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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112, the applicant attempted to correct the deficiency with an amendment. However, the amendment fails to fix the issue. The amendment, although supported by the specification, still discloses “at least one”, with the issue being that having only one, even having 2, is not supported. Three beam splitters are required in order to result in the claimed 4 daughter beams.
With respect to the rejection of claim 3, the amendments were successful in overcoming the issue.
With respect to applicant’s argument on page 10, note IV. A. and the reference to “Weidman”, the examiner apologizes for the mistyping. “Weidman” should say “O’Rourke”. The examiner believes this clear since the discussion is about the etalon and O’Rourke is the only reference used to teach the etalon. There is not additional, uncited reference relied upon.
With respect to the applicant’s argument on page 11, IV. B, the examiner disagrees. The applicant argues that none of the spectrometers are designed to use the absorption spectra from all four channels. The examiner agrees with this comment but reminds the applicant that combinations do not rely bodily incorporation of claimed subject matter but rather stem from what one of ordinary skill in the art would learn from the two references. In this case, Kluczynski discloses the first, second, and fourth detectors, in combination in a single system. O’Rourke provides the motivation to add to that a fourth type of detector (called the third detector for characteristic matching) for detecting etalons. O’Rourke teaches the benefits of measuring etalons for calibrating wavelengths in spectrum analyzers. One of ordinary skill would recognize the advantages to having a thoroughly calibrated light source to differentiate the variations in the measured spectra from the variations in the sample. With that, one of ordinary skill would know that the spectrometer also needs to be able to take into consideration all the spectra measured for maximum affect.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12, point IV B. 2., the applicant arguments that the fourth detector is free space only. Kluczynski’s monitor detector 13 clearly shows in Figure 1 that the beam passes through “free space” between the beam splitter and detector.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12, point IV B. 3., the applicant argues that the combination relies on hindsight. The examiner disagrees. O’Rourke discloses measuring an etalon in combination with a reference gas and a sample gas (Kluczynski also discloses both a reference gas and a sample gas). O’Rourke clearly discloses the importance of the etalon measurement in this type of system for frequency calibration. It is a simple step for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply any and all calibration techniques within the confines of time and cost to result in the most accurate measuring possible. There is no hindsight reasoning needed, just a basic desire in the art for calibration.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 13, point IV B. 4., the examiner notes again that it is not bodily incorporation of reference combinations but rather the teachings they convey to those of ordinary skill in the art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the changes to processing needed to include an additional type of calibration without departing form the principle of operation of Kluczynski.
Applicant’s arguments on page 13, point IV B. 5. that the references teach away from their combination, the examiner disagrees. As noted several times above, it is not bodily incorporation but rather the teachings of the references. Although Kluczynski uses wavelength modulation spectroscopy, skilled artisans knowing the benefits and characteristics of etalon measurements would recognize how to incorporate them into the measurements of Kluczynski. Additional support that this is not contrary is taught in “A utility for characterizing laser diode wavelength-to-time response for wavelength modulation spectroscopy application” by Zongtai et al. and “Determination of Relative Wavelength for Scanned Wavelength Modulation Spectroscopy by Etalon Signal Fitting” by Tulgestke et al. that teaches using both wavelength modulation spectroscopy and an etalon for calibration of the laser.
On page 14, the applicant argues against claim 2 noting the reflector is not a generic interchangeable feature but rather special. The examiner disagrees. There is nothing special described about the reflector except its location across the flow cell from the other elements. As noted by the examiner, double pass arrangements and single pass arrangements are art recognized equivalents, two options that are both well-known and selected by those skilled in the art based on priorities. The examiner has added a supportive reference (U.S. Patent #5,408,326) to further clarify the rejection.
The amendments to claim 3 have been addressed in the rejection below.
With respect to claim 4, the applicant argues that the examiner did not address the etalon based detection in the spectrometer. The limitations of claim 4 follow from the combination of Kluczynski and O’Rourke.
On page 17, the applicant argues that the examiner has not fully rejected all limitations of claim 5 and 6. The examiner disagrees. The examiner took Official Notice of the fact that applying dark current corrections, comparing references spectrums to measurement spectrums for extracting a corrected spectrum, and using all the calibration measurements (second, third, and fourth detectors) to correct the measurement. These are well known calibration steps implied or suggested by the references. For extra support, the examiner has added evidence of the fact that these steps are well known and would be within an ordinary understanding of one in the art. Both U.S. Publication 2015/0142364 and “Using Reference Materials, Part II: Photometric Standards” by Jerome Workman JR and Howard Mark both describe in detail using dark current to correct absorption measurements and comparing a reference calibration standard to a known reference spectrum to ensure proper calibration. The step of actually applying all the correction factors for calibration of the measurement spectrum is just common sense.
