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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: February 12, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 11, 13 and 17 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Discussion of Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 8-9, with respect to the objection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Discussion of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 9, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Discussion of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (see REMARKS pages 9-10), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Morse teaches the claimed electrostatic field detection device, light source, reflection detector and processor (see rejection below). Morse fails to teach a ring light source and the reflection detector surrounded by the ring light source. Miresmailli teaches a ring light source with a reflection detector within and surrounded by the ring light source (see rejection below). Thus, one skilled in the art would be able to able to and motivated to combine the structure as described by Morse with the ring of LED probes and central detectors as described by Miresmailli for the purpose of monitoring the physiological responses of an object due to the reflection of light detected.
The applicant has further argued that neither Morse or Miresmailli teaches or suggest that electrostatic field strength can be derived directly form the light reflected off the surface of a target object (see REMARKS pages 10-11). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Morse teaches a device for the measurement of electrostatic field strength (see Column 1 lines 8-13) based on transmisstivity (or reflectivity) of a target object (Fig. 8; Column 3 line 58 to Column 4 line 13 and the use of the probe on a target object).
Thus, in view of the examiner arguments above, the rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 9-11, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
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) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morse et al. US5280173 (called Morse hereinafter and applicant disclosed art) in view of Miresmailli et al. US2017/0030877 (called Miresmailli hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Morse teaches an electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus (Fig. 8), comprising:
an electrostatic field detection device (Fig. 8; intensity measuring device 10), comprising:
a light source (Fig. 8; LED 300) configured to emit a light signal to a target object (Colum 3 line 58 to Column 4 line 13; conductive body placed near the probe); and
a reflection detector (Fig. 8; components 330-370) and configured to receive a reflection signal (Column 3 line 58 to Column 4 line 13), of the light signal, reflected by a surface of the target object (Column 3 line 58 to Column 4 line 13) and generate an electrical signal based upon the reflection signal (Column 3 line 58 to Column 4 line 13); and
a processor configured to determine, based upon the electrical signal, measures of electrostatic field strength at the surface of the target object (Fig. 8; Column 5 line 57 to Column 6 line 5; circuit 370).
Morse fails to teach a ring light source and a reflection detector disposed within and surrounded by the ring light source.
Miresmailli teaches a ring light source (Fig. 16D; para [0162]; ring of LED probes) and a reflection detector disposed within and surrounded by the ring light source (Fig. 16D; para [0162]; four central detectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Morse with the ring of LED probes and central detectors as described by Miresmailli for the purpose of monitoring the physiological responses of an object due to the reflection of light detected.
Regarding claim 2, Morse and Miresmailli teach the electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Morse further teaches wherein the ring light source comprises: the light source configured to emit a first light signal with a first wavelength to the target object (Fig. 8; LED 300 λ1); and the light source configured to emit a second light signal with a second wavelength to the target object, wherein the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength (Fig. 8; LED 300 λ2).
Miresmailli further teaches a plurality of first photodiodes (Fig. 16D; ring of multiple LED probes) and a plurality of second photodiodes (Fig. 16D; para [0162]; another array of LED probes).
Regarding claim 3, Morse and Miresmailli teach the electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 2, Morse further teaches wherein the reflection signal comprises a first reflection signal (Fig. 8; detector 350), of the first light signal, reflected by the surface of the target object (Fig. 8) and a second reflection signal (Fig. 8; detector 360), of the second light signal, reflected by the surface of the target object (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Morse and Miresmailli teach the electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 3, Morse further teaches wherein the electrical signal comprises a first electrical signal generated based upon the first reflection signal (Fig. 8; output of detector 350), and a second electrical signal generated based upon the second reflection signal (Fig. 8; output of detector 360).
Regarding claim 5, Morse and Miresmailli teach the electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 4, Morse further teaches wherein the reflection detector comprises: a first optical filter (Fig. 8; left filter 340) configured to block light, of the first reflection signal, that has a wavelength outside a first defined range of wavelengths (Fig. 8; Column 5 line 57 to Column 6 line 5), and provide a first filtered light (Fig. 8; output of left filter 340), from the first reflection signal, that has a wavelength within the first defined range of wavelengths (Fig. 8; Column 5 line 57 to Column 6 line 5); a second optical filter (Fig. 8; right filter 340) configured to block light, of the second reflection signal, that has a wavelength outside a second defined range of wavelengths (Fig. 8; Column 5 line 57 to Column 6 line 5), and provide a second filtered light (Fig. 8; output of right filter 340), from the second reflection signal, that has a wavelength within the second defined range of wavelengths (Fig. 8; Column 5 line 57 to Column 6 line 5); and a light sensor configured to generate the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal based upon the first filtered light and the second filtered light respectively (Fig. 8; Column 5 line 57 to Column 6 line 5; detectors 350 and 360).
Regarding claim 6, Morse and Miresmailli teach the electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 5, Mores further teaches wherein the reflection detector further comprises: a first optical sensor (Fig. 8; detector 350) coupled to the first optical filter and the light sensor and configured to receive the first filtered light passing through the first optical filter (Fig. 8); and a second optical sensor (Fig. 8; detector 360)coupled to the second optical filter and the light sensor and configured to receive the second filtered light passing through the second optical filter (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Morse and Miresmailli teach the electrostatic field strength measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 5, Mores further teaches wherein: the reflection detector comprises one or more lenses (Figs. 7 and 8; GRIN lens 230 of probe 30) configured to conduct the first reflection signal to the first optical filter and conduct the second reflection signal to the second optical filter (Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Claims 7, 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, this claim was indicated as allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed on November 19, 2025.
Regarding claim 9, this claim was indicated as allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed on November 19, 2025.
Claim 10 is indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 9.
Regarding independent claim 11, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“an optical filter configured to filter the first reflection signal or the second reflection signal to provide a filtered light having a reflected wavelength within a defined range of wavelengths; and a reflection detector disposed within and surrounded by the ring light source and configured to receive a first reflection signal of the first light signal and a second reflection signal of the second light signal reflected by a surface of the target object and generate a first electrical signal and a second electrical signal based upon the first reflection signal and the second reflection signal respectively, wherein the reflected wavelength is substantially equal to half of an initial wavelength of the first light signal or the second light signal,”
Claims 12-16 are indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 11.
Regarding independent claim 17, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“filtering the reflection signal to provide filtered light that has a filtered wavelength within a defined range of wavelengths, wherein the reflected wavelength is substantially equal to half of an initial wavelength of the first light signal or the second light signal; generating an electrical signal based upon the filtered light; and determining, based upon the electrical signal, measures of electrostatic field strength at the surface of the target object,”
Claims 18-20 are indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. discloses “Narrow band polarization encoder” (see US2003/0020925)
Ellerbee discloses “Optical coherence tomography system and method therefor” (see US2013/0215431)
Scherer et al. discloses “Spectral filter having controllable spectral bandwidth and resolution” (see US2018/0340826)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights