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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that applicant argues the combination of Tsurutani and Imai fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 because Imai includes a diversing element 108 including a diffraction grating or a prism instead of a diffuser or bundle fiber and cannot be considered to teach or suggest an insertion point of the light attenuation member in front of the splitting optical system, i.e., in front of the diffuser or the bundle fiber (see remarks page 6). Specifically, the applicant argues that Imai discloses a different color measurement arrangement than Tsurutani. Imai teaches only to place the neutral density filter upstream of a diffraction grating or prism. The diffraction grating or prism has a different function that a diffuser or bundle fiber. Imai does not include a diffuser or bundle fiber. Imai does not require a splitting optical system because there is only one sensor path. Imai discloses that the neutral density filter 104 is upstream of the diversing element 108, which is disposed before the sensor 110. Accordingly, Imai does not teach or suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art to place the neutral density filter in front of fiber bundle of Tsurutani (see remarks page 7).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Imai teaches a neutral density filter ([0031] see Fig. 1) that is removable and placed between a lens (optical system 102; [0030]) and a diversing element 108 ([0030]). Even if the diversing optical element 108 also performs functions similar to the color filters because it splits light according to wavelengths, element 108 still functions as a splitting optical element because it disperses the incident light into a plurality of light rays ([0033]). Imai reasonably suggests the placement of a removable light attenuation member between a lens and a splitting optical element, similar to applicant’s Fig. 1, for the purpose of reducing the transmission of light, thus increasing transmission precision, which is a well-known function of a neutral density filter and is also the purpose of filter 104 in Imai (Imai [0031] the neutral density filter 104 functions as adjusting means for adjusting the quantity of the light 604 to be measured which reaches the sensor 110; transmittance precision being excellent can be used). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the light attenuation member upstream of the sensor or after a focusing element such as a lens, which is an equivalent location to “in front of the splitting optical system” in order to reduce the transmission of light as efficiently as possible.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Imai is not relied upon to teach that the splitting optical element is a diffuser or the bundle fiber, which is taught by Tsurutani.
Thus, the rejections of claims 1-14 have been maintained.
New claim 15 is rejected in view of Tsurutani and Imai. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach this claim because Imai teaches that the neutral density filter 104 is between the optical system 102 and the diversing element 108 (see Fig. 1). However, Tsurutani teaches an objective optical system that receives light to be measured from an object and having a lens and an aperture diaphragm (optical system 11; [0029]) and Imai teaches the placement of a removable light attenuation member after a lens (see Fig. 1). Since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C., it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the light attenuation member between the lens and aperture diaphragm in order to reduce the transmission of light as efficiently as possible.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the claim reads “wherein the light attenuation member that is insertable in and removable from the light path in front of a surface of the aperture diaphragm.” However, the examiner believes the claim should read “wherein the light attenuation member is insertable in and removable from the light path in front of a surface of the aperture diaphragm.”
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:
“splitting optical system” in claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 12
“light attenuation member” in claims 1-3, 9, 12, and 15
“observation optical system” in claim 9
“objective optical system” in claim 13
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “splitting optical system” which uses the generic placeholder “system” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “splitting optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to at least a diffuser plate, bundle fiber (applicant’s specification [0053]; [0112]) or other equivalent structures.
Further, the claim recites “light attenuation member” which uses the generic placeholder “member” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “light attenuation member” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to an attenuator including such as a neutral density filter (applicant’s specification [0056]) or other equivalent structures.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “observation optical system” which uses the generic placeholder “system” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “observation optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to finder optical system 60 (applicant’s specification [0130], Fig. 20) which appears to include at least a lens or other equivalent structures.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “objective optical system” which uses the generic placeholder “system” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “objective optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to at least a convex lens ([0004]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2562520B1 by Tsurutani (cited in IDS as JP5454675B2) in view of US 20090116002 A1 by Imai et al. (hereinafter "Imai").
Regarding claim 1, Tsurutani teaches a photometric apparatus comprising (at least Fig. 23):
a splitting optical system that splits light to be measured from an object to be measured into a plurality of light rays ([0016] bundle fiber 12a is used in the branching optical system 12; bundle fiber 12a splits light from measurement surface into a plurality of light rays), the splitting optical system including a diffuser that spreads the light to be measured or a bundle fiber that directs the light to be measured into a plurality of paths ([0016] bundle fiber 12a); and
a colorimetric optical system having a wavelength-selective filter on which the light that is to be measured and has been split by the splitting optical system is incident ([0017] colorimetric optical systems 13, 14, 15 are provided with color filters 13a, 14a, 15a), and a light receiving sensor that receives the light that is to be measured from the diffuser or from one of the plurality of paths of the bundle fiber (see Fig. 23) and has been transmitted through the wavelength-selective filter ([0017] light-receiving sensors 13b, 14b, 15b).
Tsurutani is silent as to a light attenuation member that is insertable in and removable from a light path of the light to be measured, wherein the light attenuation member is disposed in front of the splitting optical system.
However, Imai does address this limitation. Imai and Tsurutani are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of light measurement.
Imai teaches a light attenuation member (Fig. 1; [0031] neutral density filter 104 is a light attenuation member see applicant's specification [0056]) that is insertable in and removable from a light path of the light to be measured ([0031] neutral density filter 104 is inserted or removed to/from the optical path of the light 604 to be measured), wherein the light attenuation member is disposed in front of a splitting optical system (filter 104 is disposed in front of diversing element 108 which disperses the light according to wavelength, thus is a splitting optical system; [0032]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light attenuation member to reduce the transmission of incoming light. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani to include a light attenuation member that is insertable in and removable from a light path of the light to be measured, wherein the light attenuation member is disposed in front of the splitting optical system as suggested by Imai in order to increase transmission precision (Imai [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but Tsurutani is silent as to wherein the light attenuation member is inserted in and removed from the light path in accordance with brightness of the object to be measured.
However, Imai further teaches neutral density filter 104 functions as adjusting means for adjusting the quantity of the light 604 to be measured which reaches the sensor 110 under control of the control unit 122 ([0031]), thus the filter controls the brightness of the light reaching the sensor. Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”). See MPEP 2114. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsurutani such that the light attenuation member is inserted in and removed from the light path in accordance with brightness of the object to be measured as suggested by Imai in order to achieve excellent transmittance precision ([0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but Tsurutani is silent as to wherein the light attenuation member is formed of a thin film filter.
However, Imai teaches that the light attenuation member is a neutral density filter ([0031]) which the applicant describes as a type of thin film filter ([0080]). Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsurutani such that the light attenuation member is formed of a thin film filter as suggested by Imai as it is a common and efficient type of neutral density filter.
Regarding claim 5, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani further teaches wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a thin film filter([0023] color filters 13a, 14a, 15a are configured by laminating a plurality of filters of a optical absorption type; this appears to be identical to the applicant's description of the color filters in applicant's specification [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani does not teach wherein the splitting optical system is the diffuser plate in this specific embodiment.
However, Tsurutani does teach wherein the splitting optical system is the diffuser (Fig. 27; [0026]; diffusion plate 19) in a separate embodiment.
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a diffuser plate to split incident light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment of Tsurutani to include wherein the splitting optical system is a diffuser plate instead of the bundle fiber as the bundle fiber is expensive and involves the measurement error caused by directivity compared to the diffusion plate ([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani further teaches wherein the splitting optical system is the bundle fiber ([0016] bundle fiber 12).
Regarding claim 8, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, and although Tsurutani does not teach wherein a length of the bundle fiber is equal to or more than 50 times a diameter of a core of a strand, Tsurutani does teach wherein a length of the bundle fiber is equal to or more than 30 times a diameter of a core of a strand ([0066]). As the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. One would select the length in order to ensure the outgoing angle is random and the diffusion effect similar to that of the diffusion plate ([0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani further teaches wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a color-matching function filter ([0017] color filters 13a, 14a, 15a corresponding to tristimulus values X, Y, Z, respectively; this is consistent with applicant's specification [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Tsurutani teaches a photometric method comprising:
a photometric apparatus (Fig. 23) including
a splitting optical system that splits the light to be measured from an object to be measured into a plurality of light rays ([0016] bundle fiber 12a is used in the branching optical system 12; bundle fiber 12a splits light from measurement surface into a plurality of light rays), the splitting optical system including a diffuser that spreads the light to be measured or a bundle fiber that directs the light to be measured into a plurality of paths ([0016] bundle fiber 12a), and
a colorimetric optical system having a wavelength-selective filter on which the light that is to be measured from the diffuser or from one of the plurality of paths of the bundle fiber (see Fig. 23) and has been split by the splitting optical system is incident ([0017] colorimetric optical systems 13, 14, 15 are provided with color filters 13a, 14a, 15a), and a light receiving sensor that receives the light that is to be measured and has been transmitted through the wavelength-selective filter([0017] light-receiving sensors 13b, 14b, 15b).
Tsurutani is silent as to inserting and removing a light attenuation member into and from a light path of light to be measured at a position in front of a splitting optical system.
However, Imai does address this limitation. Imai and Tsurutani are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of light measurement.
Imai teaches inserting and removing a light attenuation member (Fig. 1; [0031] neutral density filter 104 is a light attenuation member see applicant's specification [0056]) into and from a light path of light to be measured ([0031] neutral density filter 104 is inserted or removed to/from the optical path of the light 604 to be measured) at a position in front of a splitting optical system (filter 104 is disposed in front of diversing element 108 which disperses the light according to wavelength, thus is a splitting optical system; [0032]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light attenuation member to reduce the transmission of incoming light. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani to include inserting and removing a light attenuation member into and from a light path of light to be measured at a position in front of a splitting optical system as suggested by Imai in order to increase transmission precision (Imai [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani further teaches comprising an objective optical system ([0016] object optical system 11; convex lens 11a) and a light collecting position of the objective optical system ([0017] aperture stop 11b).
