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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant states claim 1 has been amended to recite "at least one ambient medium compound." The Examiner is not persuaded the amendment overcomes the indefiniteness of the permeable layer, impermeable layer, and the resonance of the cavity. The newly added terms do not serve to set a standard or limit what the compound is and thus the compound has no limits as to what it is. The ambient medium compound encompasses anything such as blood, gravel, snow, oxygen, soup, etc. The limitation of layers and cavity relative to a limitless compound renders the layers and cavity to be indefinite. The limitation raises the question if the full scope covered by the claim is enabled but a rejection is not being made at this time since solving the indefiniteness will likely resolve any enablement problems. Identification of what the layers are or what the ambient medium compound is or removing the relationship would likely resolve the indefiniteness.
The indefiniteness rejections pertaining to "Fabry-Perot type," "preferentially," "an identical dielectric layer," and the "use" have been withdrawn.
Regarding the amendment of "optical pattern" to "optical sight" is not found to clarify the claim as it is not clear what the optical sight is. Figures 3A and 3B are not found to show what an optical sight is.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In light of the amendment to the claims, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Martini has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In light of the amendment to the claims, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin and Martini has been withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made over the same references Lin and Martini. Lin is found to teach all the limitations of claim 1 except for the encapsulated reference cavity and the essentially reflective layer. Martini is relied up for showing of an encapsulated reference cavity and a reflective cavity having an essentially reflective layer.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 sets forth a limitation that is defined relative to an object that is not defined, rendering the claim indefinite. “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.” MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
The claim recites a “partially transparent layer of the sensitive cavities being permeable to the at least one ambient medium compound.” Rather than limiting what the partially transparent layer is, the claim limits the partially transparent layer by comparison to an unbounded compound. The recitation of "ambient medium" does not set forth any limitation to what the compound is. There is no standard or limitation as to what it is, and thus the scope of the claim covers any and all things such as liquids, solids, gels, soil, metal, etc. The partially transparent layer is limited based on how the claimed interferometric element is used. Because there is no meaningful limit to what the compound is, there is no limit to what the partially transparent layer is, rendering the claim indefinite. The same indefiniteness applies to the encapsulation layer because it refers to the unbounded compound to define what the encapsulation layer is.
Claim 1 also recites "an essentially reflecting layer" and it is not clear what limiting effect the term "essentially" is to have. The specification does not provide any guidance or examples in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to draw the line between a reflecting layer is an "essentially reflecting layer" and one that is not an "essentially reflecting layer." See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(B). For examination purposes, the term will be taken as a reflective layer (a fully reflective layer, i.e. not a partially reflective layer since the claim uses the term "partially reflective layer" to set forth a difference between a reflective layer and a partially reflective layer).
Claim 4 recites that the interferometric element comprises an “optical sight adapted so as to be able to determine…” and it is unclear what this is. This optical sight is not shown in any figure and the specification provides no more detail as to what this is than the claim itself. It is not clear where on the interferometric element the optical sight is, what it is, and how this optical sight is structured. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the bounds of what the optical sight is and what is not an optical sight.
Claim 11 recites the interferometric element of claim 1 and is "configured to detect an alteration of food contained in the packaging" but it is unclear if it is merely stating the intended use of the interferometric element or there is some unidentified structure that must be imported into the claim. If the claim requires some additional structure, it is unclear what the nonclaimed structure is. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "encapsulation layer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-15, 18, and 19, as interpreted by the Examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0350813) in view of Martini (US 2009/0156917).
Lin shows an interferometric element (See Fig. 4 reproduced below) for a device for detecting at least one ambient medium compound (C) having a resonant absorption over a predetermined spectral region centered on a resonance wavelength λr, said interferometric element comprising at least one detection subset (SE) that is optimized for said resonance wavelength λr and comprising:
at least (para. [0044]: "The combination of two DBRs constitutes a Fabry-Perot Interferometer ") having a resonance at said resonance wavelength λr, each cavity comprising a(silicate layer with lower Bragg reflector 340) at said resonance wavelength λr and a partially transparent layer and partially reflecting layer (silicate layer with upper Bragg reflector 120 which has passage holes 490 and 495 for gas. See Figs. 3, 4, and 7) at said resonance wavelength λr, said partially transparent and partially reflecting layer facing the essentially reflecting layer and forming with said essentially reflecting layer the Fabry-Perot cavity with the resonance wavelength λr,
(the cavity is not sealed), called sensitive cavity (SNS), and the partially transparent and partially reflective layer of the sensitive cavities being permeable (silicate layer having upper Bragg reflector 20 which has passage holes at the outer edge. In addition silicon is gas permeable) to the at least one ambient medium to be detected (C) such that the at least one ambient medium compound to be detected (C) enter the sensitive cavity through the partially transparent and partially reflecting layer and reach a space between the essentially reflecting layer (CR) and the partially transparent and partially reflecting layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As indicated by the strikeouts, Lin does not show a reference cavity that is encapsulated. Lin also does not show that the one of the DBR mirrors are "essentially" reflective.
Reference cavity
Martini shows a second Fabry-Perot cavity sensor (reference cavities in Figs. 8-14; para. [0037]: "a closed reference container whose contents do not change over time.") used as a reference sensor and is sealed from the compound of interest (Para. [0201]:"the reference container is sealed."). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a reference cavity in the device of Lin order to isolate the measurement of the measurement cavity from other external causes contributing to the measurement signal.
Essentially reflecting layer
Lin shows the light detector positioned on the opposite side of the cavity the light source and thus showing the sensor being used in a transmissive mode. Lin does not show the sensor being used in a reflective mode and thus the bottom DBR reflector is not "essentially reflective."
Martini shows Fabry-Perot cavity sensor used in a transmissive mode (e.g. Fig. 6) as well as a reflective mode (e.g. Fig. 17) where the bottom reflector is "essentially reflective" as is recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in order for the detection light to be directed to the detector. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Fabry-Perot cavity of Lin to be operative in reflection mode for the ability to rearrange the components in desired positions or layouts. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have made the bottom DBR reflector of Lin to be reflective in order to direct the measurement light to the detector.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
368
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Lin does not show a plurality of sensitive cavities and reference cavities. Martini shows a plurality of sensitive cavities and a plurality of reference cavities, e.g., Fig. 19, wherein the sensitive cavities and the reference cavities are arranged according to a predetermined disposition (paras. [0062], [0197]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a plurality of cavities in order to sense additional compounds.
With respect to claim 3, the modification as proposed for claim 2 above would have the sensitive cavities and the reference cavities are disposed alternately along a row or a plurality of rows, preferentially parallel (see Figs. 19-21 and step 602 of Fig. 22 of Martini).
With respect to claim 4, Martini shows the cavities are arranged in an optical pattern (Figs. 19-21) adapted so as to be able to determine an orientation and a position of said interferometric element by the processing of an image of said interferometric element.
With respect to claim 5, Lin does not explicitly indicate what the coefficient of reflections are for the cavities. Please note that the claimed compound is not limited to any particular compound and the claim does not require the compound as an element of the claimed invention. It is an object intended to be worked upon by the claimed invention. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, any selection of a compound by a user, such as a compound that has high light absorption, would produce the claimed reflection relationship.
With respect to claim 6, the combination as proposed has a plurality of detection subsets. The recitation of “optimized” is not found limiting as the claim does not impart any particular structure or standard as to what is considered optimized. Furthermore, it is common to desire components to be optimized and it would have been obvious to optimize the detectors.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, the recitation of the resonance wavelength is not limiting because the wavelength is directed to how the invention is intended to be operated. The claimed invention does not recite a light source to support the presence of light at the claimed wavelength, and thus the claims do not impart any structural limitation. The structure encompassed by claims 7 and 8 are the same as that of claim 6 which is shown by Lin and Martini as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, as interpreted by the Examiner, Lin teaches at para. [0037] the DBRs of the Fabry Perot interferometers comprise dielectric layers, and a person of ordinary skill would understand that the layers would be comprised of varying identical pairs of layers and Martini shows the cavities are of same thickness in the figures.
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites the general relationship of the layers in order for the cavities to be resonate the non-limited wavelength being used, and thus does not serve to structurally distinguish. Furthermore, see the discussion about the light and its wavelength for claim 7.
With respect to claim 11, the interferometric element discussed above is disposed in a packaging (the entire device is a package. See Lin Fig. 2) and can be used for detecting an alteration of food.
12. A device for detecting the at least one ambient medium compound (C) having a resonant absorption over a spectral region centered on a resonance wavelength λr, said device comprising:
a light source (light sources in the figures) adapted to generate a first incident beam (FI1) having at least said resonance wavelength λr
an interferometric element (EI) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), arranged such that the first beam illuminates the partially transparent and partially reflecting layer (330) and the at least one sensitive cavity (320, 340) and the partially transparent and partially reflecting layer of the at least one reference cavity
a sensor (see Figs. 17, 19-21; position-sensitive-detector, paras. [0097], [0099]) comprising a plurality of pixels to acquire an image of the first incident beam reflected by the interferometric element, called first image,
a processing unit (Fig. 5) linked to the sensor and configured to detect a possible presence of the at least one ambient medium compound to be detected (C) from intensities of, on the one hand, at least one first region of said pixels where the first incident beam reflected by said at least one sensitive cavity is detected and, on the other hand, at least one second region of said pixels where the first incident beam reflected by said at least one reference cavity is detected.
13. The device for detecting the at least one ambient medium compound (C) having a resonant absorption over a spectral region centered on a resonance wavelength λr, according to claim 12,
the light source (light sources in the figures) being adapted to generate a second incident beam (FI2) having no wavelength included in said resonant absorption and having at least one wavelength called non-resonance wavelength λnr (para. [0041]: ”sources of broadband light” would produce both wavelengths),
the interferometric element (EI) (see claim 1 and 12 above), being arranged such that the first beam and the second beam illuminate the partially transparent and partially reflecting layer of at least one sensitive cavity and the transparent and partially reflecting layer of at least one reference cavity
the pixels of the sensor (para. [0062]: a "position-sensitive detector" or "PSD" if it includes a substantially continuous photosensitive surface and it provides electrical signals indicating a position resulting from a pattern of incident light on the photosensitive surface.) being adapted to acquire an image of the first incident beam reflected by the interferometric element (FR1), called first image (I1), and an image of the second incident beam reflected by the interferometric element (FR2), called second image (I2)
the processing unit (Fig. 5) being configured to detect a possible presence of the at least one ambient medium compound to be detected (C) from intensities of the first image and of the second image (para. [0132]).
With respect to claim 14, see the functions corresponding the elements cited for claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, see Martini’s use of the third container (396, 406) in the same manner as the first two containers.
18. The method according to claim 15, wherein the first image and the second image are acquired simultaneously or within a time interval of less than 5 seconds (Martini shows the detection being performed simultaneously since the same light source is used. See also para [0079]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Le Perchec (US 2025/0198921) shows a Fabry-Perot having a porous dielectric material such as silicon oxide.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacolleti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877