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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following .
The third sentence will be read as “A light-transmitting component is provided on one side of the main body, and an object-to-be-measured holding device is provided in the receiving space.”
The last sentence will be read as “The present invention achieves the measurement method of multiple repeated measurements of the object-to-be-measured through multiple light-emitting elements that respectively exhibit discontinuous illumination of on-off frequencies to go with a rotating part to drive the object-to-be-measured holding device to rotate to measure a surface of an object-to-be-measured in a non-planar or non-stationary state, to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in the spectrum of the object-to-be-measured to achieve accurate measurement results, and further provides an optical analysis system for an optical analyzer to convert the object-to-be-measured spectrum analysis results into the information required by the user.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification showing tracking of changes, wherein each change indicates an informality.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1B and more particularly in Figure 1E, the first setting unit (comprising a circular dial) should be numbered as 22, not 24; and the first display device (comprising a rectangular display) should be numbered as 24, not 22; in Figure 1C, inclination angle θ is shown marked with respect to the Z-direction; however, it should be corrected to be marked with respect to the X-direction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-12, 15, 17-18 and 20-21 are objected to because said claims have various grammatical issues and are interpreted as follows:
In Claim 1, the para starting at line 8 will be read as “a light detection device having a solid-state light source emitter and an optical receiver, the solid-state light source emitter having a plurality of light-emitting elements, each [[wherein a distance between the light emitted from the light-emitting element and an object-to-be-measured in the object-to-be-measured holding device is at least 5 cm, the light-emitting element is a light emitting diode, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser or a laser diode, and the plurality of the light-emitting elements respectively exhibit discontinuous illumination of an on-off frequency, wherein a plurality of the on-off frequencies are the same or different from each other, or the plurality of the on-off frequencies are partially the same or partially different; and”
In Claim 1, the last para will be read as “wherein a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds, the on-off frequency is between 0.05 time/second and 50000 times/second, and the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds.”
In Claim 5, the para starting at line 3 will be read as “a mathematical analysis module provided in a photodetector of the optical receiver or in a calculator, wherein the mathematical analysis module is electrically or signally connected to the photodetector or to the calculator, the mathematical analysis module is a software or hardware module, the photodetector transmits at least one signal collected by itself to the mathematical analysis module, and when detection is performed on the object-to-be-measured, a plurality of the light-emitting elements turn on and off at the same on-off frequency at the same time; during the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is a combination of a spectral signal of the object-to-be measured and a background noise, and during a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is the background noise; and the mathematical analysis module processes the signal received by the photodetector to discard the background noise.”
In Claim 6, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a difference between adjacent two [[
In Claim 7, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a difference between adjacent two [[
In Claim 8, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 7, wherein a full width at half maximum which each [[
In Claim 9, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 8, wherein a full width at half maximum which each [[
In Claim 10, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two [[
In Claim 11, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a difference between adjacent two [[
In Claim 12, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a difference between adjacent two [[
In Claim 15, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of the light-emitting elements emit light sequentially, [[emitting light sequentially refers to a plurality of the light-emitting elements which emit the light of the same wavelength range at different positions and do not emit the light at the same time; or the plurality of the light-emitting elements partially emit [[emitting [[
In Claim 17, lines 1-4 will be read as “The optical analysis system as claimed in claim 16, [[
a first wireless communication module, [[
In Claim 18, lines 1-4 will be read as “The optical analysis system as claimed in claim 16, [[
a first display device, the first display device [[
In Claim 20, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analysis system as claimed in claim 19, wherein the electronic device further comprises a second setting unit, the second setting unit [[
In Claim 21, the only sentence therein will be read as “The optical analysis system as claimed in claim 19, wherein the electronic device further comprises a second display device, the second display device [[
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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-transmitting component” in claim 1; “a rotating part” in claim 1; “a driving device” in claim 1; "a first setting unit" in claim 16; “a first wireless communication module” in claim 17; "a second wireless communication module" in claim 19; and “a second setting unit” in claim 20.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2012/0036900 A1) in view of Ting et al. (US 2021/0080386 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Hong discloses an optical analyzer, comprising:
a main body (Figure 4: element 110 is a cabinet; [0080] “a cabinet 110 constituting the exterior appearance” is interpreted as a body) having a receiving space (Figure 4; [0080] “The washing machine according to the present embodiment” is interpreted to have an interior space), a light-transmitting component (Figure 4: element 164 is a light transmission unit; [0081]) provided on one side of the main body (Figure 4; [0081] “a light transmission unit 164 … fixed to the door frame 142” at the front of cabinet 110), and an object-to-be-measured holding device ([0014] “a drum rotatably mounted in the cabinet”, wherein “a drum” is interpreted to be an object-to-be-measured holding device) provided in the receiving space (Figure 4; [0080] “The washing machine according to the present embodiment” is interpreted to have an interior space);
a rotating part linked to the object-to-be-measured holding device ([0051] “a rotational shaft … may be connected directly to the drum”); and
a driving device ([0051] “a driving force generated by a motor”) connected to the rotating part ([0051] “a rotational shaft of a motor”), but does not specifically teach:
a light detection device having a solid-state light source emitter and an optical receiver, the solid-state light source emitter having a plurality of light-emitting elements, each light-emitting element emitting a light with at least one peak emission wavelength and at least one wavelength range, the optical receiver receiving a light emitted from the light-emitting element, and the solid-state light source emitter disposed on another side opposite to a side of the receiving space where the light-transmitting component is disposed, wherein the light is able to pass the light-transmitting component and forms an optical path along a travel pathway between the light-emitting element and the optical receiver, wherein a distance between the light emitted from the light-emitting element and an object-to-be-measured in the object-to-be-measured holding device is at least 5 cm, the light-emitting element is a light emitting diode, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser or a laser diode, and the plurality of the light-emitting elements respectively exhibit discontinuous illumination of an on-off frequency, wherein a plurality of the on-off frequencies are the same or different from each other, or the plurality of the on-off frequencies are partially the same or partially different;
wherein a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds, the on-off frequency is between 0.05 time/second and 50000 times/second, and the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches a light detection device (Figure 13A: element 1 is a spectrometer; [0090]) having a solid-state light source emitter (Figure 13A: element 12 is a light emitting apparatus; [0090]) and an optical receiver (Figure 13A: element 13 is a photodetector; [0090]), the solid-state light source emitter (Figure 13A: element 12 is a light emitting apparatus; [0090]) having a plurality of light-emitting elements (Figure 13A; [0092] “light emitting apparatus 12 at least comprises a plurality of light emitting units”), each light-emitting element emitting a light with at least one peak emission wavelength and at least one wavelength range ([0092] “each of them emits a light with a light emission peak wavelength and a wavelength range”), the optical receiver receiving a light emitted from the light-emitting element (Figure 13A; [0065] “the photodetector 13 receives a light beam L emitted by the light emitting apparatus 12”), and the solid-state light source emitter disposed on another side opposite to a side of the receiving space (Figure 13A; [0026] “the light emitting apparatus and the photodetector are disposed on one side of the tested object”, wherein “the tested object” A is interpreted to be disposed in a space where it has been received), wherein the light is able to pass and forms an optical path along a travel pathway between the light-emitting element and the optical receiver (Figure 13A; [0065] “a propagation path of the light beam L between the light emitting apparatus 12 and the photodetector 13 forms a light path”), wherein a distance between the light emitted from the light-emitting element (Figure 13A; [0090] “light beam L emitted by the light emitting apparatus 12”) and an object-to-be-measured (Figure 13A: element A is a tested object; [0090]) is at least 5 cm (it has been held that a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)), the light-emitting element is a light emitting diode, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser or a laser diode ([0066] “the light emitting unit can be a light emitting diode (LED), a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCEL) or a laser diode (LD)”), and the plurality of the light-emitting elements respectively exhibit discontinuous illumination of an on-off frequency ([0009] “each of the light emitting units discontinuously emits the light with a lighting frequency”), wherein a plurality of the on-off frequencies are the same or different from each other ([0009] “all of the lighting frequencies are identical to or different from each other”), or the plurality of the on-off frequencies are partially the same or partially different ([0009] “or partial of the lighting frequencies are identical to or different from each other”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, for a light detection device having a solid-state light source emitter and an optical receiver, the solid-state light source emitter having a plurality of light-emitting elements, each light-emitting element emitting a light with at least one peak emission wavelength and at least one wavelength range, the optical receiver receiving a light emitted from the light-emitting element, and the solid-state light source emitter disposed on another side opposite to a side of the receiving space where the light-transmitting component is disposed, wherein the light is able to pass the light-transmitting component and forms an optical path along a travel pathway between the light-emitting element and the optical receiver, wherein a distance between the light emitted from the light-emitting element and an object-to-be-measured in the object-to-be-measured holding device is at least 5 cm, the light-emitting element is a light emitting diode, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser or a laser diode, and the plurality of the light-emitting elements respectively exhibit discontinuous illumination of an on-off frequency, wherein a plurality of the on-off frequencies are the same or different from each other, or the plurality of the on-off frequencies are partially the same or partially different, because “the present disclosure improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the optical spectrum of the test results of the sample, so as to achieve the high accuracy of the test.” (Ting, para 5)
Hong is also silent with respect to: wherein a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds, the on-off frequency is between 0.05 time/second and 50000 times/second, and the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds ([0032] “a time interval for turning on the light emitting unit is 0.001-10 seconds”), the on-off frequency is between 0.05 time/second and 50000 times/second ([0032] “the lighting frequency is 0.05-500 times/second”), and the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds ([0032] “a time interval for turning off the light emitting unit is 0.001-10 seconds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds, the on-off frequency is between 0.05 time/second and 50000 times/second, and the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element is between 0.00001 seconds and 10 seconds, because “The LEDs discontinuously radiates, and thus the effect of the thermal energy of the light emitted by the LEDs on the tested object A can be greatly reduced, and the qualitative change of the tested object A containing an organism can be avoided.” (Ting, para 73)
PNG
media_image1.png
1570
1582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, wherein an extension direction of the rotating part is defined as an X direction (see Annotated Figure 4, Hong; the drum has an axis of rotation along the X-axis), the X direction is different from a Y direction and a Z direction (see Annotated Figure 4, Hong), the Y direction and the Z direction define a YZ plane (see Annotated Figure 4, Hong), and the X direction, the Y direction and the Z direction are perpendicular to one another (see Annotated Figure 4, Hong; X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis are mutually perpendicular), the object-to-be-measured holding device is able to rotate along the YZ plane (see Annotated Figure 4, Hong; the drum has a rotational velocity along the YZ plane), and an angle between a normal line of the YZ plane and the X direction is equal to 0 degree (see Annotated Figure 4, Hong; a normal line of the YZ plane is parallel to the X-axis) or greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees (moot).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach:
a mathematical analysis module provided in a photodetector of the optical receiver or in a calculator, wherein the mathematical analysis module is electrically or signally connected to the photodetector or to the calculator, the mathematical analysis module is a software or hardware module, the photodetector transmits at least one signal collected by itself to the mathematical analysis module, and when detection is performed on the object-to-be-measured, a plurality of the light-emitting elements turn on and off at the same on-off frequency at the same time; during the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is a combination of a spectral signal of the object-to-be measured and a background noise, and during a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is the background noise; and the mathematical analysis module processes the signal received by the photodetector to discard the background noise.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches a mathematical analysis module provided in a photodetector of the optical receiver or in a calculator (Figure 13A; [0022] “a mathematical analysis module is installed in the photodetector or the computer”), wherein the mathematical analysis module is electrically or signally connected to the photodetector or to the calculator (Figure 13A; [0022] “the mathematical analysis module is electrically or signally connected to the photodetector or the computer”), the mathematical analysis module is a software or hardware module B ([0022] “the mathematical analysis module is a hardware or software based module”), the photodetector transmits at least one signal collected by itself to the mathematical analysis module (Figure 13A; [0022] “a signal collected by the photodetector is transmitted to the mathematical analysis module”), and when detection is performed ([0001] “a spectrum detection method”) on the object-to-be-measured (Figure 13A: element A is a tested object; [0090]), a plurality of the light-emitting elements turn on and off at the same on-off frequency at the same time ([0073] “the LEDs can be turned on or off at the same time with the same lighting frequency”); during the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is a combination of a spectral signal of the object-to-be measured and a background noise (Figure 13A; [0073] “In the time interval for turning on the light emitting unit, associated with the lighting frequency, the signal collected by the photodetector 13 is a combination signal of a background noise and an optical spectrum signal of the tested object”), and during a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is the background noise (Figure 13A; [0073] “In the time interval for turning off the light emitting unit, associated with the lighting frequency, the signal collected by the photodetector 13 is the background noise”); and the mathematical analysis module processes the signal received by the photodetector to discard the background noise ([0073] “the mathematical analysis module M processes the time domain signal of the tested object A to discard the background noise”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, for a mathematical analysis module provided in a photodetector of the optical receiver or in a calculator, wherein the mathematical analysis module is electrically or signally connected to the photodetector or to the calculator, the mathematical analysis module is a software or hardware module, the photodetector transmits at least one signal collected by itself to the mathematical analysis module, and when detection is performed on the object-to-be-measured, a plurality of the light-emitting elements turn on and off at the same on-off frequency at the same time; during the time interval of the on-off frequency for turning on the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is a combination of a spectral signal of the object-to-be measured and a background noise, and during a time interval of the on-off frequency for turning off the light-emitting element, the signal received by the photodetector is the background noise; and the mathematical analysis module processes the signal received by the photodetector to discard the background noise, because “the present disclosure improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the optical spectrum of the test results of the sample, so as to achieve the high accuracy of the test.” (Ting, para 93)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 1 nm and 80 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 1 nm and 80 nm (Figure 2; [0068] “two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths have a wavelength difference being larger than or equal to 1 nm, preferably, 1-80 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 1 nm and 80 nm, because “the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths are overlapped to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than each of the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths”. (Ting, para 67)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 5 nm and 80 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 5 nm and 80 nm (Figure 2; [0068] “two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths have a wavelength difference being larger than or equal to 1 nm, …, and more preferably, 5-80 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 5 nm and 80 nm, because “the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths are overlapped to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than each of the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths”. (Ting, para 67)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 7, but does not specifically teach that a full width at half maximum which each peak emission wavelength corresponds to is between 15 nm and 50 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a full width at half maximum which each peak emission wavelength corresponds to is between 15 nm and 50 nm ([0015] “each of the full widths at half maximum of the corresponding light emission peak wavelength is 15-50 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a full width at half maximum which each peak emission wavelength corresponds to is between 15 nm and 50 nm, because “the filtering effect is achieved to increase the test accuracy, and wavelength resolution characteristics of the light emitting apparatus and the spectrometer of the present disclosure can replace wavelength resolution characteristics of the conventional spectrometer.” (Ting, para 36)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 8, but does not specifically teach that a full width at half maximum which each peak emission wavelength corresponds to is between 15 nm and 40 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a full width at half maximum which each peak emission wavelength corresponds to is between 15 nm and 40 nm ([0016] “each of the full widths at half maximum of the corresponding light emission peak wavelength is 15-40 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a full width at half maximum which each peak emission wavelength corresponds to is between 15 nm and 40 nm, because “the filtering effect is achieved to increase the test accuracy, and wavelength resolution characteristics of the light emitting apparatus and the spectrometer of the present disclosure can replace wavelength resolution characteristics of the conventional spectrometer.” (Ting, para 36)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two peak emission wavelengths correspond to partially overlap to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than the wavelength range of each of the plurality of the light-emitting elements, or the plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two peak emission wavelengths correspond to do not overlap.