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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 6/12/26, amended claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 11, and canceled claim(s) 2 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to generate a polarized light to generate a polarized light” (lines 11-13) appears that it should be “to generate a polarized light.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 light-emitting element,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “a laser diode” or “a light-emitting diode” (see para [0025] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a first polarizing element,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; “a light-sensing element,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “photodetector” (see para [0030] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a second polarizing element,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; “a first light-shielding structure,” in claim 11, which has no corresponding structure; and “a second light-shielding structure,” in claim 11, which has no corresponding structure.
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “an accommodating space extended from the first surface toward the second surface” appears to be new matter. Fig. 1 does not appear to show that the accommodating space is “extended from” the first surface because there is a space between them. Additionally, Fig. 3 does not appear to show that the accommodating space is “extended from” the first surface because the first surface is instead co-planar with the accommodating space (also see para [0037] of the specification as originally filed) instead of extending from it towards the second surface. It appears that “extended from” might not be the appropriate term here and the claim will be examined as meaning “an accommodating space extending in a direction from the first surface toward the second surface.”
For claim 1, the claim language “a first polarizing element” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 1, the claim language “a second polarizing element” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 11, the claim language “a first light-shielding structure” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 11, the claim language “a second light-shielding structure” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
Dependent claim(s) 3-12 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “a first polarizing element” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 1, the claim language “a second polarizing element” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 11, the claim language “a first light-shielding structure” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 11, the claim language “a second light-shielding structure” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
Dependent claim(s) 3-12 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 3, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0171415 to Hirao in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0028101 to Cote et al. (hereinafter “Cote”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,812,304 to Shirasaki et al. (hereinafter “Shirasaki”).
For claim 1, Hirao discloses a miniaturized blood glucose measurement module (Abstract) (para [0019]) using polarized light (para [0011]), comprising:
an electromagnet assembly (10, 12) (Fig. 1) (para [0053]) including a base (10) (Fig. 1) (para [0053]), the base including an accommodating portion (unlabeled, but the portion that fingertip 2 is inserted into, as can be seen in Fig. 1), a side surface (unlabeled, as can be seen in Fig. 1), a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 1), wherein the side surface is located between the first surface and the second surface (see Fig. 1); wherein the accommodating portion forms an accommodating space extended from the first surface towards the second surface (Examiner’s Note: this claim language construed in view of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s specification, which shows 112, 113, and 114 spaced from 20 and 30) and is located within a scope of the side surface (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
a light-emitting assembly being embedded in the accommodating portion (as can be seen in Fig 1) and including a light-emitting element (11/11A) (Fig. 1) (para [0053] and [0056]) and a first polarizing element (11B) (Fig. 1) (para [0055] and [0057]), wherein the first polarizing element is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive a light emitted by the light-emitting element to generate a polarized light (para [0055] and [0057]), and the light emitting assembly forms a light-emitting surface (as can be seen in Fig. 1); and
a light-receiving assembly (13) (Fig. 1) (para [0053]) being embedded in the accommodating portion and adjacent to the light-emitting assembly (as can be seen in Fig. 1), and the light receiving assembly including a light-sensing element (13B) (Fig. 1) (para [0059]-[0061]), a magnetic crystal, and a second polarizing element (13A) (Fig. 1) (para [0059]-[0060]); wherein the light-sensing element receives the reflected polarized light which passes through the second polarizing element sequentially (as can be seen in Fig. 1), the second polarizing element is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e, capable of) receive the reflected polarized light to generate another polarized light (para [0059]-[0060]), and the light-receiving assembly forms a light-receiving surface (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
wherein the light-emitting surface of the light-emitting assembly, the light-receiving surface of the light-receiving assembly and the first surface are located on a same plane (as can be seen in Fig. 1).
The embodiment relied upon above of Hirao does not expressly disclose that the base is a metal base, that the electromagnet assembly including a coil, and the coil is wound on the side surface.
However, another embodiment of Hirao teaches that the base is a metal base (32Aa) (Fig. 4) (para [0107]-[0109]), that the electromagnet assembly including a coil (32Ab) (Fig. 4) (para [0107]), and the coil is wound on a side surface (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the first relied-upon embodiment of Hirao such that the base is a metal base, that the electromagnet assembly including a coil, and the coil is wound on the side surface, in view of the teachings of another embodiment of Hirao, because such a modification would be the simple substitution of one electromagnetic design/structure for another electromagnetic design/structure that would lead to the predictable result of modulating the magnetic field that the light passes through, which is what Hirao wants to do (see Abstract of Hirao).
Hirao does not expressly disclose that the light-emitting element is a laser diode or a light-emitting diode according to the 112(f) invocation above.
However, Cote teaches a light-emitting element that is a laser diode or a light-emitting diode (para [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hirao such that the light-emitting element is a laser diode or a light-emitting diode, in view of the teachings of Cote, because such a modification is the simple substitution of the type of laser that is being used that would lead to the predictable result being able to provide a source of light.
Hirao and Cote do not expressly disclose that the light-receiving assembly includes a magnetic crystal such that the light passes through the magnetic crystal and that the reflected light is specifically light that is reflected from the magnetic crystal.
However, Shirasaki teaches a light-receiving assembly includes a magnetic crystal such that the light passes through the magnetic crystal and that the reflected light is specifically light that is reflected from the magnetic crystal (as can be seen in Fig. 1A) (see col. 1, lines 22-40).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hirao such that the light-receiving assembly includes a magnetic crystal such that the light passes through the magnetic crystal and that the reflected light is specifically light that is reflected from the magnetic crystal, in view of the teachings of Shirasaki, because such a modification is just another way/means to polarize the light, which is what Hirao already wants to do.
For claim 3, Hirao further discloses wherein the accommodating portion is a groove recessed from the first surface toward the second surface (see Fig. 1), and a depth of the groove is less than a height of the metal base (see Fig. 1).
For claim 5, Hirao further discloses wherein the metal base is made of a magnetic material (para [0107]).
For claim 6, Hirao further discloses wherein a wavelength range corresponding to the light-emitting assembly is between 500 nm and 1800 nm (para [0030]).
For claim 7, Hirao, as modified, further discloses wherein the light-emitting assembly is a vertical resonant cavity surface-emitting laser or a light-emitting diode (see para [0044] of Cote).
For claim 8, Hirao, as modified, further discloses wherein the magnetic crystal is made of a material that can produce magnetization under the influence of an external magnetic field (see col. 1, lines 22-40).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao in view of Cote and Shirasaki, and further in view of CN 106841048 to Gong et al. (hereinafter “Gong”).
For claim 4, Hirao and Shirasaki do not expressly disclose wherein the accommodating portion is a through hole penetrating from the first surface to the second surface.
However, Gong teaches wherein the accommodating portion is a through hole penetrating from the first surface to the second surface (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hirao wherein the accommodating portion is a through hole penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, in view of the teachings of Gong, because such a modification would be the simple substitution of the shape/size/geometry of Gong’s accommodating portion for Hirao’s accommodating portion that would lead to the predictable result of allowing space for the fingertip in Hirao to be inserted.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao in view of Cote and Shirasaki, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0094974 to Won et al. (hereinafter “Won”).
For claim 9, Hirao, Cote, and Shirasaki do not expressly disclose wherein the light-emitting assembly further includes a first cover, and the first cover is disposed on a side of the first polarizing element facing away from the light-emitting element; the light-receiving assembly further includes a second cover, and the second cover is disposed on a side of the magnetic crystal facing away from the light sensing element.
However, Won teaches wherein a light-emitting assembly (including 470, see Fig. 5A and para [0096]) further includes a first cover (410-1) disposed on a first side (see 4A) and a second cover (410-2) disposed on a second side opposite to the first side (see Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hirao wherein the light-emitting assembly further includes a first cover, and the first cover is disposed on a side of the first polarizing element facing away from the light-emitting element; the light-receiving assembly further includes a second cover, and the second cover is disposed on a side of the magnetic crystal facing away from the light sensing element, in view of the teachings of Won, for the obvious advantage of protecting the internal components of Hirao the same way that Won’s covers protect the internal components of Won.
For claim 10, Hirao, as modified, further discloses wherein the first cover and the second cover are made of glass or plastic material (para [0076] of Won).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao in view of Cote and Shirasaki, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0351799 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
For claim 11, Hirao, Cote, and Shirasaki do not expressly disclose wherein the light-emitting assembly further includes a first substrate and a first light-shielding structure, the light-emitting element and the first light-shielding structure are disposed on the first substrate, and the first light-shielding structure is located around the light-emitting element, wherein the first light-shielding structure is configured to block the light emitted by the light-emitting element from being scattered laterally; the light-receiving assembly further includes a second substrate and a second light-shielding structure, the light sensing element and the second light-shielding structure are arranged on the second substrate, and the second light-shielding structure is located around the light sensing element, wherein the second light-shielding structure is configured to block the reflected light that sequentially passes through the magnetic crystal and the second polarizing element from being scattered laterally.
However, Wang teaches wherein the light-emitting assembly further includes a first substrate (“first substrate,” para [0006]) and a first light-shielding structure (“first light-shielding layer,” para [0006]), a light-emitting element (LD, made up of EA, EB, and EL) and the first light-shielding structure are disposed on the first substrate (para [0080]), and the first light-shielding structure is located around the light-emitting element (as can be seen in Fig. 8B), wherein the first light-shielding structure is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) block the light emitted by the light-emitting element from being scattered laterally (as can be seen in Fig. 8B); the light-receiving assembly further includes a second substrate (“second substrate,” para [0018]) and a second light-shielding structure (“second light-shielding layer,” para [0018]), a light sensing element (820) and the second light-shielding structure are arranged on the second substrate (“…the second substrate 810 provided with the third sensing element 820,” para [0101] and “…the third sensing element 820 is disposed between the second substrate 810 and the second light-shielding layer 240,” para [0100]), and the second light-shielding structure is located around the light sensing element (as can be seen in Fig. 8B), wherein the second light-shielding structure is configured to block the reflected light that sequentially passes through the magnetic crystal and the second polarizing element from being scattered laterally (as can be seen in Fig. 8B).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hirao wherein the light-emitting assembly further includes a first substrate and a first light-shielding structure, the light-emitting element and the first light-shielding structure are disposed on the first substrate, and the first light-shielding structure is located around the light-emitting element, wherein the first light-shielding structure is configured to block the light emitted by the light-emitting element from being scattered laterally; the light-receiving assembly further includes a second substrate and a second light-shielding structure, the light sensing element and the second light-shielding structure are arranged on the second substrate, and the second light-shielding structure is located around the light sensing element, wherein the second light-shielding structure is configured to block the reflected light that sequentially passes through the magnetic crystal and the second polarizing element from being scattered laterally, in view of the teachings of Wang, for the obvious advantage of curtailing any scattered light from being dispersed outside of the area that is intended to be measured.
For claim 12, Hirao, as modified, further discloses wherein the first light-shielding structure and the second light-shielding structure are made of non-light-transmitting epoxy resin (“black resin,” para [0071] of Wang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the objection to the specification, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejections, the rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments. The rest of the rejections are maintained because Applicant has not supplied any evidence to their contention that “[f]or a person skilled in the art, ‘polarizing element’ is considered a structural term in the field of optics” (see page 6 of the response) and “[f]or a person skilled in the art, ‘light-shielding structure’ is considered a structural term in the field of packaging” (se page 7 of the response). Due to the lack of evidence, these arguments are conclusory and we are instructed that "attorney's arguments .. cannot take the place of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (citation omitted); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that lawyer arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). It is also noted that the instant application is neither in the field of “optics” nor is it in the field of “packaging.” Instead, the instant application is classified in USPC 600/465, which is the field of medical diagnostics. Additional arguments that the specification discloses the material of the elements, the location of the element, and the spatial configuration and mechanical connection relationship to other elements does not describe the actual structure of the element itself. Saying that I have a widget and the widget is made of metal does not tell the audience what the widget is structurally. Is it a screw? Is it a circuit? Is it a hammer? Hopefully such an analogy helps illustrate that the structural details of the claimed polarizing elements and light-shielding structures is missing.
With respect to the 103 rejection(s), Applicant’s arguments will be treated in the order they were presented. With respect to the first argument, the accommodating space includes the space that elements 11 and 13 are inserted into. That is, there inherently is holes, spaces, recesses in element 10 so that elements 11 and 13 can be inserted into those holes, spaces, recesses so that they can be held in place. The claim language of “a light-emitting assembly being embedded in the accommodating portion” (emphasis added, it doesn’t recite “accommodating space”) and “a light-receiving assembly being embedded in the accommodating portion” (emphasis added, it doesn’t recite “accommodating space”) doesn’t require that that light-emitting assembly and light-receiving assembly be embedded in negative space, just that they have to be embedded in the “accommodating portion.” Additionally, once those elements are embedded it is no longer a negative space because the light-emitting assembly and the light-receiving assembly are now occupying it. With respect to the second argument, the claim language “adjacent to” is not synonymous with “contacting” or “directly coupled to.” That is, there can be a space between two elements and those two elements can still be “adjacent to” one another under the broadest, reasonable interpretation of that term. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments appear to not be commensurate in scope with the claim language. With respect to the third argument, the annotated figure does not correctly understand the rejection. The first surface s1 is incorrect in the annotated figure in the mapping of the reference to the claim language in the rejection above. Instead, the first surface is a surface that is orthogonal to what s1 is shown as in the annotated figure on page 11 of the response. Additionally, the common plane is a plane that is horizontal from the view shown in Fig. 1 of Hirao. Here is an example of how the reference maps to the claim language:
PNG
media_image1.png
489
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights