 8 above 350 nm) and each of the pair of different spectral lines and an irregular operating condition corresponds to, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities of the first spectral line, the second spectral line and each of the pair of different spectral lines (this is shown in fig. 8 below 350 nm).
Li does not teach a detector response that is linear and a detector response that is not linear.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches a detector response that is linear (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have a detector response that is linear in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Li, when modified by Karl, does not teach a detector response that is not linear.
Rik, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches a detector response that is not linear (para [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rik to Li, when modified by Karl, to have teaches a detector response that is not linear in order to enhance the efficiency of the sensors (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not teach a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein, if the irregular operating condition is diagnosed, the method further comprises diagnosing either a non-linear operating condition or an excessive noise operating condition.
Rik, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein, if the irregular operating condition is diagnosed, the method further comprises diagnosing either a non-linear operating condition (para [0026]) or an excessive noise operating condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rik to Li, when modified by Karl, to have teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein, if the irregular operating condition is diagnosed, the method further comprises diagnosing either a non-linear operating condition or an excessive noise operating condition in order to enhance the efficiency of the sensors (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether first spectral line and/or the second spectral line forming a branched pair of spectral lines are subject to a self-absorption phenomenon (p. 3 col 1 para 3); and if self-absorption of the first and/or second spectral line is determined, repeating the diagnostic method using a different pair of branched spectral lines having different wavelengths (p. 3 col 1 para 3, p. 6 col 1 para 2).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches a diagnostic testing method according to claim 1, wherein: diagnosing the normal operating condition of the detector comprises determining that the ratio of the intensity of the first spectral line to the intensity of the second spectral line for a detector (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 7-18).
Li fails to teach each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements forms a linear relationship.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements forms a linear relationship” (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have “each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements forms a linear relationship” in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Regarding claim 17, Li does not teach a spectrometer system as recited in claim 16 wherein the controller is configured to diagnose a normal operating condition if a detector response is linear, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities and to diagnose an irregular operating condition if the detector response is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities.
Karl, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches a spectrometer system as recited in claim 16 wherein the controller is configured to diagnose a normal operating condition if a detector response is linear, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities (fig. 6A-C; p. 27 line 27 to p. 28 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Karl to Li to have a spectrometer system as recited in claim 16 wherein the controller is configured to diagnose a normal operating condition if a detector response is linear, within a specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities in order to accurately calibrate the plurality of detectors.
Li, when modified by Karl, does not teach to diagnose an irregular operating condition if the detector response is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities.
Rik, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches to diagnose an irregular operating condition if the detector response is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities (para [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rik to Li, when modified by Karl, to have to diagnose an irregular operating condition if the detector response is not linear, within the specified range, with respect to the variable incident spectral line intensities in order to enhance the efficiency of the sensors (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Li fails to teach a spectrometer system as recited in claim 16 wherein the controller is further configured to, if the irregular operating condition is diagnosed, further diagnose either a non-linear operating condition or an excessive noise operating condition.
Rik, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches a spectrometer system as recited in claim 16 wherein the controller is further configured to, if the irregular operating condition is diagnosed, further diagnose either a non-linear operating condition (para [0026]) or an excessive noise operating condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rik to Li, when modified by Karl, to have a spectrometer system as recited in claim 16 wherein the controller is further configured to, if the irregular operating condition is diagnosed, further diagnose either a non-linear operating condition or an excessive noise operating condition in order to enhance the efficiency of the sensors (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Karl and Rik, and further in view of US20090273782A1 (Yoo).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Li does not teach a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: adjusting the spectrometer is to reduce line positioning error; and repeating the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements.
Yoo, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: adjusting the spectrometer is to reduce line positioning error; and repeating the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (para [0019] lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yoo to Li, when modified by Karl, to have “a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: adjusting the spectrometer is to reduce line positioning error; and repeating the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” in order to increase the accuracy of the measurements.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Li does not teach “a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: recalibrating the measurements of the first and second spectral lines to account for the line positioning error; and determining the operating condition of the detector based on a ratio of a recalibrated intensity of the first spectral line to a recalibrated intensity of the second spectral line for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements”.
Yoo, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: recalibrating the measurements of the first and second spectral lines to account for the line positioning error; and determining the operating condition of the detector based on a ratio of a recalibrated intensity of the first spectral line to a recalibrated intensity of the second spectral line for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (para [0019] lines 8-12; para [0024])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yoo to Li, when modified by Karl, to have “a diagnostic testing method according to claim 9, wherein if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed, the diagnostic testing method further comprises: determining whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: recalibrating the measurements of the first and second spectral lines to account for the line positioning error; and determining the operating condition of the detector based on a ratio of a recalibrated intensity of the first spectral line to a recalibrated intensity of the second spectral line for each of the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” in order to increase the accuracy of the measurements.
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Li does not teach a spectrometer system as recited in claim 18, wherein: the controller is further configured to, if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed: determine whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: adjust the spectrometer is to reduce line positioning error; and cause the spectrometer to repeat the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements.
Yoo, from the same field of endeavor as Li, teaches “a spectrometer system as recited in claim 18, wherein: the controller is further configured to, if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed: determine whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: adjust the spectrometer is to reduce line positioning error; and cause the spectrometer to repeat the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” (para [0019] lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yoo to Li, when modified by Karl, to have “a spectrometer system as recited in claim 18, wherein: the controller is further configured to, if the non-linear operating condition is diagnosed: determine whether the measurements of the first spectral lines and/or the measurements of the second spectral lines are subject to line positioning error; and if line positioning error is determined to have occurred: adjust the spectrometer is to reduce line positioning error; and cause the spectrometer to repeat the plurality of detector diagnostic measurements” in order to increase the accuracy of the measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights