DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/23, 3/29/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Status Claims 1-10 are pending. 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. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) 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: “information specifying unit that analyzes…identifies…applies…specifies” in lines 12-14 in claim 1 (also in claims 4 and 6), and “measurement unit that measures” in claim 7 and “correction unit that corrects” in claim 7 . 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. The instant specification describes the “information specifying unit that analyzes…identifies…applies…specifies” of claim 1 as part of a controller (see [29] of the instant specification, and see #260 in Fig. 14 as part of controller). For purposes of examination, the information specifying unit will be interpreted as part of a controller, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification describes the “measurement unit that measures” of claim 7 as part of a controller (see [28, 53] of the instant specification, and see #270 in Fig. 14 as part of controller). Although a measurement unit, in the art, is often known as a structural detection device, in the instant case the camera is the physical structure which provides the information to the measurement unit as part of the controller, and then the measurement unit obtains the measurement value based on the image from the camera (see [28, 53] of the instant specification). Therefore, the term “measurement unit” in the instant case and based on the instant specification is not a physical structure, but rather part of the controller. For purposes of examination, the measurement unit will be interpreted as part of a controller, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification describes the “correction unit that corrects” of claim 7 as part of a controller (see [56] of the instant specification, and see #280 in Fig. 14 as part of controller). For purposes of examination, the correction unit will be interpreted as part of a controller, and equivalents thereof. 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 a void 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 § 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. Claims 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is rejected based on the following analysis: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea s of a computer or controller (see 112f interpretation above) which analyzes, identifies, applies…correspondence relationship, and species information, which are all mental processes and/or mathematical algorithms . MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application? No. Once the device analyzes, identifies, applies…correspondence relationship, and species information, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no particular practical application. The claim does recite a housing, a sensor , light source , and camera. However, th ese are just being used to gather data that is then used in the abstract idea. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications. The abstract idea is performed by a computer/controller/processor, but performing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.). Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? The claim recites the additional elements of a housing, a sensor, light source, and camera . These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Jena et al (US 20140072189; hereinafter “Jena”; already of record). Jena teaches a housing 30; Fig. 1, [69]. Jena teaches sensor 140/141 which acquires temperature and then generates light at light source 143 where the light correlates to information sensed by the sensor; Fig. 8, [82-88]. Jena also teaches a sensor 135 that acquires information and then displays correlated information to the light source 137/138; [79-88]. Jena teaches that the sensors sense out of range conditions and then correlate and convey the sensed conditions via light; [82-88, 147]. Jena teaches a measurement device as a mobile phone 32 with a camera and with a controller, where the mobile device determines and identifies the light and correlates the imaged light to out range conditions; [7, 9-11, 13, 20-23, 26, 71, 86-87, 89, 96, 147], Fig. 1. The dependent claims 2-10 undergo a similar analysis and do not appear to resolve any of the above issues, and are therefore similarly rejected. Claim s 4, 6, 7, 10 all describe features of the abstract ideas under step 2A prong one, where there is no further particular practical application. Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 all further describe features of the light or housing, where these are still all used to gather data under step 2A prong two and do not amount to a particular practical application, and are also WURC under step 2B and therefore do not amount to significantly more (see citations to Jena in art rejection below) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1/a2 as being anticipated by Jena et al (US 20140072189; hereinafter “Jena”; already of record) . As to claim 1, Jena teaches a measurement system (Jena; Fig. 1, abstract), comprising: a housing that includes: a related information acquisition sensor that acquires related information, which is information related to measurement of a measurement target, and a display light source that generates display light, which is light corresponding to the related information acquired by the related information acquisition sensor (Jena teaches a housing 30; Fig. 1, [69]. Jena teaches sensor 140/141 which acquires temperature and then generates light at light source 143 where the light correlates to information sensed by the sensor; Fig. 8, [82-88]. Jena also teaches a sensor 135 that acquires information and then displays correlated information to the light source 137/138 , and also calibrating the device ; [79-88] . Jena teaches that the sensors sense out of range conditions and then correlate and convey the sensed conditions via light; [82-88, 147] . Jena also teaches LEDs 124 in combination with the calibration target 102; [75, 86, 88] ); and a measurement device that includes: a correspondence relationship storage that stores a correspondence relationship between the related information and the display light in advance, a camera that images the display light to acquire an image, and an information specifying unit that analyzes the image and identifies the display light, applies the identified display light to the correspondence relationship stored in the correspondence relationship storage, and specifies the related information (Jena teaches a measurement device as a mobile phone 32 with a camera and with a controller, where the mobile device determines and identifies the light and correlates the imaged light to out range conditions; [7, 9-11, 13, 20-23, 26, 71, 86-87, 89, 96, 147], Fig. 1 , 15 ) . Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. As to claim 2, Jena teaches the measurem ent system according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes a light source controller that controls the generation of the display light by the display light source (Jena teaches that the light sources 143, 137/138 , 124 include controller circuits; [75, 79-88], Fig. 8) . As to claim 3, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 2, wherein the display light source generates reference light having a reference light quantity as a reference of intensity of the display light, and the light source controller switches between the display light and the reference light to cause the display light source to emit light (Jena teaches lights 143, 137/138, and 124 where the light sources are switched to display light whereby there is a reference that is used to generate various intensities and colors of the different lights; [79-88]) . As to claim 4, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 3, wherein the information specifying unit specifies the intensity of the display light imaged by the camera based on the reference light imaged by the camera (Jena teaches that the lights can change intensity, and also correlates the color wavelength , all of which is read by the controller ; [86, 88]) . As to claim 5, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 2, wherein the display light source includes a plurality of light emitters, and the related information is expressed by, via the control by the light source controller, a combination of positions of the plurality of light emitters and the display light (Jena teaches sensor 140/141 which acquires temperature and then generates light at light source 143 where the light correlates to information sensed by the sensor; Fig. 8, [82-88]. Jena also teaches a sensor 135 that acquires information and then displays correlated information to the light source 137/138, and also calibrating the device; [79-88]. Jena teaches that the sensors sense out of range conditions and then correlate and convey the sensed conditions via light; [82-88, 147]. Jena also teaches LEDs 124 in combination with the calibration target 102; [75, 86, 88]. The positions of the light sources would be evaluated such that the controller would correlate each light with its corresponding position) . As to claim 6, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 5, wherein the information specifying unit specifies the positions of the plurality of light emitters, and specifies the display light for each of the specified positions (Jena teaches sensor 140/141 which acquires temperature and then generates light at light source 143 where the light correlates to information sensed by the sensor; Fig. 8, [82-88]. Jena also teaches a sensor 135 that acquires information and then displays correlated information to the light source 137/138, and also calibrating the device; [79-88]. Jena teaches that the sensors sense out of range conditions and then correlate and convey the sensed conditions via light; [82-88, 147]. Jena also teaches LEDs 124 in combination with the calibration target 102; [75, 86, 88]. The positions of the light sources would be evaluated such that the controller would correlate each light with its corresponding position) . As to claim 7, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein a holder that houses a test strip, to which the measurement target is applied, is provided in the housing, and the measurement device includes a measurement unit that measures the measurement target applied to the test strip housed in the holder to acquire a measurement value, and a correction unit that corrects the measurement value acquired by the measurement unit based on the related information specified by the information specifying unit (Jena teaches a housing 30 which includes a holding structure for holding test strip 56; Fig. 1. Jena teaches that the cam e ra uses the calibration info and then the detected light values and also reads the test strip in accordance with the calibrated info; [77, 97-99], Fig. 1 . Jena also teaches correcting/calibrating measurement values; [82, 86, 88, 127-128, 153], claim 11 ) . As to claim 8, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 7, wherein an attachment part, in which a measurement window is formed, is provided in the housing, and the measureme nt device is attached to the attachment part such that the camera faces the measurement window (Jena teaches a measurement window 64/71/72 to enable viewing with the camera of the mobile phone; [71-74, 95], Fig. 2-5) . As to claim 9, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 8, wherein the measurement window is formed at a position at which the test strip and display light source are simultaneously imagable by the camera attached to the attachment par t (Jena teaches a measurement window 64/71/72 to enable viewing with the camera of the mobile phone; [71-74, 95], Fig. 2-5 . Jena teaches a measurement device as a mobile phone 32 with a camera that determines and identifies the light and correlates the imaged light to out range conditions and also images the test strip; [7, 9-11, 13, 20-23, 26, 71, 86-87, 89, 96, 147], Fig. 1, 15 ). As to claim 10, Jena teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the related information is an environmental temperature, and the related information acquisition sensor is a temperature sensor (Jena teaches a temperature sensor; Fig. 8, [82-88]) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9892 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon- Fri 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3638 . 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. /Benjamin R Whatley/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798