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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 April 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/637,385 in view of Liess et al. (USPGPub 20100309013 A1). (Note: for copending application 18/637,385, USPGPub 20240264306 A1 is being used).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of application 18/637,385 teaches a reflective optical sensor comprising a light emitting element and a light receiving element, and detecting an object to be detected by reflected light emitted from the light emitting element and reflected by the object to be detected with the light receiving element (claim 1, lines 1-5); wherein provided is a case in a form of an open box integrally formed with a first concave mirror and a second concave mirror, each of which has a reflective surface comprising a partial concave surface (claim 1, lines 6-12); the first concave mirror and the second concave mirror are formed open toward an open side of the case so that one focal point of the first concave mirror is coincident with one focal point of the second concave mirror as a common focal point and a first focal point, which is the other focal point of the first concave mirror, does not overlap with a second focal point, which is the other focal point of the second concave mirror (claim 1, lines 13-21), the light emitting element emits light from the first focal point toward the first concave mirror (claim 1, lines 22-25), the first concave mirror reflects the light to the object to be detected which is positioned at or near the common focal point (claim 1, lines 22-25), and the second concave mirror reflects light reflected by the object to be detected, and the light receiving element is configured to detect the light reflected by the second concave mirror at the second focal point (claim 1, lines 26-30). However, claim 1 of application 18/637,385 fails to explicitly teach wherein each mirror comprises a partial concave surface of a rotational ellipse surface rotated around a major axis of an ellipse.
However, Liess teaches wherein each mirror comprises a partial concave surface of a rotational ellipse surface rotated around a major axis of an ellipse (¶15, Another radiation guide for a radiation path between a measurement volume and an electro optical component comprises a first reflector having a concave reflecting surface being a part of a rotational ellipsoid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of application 18/638,618 to incorporate the teachings of Liess to have the shape of the mirrors be elliptical because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 4, claim 2 of application 18/637,385 as modified by Liess teaches the reflective optical sensor according to claim 1; wherein the light emitting element and the light receiving element are housed in the case, and the case is filled with sealing resin through which the light of the light emitting element is transmitted (application 18/637,385, claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, claim 3 of application 18/637,385 as modified by Liess teaches the reflective optical sensor according to claim 1; wherein the first concave mirror and the second concave mirror have a light blocking wall between them that prevents the light of the light emitting element from entering directly into the second concave mirror (application 18/637,385, claim 3).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liess et al. (USPGPub 20100309013 A1) in view of Ishizuka et al. (JP 2005195685 A).
Regarding claim 1, Liess teaches a reflective optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (3a) and a light receiving element (3b), and detecting an object to be detected by reflected light emitted from the light emitting element (3a) and reflected by the object to be detected with the light receiving element (3b) (see figure 5, radiation source 3a and radiation sensor 3b; ¶8, It is the object of the disclosed embodiments to provide a radiation guide allowing the construction of a small sized scattered light detector of sufficient sensitivity, while providing a low offset from light that is scattered from parts other than the smoke to be detected; and see ¶¶4-5 for further details); wherein provided is a case (4/61) in a form of an open box integrally formed with a first concave mirror (40a) and a second concave mirror (40b), each of which has a reflective surface comprising a partial concave surface of a rotational ellipse surface rotated around a major axis of an ellipse (see figures 5 and 6, mounting surface 4 upon which radiations guides 40a and 40b are arranged, open to detection area; ¶51, 61 is a cover that is fluid permeable and smoke particle permeable; and ¶15, Another radiation guide for a radiation path between a measurement volume and an electro optical component comprises a first reflector having a concave reflecting surface being a part of a rotational ellipsoid); the first concave mirror (40a) and the second concave mirror (40b) are formed open toward an open side of the case (4/61) so that one focal point of the first concave mirror (40a) is coincident with one focal point of the second concave mirror (40b) as a common focal point (1) and a first focal point, which is the other focal point of the first concave mirror (40a), does not overlap with a second focal point, which is the other focal point of the second concave mirror (40b) (see figure 5; and ¶15, The reflector is adapted for mounting it in relation to the electro-optical component such that a first focus region of the reflecting surface is at the electro-optical component. The second focus region of the part of the rotational ellipsoid reflecting shape may define the measurement volume or measurement region. Two such radiation guides may be formed as one common part and may again be arranged such that the one of them does not directly receive light from the other of them), the first concave mirror (40a) directs the light to the object to be detected which is positioned at or near the common focal point (1) (¶15, radiation guide for a radiation path between a measurement volume and an electro optical component), and the second concave mirror (40b) directs light reflected by the object to be detected, and the light receiving element (3b) is configured to detect the light directed by the second concave mirror (40b) at the second focal point (see figure 5; and ¶15, The reflector is adapted for mounting it in relation to the electro-optical component such that a first focus region of the reflecting surface is at the electro-optical component. The second focus region of the part of the rotational ellipsoid reflecting shape may define the measurement volume or measurement region. Two such radiation guides may be formed as one common part and may again be arranged such that the one of them does not directly receive light from the other of them). However, Liess fails to explicitly teach wherein the light emitting element emits light from the first focal point toward the first concave mirror; wherein the first concave mirror reflects light toward the common focal point; and wherein the second concave mirror reflects light toward the light receiving element.
However, Ishizuka teaches wherein the light emitting element (4) emits light from the first focal point (f1) toward the first concave mirror (2) (see figure 5(a), light source emitting light from focal point f1 towards mirror 2); wherein the first concave mirror (2) reflects light toward the common focal point (f2) (see figure 5(a), mirror 2 directing light from focal point f1 to focal point f2); and wherein the second concave mirror (3) reflects light toward the light receiving element (5A) (see figure 5(a), second mirror 3 reflecting light from focal point f2 to light receiving focal point f4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liess to incorporate the teachings of Ishizuka to direct emitted light towards the mirror and to have the mirror reflect light as this allows the mirror to function as a guide for the light.
Regarding claim 2¸ Liess as modified by Ishizuka teaches the reflective optical sensor according to claim 1; wherein the first concave mirror (Liess 40a | Ishizuka 2) and the second concave mirror (Liess 40b | Ishizuka 3) are formed such that the first focal point (Liess 3a | Ishizuka f1) and the second focal point (Liess 3b | Ishizuka f4) are located on a common straight line across the common focal point (Liess 1 | Ishizuka f2) (Liess, see figure 5, radiation source 3a and radiation sensor 3b located on a common straight line).
Regarding claim 3, Liess as modified by Ishizuka teaches the reflective optical sensor according to claim 1; wherein the first concave mirror (Liess 40a | Ishizuka 2) and the second concave mirror (Liess 40b | Ishizuka 3) are formed such that a major axis (Liess 45a) of the first concave mirror (Liess 40a | Ishizuka 2) passing through the first focal point (Liess 3a | Ishizuka f1) and the common focal point (Liess 1 | Ishizuka f2) intersects a major axis (Liess 45b) of the second concave mirror (Liess 40b | Ishizuka 3) passing through the second focal point (Liess 3b | Ishizuka f4) and the common focal point (Liess 1 | Ishizuka f2) with a predetermined intersection angle at the common focal point (Liess 1 | Ishizuka f2) (Liess, see figure 5, radiation source 3a with radiation guide 40a (i.e. mirror) having optical axis 45a and radiation sensor 3b with radiation guide 40b (i.e. mirror) having optical axis 45b, wherein the axes 45a and 45b intersect at focal point 1; and ¶50, The measurement volume 1 is at the intersection of the two optical axes 45a, 45b).
Regarding claim 4, Liess as modified by Ishizuka teaches the reflective optical sensor according to claim 1; wherein the light emitting element (Liess 3a | Ishizuka 4) and the light receiving element (Liess 3b | Ishizuka 5A) are housed in the case (Liess 4/61), and the case (Liess 4/61) is filled with sealing resin through which the light of the light emitting element (Liess 3a | Ishizuka 4) is transmitted (Liess, ¶28, The radiation guide 10 may be a massive body of transparent material. The material may be resin or some kind of glass or other moldable substance).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liess et al. (USPGPub 20100309013 A1) in view of Ishizuka et al. (JP 2005195685 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (USPGPub 20180309522 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liess as modified by Ishizuka teaches wherein the first concave mirror (Liess 40a | Ishizuka 2) comprises the light emitting element (Liess 3a | Ishizuka 4) and wherein the second concave mirror (Liess 40b | Ishizuka 3) comprises the light receiving element (Liess 3b | Ishizuka 5A) (Liess, see figure 5). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a light blocking wall between the light emitting element and the light receiving element that prevents the light of the light emitting element from entering directly into the light receiving element.
However, Chiang teaches a light blocking wall (131) between the light emitting element (111) and the light receiving element (121) that prevents the light of the light emitting element (111) from entering directly into the light receiving element (121) (see figure 18, isolative portion 131 disposed between light emitting chip 111 and light sensing chip 121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liess and Ishizuka to incorporate the teachings of Chiang to further include a light blocking wall between the sensing element and the emitting element in order to prevent light from being directly emitted to the detector, decrease the signal to noise ratio of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights