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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 7/15/2025.
No prior art is being applied for the same reasons noted in the Office Action of 4/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-11 directed towards the previous 101 rejections,
The instant amendment, as currently presented, overcomes the previous 101 rejections.
With regard to the arguments on pages 11-12 directed towards the previous 112 rejections,
Applicant’s sole argument is that Figure 4 provides support for the claimed invention in sufficient detail, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 4 only shows an amount of light relative to a magnetic field, and how applicant is identifying certain points on this graph by references PA, PO, and PB. Nothing in this figure provides support for the previously raised issues, such as the previously claimed formulas. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that most of the rejections under 112(a) and (b) have not been responded to or addressed by way of amendment. These rejections are therefore respectfully repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “A magneto-optical measurement apparatus for measuring a Kerr output value using magneto-optical effect to determine a degree of optical rotation for controlling a gas sensor or a polarimeter using the degree of optical rotation … control a gas sensor or a polarimeter using the degree of optical rotation” on lines 1-3 and 11 of page 3 of the claim introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
Nowhere in the original disclosure does applicant disclose any control of a gas sensor or a polarimeter using the degree of optical rotation. At most, the original disclosure states that when the apparatus is designed to detect a gas, the laminate film includes a gas sensing layer. However, no actual gas sensor is ever disclosed, and no control of such a gas sensor is ever disclosed, especially using the degree of optical rotation as claimed. Similarly, no control of a polarimeter is ever disclosed, especially using the degree of optical rotation as claimed. Instead, the original disclosure only states that a polarimeter is described by example of the magneto-optical measurement apparatus, but not further explanation is provided. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the apparatus is an example of a polarimeter, and furthermore, no control of such a polarimeter in any manner is disclosed. These features therefore introduce new matter.
Only to the extent that is held that applicant does originally disclose the above feature, this feature lacks proper written description because the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the gas sensor or polarimeter are controlled using the degree of optical rotation. Applicant does not provide any guidance or explanation as to what this control is or the manner in which the sensor or polarimeter are controlled using the degree of optical rotation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements any control of these elements using the degree of optical rotation as claimed, and thus would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features.
The phrase “wherein PO represents an amount of reflected light by the thin-film sensor when an applied magnetic field is zero and residual magnetization of the thin-film sensor is zero, wherein PA represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the positive magnetic field, wherein PB represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the negative magnetic field of equal magnitude to the positive magnetic field, wherein ΔP represents an amount of change in the amount of the reflected light when each of the positive and the negative magnetic fields is applied, wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3:Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4), the controller is configured to … determine a Kerr output value at the specific time to be (A - B) / ((A + B)/2) by substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4 without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero” on lines 24-47 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant initially claims “wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3: Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4).” Such a recitation introduces new matter because these formulas are not reasonably found in the original disclosure. The closest formulas to those claimed above are found from line 9 of page 18 through line 9 of page 19. However, what is disclosed in this section of the disclosure is not the same as those formulas found above. None of formulas 1, 2, 3, or 4 are found in this section or any other section of the disclosure. Furthermore, while certain values are similar, they are not the same as claimed. For example, no ΔP value is disclosed, but ΔR is disclosed as the differences of amount of light at the point PA and the point PB from the amount of reflected light at the zero magnetization. ΔP is defined to be an amount of change in the amount of reflected light by the thin-film sensor under the negative and positive magnetic fields, but it is not limited to the specific points PA and PB as originally disclosed, and it is not limited to points of light reflected at the zero magnetization. Meaning, ΔP is different than ΔR, and ΔP was never originally disclosed. Furthermore, none of the above claimed relationships were originally disclosed or contemplated. The Examiner acknowledges that some of the math disclosed may have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art through mathematical manipulation. However, whether something is obvious does not make it part of the original disclosure. “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Meaning, if the original disclosure did not originally disclosed and contemplate the mathematical formulas now being claimed, then such mathematical formulas introduce new matter even if they were obvious manipulations of the originally disclosed formulas and values. Because none of the above formulas were originally disclosed or reasonably originally contemplated, these formulas introduce new matter. Furthermore, the controller is claimed to be configured to determine a Kerr output value by substituting estimated values for values from the above formulas, but such substitution cannot reasonably occur unless those original values from formulas 1, 2, and 3 have actually been obtained. Meaning, these formulas cannot reasonably just be mathematical explanations of physical phenomena, and instead must reason be actually determined in order to allow for any of the substitution to occur. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the controller is configured to determine or otherwise obtain the above values as claimed. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) Applicant initially claims “wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3: Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4).” While this phrase is indefinite, to the extent that applicant intends this phrase to be computed and implemented, such a phrase in combination with the other claim features introduces new matter. Such an issue is raised because applicant also separately claims “the controller is configured to … determine a Kerr output value at the specific time to be (A - B) / ((A + B)/2) by substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4.” As such, applicant is twice claiming that the Kerr output value is determined using two related but still different formulas. However does not originally disclose the use of two different formulas to determine a Kerr output value as claimed. Meaning, applicant does not originally disclose solving for the Kerr output value using formula 4 which is based upon amounts of light reflected from the thin-film sensor (e.g. values PA and PB), and then use a distinct formula using values obtained from regression curves to determine the Kerr output value.
3) Additionally, applicant does not originally disclose substituting values obtained from regression values, such as A and B, with values not obtained from regression curves, but instead otherwise obtained and representing amounts of light reflected by the thin-film sensor. While the formula disclosed on lines 8-10 of page 19 may ultimately be the formula used by applicant to determine a Kerr value, as acknowledged by applicant on pages 8-9 of the amendment filed 9/6/2024, applicant intended to use the above formula found on lines 8-10 of page 19 for the regression curve values. No substitution of any kind was originally disclosed. Meaning, the formula on lines 8-10 of page 19 was disclosed to be used with the actual measured values of light, but applicant separately also intended to use this formula when using the regression values to determine the Kerr output value. By admitting this, applicant is acknowledging that the formula from page 19 was intended to be used with regression curve values, where values A and B come from the regression curves. Such an issue is additionally noted because applicant’s current claims no longer use the regression curve values to determine the Kerr output value because applicant is not substituting them with other values, presumably ones that were actually measured. Nowhere in the original disclosure does applicant disclose such a substitution, thereby raising an issue of new matter.
4) Applicant is claiming that the Kerr output value is determined “without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero,” but such a phrase introduces new matter. Applicant does not originally disclose that the determination of the Kerr output value is done without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero. While applicant does disclose that attaining a zero-magnetization state in actual measurement is perplexing because a demagnetizing process is necessary (lines 4-6 of page 19), applicant never states that such a measurement is not obtained. In fact, applicant is claiming value P0 represents an amount of light reflected by thin-film sensor when a residual magnetization is zero. Values P0, PA, and PB, read in light of the disclosure, are all measured values of light coming from Figure 4. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that if demagnetization is necessary for a zero magnetization state, and if applicant is claiming that P0 represents a zero magnetization state, then applicant may reasonably be performing or have performed a demagnetization process.
The phrase “wherein the first regression curve is determined from measured values from the reflected-light detection device at different times under the positive magnetic field, wherein the second regression curve is determined from measured values from the reflected-light detection device at different times under the negative magnetic field, wherein the measured values are amounts of light reflected by the thin-film sensor at different times, and wherein the amounts of reflected light are measured using the light source whose amount of light starts varying immediately after lighting and gradually approaches a certain value, under positive and negative magnetic fields of equal magnitude which are alternately applied, so that PA and PB cannot be measured simultaneously” on lines 13 to the end of page 3 of the claim introduces new matter.
Applicant claims “the amounts of reflected light are measured using the light source,” but the Examiner respectfully notes that the light source is not originally disclosed to make any form of measurement. The light source (20) is only disclosed to generate light as seen in Figure 1, and where it is the light detection device that detects or measures reflected light. As such, claiming that the light source measures the reflected light introduces new matter.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the controller is configured to light the light source with a constant current for a predetermined period before blinking the light source cyclically” on lines 2-3 introduces new matter.
Claim 19 expressly requires that the light source is already varying on in the middle of page 3 of the claim The light source cannot already be varying when the controller is providing a constant current as recited above. As such, these two claim features, in the combination, introduce new matter because applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the light source can be varying as required in Claim 19, when the current is constant is recited in Claim 23.
As to Claim 26,
The phrase “the controller is configured to measure light reflected by the thin-film sensor during a period where output of the light source is varying” on lines 3-4 introduces new matter. Applicant has removed any detector capable of measuring light from the claim combination, and a controller is neither reasonably capable of measuring light or is disclosed to be able to measure light absent a structural feature such as a detector. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claim 27,
The phrase “A magneto-optical measurement method for measuring a Kerr output value using magneto-optical effect to determine a degree of optical rotation for controlling a gas sensor or a polarimeter using the degree of optical rotation … controlling, using the controller, a gas sensor or a polarimeter using the degree of optical rotation” on lines 1-3 and lines 43-44 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
Nowhere in the original disclosure does applicant disclose any control of a gas sensor or a polarimeter using the degree of optical rotation. At most, the original disclosure states that when the apparatus is designed to detect a gas, the laminate film includes a gas sensing layer. However, no actual gas sensor is ever disclosed, and no control of such a gas sensor is ever disclosed, especially using the degree of optical rotation as claimed. Similarly, no control of a polarimeter is ever disclosed, especially using the degree of optical rotation as claimed. Instead, the original disclosure only states that a polarimeter is described by example of the magneto-optical measurement apparatus, but not further explanation is provided. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the apparatus is an example of a polarimeter, and furthermore, no control of such a polarimeter in any manner is disclosed. These features therefore introduce new matter.
Only to the extent that is held that applicant does originally disclose the above feature, this feature lacks proper written description because the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the gas sensor or polarimeter are controlled using the degree of optical rotation. Applicant does not provide any guidance or explanation as to what this control is or the manner in which the sensor or polarimeter are controlled using the degree of optical rotation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements any control of these elements using the degree of optical rotation as claimed, and thus would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features.
The phrase “wherein PO represents an amount of reflected light by the thin-film sensor when an applied magnetic field is zero and residual magnetization of the thin-film sensor is zero, wherein PA represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the positive magnetic field, wherein PB represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the negative magnetic field of equal magnitude to the positive magnetic field, wherein ΔP represents an amount of change in the amount of the reflected light when each of the positive and the negative magnetic fields is applied, wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3:Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4), the controller is configured to … determine a Kerr output value at the specific time to be (A - B) / ((A + B)/2) by substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4 without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero … wherein the first regression curve is determined from measured values from the reflected-light detection device at different times under the positive magnetic field, wherein the second regression curve is determined from measured values from the reflected-light detection device at different times under the negative magnetic field, wherein the measured values are amounts of light reflected by the thin-film sensor at different times, and wherein the amounts of reflected light are measured using the light source whose amount of light starts varying immediately after lighting and gradually approaches a certain value, under positive and negative magnetic fields of equal magnitude which are alternately applied, so that PA and PB cannot be measured simultaneously” on lines 18 to the end introduces new matter.
1) Applicant initially claims “wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3: Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4).” Such a recitation introduces new matter because these formulas are not reasonably found in the original disclosure. The closest formulas to those claimed above are found from line 9 of page 18 through line 9 of page 19. However, what is disclosed in this section of the disclosure is not the same as those formulas found above. None of formulas 1, 2, 3, or 4 are found in this section or any other section of the disclosure. Furthermore, while certain values are similar, they are not the same as claimed. For example, no ΔP value is disclosed, but ΔR is disclosed as the differences of amount of light at the point PA and the point PB from the amount of reflected light at the zero magnetization. ΔP is defined to be an amount of change in the amount of reflected light by the thin-film sensor under the negative and positive magnetic fields, but it is not limited to the specific points PA and PB as originally disclosed, and it is not limited to points of light reflected at the zero magnetization. Meaning, ΔP is different than ΔR, and ΔP was never originally disclosed. Furthermore, none of the above claimed relationships were originally disclosed or contemplated. The Examiner acknowledges that some of the math disclosed may have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art through mathematical manipulation. However, whether something is obvious does not make it part of the original disclosure. “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Meaning, if the original disclosure did not originally disclosed and contemplate the mathematical formulas now being claimed, then such mathematical formulas introduce new matter even if they were obvious manipulations of the originally disclosed formulas and values. Because none of the above formulas were originally disclosed or reasonably originally contemplated, these formulas introduce new matter. Furthermore, no structural feature or any other feature of the disclosure is disclosed to determine a Kerr value based upon regression curves and determine the above formulas 1, 2, and 3 to allow for the claimed substitution. Note that such a substitution cannot reasonably occur unless those original values from formulas 1, 2, and 3 have actually been obtained. Meaning, these formulas cannot reasonably just be mathematical explanations of physical phenomena, and instead must reason be actually determined in order to allow for any of the substitution to occur. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the controller or any other feature is configured to determine or otherwise obtain the above values as claimed. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) Applicant initially claims “wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3: Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4).” While this phrase is indefinite, to the extent that applicant intends this phrase to be computed and implemented, such a phrase in combination with the other claim features introduces new matter. Such an issue is raised because applicant also separately claims “the controller is configured to … determine a Kerr output value at the specific time to be (A - B) / ((A + B)/2) by substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4.” As such, applicant is twice claiming that the Kerr output value is determined using two related but still different formulas. However does not originally disclose the use of two different formulas to determine a Kerr output value as claimed. Meaning, applicant does not originally disclose solving for the Kerr output value using formula 4 which is based upon amounts of light reflected from the thin-film sensor (e.g. values PA and PB), and then use a distinct formula using values obtained from regression curves to determine the Kerr output value.
3) Additionally, applicant does not originally disclose substituting values obtained from regression values, such as A and B, with values not obtained from regression curves, but instead otherwise obtained and representing amounts of light reflected by the thin-film sensor. While the formula disclosed on lines 8-10 of page 19 may ultimately be the formula used by applicant to determine a Kerr value, as acknowledged by applicant on pages 8-9 of the amendment filed 9/6/2024, applicant intended to use the above formula found on lines 8-10 of page 19 for the regression curve values. No substitution of any kind was originally disclosed. Meaning, the formula on lines 8-10 of page 19 was disclosed to be used with the actual measured values of light, but applicant separately also intended to use this formula when using the regression values to determine the Kerr output value. By admitting this, applicant is acknowledging that the formula from page 19 was intended to be used with regression curve values, where values A and B come from the regression curves. Such an issue is additionally noted because applicant’s current claims no longer use the regression curve values to determine the Kerr output value because applicant is not substituting them with other values, presumably ones that were actually measured. Nowhere in the original disclosure does applicant disclose such a substitution, thereby raising an issue of new matter.
4) Applicant is claiming that the Kerr output value is determined “without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero,” but such a phrase introduces new matter. Applicant does not originally disclose that the determination of the Kerr output value is done without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero. While applicant does disclose that attaining a zero-magnetization state in actual measurement is perplexing because a demagnetizing process is necessary (lines 4-6 of page 19), applicant never states that such a measurement is not obtained. In fact, applicant is claiming value P0 represents an amount of light reflected by thin-film sensor when a residual magnetization is zero. Values P0, PA, and PB, read in light of the disclosure, are all measured values of light coming from Figure 4. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that if demagnetization is necessary for a zero magnetization state, and if applicant is claiming that P0 represents a zero magnetization state, then applicant may reasonably be performing or have performed a demagnetization process.
5) Applicant claims “the amounts of reflected light are measured using the light source,” but the Examiner respectfully notes that the light source is not originally disclosed to make any form of measurement. The light source (20) is only disclosed to generate light as seen in Figure 1, and where it is the light detection device that detects or measures reflected light. As such, claiming that the light source measures the reflected light introduces new matter.
As to Claims 20-26,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 19-27 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.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the light being transmitted from the light source” on line 7 is indefinite. Applicant is positively reciting the actual transmission of light by the light source in apparatus claim, and where such a recitation amounts of a method step of transmitting light with the light source. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
The phrase “wherein PO represents an amount of reflected light by the thin-film sensor when an applied magnetic field is zero and residual magnetization of the thin-film sensor is zero, wherein PA represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the positive magnetic field, wherein PB represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the negative magnetic field of equal magnitude to the positive magnetic field, wherein ΔP represents an amount of change in the amount of the reflected light when each of the positive and the negative magnetic fields is applied, wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3:Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4), the controller is configured to … determine a Kerr output value at the specific time to be (A - B) / ((A + B)/2) by substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4 without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero” on lines 24-47 is indefinite.
1) It is unclear whether the above formulas are intended to be computed or otherwise obtained by the claimed controller. Applicant expressly claims that each of these formulas are satisfied, and later claims that the Kerr output value of formula 4 is satisfied based on formulas 1, 2, and 3. Such language can reasonably be interpreted to mean that applicant intends these formulas to be computed. However, no structural feature of the claim is recited to implement any of these formulas. The only structural feature of the claim that is reasonably capable of implementing these formulas, the controller, is distinctly recited from these formulas. This is further an issue because the controller is claimed to be configured to determine a Kerr output value by substituting estimated values for values from the above formulas, but such substitution cannot reasonably occur unless those original values from formulas 1, 2, and 3 have actually been obtained. Meaning, these formulas cannot reasonably just be mathematical explanations of physical phenomena, and instead must reason be actually determined in order to allow for any of the substitution to occur. As such, this phrase is indefinite.
2) Applicant claims that P0, PA, PB, and ΔP are all representative of “an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor.” However, applicant already previously claims light reflected by the thin-film sensor. As best understood, the above reflected light and the previously recited reflected light refer to the same reflected light but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these distinct recitations is unclear.
3) The phrase “the reflected light” on line 14 of page 2 is indefinite. Numerous distinct recitations for reflected light were previously recited, and it is unclear which reflected light applicant is referencing with this phrase.
4) The phrase “amount of light” recited on lines 2 and 4 of page 3 is indefinite. Applicant has previously recited numerous recitations for an amount of light or reflected light, and the above phrase, as best understood, is being distinctly recited from those recitations but there is not distinct. This phrase is furthering being distinctly recited from the reflected light from the thin-film sensor, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct from this reflected light. As such, the difference and relationship between each of these recitations is unclear.
5) Applicant claims “substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4,” but where such a recitation is indefinite. One reasonable interpretation of this phrase is that the initial value, such as value A, is being replaced with value PA. Another reasonable interpretation is the opposite, where the first value replaces the second value, such as PA being replaced by A. The above phrase is therefore unclear, because as worded it is unclear what values are being substituted.
6) Applicant is claiming “wherein the amounts of reflected light are measured using the light source whose amount of light starts varying immediately after lighting and gradually approaches a certain value, under positive and negative magnetic fields of equal magnitude which are alternately applied, so that PA and PB cannot be measured simultaneously.” This phrase is indefinite because, as best understood, applicant is positively reciting a method step of using the light source inside an apparatus claim. Applicant is not claiming that the light source or some other component are configured to varying the light of the light source. Instead, applicant is expressly claiming that the light source’s light starts varying after lighting and gradually approaches a certain value. Such a recitation is the same as reciting “varying an amount of light of a light source immediately after lighting with the amount of light gradually approaching a certain value,” and this recitation is a method step. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” As such, this phrase is indefinite.
9) The phrase “the amounts of reflected light” on line 1 of the last paragraph is indefinite as multiple amounts of reflected light recitations were previously made, and it is unclear which amounts of reflected light this phrase is referencing.
10) The phrase “under positive and negative magnetic fields of equal magnitude which are alternatively applied” on the last two lines is indefinite. First, applicant has already previously recited positive and negative magnetic fields, which, as best understood, are the same fields recited in the above phrase. However, these fields are recited distinctly, but where they are not distinct. As such, the difference and relationship between these fields is unclear. Furthermore, applicant distinctly recites the above fields being applied from the magnetic field generation device, but where, as best understood, these features are not distinct. The relationship between the above fields and the previously recited magnetic field generation device is therefore unclear.
The phrase “the determined Kerr output value” on lines 9-10 of page 3 of the claim is indefinite. More than one Kerr output value was previously recited that can reasonably be said to be determined, and thus it is unclear which Kerr output value applicant is referencing with this phrase.
As to Claim 22,
The phrase “the controller is configured to blink the light source cyclically and perform synchronized measurement of light reflected by the thin-film sensor, and wherein a cycle of the blink of the light source is shorter than a cycle of the magnetic field generation device alternately causing a change between the positive magnetization and the negative magnetic magnetization” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
Applicant is claiming that the controller is configured to blink the light source, but Claim 19 already recites that the light from the light source is varying. As best understood, the varying light is due to any blinking of the light source, but these features are being distinctly recited but where they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these features is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the controller is configured to light the light source with a constant current for a predetermined period before blinking the light source cyclically” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant is claiming that the controller is configured to blink the light source, but Claim 19 already recites that the light from the light source is varying. As best understood, the varying light is due to any blinking of the light source, but these features are being distinctly recited but where they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these features is therefore unclear.
2) Claim 19 expressly requires that the light source is already varying in the last paragraph The light source cannot already be varying when the controller is providing a constant current as recited above. As such, these two claim features, in the combination, are inconsistent, making it unclear what the state of the light source is, in the combination, when the current is constant.
As to Claim 26,
The phrase “the controller is configured to measure light reflected by the thin-film sensor during a period where output of the light source is varying” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant already recites that the controller is configured to measure an amount of light during a positive magnetic field, and an amount of a light during a negative magnetic field as recited in Claim 19. As best understood, these two measurements reasonable cover all amounts of light that could be measured. As such, the relationship between the above measured amount of light in Claim 26 and the amounts of light recited in Claim 19 is unclear, because they are distinctly recited but where they cannot be distinct from both of these amounts of light. It is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what amount of light is being measured that is distinct from any amounts of light recited in Claim 19. While applicant has removed the phrase “an amount of,” in light of the disclosure, when the controller uses the detector to measure, it is measuring an amount of light. As such, whether applicant claims a measurement of light or an amount of light, either recitation, in light of the disclosure, reasonably refer to the same claim feature. These two distinct recitations from Claim 19 and 26 are therefore unclear as their relationship is unclear.
2) Claim 19 already recites that the light source has light that is varying, but applicant is distinctly reciting “where output of the light is varying” on the last line. As best understood, these recitations refer to the same varying of light but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these features is unclear.
3) The above recitation of “output of light” and “output of the light source” refer to the same feature, in light of the disclosure. Both recitations refer to an output of light, as the only output from the light source is light. The difference and relationship between these features is therefore unclear, because they are being distinctly recited but where they are not distinct.
As to Claim 27,
The phrase “wherein PO represents an amount of reflected light by the thin-film sensor when an applied magnetic field is zero and residual magnetization of the thin-film sensor is zero, wherein PA represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the positive magnetic field, wherein PB represents an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor under the negative magnetic field of equal magnitude to the positive magnetic field, wherein ΔP represents an amount of change in the amount of the reflected light when each of the positive and the negative magnetic fields is applied, wherein following formulae are satisfied: PA = PO + ΔP (formula),PB = PO - ΔP (formula 2), and Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / PO (formula 3), wherein a following formula is satisfied based on the formula 1, the formula 2 and the formula 3:Kerr output value = (PA - PB) / ((PA + PB)/2) (formula 4), the controller is configured to … determine a Kerr output value at the specific time to be (A - B) / ((A + B)/2) by substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4 without measuring the amount of reflected light when the magnetic field is zero and the residual magnetization of the thin film sensor is zero … wherein the first regression curve is determined from measured values from the reflected-light detection device at different times under the positive magnetic field, wherein the second regression curve is determined from measured values from the reflected-light detection device at different times under the negative magnetic field, wherein the measured values are amounts of light reflected by the thin-film sensor at different times, and wherein the amounts of reflected light are measured using the light source whose amount of light starts varying immediately after lighting and gradually approaches a certain value, under positive and negative magnetic fields of equal magnitude which are alternately applied, so that PA and PB cannot be measured simultaneously” on lines 18 to the end to the end is indefinite.
1) It is unclear whether the above formulas are intended to be computed as positively recited method steps. Applicant expressly claims that each of these formulas are satisfied, and later claims that the Kerr output value of formula 4 is satisfied based on formulas 1, 2, and 3. Such language can reasonably be interpreted to mean that applicant intends these formulas to be computed. However, the claim language does not make clear whether these features are actually determined, or if applicant is merely using them to mathematically describe a phenomena. This is further an issue because the determination of the Kerr output value on page 2 of the claim is claimed to be determined by substituting estimated values for values from the above formulas, but such substitution cannot reasonably occur unless those original values from formulas 1, 2, and 3 have actually been obtained. Meaning, these formulas cannot reasonably just be mathematical explanations of physical phenomena, and instead must reason be actually determined in order to allow for any of the substitution to occur. As such, this phrase is indefinite.
2) Applicant claims that P0, PA, PB, and ΔP are all representative of “an amount of light reflected by the thin-film sensor.” However, applicant already previously claims light reflected by the thin-film sensor. As best understood, the above reflected light and the previously recited reflected light refer to the same reflected light but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these distinct recitations is unclear.
3) The phrase “the reflected light” on lines 15-16 is indefinite. Numerous distinct recitations for reflected light were previously recited, and it is unclear which reflected light applicant is referencing with this phrase.
4) The phrase “amount of light” recited on lines 2 and 4 of page32 is indefinite. Applicant has previously recited numerous recitations for an amount of light or reflected light, and the above phrase, as best understood, is being distinctly recited from those recitations but there is not distinct. This phrase is furthering being distinctly recited from the reflected light from the thin-film sensor, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct from this reflected light. As such, the difference and relationship between each of these recitations is unclear.
5) Applicant claims “substituting the first estimated value A for PA and the second estimated value B for PB in the formula 4,” but where such a recitation is indefinite. One reasonable interpretation of this phrase is that the initial value, such as value A, is being replaced with value PA. Another reasonable interpretation is the opposite, where the first value replaces the second value, such as PA being replaced by A. The above phrase is therefore unclear, because as worded it is unclear what values are being substituted.
6) Applicant claims “wherein the first regression curve is determined from measured values at different times under the positive magnetic field, wherein the second regression curve is determined from measured values at different times under the negative magnetic field.” However, these recitations are indefinite because it is unclear if applicant intends these regression curve to actually be determined in the claim. Claim 27 is a method claim, and is therefore directed towards the actual use of a device. However, the above phrase, as best understood, is referring to an already determined regression curves, making it unclear whether applicant intends to positively recite the determination of these regression curves based on the above measured values. It is indefinite to claim the manner in which curves that are already obtained and not obtained during the method and then determined, because it becomes unclear whether these curves must be determined in this manner in the method claim.
7) The phrase “the amounts of reflected light” on line 1 of the last paragraph is indefinite as multiple amounts of reflected light recitations were previously made, and it is unclear which amounts of reflected light this phrase is referencing.
8) The phrase “under positive and negative magnetic fields of equal magnitude which are alternatively applied” on the last two lines is indefinite. First, applicant has already previously recited positive and negative magnetic fields, which, as best understood, are the same fields recited in the above phrase. However, these fields are recited distinctly, but where they are not distinct. As such, the difference and relationship between these fields is unclear. Furthermore, applicant distinctly recites the above fields being applied from the magnetic field generation device, but where, as best understood, these features are not distinct. The relationship between the above fields and the previously recited magnetic field generation device is therefore unclear.
The phrase “the determined Kerr output value” on line 9 of page 3 of the claim is indefinite. More than one Kerr output value was previously recited that can reasonably be said to be determined, and thus it is unclear which Kerr output value applicant is referencing with this phrase.
As to Claims 20-26,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858