CTNF 19/102,286 CTNF 97478 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “arithmetic unit that determines a concentration”, in claim 1; “a first detector unit that detect”, in claim 1; “a second detector unit that detect”, in claim 1; “ a first detection unit that detect”, in claim 3; “a second detection unit that detect”; in claim 6. 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 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 3-4 and 6 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "a first detection unit" in line 4 and “the first detection unit” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "a first detection unit" of claim 3 since in “a first detection unit” was previously introduced in Claim 1, line 5. Therefore, it is unclear if “a first detection unit” in claim 1 is the same as “a first detection unit of Claim 3. Moreover, for the limitation “the first detection unit” in Claim 3, line 5, it is unclear if this limitation refers to “a first detection unit” of claim 1 or “a first detection unit” Claim 3. For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “a first detection unit” of claim 1 or “a first detection unit” Claim 3, as the same first detection unit. Regarding Claim 4 , the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 3, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "a second detection unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "a second detection unit" of claim 6 since in “a second detection unit” was previously introduced in Claim 1, line 6. Therefore, it is unclear if “a second detection unit” in claim 1 is the same as “a second detection unit of Claim 6. For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “a second detection unit” of claim 1 or “a second detection unit” Claim 6, as the same second detection unit. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 is reject ed u nder 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClatchi e et al. (US 4,829,183 A), hereafter McClatchie in view of Fabinski et al. (US 5,055,688, included in IDS on 05/09/2025), hereafter Fabinski. Regarding claim 1, McClatchie teaches a gas measurement device (Fig. 1 element 10) that measures a sample gas (gas mixture), [Col. 1 lines 22-31]) including a plurality of gas components (NOx, hydrocarbons, CO2, H2O, [Col. 1, lines 53-67]), absorption wavelength ranges of the plurality of gas components at least partially overlapping with each other, (absorption characteristic of the components interfere with each other based on relative absorption characteristic, [Col. 2, lines 50-61], [Col. 6, lines 24-36], the gas measurement device comprising: a first detection unit (Fig. 1, combination of elements 17 + 11 + 27- 1 — 27- 3 + 26- 1 — 26- 3 ) that detects a first component in the sample gas (NOx); a second detection unit (Fig. 1, combination of elements 21 + 13 + 27- 4 — 27- 6 + 26- 4 — 26- 6 ) that detects a second component and a third component in the sample gas (CO2, CO, HC), each of the second and third components having an absorption wavelength range at least partially overlapping with an absorption wavelength range of the first component [Col. 2, lines 50-61], [Col. 6, lines 24-36], ; and an arithmetic unit (Fig. 1 elements 37 + 39), [Col. 5, lines 50-64] that determines a concentration of the first component by correcting a detection value of the first component detected by the first detection unit using a plurality of detection values, detected by the second detection unit, (as shown in the method on Fig. 2, the arithmetic unit determine the concentration of NOx by correcting measurements of NOx based on detected values of CO2 and H20, [Col. 6, 65-68]-[Col. 7, lines 1-15]) the first detection unit (Fig. 1, combination of elements 17 + 11 + 27- 1 — 27- 3 + 26- 1 — 26- 3 ) including: a first light source (Fig. 1 element 17); a first sample cell (Fig. 1 element 11) filled with the sample gas, [Col. 4, lines 14-31]; and a first detector (Fig. 1, combination of elements 27- 1 — 27- 3 ) that detects light passing through the first sample cell (11) to detect a light intensity thereof in the absorption wavelength range of the first component , ( the detector detect the intensity of NOx from the sample cell 11, [Col. 6, lines 50-64], [Col. 5, lines 63-68], the first sample cell (Fig 1 element 11) and the first detector ( Fig. 1 elements 27- 1 ) being disposed in series on a first optical path of light emitted from the first light source (Fig. 1 element 17), (as shown on Fig. 1) the second detection unit (Fig. 1, combination of elements 21 + 13 + 27- 4 — 27- 6 + 26- 4 — 26- 6 ) including: a second light source (Fig. 1 element 21), [Col. 4, lines 14-32]; a second sample cell (Fig. 1 element 13) filled with the sample gas, [Col. 4, lines 14-32]; a second detector (Fig. 1, combination of elements 27- 6 ) that detects light passing through the second sample cell (Fig. 1 element 13) to detect a light intensity thereof in the absorption wavelength range of the second component (the detector 27- 6 detect the intensity of CO2 from the sample cell 13, [Col. 6, lines 50-64], [Col. 5, lines 63-68]; and a third detector (Fig. 1, combination of elements 27- 5 ) that detects light passing through the second sample cell (Fig. 1 element 13) to detect a light intensity thereof in the absorption wavelength range of the third component, (the detector 27- 5 detect the intensity of CO from the sample cell 13, [Col. 6, lines 5-11] , the second sample cell (Fig. 1 element 13) , the second detector (Fig. 1 element 27- 6 ) and the third detector being disposed in series on a second optical path of light emitted from the second light source (Fig. 1 element 21), ( as shown in Fig. 1 elements 21, 13, 27-6 are disposed in series). McClatchie fail to teach the second sample cell, the second detector and the third detector being disposed in series on a second optical path of light emitted from the light source . However, Fabinski related to gas analyzer and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the second sample cell (Fig. 2 element V), the second detector (Fig. 3 element C2) and the third detector (Fig. 3 element C3) being disposed in series on a second optical path of light emitted from the light source (Fig. 3 element S + Chopper wheel), (as shown in Fig. 3 elements V + C2 +C3 are in series in the second optical path, [Col. 4, lines 3-15]). Additionally, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A). Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McClatchie by including the second sample cell, the second detector and the third detector being disposed in series on a second optical path of light emitted from the light source (as taught by Fabinski) for several advantages such as: allowing to accommodate a plurality of filters that eliminate interference from other components in the sample of gas thus increasing the device accuracy, ([Col. 5, lines 1-14], Fabinski) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClatchie in view of Fabinski, further in view of Tadanaga et al. (US 2018/0095030 A1), hereafter Tadanaga . Regarding claim 2, McClatchie in the combination outlined above teaches the gas measurement device according to claim 1. McClatchie further teaches wherein the sample gas is exhaust gas, [Col. 4, lines 46-51]. Even though McClatchie teaches the first component is a Nitrogen oxide (NOx), McClatchie fail to teach the component is dinitrogen oxide. However, Tadanaga related to gas analyzer and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the component is dinitrogen oxide, [0042]. Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of McClatchie by including the component is dinitrogen oxide, (as taught by Tadanaga) for several advantages such as: the device allows to keep a temperature correction constant when directly measuring the concentration of N.sub.2O and thereby eliminating the need for a temperature measurement instrument and its signal generator, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0075], Tadanaga) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 i s re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mc Clatchie in view of Fabinski and Tadanaga, and further in view of Weckstrom et al. (5,900,635 A), hereafter Weckstrom. Re garding claim 5, McClatchie in the combination outlined above teaches the gas measurement device according to claim 2. McClatchie further teaches wherein the second detection unit (Fig. 1, combination of elements 21 + 13 + 27- 4 — 27- 6 + 26- 4 — 26- 6 ) further includes a second filter (26- 6 ) and is disposed on the second optical path between the second sample cell (Fig. 1 element 13) and the second detector (Fig. 1 element 27- 6 ), (as shown in Fig. 1), [Col. 5, lines 30-47]. The modified device of McClatchie fail to teach a gas filter that is filled with carbon dioxide. However, Weckstrom related to gas measuring devices and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches a gas filter (Fig. 4A, element 11) that is filled with carbon dioxide , (Fig. 4A element 13, [Col. 7, lines 16-30]). Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of McClatchie by including a gas filter that is filled with carbon dioxide, (as taught by Weckstrom) for several advantages such as: the gas filter allow the width of the absorption lines of the compensation gas mixture to be equal to the width of the absorption lines of the gas component being measured, in a situation in which the absorption lines of the gas component being measured are non-broadened, thus allowing to increase the device accuracy to detect the gas to be measure, ([Col. 7, lines 61-67], Weckstrom) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClatchie in view of Fabinski and Tadanaga, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (JP 2012068164 A), hereafter Ishikawa . Regarding claim 6, McClatchie in the combination outlined above teaches the gas measurement device according to claim 2. The modified device of McClatchie fail to teach wherein the second component is sulfur dioxide , the third component is methane , the second detector includes: a second housing filled with the second component ; and a second detection unit that detects a pressure in the second housing, the third detector detects light passing through the second sample cell and the second housing in this order. Ishikawa relate to gas measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the second component is sulfur dioxide (SO2), the third component is methane (CH4), the second detector includes: a second housing (Fig. 4 element 41 comprise a housing) filled with the second component (SO2), [0022]; and a second detection unit (Fig. 4 element 41 + 51) that detects a pressure in the second housing, (pneumatic detector, [0023]), the third detector (Fig. 4 element 42 + 52) detects light passing through the second sample cell (Fig. 4 element 2) and the second housing (41) in this order. Even though the position of the third detector 42 is before detector 41 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of elements 41 and 42 as result of routine optimization in order to increase the device versatility, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of McClatchie by including wherein the second component is sulfur dioxide , the third component is methane , the second detector includes: a second housing filled with the second component ; and a second detection unit that detects a pressure in the second housing, the third detector detects light passing through the second sample cell and the second housing in this order, (as taught by Ishikawa) for several advantages such as: prevent a reduction in the amount of infrared light that has passed through the measurement cell, and the measurement accuracy of the measurement component by device is improved, ([0004, 0037], Ishikawa) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “ wherein the first detector includes: a first housing filled with the first component; and a first detection unit that detects a pressure in the first housing, the first detection unit includes: an optical filter that transmits light in a first absorption wavelength range of dinitrogen monoxide but does not transmit light in a second absorption wavelength range of dinitrogen monoxide overlapping with an absorption wavelength range of carbon dioxide; and a first gas filter filled with a gas component having an absorption wavelength range at least partially overlapping with the first absorption wavelength range, the optical filter and the first gas filter are disposed on the first optical path between the first sample cell and the first detector. ”, in the combination required by the claim. Regarding Claim 4 is directly/indirectly dependent on claim 3 and are allowable based on their dependencies. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 7 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. Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “ wherein the second detection unit further includes a fourth detector that detects light passing through the second sample cell to detect a light intensity thereof in an absorption wavelength range of a fourth component, the fourth component having an absorption wavelength range at least partially overlapping with an absorption wavelength range of the first component, the second component is sulfur dioxide, the third component is methane, the fourth component is carbon dioxide, and the second sample cell, the second detector, the third detector and the fourth detector are disposed in series on the second optical path in this order .”, in the combination required by the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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. /CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 11 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 12 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 14 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 15 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 16 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/102,286 Page 17 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights