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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: detection unit for generating a Raman spectrum using scattered light that emanates from the sample substance in claim 1 and dispersing element in claims 1, 13, and 14.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 108459005 A)-using machine translation.
As for claim 1, Zhang in a laser-gas Raman spectrum detecting system based on detection of forward scattering direction discloses/suggests the following: an analysis apparatus for analyzing a sample substance by means of Raman spectroscopy (FIG. 1), said analysis apparatus comprising a sample space for receiving the sample substance (FIG. 1: 6),a laser system for irradiating the sample substance located in the sample space with laser light (FIG. 1: 3 and 4), and a detection unit for generating a Raman spectrum using scattered light that emanates from the sample substance (FIG. 1: 5), wherein the laser system has a laser unit (FIG. 1: 3 and 4) comprising a light exit surface for the exit of a laser beam (FIG. 1: 301 of the right of 3) and a dispersing element that is arranged at a spacing from the light exit surface such that said dispersing element is acted on by the laser beam and transmits at least a portion of the laser light towards the light exit surface for a feedback (FIG. 1: 4 relative to 301 of the right end of 3 with 2; 4 and 2 provide feedback: page 4: paragraph 2), wherein the sample space is arranged between the laser unit and the dispersing element (FIG. 1: gas sample in 6 would intersect the laser light from 301 to 4) and the detection unit is arranged such that it receives the scattered light emanating from the sample substance via the dispersing element (FIG. 1: 4 to 2 to 7 to 5).
As for claim 9, Zhang discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Zhang discloses/suggests wherein the sample space is partly or completely defined by a container (FIG. 1: sample gas in chamber 6).
As for claim 12, Zhang discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Zhang discloses/suggests the detection unit has a light receiver that is spatially resolving in at least one spatial direction (FIG. 1: a lens 7 with a circular black absorbing film 701 in its central part transmits an optical signal which suggests at least an image in two dimensions such as a ring shaped image and 5 is an interference spectrometer suggesting the ability to spatially resolve interference fringes).
As for claim 13, Zhang discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 12). In addition, Zhang discloses/suggests an imaging optics for imaging the dispersed light onto the spatially resolving light receiver is arranged between the dispersing element and the detection unit (FIG. 1: 7 being a lens with a circular black absorbing film 701 in its central part).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 2-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108459005 A)-using machine translation in view of Notingher et al. (WO 2020/058702 A1).
As for claim 2, Zhang discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). Zhang is silent concerning the dispersing element is a diffraction grating. Zhang’s dispersing element is a prism (FIG. 1: 4). Nevertheless, Notingher in a Raman spectroscopy method and apparatus teaches that dispersive elements may be a diffraction grating or a prism (page 3: lines 33-35). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Zhang’s prism with a diffraction grating because it is known that diffraction gratings and prisms are art recognized equivalents of a dispersing element.
As for claim 3, Zhang in view of Notingher discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 2). They are silent concerning the diffraction grating can be rotated about an axis of rotation by means of a controllable drive. Nevertheless, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to having a diffraction grating be rotated by means of a stage in order to provide optical alignment for the diffraction grating by being able to properly orient the diffraction grating in the optical path. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diffraction grating be rotated about an axis of rotation by means of a controllable drive in order to optically align the grating’s orientation relative to the optical path.
As for claim 4, Zhang in view of Notingher discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 2). In addition, Zhang in view of Notingher discloses/suggests the diffraction grating is arranged and formed such that a diffracted light beam is transmitted from the diffraction grating back towards the light exit surface (from Zhang in view of Notingher in claim 2 above: FIG. 1: the prism (4) would be substituted for a diffraction grating wherein a light beam would have come from the laser tube’s right end 301 and traversed 6 to impinge on (4: now a diffraction grating) and then 2).
As for claim 6, Zhang in view of Notingher discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 2). In addition, Zhang in view of Notingher wherein a first mirror is provided to reflect a light beam reflected or transmitted at the diffraction grating back to the diffraction grating again (from Zhang in view of Notingher in claim 2 above: FIG. 1: the prism (4) would be substituted for a diffraction grating: either 1 or 2 as the first mirror).
As for claim 7, Zhang in view of Notingher discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 6). In addition, Zhang in view of Notingher wherein a second mirror is provided to reflect a diffracted light beam back to the diffraction grating again. (from Zhang in view of Notingher in claim 2 above: FIG. 1: the prism (4) would be substituted for a diffraction grating: either 2 or 1 as the second mirror).
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108459005 A)-using machine translation in view of Notingher et al. (WO 2020/058702 A1) further in view of Kaneda (11,095,095) and Smith (5,657,120).
As for claim 5, Zhang in view of Notingher discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 4). They are silent concerning the diffracted light beam is the light beam of the first order of diffraction. Nevertheless, Kaneda in a low cost external cavity diode laser teaches to use the first order of a diffraction grating to provide optical feedback to a laser (col. 2, lines 30-35). And Smith in a laser diode system for Raman spectroscopy also teaches using the first order of a diffraction grating to provide optical feedback to a laser (abstract with col. 44-57). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diffracted light beam be the light beam of the first order of diffraction in order to provide optical feedback to the laser.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108459005 A)-using machine translation in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108444972 A)-using machine translation-hereafter ‘972 and Bacher et al. (2003/0235228 A1).
As for claim 15, Zhang discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). Zhang is silent concerning to a bandpass filter, whose transmission range is adapted to an emission wavelength of the laser unit, is arranged between the light exit surface and the sample space. Nevertheless, ‘972 in a laser gas Raman spectrum detecting system based on capillary enhancement teaches having Brewster windows at both ends of the laser to eliminate stray light (abstract; page 3: sixth paragraph beginning with ‘The beneficial effects…’). And Bacher in a laser with narrow bandwidth antireflection filter for frequency selection teaches using Brewster windows as narrow-band bandpass filters to provide an extremely narrow emission line with an extremely high transmittance (paragraph 0011). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bandpass filter, whose transmission range is adapted to an emission wavelength of the laser unit, be arranged between the light exit surface and the sample space in order to provide a Brewster window to eliminate stray light and to provide an extremely narrow wavelength emission line with an extremely high transmittance.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 8, 10, 11, 14 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.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights