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 .
Functional Language
Remarks regarding functional language:
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40
(CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660,663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958,959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Oanly, 263 F.2d 844,848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P.
2114[R-1].
In regards to claim 9, the following limitations “wherein a replacement notification of the concentration measuring device is provided according to a degree of aging of the measurement photodiode sensor or the reference
photodiode sensor” is understood to be functional:
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent -of-use of providing a replacement notification of photodiodes after light has been received from both photodiodes. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Examiner notes the notification is an intended result of that is accomplished by the light source. In this case, there is no limit imposed on how the claimed language obtains the result. Since Kangas and Action Lab show an identical structure as claimed, namely a light source, the Examiner submits that the light sources of Kangas and Action Lab are capable of producing the claimed results.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a measurement unit configured to receive” & “a reference measurement unit configured to receive” in claims 1,7, & 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant recites the reference/measurement unit comprises a photodiode sensor and lens (claim 2).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kangas US 10801950.
With respect to claim 1, Kangas teaches a concentration measuring device comprising:
a light-emitting unit (fig 1, 102) comprising a first light source configured to generate measurement light;
a measurement unit (fig 1, 130) configured to receive first measurement light that is part of the measurement light and that passes through a sample that is a measurement target; and
a reference measurement unit (fig 1, 132) configured to receive second measurement light that is part of the measurement light and that does not pass through the sample,
wherein the concentration measuring device is configured to measure a concentration of a chemical material in the sample (fig 1, 120) by measuring an amount of light absorbed by the sample based on an amount of light detected by the measurement unit “sample absorption” and an amount of light detected “reference absorption” by the reference measurement unit (fig 2, 222).
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, Kangas teaches the concentration measuring device further comprising a spectroscopic unit (fig 1, 110) disposed between the light-emitting unit and the sample and configured to separate the measurement light into the first measurement light and the second measurement wherein the spectroscopic unit is a beam splitter configured to transmit the first measurement light and reflect the second measurement light.
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 4, Kangas teaches the concentration measuring device
further comprising a reflection mirror (fig 1, 112) disposed between the beam splitter and the reference measurement unit and configured to direct the second measurement light to the reference measurement unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangas US 10801950 in view of Kolensnychenko WO 2007113727.
With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, Kangas does not teach a measurement photodiode sensor and a first lens configured to focus the light on the measurement photodiode sensor.
Kolensnychenko, in the same field of endeavor as Kangas of absorption spectroscopy (pg. 5, ¶ 1, lines 8-10), teaches a first lens (fig 1, 11) is configured to focus light onto a photodiode sensor (fig 1, 13) from a sample (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 17-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Kangas’s measurement unit with Kolensychenko’s photodiode sensor and lens as a functional equivalent for capturing light from a sample for concentration measurements.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 2, Kangas does not teach a reference photodiode sensor configured to receive the second measurement light; and a second lens configured to focus the second measurement light on the reference photodiode sensor.
Kolensnychenko, in the same field of endeavor as Kangas of absorption spectroscopy (pg. 5, ¶ 1, lines 8-10), teaches a first lens (fig 1, 11) is configured to focus light onto a photodiode sensor (fig 1, 13) from a sample (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 17-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Kangas’s measurement unit with Kolensychenko’s photodiode sensor and lens as a functional equivalent for capturing light from a sample for concentration measurements.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangas US 10801950 in view of ActionLabShorts, “I Shined a 3W Laser Directly in My Camera”, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yzJ9ix3KL7c April 23, 2022, hereafter Action Lab.
With respect to claim 7, Kangas teaches a concentration measuring device comprising:
a light-emitting unit (fig 1, 102) comprising a first light source configured to generate measurement light;
a measurement unit (fig 1, 130) configured to receive the measurement light that passes through a
sample that is a measurement target of the measurement light; and
Kangas does not teach a verification unit configured to verify an abnormal state of the measurement unit,
wherein the verification unit comprises a second light source.
Action lab, in the field of endeavor of optics, teaches shining a laser pointer onto a camera i.e. measurement unit, wherein the light source can be seen from the measurement unit. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would realize shining a visible light on the camera in a dark setting will enable a user to determine if camera is on. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to shine a secondary light source into Kangas’s measurement unit to verify if the if the measurement unit is powered on.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
842
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangas US 10801950 in view of ActionLabShorts, “I Shined a 3W Laser Directly in My Camera”, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yzJ9ix3KL7c April 23, 2022, hereafter Action Lab in further view of Kolensnychenko WO 2007113727.
With respect to claim 9, Kangas teaches a concentration measuring device comprising:
a light-emitting unit (fig 1, 120) comprising a first light source configured to generate measurement light;
a spectroscopic unit (fig 1, 110) configured to separate the measurement light into first measurement light and second measurement light, the spectroscopic unit being disposed between the light-emitting unit and a sample that is a measurement target;
a measurement unit (fig 1, 130) configured to receive the first measurement light that passes through the sample (fig 1, 120); and
a reference measurement unit (fig 1, 132) configured to receive the second measurement light that
does not pass through the sample,
wherein the concentration measuring device is configured to measure a concentration of a chemical material in the sample (fig 1, 120) by measuring an amount of light absorbed by the sample based on an amount of light detected by the measurement unit “sample absorption” and an amount of light detected “reference absorption” by the reference measurement unit (fig 2, 222).
Kangas does not teach a verification unit comprising a second light source configured to generate verification light.
Action lab, in the field of endeavor of optics, teaches shining a laser pointer onto a camera i.e. measurement unit, wherein the light source can be seen from the measurement unit. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would realize shining a visible light on the camera in a dark setting will enable a user to determine if camera is on. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to shine a secondary light source into Kangas’s measurement unit to verify whether the measurement unit is powered on.
PNG
media_image3.png
390
231
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
389
216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach the measurement unit comprises a measurement photodiode sensor.
Kolensnychenko, in the same field of endeavor as Kangas of absorption spectroscopy (pg. 5, ¶ 1, lines 8-10), teaches a first lens (fig 1, 11) is configured to focus light onto a photodiode sensor (fig 1, 13) from a sample (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 17-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute Kangas’s measurement unit with Kolensychenko’s photodiode sensor and lens as a functional equivalent for capturing light from a sample for concentration measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a constant temperature module disposed inside the housing and configured to maintain a temperature inside the housing constant, wherein the constant temperature module comprises: a sample supply tube extending across at least part of the housing; a heat sink connected to the first light source and configured to dissipate heat of the first light source; a temperature detection sensor configured to detect the temperature inside the housing; and a fan configured to cool an inside of the housing”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the verification unit further comprises an optical filter configured to filter light of a specific wavelength, the optical filter is disposed between the measurement unit and the sample and configured to transmit the measurement light and reflect the verification light toward the measurement unit”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877