On page 19, applicant argues with respect to claims 6, 7 and 8, that applying chemometric technique, which is agreed upon as known in the art, to a new and specific context is non-obvious. The examiner disagrees. Applying an old technique to a new application is only non obvious if the result is predictable and doesn’t require any non routine steps. In this specific case of data analysis, there are no non routine steps required or unexpected results achieved. The experimentation necessary it minimal since it is applying a data analysis technique to a different batch of data. Both the application and the reference are in the same field of endeavor- spectroscopic analysis of a flowing sample. Applying the same technique to get a more accurate measurement for a reference sample is also non-obvious in that common sense says that having the most accurate reference sample possible is the most optimum condition and since the chemometric analysis is a known method for getting an accurate sample measurement, it would be within ordinary skill to apply that to a reference sample for the same reasons.
On page 19 and 20, the applicant argues that the wavelength of the laser beam is not a result effective variable. The examiner disagrees as it is a well-known fact in the art that the wavelength used to measure a sample (variable) results in widely different measurements since the sample’s response is dependent on that wavelength (desired result). The field of endeavor is spectroscopy which depends upon the fact that samples response differently to different wavelength inputs. The fact that the specific range of wavelengths is useful for particular types of samples only adds to the fact that one of ordinary skill would select those wavelengths when analyzing the corresponding sample types.
On the whole, the applicant’s arguments have no basis and are not persuasive. The rejection stands as updated to reflect claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim limitations disclose “at least one beam splitter” configured to split the laser beam into four daughter beams. However, there is no one beam splitter disclosed that can do that. Generally beam splitters only split one beam into two beams. The specification P.0059 discloses one or more beam splitters result in 4 daughter beams however unless there is some undisclosed technology, at least 3 beam splitters are required. So either the claim is not enabled for failing to support a single beam splitter that splits a beam into 4 beams or there is essential missing subject matter and 3 beam splitters are required in the claim. The applicant attempted to correct the issue by amending the claim to read “at least one” which does allow for the needed plurality but still allows for only one beam splitter which is not supported. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluczynski U.S. Patent #7,251,034 in view of O’Rourke et al. U.S. Patent #11,131,628.
With respect to claim 1, Kluczynski discloses wavelength modulation spectroscopy comprising:
A laser module configured to output a laser beam that scans across a range of wavelengths (Figure 1, tunable light source diode laser 2, Col.3, l 25-28)
At least one beam splitter configured to receive the laser beam and split the laser beam into a plurality of daughter beams comprising at least a first daughter beam, a second daughter beam, and a third daughter beam (Figure 1, beam splitters 3, 4, Col.2, l 42-45)
A flow area positioned along a path of a first daughter beam, the flow area configured to contain a sample fluid and permit transmission of the first daughter beam therethrough to a first detector (Figure 1, flow area contains sample = 8, first daughter beam = measurement path 5, first detector = measuring detector 12)
A reference cell positioned along a path of a second daughter beam, the reference cell configured to contain a reference fluid and permit the transmission of the second daughter beam therethrough to a second detector (Figure 1, reference cell contains reference gas 21, Col.6, l 6-12, second detector = reference detector 22, second daughter beam = 7)
A fourth detector positioned to directly receive the fourth daughter beam transmitted only through free space without passing through the flow cell, the reference cell, or the etalon (Figure 1, fourth detector = monitor detector 13, Col.4, l 23-25, fourth daughter beam = 6, passes through nothing between beamsplitter 4 and monitor detector 13)
An analog to digital converter configured to receive electrical signals from each of the first, second, and fourth detectors and to determine corresponding absorption spectra therefrom, the spectrometer system being configured to correct an absorption spectrum corresponding to the first detector based on absorption spectra corresponding to the second and fourth detector (Figure 1, analog to digital converters = 19, 14, and 24, Col.6, l 40-46, wherein S is spectrum output, P.0028, P.0041)
However, Kluczynski fails to disclose a flow cell and an etalon to produce a reference interference pattern being received by a third detector.
O’Rourke discloses a spectroscopic system comprising:
A laser module configured to output a laser beam that scans across a range of wavelengths (Figure 1, beam source 8)
A beam splitter configured to receive the laser beam and split the laser beam into a plurality of daughter beams (Figure 1, beam splitter 6)
A flow cell positioned along a path of a first daughter beam, the flow cell configured to contain a sample fluid and permit transmission of the first daughter beam therethrough to a first detector (Figure 1, flow cell = sample cell 10, Col.5, l 15-19, first detector = sample detector 9)
An etalon positioned along a path of a third daughter beam to produce a reference interference pattern, the third daughter beam being received thereafter by a third detector (Figure 1, etalon = 116, Col.5, l 19-26, third detector = reference detector 109)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the etalon as another form of calibration for the laser module since etalons are well known in the art for power monitoring and spectral calibration (P.0096). Since Kluczynski is already interested in providing calibration measurements, including the etalon of O’Rourke to do the same in a different way would provide a more accurate and thorough calibration system.
With respect to claims 2, Kluczynski in view of O’Rourke disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Kluczynski and O’Rourke fail to disclose a reflector across the flow cell, opposite the laser module, wherein the daughter beam reflects off the reflector after passing through the flow cell and before being received by the detector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a reflector on the flow cell for a double pass arrangement rather than a single pass arrangement. The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that double pass arrangements and single pass arrangements are art recognized equivalents (evidence U.S. Patent #5,408,326) and one of ordinary skill in the art would select a double pass for a more sensitive sample detection.
With respect to claim 3, Kluczynski in view of O’Rourke discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 2. However, Kluczynski fails to disclose the laser module, the beam splitter, the reference cell, the etalon, the first detector, the second detector, the third detector, and the fourth detector are housed within a common enclosure positioned on a first side of the flow cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to enclose the components within a housing. Housing is well known in the art for protecting components from external influences, debris, light, or temperature fluctuations.
With respect to claim 4, Kluczynski in view of O’Rourke discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1. In addition, Kluczynski discloses:
Said spectrometer system is configured to determine a first spectrum from the first detector, a second spectrum from the second detector, and a fourth spectrum from the fourth detector; and to correct the first spectrum based on one or more of the second and fourth spectra (Col.4, l 32-38, spectroscopy = calculating means 16, Col.6, l 40-46, gas concentration based on absorption lines)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to additionally determine a third spectrum from the third detector as described in 1 with respect to O’Rourke.
With respect to claim 5 and 6, Kluczynski in view of O’Rourke discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 4 above.
However, Kluczynski fails to disclose applying dark current corrections to signals from each detector, calculating a wavelength offset by comparing the second spectrum to a known reference spectrum of the reference fluid, determining a wavelength correction function by flattening the third spectrum, and generating a corrected signal absorption spectra using the dark current corrected and wavelength corrected spectra.
Applying dark current corrections to the detectors is well known and necessary for accurate detector readings and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to calculate a wavelength offset by comparing the second spectrum to a known reference spectrum of the reference fluid since this is the purpose of reference fluid measurements, having an expected spectrum to compare the actual measured spectrum to in order to subtract out any differences that might be caused throughout the system. This is well known in the art.
As described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a third spectrum that correlates with the etalon detector of O’Rourke for calibrating the measurement signal based on spectrum. Flattening of that spectrum for the wavelength correction is a type of correction from within a finite types of correction that one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected for achieving certain results.
Finally, using these corrected spectra for correcting the measurement spectra (first spectrum) would have been within ordinary skill since that is what the redundant reference detectors are there for.
U.S. Publication 2015/0142364 is evidence that applying dark current corrections, comparing an expected reference spectrum of a reference fluid to a known reference spectrum of a reference fluid (calibrating the reference spectrum essentially), and flattening a spectrum as a means of correction are well known in the art.
With respect to claim 9, Kluczynski in view of O’Rourke discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 6 above. However, Kluczynski and O’Rourke fail to disclose the wavelength range is 1590 nm to 1800 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a wavelength band based on the samples being analyzed as a result effective variable. It is well known in spectroscopy to match the wavelength the absorption bands of the sample. This particular range of wavelengths (1590-1800nm) cover many important fluids containing absorption bands for liquid hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, some viruses, and cyclohexane for example.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluczynski U.S. Patent #7,251,034 in view of O’Rourke et al. U.S. Patent #11,131,628 further in view of Lightowlers et al. U.S. Publication 2010/0127217.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Kluczynski and O’Rourke disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 6 above. However, both Kluczynski and O’Rourke fail to disclose applying a chemometric model for the concentration of a component and for the reference material calibration.
Lightowlers discloses a method for analysis in a process stream comprising:
Determining a concentration of a component of the sample fluid by applying a chemometric model to the signal absorption spectrum (P.0031)
Applying a chemometric model for the reference material for the reference cell spectrum to determine a wavelength calibration (P.0041, P.0055-56)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the chemometric analysis of Lightowler for the data analysis of Kluczynski since chemometric analysis is well known in the art and chemometric methods are known for being efficient and automatic, able to handle large amounts of data such as matching chemical signatures.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