Tsurutani is silent as to the light attenuation member being disposed proximate a light collecting position of the objective optical system.
However, Imai does address this limitation.
Imai teaches the light attenuation member (filter 104; [0031]) being disposed proximate a light collecting position of the objective optical system (shutter 106 is a light collecting position of the optical system 102; [0032]; [0030]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the filter proximate the light collecting position in order to reduce transmission of the collected light sent to the splitting optical element and sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani such the light attenuation member is disposed proximate a light collecting position of the objective optical system as suggested by Imai in order to increase transmission precision ([0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani further teaches wherein colorimetric optical system includes a plurality of wavelength-selective filters ([0017] 13a, 14a, 15a) and corresponding light receiving sensors ([0017] 13b, 14b, 15b), and each of the plurality of wavelength-selective filters respectively receives one or more of the plurality of light rays split by the splitting optical system (Fig. 23; [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Tsurutani further teaches comprising an objective optical system ([0016] object optical system 11; convex lens 11a; [0017] aperture stop 11b) that receives light to be measured from an object ([0015] measured object) and having a lens (convex lens 11a) and an aperture diaphragm (aperture stop 11b).
Tsurutani is silent as to wherein the light attenuation member that is insertable in and removable from the light path in front of a surface of the aperture diaphragm.
However, Imai does address this limitation.
Imai teaches wherein the light attenuation member (filter 104; [0031]) that is insertable in and removable from the light path after a lens (Fig. 1; [0030]-[0031]). The examiner notes that the position of the light attenuation member after the lens is functionally equivalent to a location in front of a surface of the aperture diaphragm because the lens in Tsurutani is arranged before the aperture diaphragm. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C.
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention locate the filter before aperture diaphragm or after the lens to reduce transmission of the collected light sent to the splitting optical element and sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani such the light attenuation member is insertable in and removable from the light path in front of a surface of the aperture diaphragm as suggested by Imai in order to increase transmission precision ([0031]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurutani in view of Imai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20110089316 A1 by Hosier et al. (hereinafter “Hosier”).
Regarding claim 4, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but Tsurutani and Imai are silent as to wherein the light receiving sensor is a silicon sensor.
However, Hosier does address this limitation. Tsurutani and Hosier are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of color measurement.
Hosier teaches wherein the light receiving sensor is a silicon sensor ([0004] image sensor array uses silicon chips).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon sensor that are common in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani to include wherein the light receiving sensor is a silicon sensor as suggested by Hosier as silicon sensors are high performance image sensors ([0004]) thus increasing measurement quality.
Regarding claim 11, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and although Tsurutani teaches color filters that transmit light that corresponds to the desired spectral characteristic such as tristimulus values X, Y, Z, Tsurutani is silent as to a wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a spectral filter (described in applicant's specification [0136] as being capable of continuously varying wavelengths), and the light receiving sensor is a line sensor.
However, Hosier does address this limitation. Tsurutani and Hosier are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of color measurement.
Hosier teaches wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a spectral filter ([0029] linear variable filter 156), and the light receiving sensor is a line sensor ([0029] linear sensor 158).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spectral filter to transmit certain wavelengths and use a line sensor to detect the corresponding light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani to include wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a spectral filter, and the light receiving sensor is a line sensor as suggested by Hosier in order to transmit and detect at least ten unique bandwidths of wavelengths, thus making a more robust measurement ([0010]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurutani in view of Imai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view WO 2016208462 A1 by Tsurutani et al. (hereinafter Tsurutani '16; translation provided).
Regarding claim 9, Tsurutani modified by Imai teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but Tsurutani is silent as to further comprising a mirror that guides the light to be measured to an observation optical system in front of the splitting optical system, wherein the light attenuation member is disposed between the mirror and the splitting optical system.
However, Tsurutani '16 does address this limitation. Tsurutani '16 and Tsurutani are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of light measurement.
Tsurutani '16 teaches further comprising (Fig. 1) a mirror (mirror 1016; [0039]) that guides the light to be measured to an observation optical system (finder system 1017; [0039]) in front of the splitting optical system (bundle fiber 1012; [0042]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mirror to send light to an observation system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsurutani to include a mirror that guides the light to be measured to an observation optical system in front of the splitting optical system as suggested by Tsurutani '16 in order to perform an additional measurement for alignment, calibration, or other error reduction.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. It would have been obvious to arrange the mirror such that the light attenuation member is disposed between the mirror and the splitting optical system so that the finder optical system can observe the original light to be measured before it is altered by the light attenuation member, thus increasing the fidelity of the observation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights