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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 remain pending in the application. Claim 11 is withdrawn.
Priority
Note that acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on JP2022-014720 filed on 02/02/2022; JP2022-164929 filed on 10/13/2022; and JP2023-004209 filed on 01/16/2023 and receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies of JP2022-014720, JP2022-164929, and JP2023-004209 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamane et al. (JP 2017172993 A; cited in the IDS filed 02/01/2023, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yamane teaches a sensor system (paragraph [0001]; Figs. 1-3 and 5) comprising:
a sensing element (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020] teach laminated body 13 which functions as a sensing element, wherein layers 14, 15, 17, and 18 of laminated body 13 are interpreted as the sensing element);
an illumination optical system including a light source (Figs. 1-3, light source 11), the illumination optical system being configured to obliquely illuminate the sensing element (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0018] teaches an explanatory view of the sensor of Figs. 1-2, wherein light source 11 is configured to illuminate laminated body 13 with an angled light, i.e. obliquely); and
a detector device (Figs. 1-2, photodetector 21) configured to detect light reflected off the sensing element (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020] teaches photodetector 21 detects light reflecting off at least layer 18 of laminated body 13),
wherein the sensing element includes a layered film (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020] teach laminated body 13 which functions as a sensing element, wherein layers 14, 15, 17, and 18 of laminated body 13 are interpreted as the layered film),
wherein the layered film (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020], interpreted as consisting of layers 14, 15, 17, and 18) consists of:
a chemical sensing layer (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0022], hydrogen gas detecting layer 14) configured to change in an optical characteristic in response to contact with a target substance (paragraph [0022]);
a reflection layer (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0022], metallic reflective layer 18) configured to reflect at least part of incident light (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0022]); and
an intermediate layer (Figs. 1-3, interpreted as layers 15 and 17; note that the BRI of “intermediate layer” includes multiple layers) located between the reflection layer (18) and the chemical sensing layer (14) (Figs. 1-3) and forming an interface with each of the reflection layer (18) and the chemical sensing layer (14) (Figs. 1-3 teaches layers 15,17, i.e. intermediate layer, form an interface with layers 18 and 14 since layer 15 interfaces with layer 14 and layer 17 interfaces with layer 18),
wherein the chemical sensing layer (14) , the reflection layer (18) and the intermediate layer (15,17) consist of non-magnetic materials (paragraph [0023] teaches layer 14 is palladium, i.e. Pd, which is a non-magnetic material; paragraph [0025] teaches layer 18 includes a material such as Ag, Al, Au, and Cu, which are non-magnetic materials and layers 15,17 includes transparent oxide or nitrides, i.e. non-magnetic), and
wherein the detector device is configured to separately detect p-polarized light and s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element (interpreted as a functional limitation of the detector device, see MPEP 2114; paragraphs [0020] and [0037] teaches a photodetector is arranged to detect a change in reflected light transmitted through a light polarizer; the instant specification, paragraph [0083], discloses the photodetector can include one photodetector; therefore, the detector device of Yamane is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
In an alternative interpretation, if Yamane fails to explicitly teach the detector device (embodiment of Figs. 1-3, photodetector 21) is configured to separately detect p-polarized light and s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element, Yamane teaches the use of the differential detection method with the above detection type hydrogen gas sensors, wherein p-polarized light and s-polarized light are divided and detected with two photodetector, which allows for detection of hydrogen gas with low noise and high degree of accuracy is attained (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detector device of Yamane to incorporate the teachings of an obvious variant of the sensor system which uses a polarized light beam separator to separate p-polarized light and s-polarized light to detect with two photodetectors of Yamane (paragraph [0038]) to provide: the detector device is configured to separately detect p-polarized light and s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving separation of desired signals to be measured and allowing for improved detection with low noise and a high degree of accuracy (Yamane, paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamane further teaches wherein p-polarized light and s-polarized light reflected off the reflection layer interfere with light reflected off the chemical sensing layer to cause a difference in reflectance of the sensing element for p-polarized light and s-polarized light (interpreted as functional limitation of the claimed sensor system, see MPEP 2114; paragraphs [0033]-[0038] teaches interference conditions of light due to the laminated body 13 which causes changes in light that is detected; the sensor system of Yamane is identical to the presently claimed structure since it comprises the claimed sensing element, illumination system, and detector device, and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Yamane is identical to the presently claimed structure. Yamane discloses the claimed sensing element, illumination system, and detector device as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Yamane further teaches wherein the chemical sensing layer is made of a material containing palladium (paragraph [0023] teaches layer 14 is palladium, i.e. Pd).
Regarding claim 6, Yamane further teaches wherein the illumination optical system (Figs. 1-3, light source 11) is configured to illuminate the sensing element (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020], laminated body 13 which functions as a sensing element) on a side of the chemical sensing layer (Figs. 1-3 teaches light source 11 illuminating laminated body 13 on one side of the hydrogen gas detecting layer 14), wherein the chemical sensing layer is a half mirror layer (Figs. 3 and 5 and paragraph [0023] teaches hydrogen gas detecting layer 14 comprises palladium while allowing light to pass through, wherein palladium is a reflective material; therefore, it is inherent that hydrogen gas detecting layer 14 is a half mirror layer since the layer comprising palladium would reflect at least some light due to the palladium and allow other light to pass through as shown in Fig. 3; note that the instant specification, paragraph [0108] also teaches a Pd thin film that functions as a half mirror layer; therefore, the Pd hydrogen gas detecting layer 14 of Yamane is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore would have the ability to perform the functional limitation, i.e. half mirror, recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01 (I)), and wherein the reflection layer is a total reflection layer (Figs. 3 and 5 and paragraph [0022] teaches the metallic reflective layer 18 is sufficient thickness to reflect light that entered, therefore is inherent that the reflection layer reflects all light since it is sufficient thickness, i.e. total reflection layer).
Regarding claim 7, Yamane further teaches the sensor system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a polarization separator (paragraph [0038], “polarized light beam separator”) disposed between the light source and the sensing element (paragraph [0038] and Figs. 1-3 teach light polarizer 20 is replaced by polarized light beam separator, which is optically between light source 11 and the laminated body 13), the polarization separator being configured to separate p-polarized light and s-polarized light from incident light (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0038] teaches the polarized light beam separator divides reflected light into p-polarized light and s-polarized light),
wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0038] teaches the polarized light beam separator divides reflected light into p-polarized light and s-polarized light, which are detected with the photodetector; therefore, the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are capable of being incident on the sensing element), and
wherein the detector device includes:
a first detector configured to detect p-polarized light reflected off the sensing element (paragraph [0038] teaches two photodetectors and the divided p-polarized and s-polarized light are detected with each photodetector, thus one photodetector detects p-polarized light reflected from laminated body 13); and
a second detector different from the first detector, the second detector being configured to detect s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element (paragraph [0038] teaches two photodetectors and the divided p-polarized and s-polarized light are detected with each photodetector, thus one photodetector detects s-polarized light reflected from laminated body 13).
Claims 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gast et al. (US 20060127278 A1) and Sheppard et al. (US 20180059010 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamane further teaches wherein the illumination optical system (Figs. 1-3, light source 11) is configured to illuminate the sensing element (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020], laminated body 13 which functions as a sensing element) on a side of the reflection layer (Figs. 1-3 teaches light source 11 illuminating laminated body 13 on one side of the metallic reflective layer 18);
While Yamane teaches the reflection layer and chemical sensing layer reflects light (Fig. 3), Yamane fails to teach: wherein the reflection layer is a half mirror layer, and wherein the chemical sensing layer is a total reflection layer.
Gast teaches a device for measuring surface plasmon resonance and fluorescence of a sample (abstract; Fig. 3), the device comprising a light source (238) that obliquely illuminates a sensing element with multiple layers (Fig. 3, elements 310, 305, 320). Gast teaches the sensing element includes a glass layer (310), thin metal layer (305) and anchor (320) and a linked test compound (paragraph [0096]). Gast teaches methods of measuring total aggregated reflected light (paragraph [0091]). Gast teaches the physical process of total internal reflection, where light directed through glass or another optically transparent solid such as quartz or plastic and impinging on an interface of the solid and dielectric, will partially reflect back out of the solid and otherwise refract into the dielectric at the point of impingement; and when the angle of incidence of the incoming light achieves a critical angle all of the light will reflect back through the solid (paragraph [0004]).
Sheppard teaches a sensor for measuring an analyte (abstract), the sensor comprising a reflector (abstract). Sheppard teaches measuring internally reflected light (paragraph [0013]). Sheppard teaches alternative embodiments of optically measuring for hemoglobin concentration using a light source and detector positioned generally below the sensor wherein the light from the light source passes upward through the sample and is reflected back down to the detector; and wherein one of skill in the art will understand, according to the principles herein disclosed, that the light source and detector could be positioned generally above the sensor (paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination optical system, detector device, reflection layer and the chemical sensing layer of Yamane to incorporate the teachings of a sensor that incorporates layers for total reflection of Gast (paragraphs [0004], [0091],[0096]) and the teachings of alternative arrangements of optical elements above or below a sensor of Sheppard (paragraph [0094]) to provide: wherein the reflection layer is a half mirror layer, and wherein the chemical sensing layer is a total reflection layer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for analysis of reflected light as discussed by Sheppard (paragraph [0094]).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. positioning of the optical system, detector device and wherein the reflection layer is a half mirror layer, and wherein the chemical sensing layer is a total reflection layer) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. allowing for desired reflection and refraction of light for detection of reflected light), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. positioning of the optical system, detector device and providing the reflection layer is a half mirror layer, and wherein the chemical sensing layer is a total reflection layer would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling desired reflection and refraction of light for detection of reflected light). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 9, Yamane fails to teach: wherein one of an antireflection film and a prism is disposed on a side of the sensing element to be illuminated with light from the light source, and
wherein the illumination optical system is configured so that light from the light source hits the reflection layer through the one of the antireflection film and the prism.
Gast teaches a device for measuring surface plasmon resonance and fluorescence of a sample (abstract; Fig. 3), the device comprising a light source (238) that obliquely illuminates a sensing element with multiple layers (Fig. 3, elements 310, 305, 320). Gast teaches the sensing element includes a glass layer (310), thin metal layer (305) and anchor (320) and a linked test compound (paragraph [0096]). Gast teaches methods of measuring total aggregated reflected light (paragraph [0091]). Gast teaches the physical process of total internal reflection, where light directed through glass or another optically transparent solid such as quartz or plastic and impinging on an interface of the solid and dielectric, will partially reflect back out of the solid and otherwise refract into the dielectric at the point of impingement; and when the angle of incidence of the incoming light achieves a critical angle all of the light will reflect back through the solid (paragraph [0004]). Gast teaches one way to couple light to a thin film is through a prism (paragraph [0004]) and teaches a prism (Fig. 3, element 240) is disposed on one side of a sensing element (320) to be illuminated with light from a light source (238). Gast teaches a closed system may be more adaptable to imaging systems which require a prism to be coupled to a chip (paragraph [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Yamane to incorporate the teachings of optical systems that measures reflection which uses a prism to couple light to a sensor element of Gast (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0004],[0118]) to provide: wherein a prism is disposed on a side of the sensing element to be illuminated with light from the light source, and wherein the illumination optical system is configured so that light from the light source hits the reflection layer through the prism. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adaptability of the optical elements to imaging systems and improve light coupling to the sensing element as discussed by Gast Fig. 3; (paragraphs [0004],[0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamane teaches wherein the intermediate layer is a nitride layer (paragraph [0025] teaches layers 15 and 17 include materials such as nitrides). While Yamane teaches the reflective layer can include metals (paragraph [0025]), Yamane fails to teach: wherein the reflection layer is a tantalum layer.
Gast teaches a device for measuring surface plasmon resonance and fluorescence of a sample (abstract; Fig. 3), the device comprising a light source (238) that obliquely illuminates a sensing element with multiple layers (Fig. 3, elements 310, 305, 320). Gast teaches the sensing element includes a glass layer (310), thin metal layer (305) and anchor (320) and a linked test compound (paragraph [0096]). Gast teaches methods of measuring total aggregated reflected light (paragraph [0091]). Gast teaches the physical process of total internal reflection, where light directed through glass or another optically transparent solid such as quartz or plastic and impinging on an interface of the solid and dielectric, will partially reflect back out of the solid and otherwise refract into the dielectric at the point of impingement; and when the angle of incidence of the incoming light achieves a critical angle all of the light will reflect back through the solid (paragraph [0004]). Gast teaches metallic surfaces can include metals such as tantalum (paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflection layer of Yamane to incorporate the teachings of optical systems that measures reflection which uses a metallic surface such as tantalum of Gast (Fig. 3; paragraph [0055]) to provide: wherein the reflection layer is a tantalum layer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a metallic layer for reflection of light.
Additionally, since Yamane and Gast teaches the need for a metallic layer for reflecting light (Yamane, paragraph [0025]; Gast, Fig. 3 and paragraph [0055]) and Gast teaches a finite number of identified predictable solutions for materials for metallic reflective surfaces, including Tantalum (paragraph [0055]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflection layer of Yamane to provide: wherein the reflection layer is a tantalum layer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a metallic layer for reflection of light. I.e. it would have been obvious to try the specific structure of tantalum to improve the reflection of reflection layer with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (US 20070166763 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamane fails to teach: the sensor system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a polarization modulator disposed between the light source and the sensing element,
wherein the polarization modulator is configured to:
output one of p-polarized light and s-polarized light out of light received in a first period; and
output the other one of p-polarized light and s-polarized light out of light received in a second period after the first period,
wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element, respectively, and
wherein the detector device is configured to:
detect the one of the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element in the first period; and
detect the other one of the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element in the second period.
Yamane teaches a polarization separator (paragraph [0038], “polarized light beam separator”) disposed between the light source and the sensing element (paragraph [0038] and Figs. 1-3 teach light polarizer 20 is replaced by polarized light beam separator, which is optically between light source 11 and the laminated body 13), the polarization separator being configured to separate p-polarized light and s-polarized light from incident light (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0038] teaches the polarized light beam separator divides reflected light into p-polarized light and s-polarized light), wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0038] teaches the polarized light beam separator divides reflected light into p-polarized light and s-polarized light, which are detected with the photodetector; therefore, the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are capable of being incident on the sensing element), and wherein the detector device includes: a first detector configured to detect p-polarized light reflected off the sensing element (paragraph [0038] teaches two photodetectors and the divided p-polarized and s-polarized light are detected with each photodetector, thus one photodetector detects p-polarized light reflected from laminated body 13); and a second detector different from the first detector, the second detector being configured to detect s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element (paragraph [0038] teaches two photodetectors and the divided p-polarized and s-polarized light are detected with each photodetector, thus one photodetector detects s-polarized light reflected from laminated body 13). Yamane teaches the use of the differential detection method with the above detection type hydrogen gas sensors, wherein p-polarized light and s-polarized light are divided and detected with two photodetectors, which allows for detection of hydrogen gas with low noise and high degree of accuracy is attained (paragraph [0038]).
Ho teaches an optical sensing device (abstract; paragraph [0012]) comprising an optical sensing device comprises a source unit which includes a source emitting a beam of light containing p- and s-polarization components and a phase modulator modulating a phase retardation between the p- and s-polarization components (abstract; paragraph [0012]). Ho teaches a simple and accurate SPR phase measurement by making use of a birefringence of a liquid crystal modulator (LCM) to continuously modulate a phase difference between s-polarization and p-polarization (paragraph [0001]). Ho teaches a phase modulator for modulating the optical phase retardation between the p- and s-polarization components at adjustable frequencies (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Yamane to incorporate the teachings of separating and detecting p-polarized light and s-polarized light incident on a detector device, such as two photodetectors, of Yamane (Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0038]) and the teachings of an optical sensing device comprising a phase modulator for modulating between p- and s-polarization components with adjustable frequencies of Ho (paragraphs [0012],[0037]) to provide: the sensor system according to claim 1, further comprising: a polarization modulator disposed between the light source and the sensing element, wherein the polarization modulator is configured to: output one of p-polarized light and s-polarized light out of light received in a first period; and output the other one of p-polarized light and s-polarized light out of light received in a second period after the first period, wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element, respectively, and wherein the detector device is configured to: detect the one of the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element in the first period; and detect the other one of the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element in the second period. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and adjustability of measuring p-polarized light and s-polarized light as discussed by Ho (paragraphs [0001],[0012],[0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of 04/08/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Yamane fails to teach “a layered film [consisting of]: a chemical sensing layer configured to change in an optical characteristic in response to contact with a target substance; a reflection layer configured to reflect at least part of incident light; and an intermediate layer located between the reflection layer and the chemical sensing layer and forming an interface with each of the reflection layer and the chemical sensing layer," wherein "the chemical sensing layer, the reflection layer and the intermediate layer consist of non- magnetic materials” since Yamane’s invention utilizes magnetic fields (Remarks, pages 8-9), the examiner disagrees.
Yamane teaches:
a layered film (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020] teach laminated body 13 which functions as a sensing element, wherein layers 14, 15, 17, and 18 of laminated body 13 are interpreted as the layered film),
wherein the layered film (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0020] , interpreted as consisting of layers 14, 15, 17, and 18) consists of:
a chemical sensing layer (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0022], hydrogen gas detecting layer 14) configured to change in an optical characteristic in response to contact with a target substance (paragraph [0022]);
a reflection layer (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0022], metallic reflective layer 18) configured to reflect at least part of incident light (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0022]); and
an intermediate layer (Figs. 1-3, interpreted as layers 15 and 17; note that the BRI of “intermediate layer” includes multiple layers) located between the reflection layer (18) and the chemical sensing layer (14) (Figs. 1-3) and forming an interface with each of the reflection layer (18) and the chemical sensing layer (14) (Figs. 1-3 teaches layers 15,17, i.e. intermediate layer, form an interface with layers 18 and 14 since layer 15 interfaces with layer 14 and layer 17 interfaces with layer 18),
wherein the chemical sensing layer (14) , the reflection layer (18) and the intermediate layer (15,17) consist of non-magnetic materials (paragraph [0023] teaches layer 14 is palladium, i.e. Pd, which is a non-magnetic material; paragraph [0025] teaches layer 18 includes a material such as Ag, Al, Au, and Cu, which are non-magnetic materials and layers 15,17 includes transparent oxide or nitrides, i.e. non-magnetic)
Note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The illumination optical system of Yamane is identical to the presently claimed sensor system. Yamane discloses the claimed illumination optical system, detector device, and sensing element including a layered film as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Yamane fails to teach “a polarization separator disposed between the light source and the sensing element the polarization separator being configured to separate p-polarized light and s-polarized light from incident light, wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element” of claim 7; and Yamane and Ho fails to teach “a polarization modulator disposed between the light source and the sensing element… wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element, respectively” of claim 8, the examiner disagrees.
Regarding claim 7, Yamane teaches: a polarization separator (paragraph [0038], “polarized light beam separator”) disposed between the light source and the sensing element (paragraph [0038] and Figs. 1-3 teach light polarizer 20 is replaced by polarized light beam separator, which is optically between light source 11 and the laminated body 13), the polarization separator being configured to separate p-polarized light and s-polarized light from incident light (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0038] teaches the polarized light beam separator divides reflected light into p-polarized light and s-polarized light), wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0038] teaches the polarized light beam separator divides reflected light into p-polarized light and s-polarized light, which are detected with the photodetector; therefore, the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are capable of being incident on the sensing element).
Regarding claim 8, the examiner agrees that Yamane fails to teach “a polarization modulator disposed between the light source and the sensing element… wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element, respectively”. However, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, and in short, Yamane provides teachings and suggestions of separating and detecting p-polarized light and s-polarized light incident on a detector device, such as two photodetectors (Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0038]). Ho provides teachings and suggestions of an optical sensing device comprising a phase modulator for modulating between p- and s-polarization components with adjustable frequencies (paragraphs [0012],[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sensor system of Yamane to incorporate the teachings of separating and detecting p-polarized light and s-polarized light incident on a detector device of Yamane (Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0038]) and the teachings of an optical sensing device comprising a phase modulator for modulating between p- and s-polarization components with adjustable frequencies of Ho (paragraphs [0012],[0037]) to provide: the sensor system according to claim 1, further comprising: a polarization modulator disposed between the light source and the sensing element, wherein the polarization modulator is configured to: output one of p-polarized light and s-polarized light out of light received in a first period; and output the other one of p-polarized light and s-polarized light out of light received in a second period after the first period, wherein the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light are incident on the sensing element, respectively, and wherein the detector device is configured to: detect the one of the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element in the first period; and detect the other one of the p-polarized light and the s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element in the second period. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and adjustability of measuring p-polarized light and s-polarized light as discussed by Ho (paragraphs [0001],[0012],[0037]).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed polarization modulator and detector in view of Yamane and Ho.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh (US 20070139646 A1) teaches: a sensor system (abstract; Figs. 7a-7b) comprising:
a sensing element (Figs. 7b);
an illumination optical system including a light source (Fig. 7a, source 51), the illumination optical system being configured to obliquely illuminate the sensing element (Figs. 7a-7b); and
a detector device (Fig. 7a, detector 56) configured to detect light reflected off the sensing element (Fig. 7a),
wherein the sensing element includes a layered film (Fig. 7b, layered film including layers 61, 62, 63, 64),
wherein the layered film (Fig. 7b, layered film including layers 61, 62, 63, 64) consists of:
a chemical sensing layer (Fig. 7b and [0091], silver layer 63 and alumina layer 64) configured to change in an optical characteristic in response to contact with a target substance ([0091] teaches the resonant frequency of silver layer 63 is strongly influenced by contamination on alumina layer 64);
a reflection layer (Fig. 7b, silver layer 61) configured to reflect at least part of incident light (Fig. 7b); and
an intermediate layer (Fig. 7b, hafnia layer 62) located between the reflection layer (61) and the chemical sensing layer (63,64) (Fig. 7b) and forming an interface with each of the reflection layer (61) and the chemical sensing layer (63,64) (Fig. 7b),
wherein the chemical sensing layer (63,64) , the reflection layer (61) and the intermediate layer (62) consist of non-magnetic materials (paragraph [0086] teaches silver layer 63 and alumina layer 64, silver layer 61, and hafnia layer 62; wherein silver, alumina, and hafnia are non-magnetic materials), and
wherein the detector device (Fig. 7a, detector 56) is configured to separately detect p-polarized light and s-polarized light reflected off the sensing element (interpreted as a functional limitation of the detector device, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 7a teaches the detector 56 detecting light reflected off the sensing element; paragraph [0092] teaches distinguishing between detected p-polarized and s-polarized radiation and polarizations may be directed towards different detectors, i.e. separately detecting p-polarized and s-polarized light; paragraph [0094] teaches the photodetector 56 is detects both s-polarized and p-polarized radiation; additionally, the instant specification, paragraph [0083], discloses the photodetector can include one photodetector; therefore, the detector device of Singh is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights