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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, line 4 recites “said signal”. For consistency and clarity purposes, line 4 should recite “said electrical signal”. Also, claim 6 should end with a period which currently is missing.
Regarding claim 16, line 2 recites “is configured analyze said signal”. For consistency and clarity purposes, line 2 should recite “is configured to analyze said electrical signal”.
Claim 17, depending from claim 16, is objected for the same reason as mentioned above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pat. 6,509,562) in view of SCHECHTER et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0062321).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. teaches a system for analyzing a gas, the system comprising: a pair of electrodes (30 and 32) arranged to generate an electric field therebetween (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 44-50); a light source system (20) configured to illuminate the gas between said electrodes (30 and 32) by a light beam so as to release electrons from the gas by a multiphoton ionization process (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 24-42); and a processor (52) configured to receive from said electrodes (30 and 32) an electrical signal generated by electrons accelerating within said electric field (as disclosed in col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 22), and to analyze the gas (as disclosed in col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 22).
Yang et al. fails to specifically teach a processor configured to construct a multiphoton ionization spectrum based on said electrical signal, and to analyze the gas based on said spectrum. However, SCHECHTER et al. teaches a processor configured to construct a multiphoton ionization spectrum based on said electrical signal, and to analyze the target based on said spectrum (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0029).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the processor configured to construct a multiphoton ionization spectrum based on said electrical signal, and to analyze the gas based on said spectrum as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to identify and assay atoms and molecules that the gas comprises (SCHECHTER et al. para. 0004).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Yang et al. teaches a gas flow chamber (14), formed with a gas inlet (44 and 46) and a gas outlet (48), wherein said electrodes (30 and 32) are positioned in said gas flow chamber (14) (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein said light source system (30) is configured to vary a wavelength of said light beam (as disclosed in para. 0022).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have said light source system configured to vary a wavelength of said light beam as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to use a range of wavelengths that ionizes different atoms and molecules in the gas.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3, in addition, Yang et al. teaches wherein said light source system (20) comprises a plurality of light sources (21), each configured to generate light at a controllable wavelength (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 24-40).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein a distance between said electrodes (55 and 57) is controllable (as disclosed in para. 0024).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the distance between said electrodes controllable as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to position the electrode at different locations relative to the target (SCHECHTER et al. para. 0024).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein a location of the multiphoton ionization process between the electrode (57) is controllable (SCHECHTER et al. para. 0024).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the location of the multiphoton ionization process between the electrode controllable as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to position the electrode at different locations relative to the target (SCHECHTER et al. para. 0024).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Yang et al. wherein said processor (52) is configured to construct a multiphoton ionization waveform (as shown in fig. 6A-6B), and to analyze the gas based on said waveform (as shown in fig. 6A-6B) and SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein said processor is configured to analyze the target based on said spectrum (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0029).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the processor is configured to analyze the gas based on said spectrum as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to identify and assay atoms and molecules that the gas comprises (SCHECHTER et al. para. 0004).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 14, in addition, Yang et al. wherein said processor (52) is configured to generate ion mobility data based on said waveform (as shown in fig. 6A-6B and disclosed in col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 22), and to analyze the gas based on said ion mobility data (as shown in fig. 6A-6B and disclosed in col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 22) and SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein said processor is configured to analyze the target based on said spectrum (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0029).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the processor is configured to analyze the gas based on said spectrum as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to identify and assay atoms and molecules that the gas comprises (SCHECHTER et al. para. 0004).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein said gas flow chamber (52) is a faraday cage chamber (as disclosed in para. 0023).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the gas flow chamber as a faraday cage chamber as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to block external magnetic fields and prevent internal emissions from escaping.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SCHECHTER et al. teaches a lens (37) positioned to focus said light beam (32), wherein a focal length of said lens (37) is at least 10% of a length of said electrode (57) along a propagation direction of said light beam (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the lens positioned to focus said light beam, wherein a focal length of said lens is at least 10% of a length of said electrode along a propagation direction of said light beam as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to ensure precise and accurate focusing of the light beam.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3, in addition, SCHECHTER et al. teaches wherein said wavelength variation is at a sub-nanometer spectral resolution (as disclosed in col. 5, line 64 through col. 6, line 5).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the wavelength variation at a sub-nanometer spectral resolution as taught by SCHECHTER et al. with the invention of Yang et al. in order to allow light to be confined to dimensions far smaller than this limit.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pat. 6,509,562) and SCHECHTER et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0062321) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bilenko et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0219479).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a pressure condition in an interior of said chamber is generally equal to a pressure condition outside said chamber. However, Bilenko et al. teaches wherein a pressure condition in an interior of said chamber (42) is generally equal to a pressure condition outside said chamber (42) (as disclosed in para. 0070).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the pressure condition in an interior of said chamber generally equal to a pressure condition outside said chamber as taught by Bilenko et al. with the invention of the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. in order to prevent leakage and infiltration.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pat. 6,509,562) and SCHECHTER et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0062321) as applied to claims 2 and 7 above, and further in view of GAMACHE (US PGPUB 2023/0145929).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, Yang et al. teaches a pump system (50) configured to vary a pressure in said chamber.
The combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. fails to specifically teach a pump system configured to vary a pressure in said chamber. However, GAMACHE teaches a pump system configured to vary a pressure in said chamber (as disclosed in para. 0065).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the pump system configured to vary a pressure in said chamber as taught by GAMACHE with the invention of the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. in order to ensure consistent and reliable discharge.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7.
The combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. fails to specifically teach wherein said light source system is configured to illuminate said gas simultaneously by at least two light beams, each generated by a different light source and having a different wavelength. However, GAMACHE teaches wherein said light source system is configured to illuminate said gas simultaneously by at least two light beams, each generated by a different light source (136) and having a different wavelength (as disclosed in para. 0071).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the light source system configured to illuminate said gas simultaneously by at least two light beams, each generated by a different light source and having a different wavelength as taught by GAMACHE with the invention of the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. in order to identify and assay atoms and molecules that the gas comprises.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7.
The combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. fails to specifically teach wherein said light source system is configured to generate at least two pulsed light beams, respectively from at least two of said light sources, wherein each pulsed light beam has a different wavelength and wherein pulses of said pulsed light beam are temporally interlaced with each other. However, GAMACHE teaches wherein said light source system is configured to generate at least two pulsed light beams, respectively from at least two of said light sources (136), wherein each pulsed light beam has a different wavelength and wherein pulses of said pulsed light beam are temporally interlaced with each other (as shown in fig. 2 and disclosed in para. 0071).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the light source system is configured to generate at least two pulsed light beams, respectively from at least two of said light sources, wherein each pulsed light beam has a different wavelength and wherein pulses of said pulsed light beam are temporally interlaced with each other as taught by GAMACHE with the invention of the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. in order to identify and assay atoms and molecules that the gas comprises.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pat. 6,509,562) and SCHECHTER et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0062321) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0240839).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. fails to specifically teach wherein said gas inlet and gas outlet are opened at all times. However, Hutchinson et al. teaches wherein said gas inlet and gas outlet are opened at all times (as shown in fig. 5 and disclosed in para. 0030).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the gas inlet and gas outlet are opened at all times as taught by Hutchinson et al. with the invention of the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. in order to purge and restore flow (Hutchinson et al. para. 0030).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pat. 6,509,562) and SCHECHTER et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0062321) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ratcliffe et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0090667).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. fails to specifically teach wherein said gas flow chamber is telescopic and having a variable length. However, Ratcliffe et al. teaches wherein said gas flow chamber is telescopic and having a variable length (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in para. 0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the gas flow chamber is telescopic and having a variable length as taught by Ratcliffe et al. with the invention of the combination of Yang et al. and SCHECHTER et al. in order to reduce dead space (Ratcliffe et al. para. 0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to specifically teach a system for analyzing a gas, the system comprising: a pump system configured to vary a pressure in said chamber, wherein said processor is configured to receive said electrical signal at different pressure conditions, for each of a plurality of different central wavelengths of said light beam, wherein for each of said central wavelengths, said analysis is based on changes of said signal in response to said pressure variation, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 16-17, the prior art fails to specifically teach a system for analyzing a gas, the system comprising: wherein said processor is synchronized with said light source system and is configured analyze said signal in bins, each bin corresponding to a different central wavelength of said light beam, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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 VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights