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 .
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 intensity measurement unit”, in claim 1; “an arithmetic processing unit”, in claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (JP 2020159867 A, included in IDS on 06/08/2024), hereafter Takeda, in view of Ezoe Ryota et al. (JP 2018/109674 A, included in IDS on 06/08/2024),), hereafter Ezoe.
Regarding claim 1, Takeda teaches a spectrophotometer (Fig. 2) comprising:
a light source (Fig. 2 element “light source 220”, [page 2, para. 9]) configured to emit light in a wavelength band including an excitation wavelength which causes a photoreaction on a target substance in a sample (Fig. 2 element 240), (light generated by element 220 include excitation wavelength which causes the sample to be exited with excitation light, [page 2, para. 9-10]), the light source emitting a known number of photons of the light having the excitation wavelength, [page 2, paras. 2-4], [page 20, para. 9];
an integrating sphere (Fig. 2 element 210) having a light entrance port through which light emitted from the light source enters (220), (as shown in annotated Fig. 2) and a light emission port (as shown in annotated Fig. 2) provided at a position deviated from an optical axis of the light entering the light entrance port, (as shown in Fig. 2, [page 2, para. 9-10]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
402
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a light intensity measurement unit (Fig. 2 element 230) configured to measure intensity of light having the excitation wavelength emitted from the light emission port, (as shown in Fig. 1, [page 2, para. 9, 11]).
Takeda fail to teach a sample placement unit provided in the light entrance port.
However, Ezoe related to optical measuring devices and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches a sample placement unit provided in the light entrance port, (as shown in Fig. 3 the spectrophotometer comprise an integrating sphere having an entrance where the specimen is fixed, [page 8, lines 11-15]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takeda by including a sample placement unit provided in the light entrance port (as taught by Ezoe) for several advantages such as: letting to determine the Transmission energy efficiency that allows to determine the properties of the sample as the extinction coefficient increase the accuracy of the device, ([page 8, lines 17-23], Ezoe).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda in the combination outlined above teaches the spectrophotometer according to claim 1, further comprising
Takeda further teaches an arithmetic processing unit ( Fig. 2 element 230 + computer, [page 5, para 8]) configured to calculate an absorptivity of the light having the excitation wavelength by the target substance (Fig. 1 element 240), ([page 2, para. 2-4]) on a basis of the intensity of the light having the excitation wavelength detected by the light intensity measurement unit, ([page 4, para. 3-4, page 5, para.]) in a state where the sample is not placed in the sample placement unit, (the measurement is form by irradiating a standard white plate, [page 2, para. 2]) and the intensity of the light having the excitation wavelength detected by the light intensity measurement unit in a state where the sample is placed in the sample placement unit, (the measurement is form by irradiating the sample, [page 2, para. 2]).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda in the combination outlined above teaches the spectrophotometer according to claim 1, further comprising
Takeda further teaches wherein the arithmetic processing unit ( Fig. 2 element 230 + computer, [page 5, para 8]) is further configured to calculate a number of photons of the light absorbed by the target substance (Fig. 1 element 240) on a basis of a number of photons and the absorptivity of the light having the excitation wavelength, ([page 2, para. 2-4]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Ezoe and further view of Kawasaki et al. (US 2020/0182693 A1), hereafter Kawasaki.
Regarding claim 4, Takeda in the combination outlined above teaches the spectrophotometer according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the light source is a white LED light source, (“light emitting devices such as a white light emitting diode (white LED)”, page 1, lines 13-21, Ezoe) , and the light intensity measurement unit (Fig. 2 element 230, Takeda) includes a detector (Fig. 2 element 230, Takeda).
The modified device of Takeda do not clearly teach the light intensity measurement unit includes a spectroscope configured to wavelength-separate light emitted from the light emission port, and a detector configured to detect the light wavelength-separated by the spectroscope.
However, Kawasaki relates to optical measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the light intensity measurement unit (Fig. 5 element 2000) includes a spectroscope (Fig. 5 element 2022, [0068]) configured to wavelength-separate light emitted from the light emission port, [0069, 0076], and a detector (Fig. 5 elements 2083 + 2084, [0069]) configured to detect the light wavelength-separated by the spectroscope, [0078, 0087].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takeda by including the light intensity measurement unit includes a spectroscope configured to wavelength-separate light emitted from the light emission port, and a detector configured to detect the light wavelength-separated by the spectroscope. (as taught by Kawasaki) for several advantages such as: the device allows to apply an observation light to a position for measurement without providing large space in a spectrophotometer, and the position for measurement can be easily known, thus increase the versability of the device, ([0019], Kawasaki). Also spectroscope allows to analyze the composition of light sources and determine the properties of objects increasing the increasing accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights