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 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 1-3 and 5-10 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.
Claim 1 recites limitations for a “light output estimation method.” However, the claim does not recite any steps for the method. Claim 1 only recites limitations for two estimation criteria, but fails to recite any active, positive steps for estimating light output. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Claims 2, 3 and 6-10 depend from claim 1 and recite further details of the two criterion and for the light-emitting device. However, these claims also do not recite any steps for the method. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 6-10 are indefinite. Claims 4 and 5 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because claim 4 recites active steps for the method, and claim 5 depends from claim 4.
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.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to a method. While the claim does not recite any active method steps, as discussed above, it appears that the claim is intended to be directed to a process which would within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites a first estimation criterion to estimate light output of the light-emitting device in a period before a predetermined accumulated light emission time TX; and a second estimation criterion to estimate light output of the light-emitting device in a period after the predetermined accumulated light emission time TX, wherein the first estimation criterion and the second estimation criterion are different criteria. The criteria are disclosed as equations (pars. 32-36). Therefore, the abstract idea falls into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and also do not recite any additional elements. Claims 2-9 only recite further details of the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-9 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites an additional element that the light-emitting device emits deep ultraviolet light. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). This additional element is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2009/0254287 to Ohgoh (Ohgoh) in view of JP 2008-34587 to Goto et al. (Goto).
Claim 1
With regard to a first estimation criterion to estimate light output of the light-emitting device in a period before a predetermined accumulated light emission time TX; Ohgoh teaches determining the lifetime a photo-semiconductor using the drive current characteristics to extract a maximum light output value (Fig. 2, steps 2-4; pars. 45, 49, 50).
Ohgoh further teaches multiple extraction points and that the approximation curve is not particularly limited to the disclosed quadratic function curve. However, Ohgoh does not teach a second estimation criterion to estimate light output of the light-emitting device in a period after the predetermined accumulated light emission time TX, wherein the first estimation criterion and the second estimation criterion are different criteria.
Goto teaches the light output of a semiconductor laser decreases rapidly due to face degradation and shows the slope changing significantly at a specific time (par. 30; Fig. 24). Combining the teachings of Goto with Ohgoh would result in a second estimation criterion for the significant change in slope of the light output shown in Figure 24 of Goto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lifetime prediction, as taught by Ohgoh, to include taking into account the change in slope, as taught by Goto, because then the accuracy of the lifetime prediction would have been improved (Ohgoh, par. 56).
Claim 2
Ohgoh does not teach that each of the first estimation criterion and the second estimation criterion is expressed as a function of accumulated light emission time of the light-emitting device, and wherein a slope of the function for the first estimation criterion immediately before the predetermined accumulated light emission time TX is greater than a slope of the function for the second estimation criterion immediately after the predetermined accumulated light emission time TX. Goto teaches that the slope changes significantly early in lifetime of the semiconductor laser (Fig. 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lifetime prediction, as taught by Ohgoh, to include taking into account the change in slope, as taught by Goto, because then the accuracy of the lifetime prediction would have been improved (Ohgoh, par. 56).
Claim 3
Ohgoh does not teach that each of the first estimation criterion and the second estimation criterion is a criterion to estimate light output of the light-emitting device in such a manner that a deterioration rate of the light-emitting device decreases with a lapse of light emission time of the light-emitting device, and wherein the second estimation criterion is a criterion to estimate light output of the light-emitting device in such a manner that change in the deterioration rate of the light-emitting device over time is more gradual as compared to the first estimation criterion. Goto teaches that the slope changes significantly early in lifetime of the semiconductor laser (Fig. 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lifetime prediction, as taught by Ohgoh, to include taking into account the change in slope, as taught by Goto, because then the accuracy of the lifetime prediction would have been improved (Ohgoh, par. 56).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohgoh in view of Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0234798 to Niizeki et al. (Niizeki).
Claim 10
Ohgoh and Goto teach all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends. Ohgoh and Goto do not teach that the light-emitting device emits deep ultraviolet light. Niizeki teaches testing a light emitting device that emits ultraviolet light (pars. 10, 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lifetime prediction combination, as taught by Ohgoh, and Goto, to include ultraviolet light, as taught by Niizeki, because then the lifetime of ultraviolet light emitting devices would have been more accurately determined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights