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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-12, filed 23 March 2026, with respect to claims 20-22, 25, and 27-32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §103 rejections of claims 20-22, 25, and 27-32 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the amendment to claim 20.
On Pages 10-11, Applicant argues that “Ehbets is silent with respect to controlling the wavelength range, the exposure time and/or the intensity of the light emitted by the radiation source device” and that “Ehbets is silent with respect to controlling the radiation source control by an external control device”. However, the Examiner had referred to the Childers reference to teach of a radiation source control (“a controller, including executable instructions to independently vary the radiant output of at least two of the plurality of light sources”, claim 1) that controls an exposure time (“independently varying an exposure time of at least two of the plurality of light sources”, claim 3), a wavelength, and an intensity of light emitted by the radiation source device (“a first of the plurality of light sources is controlled to emit radiant output of a first intensity and wavelength while a second of the plurality of light sources is controlled to emit radiant output of a second intensity and wavelength different from the first intensity and wavelength”, claim 1). Furthermore, the Examiner clearly pointed out, in the rejection of claim 28, that Ehbets discloses wherein the radiation source control (320) is controlled by the control device (300) (Fig. 4; Col. 7, Lines 51-56).
On Page 11, Applicant argues that Ehbets, in view of Childers and Williams, does not teach the control device as recited in amended claim 20.
However, Smargiassi et al. (US 2012/0161021), in the same field of endeavor of UV measurements, disclose wherein a control device is configured to control an exposure time (“adjusting the… exposure time to compensate for the deviation” [0017]) by determining a target exposure time and/or a target light power from a sensor output of a first emission of radiation (“calculating a UV intensity based on a the UV detector output measured and calculating a deviation based on the calculated UV intensity and a baseline intensity” [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ehbets’ control device to control the exposure time based on sensor output for the purpose of achieving the desired UV intensity without the need to modify the UV power (Smargiassi [0017]).
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20: In Lines 13-14, the Examiner assumes that “the exposure time, the wavelength, and the intensity of the light” should actually be --an exposure time, a wavelength, and an intensity of light--.
Claim 20: In Line 16, the Examiner assumes that “the individual spectral ranges” should actually be --individual spectral ranges--.
Claim 20: In Lines 23-24, the Examiner assumes that “the target exposure time and/or the target light power from the sensor output of the first emission of radiation” should actually be --a target exposure time and or a target light power from a sensor output of a first emission of radiation--.
Claim 33: In Lines 12-13, the Examiner assumes that “the exposure time, the wavelength, and the intensity of the light” should actually be --an exposure time, a wavelength, and an intensity of light--.
Claim 33: In Line 15, the Examiner assumes that “the individual spectral ranges” should actually be --individual spectral ranges--.
Claim 33: In Line 26, the Examiner assumes that “detecting of the first radiation” should actually be --detecting of the first emission of radiation--.
Claim 33: In Line 27, the Examiner assumes that “the sensor modulation” should actually be --a sensor modulation--.
Claim 33: In Line 28, the Examiner assumes that “the target exposure time tZ and/or the target light power IZ” should actually be --a target exposure time tZ and/or a target light power IZ--.
Claim 33: In Lines 31-32, the Examiner assumes that “a target exposure time tZ” should actually be --the target exposure time tZ --.
Claim 33: In Lines 32-33, the Examiner assumes that “the first and the second radiation source” should actually be --the at least two radiation sources--.
Claim 33: The Examiner notes that the steps in “a method for determining sun protection factors” comprise both passive steps (e.g. “a first actuation”, “a first emission”) and active steps (e.g. “detecting of the first radiation”, “determining the sensor modulation”). The Examiner suggests for consistency, changing the active tense limitations (“detecting”, “determining”) to be in passive tense (“detection”, “determination of”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-22, 25, and 27-32 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.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the radiation source control (11) controls the exposure time” and also recites “wherein the control device (2) is configured to control the exposure time”. It is unclear from the limitations of claim 20 if the exposure time is being controlled separately be the radiation source control and the control device or, as recited in claim 28, the control device controls the exposure time via the radiation source control. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner takes the latter interpretation, that the control device controls the exposure time via the radiation source control. However, it is necessary to incorporate the limitation of claim 28 into claim 20 to remove the indefiniteness issue.
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 20-22, 25, 27-28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehbets (US 6,844,931), hereinafter Ehbets, in view of Childers (US 9,638,833), hereinafter Childers, Williams et al. (US 2019/0134897), hereinafter Williams, and Smargiassi et al. (US 2012/0161021), hereinafter Smargiassi.
Claim 20: Ehbets discloses a measuring system (Figs. 1-2,4) for determining sun protection factors of sunscreen agents (purely functional language), which has the following components:
a radiation source device (13) (Col. 5, Lines 32-35),
wherein the radiation source device (13) comprises two or more separate radiation sources (“A light source 13… is provided in each illumination channel 11 at the upper end”, wherein two illumination channels are evident in Fig. 1, Col. 5, Lines 32-35),
a spectrometer (200) (Col. 5, Lines 11-16), and
a control device (400, Fig. 4; Col. 7, Lines 51-56),
a radiation source control (320) (Col. 7, Lines 51-56),
wherein the at least two separate radiation sources are controlled separately by the radiation source control (320) (“a driver stage 320 for the selective control of all LED light sources 13”, Col. 7, Lines 51-56).
Ehbets discloses wherein the radiation source control (320) controls an intensity of the radiation emitted by the individual radiation sources (13) separately (“The electronic operation and control of the LED light source is thereby constructed in such a way that the emitted intensity of each individual LED 13 can be adjusted individually (or in groups)”, Col. 8, Lines 16-19), but is silent with respect to also controlling an exposure time and a wavelength of the light emitted by the radiation source device separately.