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two peak emission wavelengths correspond to partially overlap to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than the wavelength range of each of the plurality of the light-emitting elements ([0079] “the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths are overlapped to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than each of the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units”), or the plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two peak emission wavelengths correspond to do not overlap ([0079] “or alternatively, the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths are non-overlapped”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two peak emission wavelengths correspond to partially overlap to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than the wavelength range of each of the plurality of the light-emitting elements, or the plurality of the wavelength ranges of the two light-emitting elements which adjacent two peak emission wavelengths correspond to do not overlap, because “the filtering effect is achieved to increase the test accuracy, and wavelength resolution characteristics of the light emitting apparatus and the spectrometer of the present disclosure can replace wavelength resolution characteristics of the conventional spectrometer.” (Ting, para 36)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is greater than or equal to 0.5 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is greater than or equal to 0.5 nm ([0006] “two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths have a wavelength difference being larger than or equal to 1 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is greater than or equal to 0.5 nm, because “wavelength resolution characteristics of the light emitting apparatuses and the spectrometers of the application examples 1-3 (i.e. the first through third embodiments) can replace wavelength resolution characteristics of the conventional spectrometer.” (Ting, para 77)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 1 nm and 80 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 1 nm and 80 nm (Figure 2; [0068] “two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths have a wavelength difference being larger than or equal to 1 nm, preferably, 1-80 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a difference between adjacent two peak emission wavelengths is between 1 nm and 80 nm, because “the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths are overlapped to form a continuous wavelength range which is wider than each of the wavelength ranges of the two light emitting units with the two adjacent light emission peak wavelengths”. (Ting, para 67)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a full width at half maximum which at least a portion of the peak emission wavelength in a plurality of peak emission wavelengths corresponds to is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 60 nm.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a full width at half maximum which at least a portion of the peak emission wavelength in a plurality of peak emission wavelengths corresponds to is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 60 nm (Figure 4; [0071] “At least one portions of the light emission peak wavelengths have full widths at half maximum being larger than 0 nm and less than or equal to 60 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a full width at half maximum which at least a portion of the peak emission wavelength in a plurality of peak emission wavelengths corresponds to is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 60 nm, because “the filtering effect is achieved to increase the test accuracy, and wavelength resolution characteristics of the light emitting apparatus and the spectrometer of the present disclosure can replace wavelength resolution characteristics of the conventional spectrometer.” (Ting, para 36)
Regarding Claim 14, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, and the light-transmitting component (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the light which the light-emitting element emits has an inclination angle with respect to a surface normal line of the light-transmitting component, and the inclination angle is greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that the light which the light-emitting element emits (Figure 13A; [0090] “light beam L emitted by the light emitting apparatus 12”) has an inclination angle with respect to a surface normal line of the object-to-be-measured (Figure 13A; [0090] “emission light beam La is radiated to a surface reflection point A1 of the top surface A0 of the tested object A”, such that a surface normal at “surface reflection point A1” forms an angle with “emission light beam La”), and the inclination angle is greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees (Figure 13A: an angle between a surface normal at surface reflection point A1 and emission light beam La would be an acute angle, i.e., greater than 0° and less than 90°).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, such that the light which the light-emitting element emits has an inclination angle with respect to a surface normal line of the light-transmitting component, and the inclination angle is greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees, because “the components of the surface material of the tested object A can be determined according to the surface optical spectrum of the tested object A.” (Ting, para 90)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a plurality of the light-emitting elements emit light sequentially, that emitting light sequentially refers to a plurality of the light-emitting elements which emit the light of the same wavelength range at different positions and do not emit the light at the same time; or the plurality of the light-emitting elements partially emit light at the same time, that partially emitting light at the same time refers to using the plurality of the light-emitting elements so that a portion of the light-emitting elements emits at the same time and emits the light of different wavelength ranges at the same time.
However, Ting, in the same field of light emitting apparatus, teaches that a plurality of the light-emitting elements (Figure 13A; [0092] “light emitting apparatus 12 at least comprises a plurality of light emitting units”) emit light sequentially ([0066] “the LEDs are turned on or off in turn”), that emitting light sequentially ([0066] “the LEDs are turned on or off in turn”) refers to a plurality of the light-emitting elements (Figure 13A; [0092] “light emitting apparatus 12 at least comprises a plurality of light emitting units”) which emit the light of the same wavelength range at different positions and do not emit the light at the same time (it has been held that a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)); or the plurality of the light-emitting elements (Figure 13A; [0092] “light emitting apparatus 12 at least comprises a plurality of light emitting units”) partially emit light at the same time ([0066] “one or partial LEDs are selected to turned [sic] on or off”), that partially emitting light at the same time ([0066] “one or partial LEDs are selected to turned [sic] on or off”) refers to using the plurality of the light-emitting elements (Figure 13A; [0092] “light emitting apparatus 12 at least comprises a plurality of light emitting units”) so that a portion of the light-emitting elements emits at the same time ([0066] “one or partial LEDs are selected to turned [sic] on or off”) and emits the light of different wavelength ranges at the same time (Figure 3; [0069] “the light emission peak wavelengths are respectively the first light emission peak wavelength (734 nm), the fourth light emission peak wavelength (772 nm), the second light emission peak wavelength (810 nm), the fifth light emission peak wavelength (854 nm) and the third light emission peak wavelength (882 nm) in an increment order”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Ting, wherein a plurality of the light-emitting elements emit light sequentially, that emitting light sequentially refers to a plurality of the light-emitting elements which emit the light of the same wavelength range at different positions and do not emit the light at the same time; or the plurality of the light-emitting elements partially emit light at the same time, that partially emitting light at the same time refers to using the plurality of the light-emitting elements so that a portion of the light-emitting elements emits at the same time and emits the light of different wavelength ranges at the same time, because “the effect of the thermal energy of the light emitted by the LEDs on the tested object A can be greatly reduced, and the qualitative change of the tested object A containing an organism can be avoided.” (Ting, para 73)
PNG
media_image2.png
2361
2208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2012/0036900 A1) and Ting et al. (US 2021/0080386 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wheeler (US 2021/0238787 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Hong discloses the optical analyzer as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that an extension direction of the rotating part is defined as a Z direction, the Z direction is different from an X direction and a Y direction, the X direction and the Y direction define an XY plane, the X direction, the Y direction and the Z direction are perpendicular to one another, the object-to-be-measured holding device is able to rotate along the XY plane, and an angle between a normal line of the XY plane and the Z direction is equal to 0 degree or greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees.
However, Wheeler, in the same field of washer/dryer appliances, teaches that an extension direction of the rotating part (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler; element 59 is a sensing member rotating shaft; [0025]) is defined as a Z direction (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler; sensing member rotating shaft element 59 and inner drum element 26 have an axis of rotation along the Z-axis), the Z direction is different from an X direction and a Y direction (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler), the X direction and the Y direction define an XY plane (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler; X-axis pointing to the left, and Y-axis pointing out of the page define an XY plane), the X direction, the Y direction and the Z direction are perpendicular to one another (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler; X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis are mutually perpendicular), the object-to-be-measured holding device is able to rotate along the XY plane (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler; inner drum element 26 has a rotational velocity along the XY plane), and an angle between a normal line of the XY plane and the Z direction is equal to 0 degree (see Annotated Figure 3, Wheeler; a normal line of the XY plane is parallel to the Z-axis) or greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees (moot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical analyzer of Hong with the teachings of Wheeler, wherein an extension direction of the rotating part is defined as a Z direction, the Z direction is different from an X direction and a Y direction, the X direction and the Y direction define an XY plane, the X direction, the Y direction and the Z direction are perpendicular to one another, the object-to-be-measured holding device is able to rotate along the XY plane, and an angle between a normal line of the XY plane and the Z direction is equal to 0 degree or greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees, because “it is an object of the present invention to provide a washing/drying machine which comprises an pulsator arranged w