DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 13 Apr 2026. Applicant has not amended, added, or cancelled any claims. The Office rejects pending Claims 1-22 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder (“system”) that is coupled with functional language (“offset determining”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are the “offset determining system” found in independent Claims 9 and 20 and the corresponding dependent claims.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, the Spec. (P19|14) describes an offset determining system that “may comprise a memory and a processor,” and “may be considered to be a computer.”
The MPEP (§2181 (II)(B)) states that “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.”
In this case, the algorithms for performing the claimed functions of the offset determining system are disclosed in the Spec. at least at P9|31 - P10|5, P15|4-12, and Fig. 5 along with its descriptions on P14-15.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The Office rejects Claim 21 and any corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a “computer program,” which is software per se.
The Office rejects Claim 22 and any corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims refer to a “computer readable medium,” and given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the language may be interpreted to include non-statutory subject matter, i.e. a signal or carrier wave. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to explicitly refer to a "non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium” (See USPTO Notice, "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media,” 26 Jan 2010).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
+_+_+ Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by previous IDS entry Hiroki - JP2006080896 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Hiroki teaches emitting light from an emitter and detecting reflected light (¶2|1: “A photoelectric switch, which is a type of detection switch, emits light toward an area to be detected, receives light from the area to be detected….”); applying an offset to the detected reflected light to provide an output signal indicative of proximity (¶30|7: “The amplifier circuit 25 amplifies the electrical signal corresponding to the amount of received light according to a predetermined gain and offset, and the gain and offset can be adjusted (corrected) by the processor 28.”); determining an average signal of the output signal (¶55|3: “Therefore, for the reference detection value, the average of a plurality of values sampled during a certain period (t2) may be obtained.”); determining whether drift has occurred by comparing the output signal to a first threshold (¶53|1: “If the acquired detection value is the first detection value (Yes in step # 102), the difference D between the reference detection value and the first detection value is calculated in step #103.” Further, (¶53|7) “[i]f the difference D is within the second specified range (No), the difference D is compared with the first specified range in step # 106.”) and comparing the average signal to a different threshold (¶13|1: “A fifth configuration of the detection switch according to the present invention is a second specified range determination for determining whether or not the difference or ratio between the first detected value and the reference detected value is within a second specified range wider than the first specified range. A section is further provided, and error notification is executed when the determination result is negative.”); and adjusting the offset if drift is identified (¶56|4: “The offset of the amplifier circuit 25 is corrected so that the value approaches a preset reference detection value.”)
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Hiroki teaches wherein drift is not identified until the output signal and the average signal satisfy the threshold criteria for drift for a predetermined period of time (¶55|3: “Therefore, for the reference detection value, the average of a plurality of values sampled during a certain period (t2) may be obtained.”)
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 2, Hiroki teaches wherein the predetermined period of time is a predetermined number of proximity measurement cycles (¶55|3: “Therefore, for the reference detection value, the average of a plurality of values sampled during a certain period (t2) may be obtained.”)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 1, Hiroki teaches wherein drift is identified if the average signal is between a first upper boundary threshold and a second upper boundary threshold, and the output signal is below the second upper boundary threshold (¶3|4: “In this method, the threshold value is changed according to the time-dependent change of the physical quantity. Specifically, a predetermined number of physical quantities corresponding to the ON state (for example, second level output) and physical quantities corresponding to the OFF state (for example, first level output) are accumulated. When a predetermined number of physical quantities are accumulated, the distribution of physical quantities in the ON state and the distribution of physical quantities in the OFF state are obtained, and the threshold value ls reset (updated) to an intermediate value between them.”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Hiroki teaches wherein drift is identified if the output signal is greater than a release threshold and the average signal is less than a pick-up threshold (Fig. 7, flowchart, ¶52-53).
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 1, Hiroki teaches wherein drift is identified if the average signal is greater than a third upper boundary threshold and the output signal is less than a fourth upper boundary threshold (Fig. 7, flowchart, ¶52-53).
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 1, Hiroki teaches wherein drift is also identified if the average signal falls below a lower boundary threshold (¶3|4: “In this method, the threshold value is changed according to the time-dependent change of the physical quantity. Specifically, a predetermined number of physical quantities corresponding to the ON state (for example, second level output) and physical quantities corresponding to the OFF state (for example, first level output) are accumulated. When a predetermined number of physical quantities are accumulated, the distribution of physical quantities in the ON state and the distribution of physical quantities in the OFF state are obtained, and the threshold value ls reset (updated) to an intermediate value between them.”)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 2, Hiroki teaches wherein a measurement of the time is reset when the offset is adjusted (¶3|4: “In this method, the threshold value is changed according to the time-dependent change of the physical quantity. Specifically, a predetermined number of physical quantities corresponding to the ON state (for example, second level output) and physical quantities corresponding to the OFF state (for example, first level output) are accumulated. When a predetermined number of physical quantities are accumulated, the distribution of physical quantities in the ON state and the distribution of physical quantities in the OFF state are obtained, and the threshold value ls reset (updated) to an intermediate value between them.”)
Claims 9-11 and 14-18 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1-8, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
As for Claim 12, which depends on Claim 10, Hiroki teaches wherein the offset determining system is programmable, and the predetermined period of time may be programmed by an operator (¶55|9: “This delay time (t2) is also preferably manually settable by the user.”)
As for Claim 13, which depends on Claim 9, Hiroki teaches wherein the offset determining system is programmable, and the number of measurements that are used to determine the average signal may be programmed by an operator (¶55|9: “This delay time (t2) is also preferably manually settable by the user.”)
As for Claim 19, which depends on Claim 9, Hiroki teaches wherein the detection system comprises a first amplifier stage configured to amplify an output from the detector and provide an intermediate output, and a second amplifier stage configured to receive the intermediate output and the offset and to provide an output signal (¶30|7: “The amplifier circuit 25 amplifies the electrical signal corresponding to the amount of received light according to a predetermined gain and offset, and the gain and offset can be adjusted (corrected) by the processor 28.”)
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 9 and stands rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claim 21 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and stands rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claim 22 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 21 and stands rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Response to Arguments
The Office has fully considered Applicant's arguments filed 13 Apr 2026 and finds them unpersuasive.
Applicant Argument:
First, Applicant argues the following (Remarks, P6) regarding the 112(f) interpretation of Claims 9 and 20:
Here, the term "offset determining system" similarly connotes a programmable digital device comprising a memory and processor-structure that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the § 112(f) interpretation.
Examiner Response:
The Office finds this argument unpersuasive. Nothing in the terms “offset” or “determining” or “system” connotes “a programmable digital device comprising a memory and processor.” But Applicant may simply append language to the “offset determining system” such as “, including a processor and memory,” to fully obviate the 112(f) interpretations.
Applicant Argument:
Next, Applicant argues (P7) the following regarding the independent claims rejections:
Thus, Hiroki fails to disclose determining whether drift has occurred by comparing the output signal to a first threshold and comparing the average signal to a different threshold as recited by claims 1 and 9 of the present application.
Examiner Response:
The Office ultimately finds this argument unpersuasive. Examiner has amended the rejection to better map the primary reference with the claim elements in light of Applicant’s arguments: determining whether drift has occurred by comparing the output signal to a first threshold (¶53|1: “If the acquired detection value is the first detection value (Yes in step # 102), the difference D between the reference detection value and the first detection value is calculated in step #103.” Further, (¶53|7) “[i]f the difference D is within the second specified range (No), the difference D is compared with the first specified range in step # 106.”) and comparing the average signal to a different threshold (¶13|1: “A fifth configuration of the detection switch according to the present invention is a second specified range determination for determining whether or not the difference or ratio between the first detected value and the reference detected value is within a second specified range wider than the first specified range. A section is further provided, and error notification is executed when the determination result is negative.”) The reference reasonably teaches the BRI of the claim elements as written.
Conclusion
Applicants should direct any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications to CLINT THATCHER at phone 571.270.3588. Examiner is normally available Mon-Fri, 9am to 5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights