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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/26 has been entered.
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.
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: “a spectroscopic element that disperses” “light receiving elements” in claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, & 13.
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.
Applicant recites the spectroscopic element is a grating (claim 12).
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 avoid 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 § 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 & 3-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In regards to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, & 13, the claimed subject matter “light receiving element” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes the specification does not provide the structure for the “light receiving element” to perform the claimed functions. Applicant teaches light receiving elements for detecting light of each wavelength (0008). Based upon the specification there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huth-Febre US 6542239.
With respect to claim 1, Huth-Febre teaches a spectrophotometer comprising:
a light source (fig 1, 1) that emits light to be applied to a sample (fig 1, 3);
a spectroscopic element (fig 1, 7) that disperses the light from the sample for each wavelength;
a light receiver (fig 1, 10) in which light receiving elements (fig 1, 9) for detecting light of each wavelength dispersed by the spectroscopic element are arranged; and
a filter layer (fig 1, 8) “Four different interference filters” (col 2, lines 45-49) provided on a light receiving surface of a first light receiving elements, which is for receiving light of a specific wavelength range “four wavelengths” (col 2, lines 49-50), of the light receiver and has having a wavelength selecting function “interference” (col 2, lines 45-49) of transmitting light of the specific wavelength range from the spectroscopic element and shielding light out of the specific wavelength range from the spectroscopic element,
wherein the filter layer is evaporated “vapour deposition” on the light receiving surface of the first light receiving elements “window of the quadrant photodiode” (col 2, lines 53-52).
With respect to claim 11 according to claim 1, Huth-Febre teaches the spectrophotometer wherein the light receiver is a photodiode array “one or more photodiodes” “quadrant photodiode” (col 2, lines 47-49).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth-Febre US 6542239 in further view of Andy Popta, “Porous Nanostructured Optical Filters Rendered Insensitive to Humidity by Vapor-Phase Functionalization”, 2006 hereafter Popta.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 1, Huth-Febre does not teach the filter layer has a surface in a shape reflecting a surface shape of the light receiver.
Popta, in the field of endeavor vapor deposition (col 1, pg.1331 ¶ 1, lines 1-5), implicitly teaches the filter layer has a surface layer reflecting the shape of the substrate surface (fig 3a). Examiner submits the substrate surface may be a glass surface which is typical a material for a window. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary art to try to coat the combination’s filter on the surface of light receiver via vapor deposition to yield the predictable result of similar shapes.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth-Febre US 6542239 in further view of Andy Popta, “Porous Nanostructured Optical Filters Rendered Insensitive to Humidity by Vapor-Phase Functionalization”, 2006 hereafter Popta in further view of Tang US 20220390082.
With respect to claim 4, Huth-Febre teaches a spectrophotometer comprising:
a light source (fig 1, 1) that emits light to be applied to a sample (fig 1, 3);
a spectroscopic element (fig 1, 7) that disperses the light from the sample for each wavelength;
a light receiver (fig 1, 10) in which light receiving elements (fig 1, 9) for detecting light of each wavelength dispersed by the spectroscopic element are arranged; and
a filter layer (fig 1, 8) “Four different interference filters” (col 2, lines 45-49) provided on a light receiving surface of a first light receiving elements, which is for receiving light of a specific wavelength range “four wavelengths” (col 2, lines 49-50), of the light receiver and has having a wavelength selecting function “interference” (col 2, lines 45-49) of transmitting light of the specific wavelength range from the spectroscopic element and shielding light out of the specific wavelength range from the spectroscopic element,
wherein the filter layer is evaporated “vapour deposition” on the light receiving surface of the first light receiving elements “window of the quadrant photodiode” (col 2, lines 53-52).
Huth-Febre the filter layer includes a first filter layer and a second filter layer.
Tang, in the field of endeavor of lights, teaches interference may comprise a first and second filter layer that provides a desired wavelength-dependent light transmission spectrum (0035, lines 15-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary art to select a first and second filter layer to provide a desired wavelength range.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the
first filter layer is formed on a light receiving surface of a light receiving element for receiving light having a wavelength of 320 nm or more among the light receiving elements of the light receiver”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the
second filter layer is formed to cover a light receiving surface of a light receiving element for receiving light having a wavelength of 480 nm or more among the light receiving elements of the light receiver”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the
film thickness of the first filter layer and the film thickness the second filter layer are each 10 μm or less”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the filter layer is formed only on a region on which high-order diffracted light is incident among the light receiving elements of the light receiver”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 10.
As to claim 12, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the
spectroscopic element is a diffraction grating”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 12.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “condenser lens, a flow cell, a mirror, and an inlet slit”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights