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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“…d [mm] is the shortest distance between a surface of the optical filter on a side opposite to a light source…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0376889) in view of Sasayama (U.S. Pub. 2020/0072739), and further in view of Kuze et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0090505).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 15, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) a gas sensor 10 (see par. [0038]), the gas sensor 10 comprising:
a light emitter 21 [0039] that emits light as infrared light [0039];
a detector 20 [0039] that detects a signal based on light emitted from the light emitter 21 [0050];
a light guide 5 (i.e. cover body) that at least includes a mirror (i.e. is reflective: [0051]) and reflects the light to form an optical path in which the light emitted from the light emitter 21 passes through an introduced gas [0050]-[0051]; and
an optical filter 6/6b (lid/optical filter layer: [0057]) that is disposed in the optical path (as shown in Figs. 1-10) to limit a transmission wavelength band of the light [0057].
Takei does not disclose a base material of the optical filter has a refractive index of 1.5 or more in the transmission wavelength band.
Sasayama discloses a base material of the optical filter has a refractive index of 1.5 or more in the transmission wavelength band [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takei’s device so that a base material of the optical filter has a refractive index of 1.5 or more in the transmission wavelength band, as taught by Sasayama.
Such a modification would optimize the optical filtering for the gas to be detected – see Sasayama [0004] and MPEP 2144.05(II).
Takei also does not disclose the optical filter satisfies 0.3 < (T/Lf) < 1.3 where T [mm] is a thickness of the optical filter and Lf [mm] is a maximum length of the optical filter in a longitudinal direction in a planar view.
Kuze discloses (Fig. 2) the optical filter satisfies 0.3 < (T/Lf) < 1.3 where T [mm] is a thickness of the optical filter and Lf [mm] is a maximum length of the optical filter in a longitudinal direction in a planar view (see par. [0066], several of the disclosed optical filter sizes satisfy this ratio, such as 0.5mm/1mm = 0.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Takei’s device so that the optical filter satisfies 0.3 < (T/Lf) < 1.3 where T [mm] is a thickness of the optical filter and Lf [mm] is a maximum length of the optical filter in a longitudinal direction in a planar view, as taught by Kuze.
Such a modification would be merely a change in size/proportion of the optical filter, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Further regarding claim 2, Takei’s modified device is applied as above, but does not disclose a ratio of an area of the optical filter in a planar view to an area of the light emitter is in a range of 1 to 1.2, and the optical filter satisfies 0.25 < (T/Lf) ≤ 0.3 where T [mm] is a thickness of the optical filter and Lf [mm] is a maximum length of the optical filter in a longitudinal direction in the planar view.
However, such a modification would be merely a change in size/proportion of the optical filter, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Thus, regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Takei’s device so that a ratio of an area of the optical filter in a planar view to an area of the light emitter is in a range of 1 to 1.2, and the optical filter satisfies 0.25 < (T/Lf) ≤ 0.3 where T [mm] is a thickness of the optical filter and Lf [mm] is a maximum length of the optical filter in a longitudinal direction in the planar view.
Regarding claim 3, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) the light emitter is an LED [0059].
Regarding claim 4, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) the detector 20 is a microphone [0039] and, by using a photoacoustic method [0050]-[0051], determines the presence or a concentration of a gas to be detected [0050]-[0051].
Regarding claim 5, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) an area of a surface of the optical filter 6/6b on a side opposite to a light source (i.e. the top of the lid 6: see Figs. 1 and 13) is larger than an area of a surface of the optical filter on a side of the light source 21 (i.e. the surface of 6b: see Figs. 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 6, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) the optical filter 6/6b has a maximum length in a longitudinal direction at an intermediate portion (i.e. the top surface of the layer 6b) between a surface on a side of a light source (bottom surface of 6b: see Figs. 1 and 13) and a surface on a side opposite to the light source (i.e. the top of the lid 6: see Figs. 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 6, Takei’s modified device is applied as above, but does not disclose the refractive index is 3.2 or more.
Sasayama discloses the refractive index is 3.2 or more (of the high index layer: [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takei’s device so that the refractive index is 3.2 or mor, as taught by Sasayama.
Such a modification would optimize the optical filtering for the gas to be detected – see Sasayama [0004] and MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Takei’s modified device is applied as above, but does not disclose the optical filter is positioned in such a way that a distance between a surface on a side of a light source and the light emitter is 10 μm or more and is less than or equal to 1/2 of Lf [mm]; and the optical filter is positioned in such a way that the distance between the surface on the side of the light source and the light emitter is 10 μm or more and less than or equal to 1/10 of Lf [mm].
However, such a modification would be merely a change in size/proportion of the optical filter, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Takei’s device so that the optical filter is positioned in such a way that a distance between a surface on a side of a light source and the light emitter is 10 μm or more and is less than or equal to 1/2 of Lf [mm]; and the optical filter is positioned in such a way that the distance between the surface on the side of the light source and the light emitter is 10 μm or more and less than or equal to 1/10 of Lf [mm].
Regarding claim 12, Takei’s modified device is applied as above, but does not disclose a ratio of an area of the optical filter in a planar view to an area of the light emitter is in a range of 1 to 1.2.
However, such a modification would be merely a change in size/proportion of the optical filter, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Takei’s device so that a ratio of an area of the optical filter in a planar view to an area of the light emitter is in a range of 1 to 1.2
Regarding claim 13, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) a portion of a side surface of the optical filter 6/6b is exposed (as shown in Figs. 1 and 13) and other portions of the side surface are covered (i.e. the top side of the filter 6b is covered by the lid 6).
Regarding claim 14, Takei discloses (Figs. 1-13) an edge of the optical filter 6/6b is not provided with a screen and the entire surface of the optical filter 6b is exposed (i.e. the entire bottom surface of the filter layer 6b is exposed to the optical emitter: see Figs. 1 and 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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 SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852