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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 3-7, and 11-13 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(a) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(a) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim 7 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(a) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(a) rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument, on page 2, which recites “the phase "by multiplication" has been deleted to address the Examiner's concern that the previous language was not explicitly described in the specification.
Nevertheless, the Applicant respectfully submits that even the earlier version of the claim was inherently supported by the specification, because a person skilled in the art would readily understand that the output signal of a turbidity sensor is generally represented as a voltage corresponding to the intensity of received light.
Thus, an operation for correcting the output signal inherently involves correcting the voltage applied across the resistor.
Accordingly, the concept of correction "by multiplication" was implicit in the disclosure, and the deletion of that term does not alter the technical substance of the invention or introduce any new matter.” This argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have reasonably taken the steps to assume that the output signal of a turbidity sensor is a voltage unless explicitly disclosed.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument, on page 3, which recites “since the Examiner has already withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous Office Action, Applicant believes that this amendment, which merely harmonized the claim wording with the disclosure, should not give rise to any new rejection on the grounds of new matter, claim broadening, or lack of inventive step.” This argument is not persuasive because the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 7 which were withdrawn from the previous office action (dated 08/08/2025) were withdrawn due to the claim limitation “a value for converting, by multiplication, a voltage applied across the resistor in response to a reference turbidity medium into a preset reference voltage”, which was claimed in claim set dated 06/27/2025. However, the claim limitation “a value for converting, by multiplication, a voltage applied across the resistor in response to a reference turbidity medium into a preset reference voltage” was rejected under 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement (see final rejection dated 08/08/2025). The Applicant has since amended claims 1 and 7 (claim set dated 11/10/2025) to overcome the 112(a) rejection, however, amended claims 1 and 7 have been amended to deleted the claim limitations which were indicated as allowable subject matter. Furthermore, amended claims 1 and 7 (from claim set 11/10/2025) are similar to claims 1 and 7, respectively, from claim set dated 08/07/2024 where claim set dated 08/07/2024 includes all the claim limitations of amended claims 1 and 7 (11/10/2025), in addition to additional claim limitations. Therefore, amended claims 1 and 7 of claim set 11/10/2025 are not in condition for allowance because they would be rejected similarly to the rejections set forth in final rejection dated 11/04/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 20110029367A which was previously cited, portions of a translation are being cited) and in view of Lee (KR 970006355 B1, portions of the translation are being cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Song teaches a turbidity sensor (turbidity measuring apparatus from [0001]) comprising:
a light irradiator (Fig. 3c and 5: light emitting unit 124 and [0005]) for irradiating light toward a medium (washing water or liquids from [0005] is the medium which is typically being irradiated with light because turbidity is a measure of cloudiness of water/liquids as described from [0002]);
a light receiver (Fig. 3c and 5: light receiving unit 125 and [0005]) for receiving the light that has passed through the medium;
a transistor (Fig. 3c and 5: phototransistor 125 and phototransistor from [0005]) included in the light receiver (shown in Figs. 3c and 5) and applied with a current in response to the received light (Fig. 5; [0005]: “At this time, the current output to the emitter of the phototransistor, which is the light receiving portion 125, is measured through the pin P2.”);
a resistor (Fig. 5: resistor R2 and R2 from [0005]) included in the light receiver (Shown in Fig. 5, there is a resistor in the internal circuit diagram of a turbidity measurement unit; [0004]) and applied with the current, wherein a voltage corresponding to the received signal is applied across the resistor ([0005]: “The phototransistor as the light receiving unit 125 outputs a current corresponding to the optical signal to the emitter according to the power source of 5 V input to the collector and the optical signal input to the base through the resistor R 2.” Applying a voltage across the resistor also follows with the use of a resistor.),
a processor (Fig. 4 and 5: control unit 300) configured to:
correct an error value caused by intermediate materials ([0005]);
and the turbidity sensor being able to calculate a turbidity of the medium ([0001]: The turbidity measuring apparatus can measure turbidity of water/liquid.).
Song appears to be silent to a memory containing a correction value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor;
and a processor configured to:
correct the voltage applied across the resistor using the correction value to generate a corrected voltage;
and calculate a turbidity of the medium using the corrected voltage,
wherein the correction value includes:
a value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor to a reference voltage.
