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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species 1 without traverse in the reply filed on 07/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5, 13-15, 19, and 20 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected, “emit additional” should be amended to read as “emit an additional”.
Appropriate action is required.
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, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinta, US20140186215A1.
Claim 1
Shinta in e.g., Figs.5 and 11 teaches:
An electronic device 100,300 having an interior and an exterior that is exposed to an environment, the electronic device 100,300 comprising:
a housing 101,327 that separates the interior from the exterior, wherein the housing 101,327 has an opening (101A,B 329,320); and
a humidity sensor in the housing 101,300 and exposed to the environment, wherein the humidity sensor comprises:
a humidity-sensitive layer 10;
a light emitter 40A,310,311 configured to emit light into the humidity-sensitive layer 10; and
a detector 40,50,320,323 configured to generate relative humidity measurements (¶0128/¶0187-0191/functional language met by claimed humidity sensor).
Shinta does not specifically teach relative humidity sensor, however, Shinta’s system teaches measuring both humidity and dew condensation point and one of ordinary skill in art knows relative humidity can be simply linked and correlated to humidity and dew point and would have been motivated to determine relative humidity in order to know the humidity level comparing saturation.
Claim 13
Shanita teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the relative humidity-sensitive layer comprises a film that includes voids and metal-oxide nanoparticles (e.g., figs.1-2 voids 1b ¶0073,0075: element 1a, such as titanium oxide).
Claim 14
Shinta in e.g., Figs.5 and 11 teaches:
A relative humidity sensor, comprising:
a humidity-sensitive layer 10;
a light emitter 40A,310,311 configured to emit light into the humidity-sensitive layer 10; and
a light detector 40,50,320,323 configured to detect light that has passed through the relative humidity-sensitive layer to determine a relative humidity (¶0128/¶0187-0191/functional language met by claimed humidity sensor).
Shinta does not specifically teach relative humidity sensor, however, Shinta’s system teaches measuring both humidity and dew condensation point and one of ordinary skill in art knows simply relative humidity can be linked correlated to humidity and dew point and would have been motivated to determine relative humidity in order to know the humidity level comparing saturation.
Claim 19
Shinta teaches:
An electronic device, comprising:
a housing 101,327;
a humidity sensor in the housing 101,327, wherein the relative humidity sensor comprises:
a humidity-sensitive layer 10 that is configured to exhibit a change in refractive index in response to relative humidity changes (e.g., ¶0088,0210);
a light emitter 40A,310,311 configured to emit light into the relative humidity-sensitive layer 10; and
a light detector 40,50,320,323 configured to detect light that has passed through the relative humidity-sensitive layer 10; and
control circuitry 60 that is configured to determine a relative humidity based on the light detected by the light detector(¶0128/¶0187-0191/functional language met by claimed humidity sensor).
Shinta does not specifically teach relative humidity sensor, however, Shinta’s system teaches measuring both humidity and dew condensation point and one of ordinary skill in art knows simply relative humidity can be linked correlated to humidity and dew point and would have been motivated to determine relative humidity in order to know the humidity level comparing saturation.
Claim 20
Shinta the electronic device of claim 19, wherein the relative humidity-sensitive layer comprises a film that includes voids and metal-oxide nanoparticles (e.g., ¶0073,0075: element 1a, and such as titanium oxide).
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinta, US20140186215A1 in view of Prass , US 5563707 A.
Claim 2
Shinta teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the light emitter comprises a diode (e.g.,¶0189), the detector comprises a light detector (40,50,320,323), and the diode is further configured to emit light toward the light detector (.g., light detector 50 ¶0145), but does not teach laser diode and an additional light.
In the similar field of endeavor, Prass teaches wherein the light emitter 2 comprises a laser diode ( 2, col. 5 line 10-11), the detector comprises a light detector (6,9,10,11), and the laser diode 2 is further configured to emit additional light 5 toward the light detector (6,9,10,11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Prass‘s laser and additional light laser for Shinta‘s device wherein the modified Shinta‘s light emitter comprises a laser diode, the modified Shinta‘s detector comprises a light detector, and the modified Shinta‘s laser diode is further configured to emit additional light toward the modified Shinta‘s light detector. One of ordinary skill in the art knows laser and LED are different options to be used for optical sensors determining species and humidity (e.g., col.1 lines 10-11/col.1 lines 13-14 Prass) and also knows using additional light and signal light (e.g., col.2 lines 55-56),therefore would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce electric signals as a function of the intensity of light and checking pretense of chemical species and/or calculates its quantity by making comparison between electric signal which is indicative of the intensity of reflected light from the sensing element and electric signal which is indicative of the intensity of reference light (col.4 lines 40-44 Prass), in addition based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 3
Shinta in view of Prass teaches the electronic device of claim 2, the modified Shinta teaches wherein the laser diode is configured to emit the light into a first side (better shown in fig.5 as side 10A) of the relative humidity-sensitive layer 10, and the relative humidity sensor further comprises:
a mirror coating 20 on a second side (side 10B) of the relative humidity-sensitive layer 10, opposite the first side (10B opposite 10A).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinta, US20140186215A1 in view of Prass , US 5563707 A and Frölich, EP0277496B1.
Claim 4
Shinta in view of Prass teaches the electronic device of claim 3, but does not teach wherein the light detector is further configured to generate the relative humidity measurements interferometrically based on detected optical path lengths of the light and the additional light.
In the similar field of endeavor, Frölich in figs.1-2 teaches a laser interferometer-refractometer for measuring the refractive index of a gas (e.g., Abstract) wherein the light detector is further configured to generate the measurements interferometrically based on detected optical path lengths of the light and the additional light (e.g., Abstract: cell (25) which forms the travel path of a total travel path, formed from a travel path in the cell 25 and a travel path in the gas to be measured, of a component beam (20) of the pair of component beams 20,20’, unifying the component beams (20, 20') and are intended to generate interferences between the component beams. The optical path length of one component beam (20) can be adjusted for the purpose of enhancing the measurement accuracy.), and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Frölich‘s light detector is further configured to generate the relative humidity measurements interferometrically based on detected optical path lengths of the light and the additional light for the modified Shinta‘s light detector. One of ordinary skill in the art knows both approach comprise driving a physical/optical property of a medium by comparing a beam that interacted with the medium against a reference or additional beam would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve more precise measurement as cited with Frölich. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15
Shinta teaches relative humidity sensor of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the relative humidity-sensitive layer comprises a polymer layer, and the light detector is configured to measure a path length of the light after it has passed through the polymer layer. In the similar field of endeavor, Prass teaches wherein the relative humidity-sensitive layer comprises a polymer layer (e.g., Abstract), and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Prass‘s polymer layer for Shinta‘s sensitive layer. One of ordinary skill in the art knows using polymers in optical sensors would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement them in optical sensors (Prass‘s background: e.g., dodecylmethacry… which is a polymer changing optical properties upon interaction with a vapor phase species). Furthermore:
Frölich teaches the light detector is configured to measure a path length of the light after it has passed through a variable-refractive-index medium (at least Abstract) and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Frölich‘s light detector for the modified Shinta‘s optical sensor wherein the modified Shinta’s relative humidity-sensitive layer comprises a polymer layer, and the modified Shinta’s light detector is configured to measure a path length of the light after it has passed through the modified Shinta’s polymer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art knows interferometrically based on detected optical path lengths of the light and the additional light would have been motivated to make this modification in order to deriving a property of that medium.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinta, US20140186215A1 in view of Prass , US 5563707 A and Frölich, EP0277496B1 and Mitschke, DE3832185.
Claim 5
Shinta in view of Prass and Frölich teaches the electronic device of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the relative humidity sensor further comprises: a partial mirror coating on the first side of the relative humidity-sensitive layer.
In the similar field of endeavor, Mitschke in e.g., figs.1-2 teaches wherein the humidity sensor further comprises: a partial mirror coating on the first side of the relative humidity-sensitive layer 10 (12 and layers L,H ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mitschke‘s partial mirror coating on the modified Shanita’s first side of the relative humidity-sensitive layer. One of ordinary skill in the art from Mitschke knows it extends the effective optical path length of light within a humidity sensitive layer would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase measurement sensitivity as explicitly taught by Mitschke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights