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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the word “filer” should be change to --filter-- due to typographic error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
a)Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, the claims state the abbreviation “CMR”. However, the specification does not in such full, clear, concise manner of what “CMR” stands for.
For examination purposes, the examiner is not given patentable weight to the abbreviation “CMR” until further explanation is given. Since claim 4 depends from claim 2, it is also being rejected for the above reason.
b)Regarding claims 1-2, and 5, the claims states: “digital filter process”. However, the specification does not in such full, clear, concise manner of what are the steps for the digital filter process nor how a processor used the steps to perform noise removal of a signal.
For examination purposes, the examiner is not given patentable weight to the “digital filter process” until further explanation is given. Since claims 3-4 and 6 depends from claim 2, they are also being rejected for the above reason.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa et al (JP 2011180570) in view of Kishimoto et al (JP 2014085455).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
441
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
477
333
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Shirakawa et al disclose [see Figs. 7-8] a measurement apparatus, comprising: a magnetic resonance member (sample 16) of which an electron spin quantum state is changed correspondingly to a measurement target field, the magnetic resonance member (16) capable of [see Note below] an electron spin quantum operation with microwave; a high-frequency magnetic field generator (high frequency magnetic field generator 5) that performs the electron spin quantum operation of the magnetic resonance member (16) with the microwave; a light emitting device (light source 32) that emits excitation light with which the magnetic resonance member (16) should be irradiated; a fluorescence light receiving device (detector 9) that receives fluorescence emitted by the magnetic resonance member (16) correspondingly to the excitation light and generates a fluorescence sensor signal corresponding to an intensity of the fluorescence; a calculation unit (calculation unit 24) that performs for the fluorescence sensor signal common mode rejection based on a reference sensor signal generated by receiving a reference light obtained as a branch of the excitation light, and generates a signal based on the common mode rejection; a second analog-digital converter (conversion unit 22) that digitizes a reference light sensor signal generated by receiving a reference light obtained as a branch of the excitation light; and a processor (processing unit 10) that divides the digitized signal by the digitized reference light sensor signal and thereby generates a detection signal, and derives a measurement value of the measurement target field on the basis of the detection signal; wherein the processor (10) performs a noise-removal digital filter process for the digitized signal or the detection signal. However, the prior art does not disclose a first analog-digital converter that digitized signal as claimed. Kishimoto et al disclose resonance member (sample SP); a light emitting device (light source 70) that emits excitation light with which the resonance member (SP) should be irradiated; a fluorescence light receiving device (detection unit 20) that receives fluorescence emitted by the resonance member (SP); calculation unit (calculation unit 60); a first analog-digital converter (AD conversion 53) that digitizes the signal; a second analog-digital converter (AD conversion unit 43) that digitizes a reference light sensor signal and a processor (personal computer 101). Further, Kishimoto et al teaches that the addition of analog-digital converter is advantageous because it helps convert signals of the fluorescence into electrical signals so that the measurement apparatus can facilitate separation of a plurality of pieces of fluorescent light received by a detector. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Shirakawa et al by adding analog-digital converter as taught by Kishimoto et al in order to convert signals of the fluorescence into electrical signals so that the measurement apparatus can facilitate separation of a plurality of pieces of fluorescent light.
[Note: Claim limitations that employ phrases of the type “capable of” are typical of claim limitations, which may not distinguish over the prior art. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. See also MPEP 2111.04]
Regarding claims 2-3, Shirakawa et al disclose a measurement method, comprising the steps of: performing ( via high frequency magnetic field generator 5) an electron spin quantum operation of magnetic resonance member (sample 16) with microwave and emitting (via light source 32) excitation light to the magnetic resonance member (16) in accordance with a predetermined measurement sequence, the magnetic resonance member (16) of which an electron spin quantum state is changed correspondingly to a measurement target field and capable of [see Note above] electron spin quantum operation with microwave; receiving ( via detector 9) fluorescence emitted by the magnetic resonance member (16) correspondingly to the excitation light, and generating (via detector 9) a fluorescence sensor signal corresponding to an intensity of the fluorescence; performing (via calculation unit 24) for the fluorescence sensor signal common mode rejection based on a reference sensor signal generated by receiving a reference light obtained as a branch of the excitation light, and generating a signal based on the common mode rejection; digitizing (via conversion unit 22) a reference light sensor signal generated by receiving reference light obtained as a branch of the excitation light; dividing (via processing unit 10) the digitized signal by the digitized reference light sensor signal and thereby generating a detection signal, and deriving a measurement value of the measurement target field on the basis of the detection signal; and performing (via processing unit 10) a noise-removal digital filter process for the digitized signal or the detection signal. However, the prior art does not disclose a first analog-digital converter that digitized signal as claimed. Kishimoto et al disclose resonance member (sample SP); a light emitting device (light source 70) that emits excitation light with which the resonance member (SP) should be irradiated; a fluorescence light receiving device (detection unit 20) that receives fluorescence emitted by the resonance member (SP); calculation unit (calculation unit 60); a first analog-digital converter (AD conversion 53) that digitizes the signal; a second analog-digital converter (AD conversion unit 43) that digitizes a reference light sensor signal and a processor (personal computer 101). Further, Kishimoto et al teaches that the addition of analog-digital converter is advantageous because it helps convert signals of the fluorescence into electrical signals so that the measurement apparatus can facilitate separation of a plurality of pieces of fluorescent light received by a detector. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Shirakawa et al by adding analog-digital converter as taught by Kishimoto et al in order to convert signals of the fluorescence into electrical signals so that the measurement apparatus can facilitate separation of a plurality of pieces of fluorescent light.
Regarding claim 4, Shirakawa et al disclose wherein the reference light sensor signal digitized [via conversion unit 22] and used for generation of the detection light is generated independently from the reference light sensor signal used for the common mode rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Shirakawa et al disclose the steps of: (a) accumulating values [via processing unit 10] of the digitized CMR signal obtained plural times in a first half part of an irradiation period of the excitation light and plural times in a second half part of the irradiation period; and (b) calculating [via processing unit 10] a difference between an accumulation value of the CMR signal in the first half part and an accumulation value of the CMR signal in the second half part and thereby removing a noise component in the CMR signal [see translation pages 12-15 for details].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858