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 .
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: “detection component to detect” in claims 1 and 17.
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 implicitly teaches the detection component may include a photodiode (fig 1, 110) (0018, lines 1-3).
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 § 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 17-20 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. Claims 17 & 20 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “optical pre-processing block” in claims 17 & 20 are used by the claims to mean “diffraction grating, detection component, motor, and processor,” while the accepted meaning is “filtering, normalizing, or augmentation of optical data before it is analyzed”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In regards to claim 17, the claimed subject matter “optical pre-processing block comprising:” is rendered indefinite. Applicant teaches the term block is describing a selection process (0047, lines 10-13), wherein block diagrams provide the visual descriptions of the processes (0006). Examiner notes it is unclear as to how a visual block can comprise optical components. Examiner further notes it is unclear as to how the optical pre-processing block (fig 1, 108) comprises the detection component and processor, when the pre-processing block (fig 1, 108 & fig 2A) is taught as a separate element to the detection component (fig 1, 108) and processor (fig 1, 112).
In regards to claim 18, the claimed subject matters “a detection block to detect” & “an electrical processing block to receive an electrical signal” are rendered indefinite. Applicant teaches the term block is describing a selection process (0047, lines 10-13), wherein block diagrams provide the visual descriptions of the processes (0006). Examiner notes it is unclear as to how a visual block can detect an optical signal and receive an electrical signal. Clarification is required.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6377899, US 11150132, EP 1120637, JP 2010127709, & Osama Terra, “Calibration of grating based optical spectrum analyzers”, September 2014.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “receive a detected next order diffracted signal and another rotational angle of the diffraction grating for the next order diffracted signal; and determine a wavelength of the next order diffracted signal based on the reference angle and the another rotational angle of the diffraction grating for the next order diffracted signal”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “setting the angle of the 0th order diffracted signal as a reference angle; detecting a next order diffracted signal and another angle of the next order diffracted signal; and determining a wavelength of the next order diffracted signal based on the reference angle and the another angle of the next order diffracted signal”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 10.
As to claim 17, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “receive a detected next order diffracted signal and another rotational angle of the diffraction grating for the next order diffracted signal; and determine a wavelength of the next order diffracted signal based on the reference angle and the another rotational angle of the diffraction grating for the next order diffracted signal”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 17.
The closest prior art of record MANABU JP 2010127709 teaches determining a 0th order calibration wavelength and rotation angle (pg. 5, ¶ 5) at the 0th order, wherein the rotation angle of grating can be revalued for all the set wavelengths (pg. 4, ¶ 5), therefore failing to teach determining a wavelength of the next order diffracted signal based on the reference angle and the another angle of the next order diffracted signal.
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