Lee, related to a method for correcting an optical sensor error in a washing machine, does teach a memory (Page 4, para. 10: The microcomputer 100 has a memory) containing a correction value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor (Page 4, paragraphs 2-11 to page 5, paragraphs 1-4: The memory stores voltage values which includes correction voltage values used to correct the voltage value of the optical sensor to match the voltage value of the reference optical sensor.; Shown in Fig. 5 with resistor R1);
and a processor (Microcomputer from page 4, para. 10) configured to:
correct the voltage applied across the resistor using the correction value to generate a corrected voltage (Page 4, paragraphs 2-11 to page 5, paragraphs 1-4: The memory in the microcomputer stores voltage values which includes correction voltage values used to correct the voltage value of the optical sensor to match the voltage value of the reference optical sensor.; Shown in Fig. 5 with resistor R1);
and calculate a turbidity of the medium using the corrected voltage (Turbidity measurements shown in Fig. 3 and described on page 2, paragraphs 13-15 to page 3, paragraphs 1-7),
wherein the correction value (correction voltage value from page 5, para. 4) includes:
a value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor (Page 4, paragraphs 2-11 to page 5, paragraphs 1-4: The memory in the microcomputer stores voltage values which includes correction voltage values used to correct the voltage value of the optical sensor to match the voltage value of the reference optical sensor.; Shown in Fig. 5 with resistor R1.) to a reference voltage (reference voltage from page 2, paragraphs 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate a memory containing a correction value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor and a processor configured to correct the voltage applied across the resistor using the correction value to generate a corrected voltage, and calculate a turbidity of the medium using the corrected voltage, wherein the correction value includes a value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor to a reference voltage, as disclosed by Lee. It is recognized in the field of endeavor that there could be errors during production of the optical sensor (page 1, para. 2 of Lee) and errors caused by pollution during long-term use of the optical sensor (page 1, para. 2 of Lee). Therefore, it would be advantageous to introduce a correction value, to be compared with a reference voltage, for correcting the voltage applied across a resistor which allows a microcomputer to recognize when there is contamination in the wash water (page 2, para. 8 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 3, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 1.
Song modified by Lee further teaches that the processor (Song, Fig. 4: control unit 300 and control unit 300 from [0005]) includes:
a converter (Song, Fig. 4: control unit 300) for converting the voltage applied across the resistor into a digital signal (Song, [0005]: “The control unit 300 digitizes the amount of analog current output to the light receiving unit 125,…”), wherein a voltage measurement range of the converter corresponds to a variable range of the voltage applied across the resistor (Song, Fig. 5: variable resistor 129; [0005]: The variable resistor 129 changes the resistance value of the light emitting unit 124 and the light receiving unit 125, which this resistance value is read by the control unit 300 and digitizes the amount of analog current output to the light receiving unit 125.).
Regarding Claim 4, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 3.
Song modified by Lee further teaches a maximum measurable voltage of the converter corresponds to a maximum voltage applied across the resistor (Song, [0005]: The control unit 300 digitizes the amount of analog current output to the light receiving unit 125 through pin P2 (shown in Figs. 4 and 5). Pin P2 (shown in the annotated Fig. 5 below) would be where a maximum measurable voltage of the converter (Fig. 4 and 5: control unit 300) corresponds to a maximum voltage applied across the resistor (Fig. 5: resistor (R2) 128)).
PNG
media_image1.png
814
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 5, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 4.
Song modified by Lee further teaches that the maximum voltage applied across the resistor has a magnitude corresponding to a magnitude obtained by subtracting a minimum voltage required to drive the transistor from a fixed voltage applied to the transistor (Song teaches a device where the phototransistor 125 (Figs. 3c and 5) and the resistor R2 (Fig. 5) are connected in series (shown in Fig. 5 below). With this configuration, it would necessarily follow that the maximum voltage applied across the resistor has a magnitude corresponding to a magnitude obtained by subtracting a minimum voltage required to drive the transistor from a fixed voltage applied to the transistor because by the time the 5V (from the power supply 150) reaches the resistor R2, it would have first been applied to the phototransistor 125. Therefore, the voltage drop across the resistor R2 would be a magnitude that is subtracted by a minimum voltage required to drive the transistor (voltage drop across the phototransistor 125).).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 6, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 5.
Song modified by Lee further teaches that the transistor includes:
a collector (Song, [0005]: “The phototransistor as the light receiving unit 125 outputs a current corresponding to the optical signal to the emitter according to the power source of 5 V input to the collector and the optical signal input to the base through the resistor R 2.”; Furthermore, a collector is an inherent feature of a phototransistor.) applied with the fixed voltage (Song, [0005] and Fig. 5: 5V is supplied from the power supply 150);
a base (Song, [0005]: “The phototransistor as the light receiving unit 125 outputs a current corresponding to the optical signal to the emitter according to the power source of 5 V input to the collector and the optical signal input to the base through the resistor R2.” Furthermore, a base is an inherent feature of a tri-terminal phototransistor which Song teaches a tri-terminal phototransistor which has an emitter, base, and collector.) for receiving the light that has passed through the medium (Song, [0005]: “More specifically, the light emitting unit 124 is driven according to a 5 V power source input to the anode of the LED, which is the light emitting unit 124, and the optical signal generated by the driving of the light emitting unit 124 is the washing water and is inputted to the base of the phototransistor…” Meaning that the light received by the base was first pass through the medium (washing water).);
and an emitter (An emitter is an inherent element of a phototransistor) applied with the current in response to the light received by the base (Shown in Fig. 5 and this is inherent of a phototransistor.), wherein the emitter is connected to the resistor (Song, Fig. 5: The emitter of the phototransistor 125 is connected to the resistor 128 (R2)), wherein the fixed voltage applied to the collector corresponds to a voltage having a magnitude obtained by adding the minimum voltage required to drive the transistor to the maximum measurable voltage of the converter (Shown in the annotated Fig. 5 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
1083
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 7, Song teaches a method for controlling a turbidity sensor (turbidity measuring apparatus from [0001]), the method comprising:
irradiating light toward a medium (washing water or liquids from [0005] is the medium which is typically being irradiated with light because turbidity is a measure of cloudiness of water/liquids as described from [0002]; (Fig. 3c and 5: light emitting unit 124 irradiates light toward a medium]));
receiving the light that has passed through the medium (Fig. 3c and 5: light receiving unit 125 receives light passed through the medium; [0005]);
measuring a voltage across a resistor by applying a current corresponding to the received light (Analog/digital converter (AKA ADC) 103 measures the voltage across resistor R1 as shown in Fig. 5 and described on page 4, paragraphs 2-10.);
correcting an error value caused by intermediate materials ([0005]);
and calculating a turbidity of the medium ([0001]: The turbidity measuring apparatus can measure turbidity of water/liquid.).
Song appears to be silent to correcting the voltage across the resistor using a correction value stored to generate a corrected voltage; and
calculating a turbidity of the medium using the corrected voltage,
wherein the correction value includes:
a value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor to a reference voltage.
Lee, related to a method for correcting an optical sensor error in a washing machine, does teach correcting the voltage applied across the resistor using a correction value stored to generate a corrected voltage (Page 4, paragraphs 2-11 to page 5, paragraphs 1-4: The memory stores voltage values which includes correction voltage values used to correct the voltage value of the optical sensor to match the voltage value of the reference optical sensor.; Shown in Fig. 5 with resistor R1); and
calculating a turbidity of the medium using the corrected voltage (Turbidity measurements shown in Fig. 3 and described on page 2, paragraphs 13-15 to page 3, paragraphs 1-7),
wherein the correction value (correction voltage value from page 5, para. 4) includes:
a value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor (Page 4, paragraphs 2-11 to page 5, paragraphs 1-4: The memory in the microcomputer stores voltage values which includes correction voltage values used to correct the voltage value of the optical sensor to match the voltage value of the reference optical sensor.; Shown in Fig. 5 with resistor R1.) to a reference voltage (reference voltage from page 2, paragraphs 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate correcting the voltage applied across the resistor using a correction value stored to generate a corrected voltage and calculating a turbidity of the medium using the corrected voltage, wherein the correction value includes a value for correcting the voltage applied across the resistor to a reference voltage, as disclosed by Lee. It is recognized in the field of endeavor that there could be errors during production of the optical sensor (page 1, para. 2 of Lee) and errors caused by pollution during long-term use of the optical sensor (page 1, para. 2 of Lee). Therefore, it would be advantageous to introduce a correction value, to be compared with a reference voltage, for correcting the voltage applied across a resistor which allows a microcomputer to recognize when there is contamination in the wash water (page 2, para. 8 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 11, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 1.
Song modified by Lee further teaches that the received light includes at least one of light refracted by the medium and light reflected by the medium (Song, As the light interacts with the medium (water) it would be refracted and reflected by the medium).
Regarding Claim 12, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 11.
Song modified by Lee further teaches that the processor includes a converter (Lee, analog/digital conversion unit 103 from page 4, paragraphs 8-9) for converting the voltage applied across the resistor into a digital signal (Lee, page 4, para. 9: The ADC unit 103 converts the input voltage value into a digital signal.)
wherein the processor is further configured to measure another turbidity of the medium using the digital signal (Lee, page 4, para. 10-13: The operation of measuring the voltage value (digital signal), which is used for measuring the turbidity, is repeated.), and
wherein when the received light is the light refracted or the light reflected by the medium (As the light interacts with the medium (water) it would be refracted and reflected by the medium.), the voltage applied across the resistor is proportional to the another turbidity of the medium (Song, Fig. 5: variable resistor 129; [0005]: The variable resistor 129 can be adjusted to change the resistance value of the light emitting unit 124 and the light receiving unit 125 (which would change the value of the voltage applied across the resistor when the current is constant). The variable resistor can be adjusted so that the voltage applied across the resistor is proportional to the another turbidity of the medium.)
Regarding Claim 13, Song modified by Lee teaches the turbidity sensor of claim 1.
Song modified by Lee further teaches that a fixed voltage is applied to the transistor and a variable voltage is applied to the resistor in response to the received light (See annotated Fig. 5 from Song below).
PNG
media_image4.png
555
713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877