Childers, however, in the same field of endeavor of UV lighting systems, discloses a system comprising:
a radiation source device (“A light system”, claim 1),
wherein the radiation source device comprises two or more separate radiation sources (“comprising: a plurality of light sources”, claim 1), and
a radiation source control (“a controller, including executable instructions to independently vary the radiant output of at least two of the plurality of light sources”, claim 1),
wherein the radiation source control controls an exposure time (“independently varying an exposure time of at least two of the plurality of light sources”, claim 3), a wavelength, and an intensity of the light emitted by the radiation source device (“a first of the plurality of light sources is controlled to emit radiant output of a first intensity and wavelength while a second of the plurality of light sources is controlled to emit radiant output of a second intensity and wavelength different from the first intensity and wavelength”, claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ehbets’ system so that the radiation source control controls the exposure time, wavelength, and intensity of the emitted light for the purpose of accurately ascertaining the changes to a sample over time so that corrections may be made to obtain the desired spectral transmission spectrum.
Ehbets further discloses wherein individual spectral ranges of the radiation sources (13) superimpose each other (implicit since there is no indication that the LEDs are different from one other, Col. 5, Lines 32-35).
Ehbets does not explicitly disclose achieving uniform illumination both in the UVA and UVB wavelength ranges by selectively superimposing the individual spectral ranges of the radiation sources.
However, although Ehbets discloses that “WV[sic UV] LEDs emit mainly light in the ultraviolet spectral range between 350 nm and 420 nm” (Col. 8, Lines 14-16), this range is not considered limiting since Ehbets also discloses that “real light sources with different UV proportion can be simulated in the measurement head” (Col. 8, Lines 28-30).
Williams, furthermore, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of performing spectrometry with ultraviolet illumination. Williams discloses a spectrometer using a UV LED that covers a wavelength range of 100 nm to 400 nm [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ehbets’ radiation sources with UV LEDs covering the 100nm to 400 nm wavelength range for the purpose of gaining increased information of the measurements.
Ehbets is silent with respect to configuring the control device to control the exposure time based on sensor output.
However, Smargiassi, in the same field of endeavor of UV measurements, discloses wherein a control device is configured to control an exposure time (“adjusting the… exposure time to compensate for the deviation” [0017]) by determining a target exposure time and/or a target light power from a sensor output of a first emission of radiation (“calculating a UV intensity based on a the UV detector output measured and calculating a deviation based on the calculated UV intensity and a baseline intensity” [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ehbets’ control device to control the exposure time based on sensor output for the purpose of achieving the desired UV intensity without the need to modify the UV power (Smargiassi [0017]).
Claim 21: Ehbets further discloses wherein the wavelength spectra of the ray emitted by at least two of the separate radiation sources (13) are different (“The light sources 13 implemented as LED's (here 6) together form a spectrally essentially continuous illumination light source”, Col. 5, Lines 46-48).
Claim 22: Ehbets further discloses wherein the signals measured by the spectrometer (200) are processed by the control device (300) (“an electronic circuit for the control of the illumination arrangement and the spectrometer as well as for the processing of the electrical measurement signals”, Col. 4, Lines 23-26).
Claim 25: Ehbets further discloses wherein the radiation source control (320) separately controls the individual radiation sources of the radiation source device (13) (“a driver stage 320 for the selective control of all LED light sources 13”, Col. 7, Lines 51-56).
Claim 27: Ehbets further discloses wherein the radiation source control (320) is arranged separately from the control device (400) (the control device is an external computer that communicates with the radiation source control through an interface, Col. 7, Lines 51-56).
Claim 28: Ehbets further discloses wherein the radiation source control (320) is controlled by the control device (300) (Fig. 4; Col. 7, Lines 51-56).
Claim 30: Ehbets further discloses wherein the radiation sources (13) produce radiation (inherent to LEDs, Col. 5, Lines 32-34).
Claim 31: Ehbets further discloses the radiation sources (13) emit the radiation produced by the radiation sources (13) themselves (inherent to LEDs, Col. 5, Lines 32-34).
Claim 32: Ehbets further discloses wherein the measuring system has one or more devices (14-19) for conditioning and/or guiding the radiation (evident from Fig. 1; Col. 5, Lines 35-38).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehbets, in view of Childers, Williams, and Smargiassi as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (US 2010/0014069), hereinafter Miura.
Claim 29: Ehbets does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiation source control is connected to the spectrometer.
Miura, however, in the same field of endeavor of UV spectrometry, discloses a measuring system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a radiation source device (11) [0046],
a spectrometer (17) [0046], and
a radiation source control (19) [0046],
wherein the radiation source control (19) is connected to the spectrometer (17) and receives signals from the spectrometer (17) [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ehbets’ system by connecting the spectrometer output to the radiation source control input for the purpose of forming an effective feedback loop to properly modulate the emitted light to accurately determine changes to a sample over time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-42 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 33-42: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses a measuring system for determining sun protection factors of sunscreen agents,
wherein the measuring system is configured to execute a method for determining sun protection factors of sunscreen agents with a spectroscopic measurement comprising:
a first actuation of the radiation sources of the radiation source device,
a first emission of radiation from the radiation sources,
detection of the first emission of radiation remitted/reflected by a measuring body,
determination of a sensor modulation ST of a detector,
determination of a target exposure time tZ and/or a target light power lZ for the at least two radiation sources,
a second actuation of the radiation sources, and
a second emission of radiation from the radiation sources with the target exposure time tZ and/or the target light power lZ of the at least two radiation sources of the radiation source device,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim 33.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877