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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/22/2026 was accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 2 and 4 has/have been cancelled. No claim(s) has/have been newly added. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 5-13 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment corrects the issues regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112b. The claims remain replete with errors and are rejected under 35 USC 112b, as further explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3, and 5-13 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.
The claims are replete with errors. The claims should be revised carefully to correct the numerous errors. Examples of some unclear, inexact, or verbose limitations in the claims are:
In claim 1 in both lines 17-18 and 21 recites “a plurality of passive extraction structures.” It is unclear whether or not these are the same elements.
Claims 8-12 depend from claim 1; however, it is unclear how the method steps further limit the apparatus of claim 1. Additionally, there are many terms presented in at claim 8 that are recited in both claim 1 and claim 8, but the article “a” is used in claim 8. This makes it unclear whether or not these are the same elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bishop et al. (US 11,881,678) teaches a detector device intended to measure a sample (Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one light source configured to emit a light according to several wavelengths, said at least one light source having an emission face configured to emit the light in the direction of the sample to be imaged (160; col. 6, lines 20-27),
said device further comprising at least one sensor configured to detect a reflective part portion of the light emitted by the at least one light source that has interacted with the sample, said sensor comprising a plurality of pixels and having a detection face intended to receive said portion of the light emitted, the emission and detection faces facing one same side of the device (130; col. 7, lines 24-26),
said at least one light source comprising a primary source configured to emit light according to several wavelengths, the primary source being coupled with a plurality of secondary sources configured to reemit said light from the primary source in a plurality of emission directions, the emission face being located at the secondary sources and the primary source being positioned outside of an emission area of the light reemitted by the secondary sources (107; Figs. 1 and 2A),
Mazed (US 12,135,286) teaches a reflected light detection module that includes beam splitter (560), a source (580), an array of detectors (CCD; 600), optical fibers (620A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/CAROLYN FIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights