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: “light attenuation member”, in claim 1; “information processing apparatus”, in claims 13, 15 and 16; “splitting optical system”, in claim 22.
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 Objections
Claims 5, 13 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis do to dependency. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reflective member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and also in parent Claim 1. However, Claim 2 already introduce the limitation “a reflective member”. Therefore, Claim 5 should be dependent of Claim 2. Examiner suggest changing the dependency of Claim 5 to be dependent of Claim 2.
In claims 13, 15 and 16, line 3, “the correction coefficient according to claim 8 is defined” should be changed to — the correction coefficient is defined—.
Appropriate correction 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 1-4, 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 2009/0116002 A1) hereafter Imai in view of Kubo et al. (Us 2019/0229137 A1), hereafter Kubo.
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Imai teaches a photometric apparatus and method (Fig. 1 element 1, [0028]) comprising: a light receiver (Fig. 1 element 110) having one or a plurality of light receiving sensors (Fig. 2 elements 128, [0035]) that receive light to be measured from an object (Fig. 1 element 602) to be measured, [0030];
a controller (Fig. 1 elements 120 + 122) that calculates a measured value based on an output from the one or plurality of light receiving sensors, [0037, 0042];
a light attenuation member (Fig. 1 elements 104, [0031]) that is disposed so as to be insertable in and removable from a light path (Fig. 1 element 604) of the light to be measured (602) and attenuates the light to be incident on the light receiver (110), (The neutral density filter 104 is inserted or removed to/from the optical path of the light 604 to be measured under control of the control unit 122 [0031-0032]);
Even though that Imai teaches a corrector (Fig. 1 element 106, [0032]) and the controller (Fig. 1 elements 120 + 122) that calculate a measure value in a state in which the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 elements 104 + 106) is inserted in the light path and a measured value calculated by the controller (120 + 122) in a state in which the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 elements 104 + 106) is not inserted in the light path, [0031-0042], the measured values varying depending on a characteristic of the object to be measured, [0041, 0067].
Imai fail to teach a corrector that corrects a difference between a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is inserted in the light path and a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path.
However, Kubo related to optical measuring apparatus and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a corrector (Fig. 18 elements 503 + 504 , [0208] and Fig. 22A element 604 + 607) that corrects a difference between a measured value calculated by the controller (Fig. 18 element 520) in a state in which the light attenuation member is inserted in the light path and a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path, (in the fifth [0187-0188] and sixth [0234-0235] embodiments the processor 520 correct a difference in exposure unevenness and density deviation as shown in Figs. 19-21 by controlling the voltage that is applied from the light transmittance changeable element controller 514 to the light transmittance changeable element 504, [0212, 0218] in a state in which the light attenuation member is inserted in the light path (Fig. 18 element 504 and Fig. 22A element 604) and a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path (Fig. 18 element 504 is not in the light path of element 501b, Fig. 22B element 604), [0232, 0239]).
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 Imai by including a corrector that corrects a difference between a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is inserted in the light path and a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path (as taught by Kubo) for several advantages such as: exposure deviation correction is advantageous in terms of gradation and low noise, and a highly accurate correction result can be obtained, thus increase the device accuracy, (Kubo, [0230]).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 22, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus.
Imai further teaches:
(claim 2) wherein the corrector (Fig. 1 element 106) is inserted into the light path when the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 element 104) is inserted into the light path, and is removed from the light path when the light attenuation member is removed from the light path, (step S104 in Fig. 4, [0032]).
Imai fail to teach:
(claim 2) wherein the corrector is a reflective member.
(claim 3) wherein the reflective member is formed integrally with the light attenuation member.
(claim 4) wherein the reflective member includes one or a plurality of members and is different from the light attenuation member.
(claim 22) a splitting optical system that splits the light to be measured into a plurality of light rays.
However, Kubo further teaches:
(claim 2) wherein the corrector (Fig. 18 elements 503 + 504) is a reflective member (503 is a beam splitter, [0190])
(claim 3) wherein the reflective member (Fig. 18 elements 503) is formed integrally with the light attenuation member (Fig. 18 elements 504), [0233].
(claim 4) wherein the reflective member (Fig. 18 elements 503) includes one or a plurality of members (include a beam splitter, [0190]) and is different from the light attenuation member (Fig. 18 elements 504), [0233].
(claim 22) a splitting optical system (Fig. 18 element 503) that splits the light to be measured into a plurality of light rays, [0188].
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 Imai by including wherein the corrector is a reflective member, wherein the reflective member is formed integrally with the light attenuation member, wherein the reflective member includes one or a plurality of members and is different from the light attenuation member, a splitting optical system that splits the light to be measured into a plurality of light rays (as taught by Kubo) for several advantages such as: exposure deviation correction is advantageous in terms of gradation and low noise, and a highly accurate correction result can be obtained, thus increase the device accuracy, (Kubo, [0230]).
Regarding claim 17, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 1,
Imai further teaches wherein the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 element 104, [0031]) is inserted in and removed from the light path in accordance with brightness of the object to be measured, [0052-0053].
Regarding claim 18, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 1.
Imai further teaches wherein each of the one or plurality of light receiving sensors is a silicon sensor, (element 110 has a CCD (Charge couple device) that is inherently a silicon sensor, [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 1.
Imai further teaches further comprising a wavelength-selective filter (Fig. 1 element 108, [0033-0034]) in front of the one or plurality of light receiving sensors (Fig. 1 element 110, as shown in Fig. 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Kubo and further in view of Schmeder et al. (US 2014/0233105 A1), hereafter Schmeder.
Regarding claim 5, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 1.
The modified device of Imai is silent about wherein a reflectance of the reflective member is an optimum reflectance of 4%.
However, Schmeder related to optical filter and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein a reflectance of the reflective member is an optimum reflectance of 4%, (a neutral density filter fabricated by a metal attenuation coating “reflective member” using physical vapor deposition comprises a luminous reflectance of about 4 percent on both sides of the lens, [0371]).
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 modified device of Imai by including wherein a reflectance of the reflective member is an optimum reflectance of 4%, (as taught by Schmeder) for several advantages such as: as routine optimization in order to make the filter to be highly effective at minimizing unwanted glare and internal reflections, ensuring cleaner images with better contrast, especially in bright conditions thus increase the device accuracy.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Kubo further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0124232 A1), hereafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claims 6-7, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus.
Even though the modified device of Imai teaches wherein the corrector includes a controller,( corrector (Fig. 1 element 106, [0032]) and the controller (Fig. 1 elements 120 + 122, Imai), ( corrector (Fig. 18 elements 503 + 504 , [0208] and Fig. 22A element 604 + 607) with the controller (Fig. 18 element 520), Kubo).
The modified device of Imai is silent about:
(claim 6) a controller that calculates a measured value using a correction coefficient corresponding to a physical property of the object to be measured.
(claim 7) a storage that stores the correction coefficient.
However, Yamamoto related to optical measuring apparatus and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 6) a controller (Fig. 1 element 102) that calculates a measured value using a correction coefficient corresponding to a physical property of the object to be measured, (the processor 102 determine the correction coefficient “output ratio” from the detected value P0 and P1 that are used when each exposure condition such as laser oscillating condition upon exposure as the driving profile is determined and E-V characteristic of the laser to me measured, [0047]).
(claim 7) a storage that stores the correction coefficient, (“The detected values P0 and P1 and the correction coefficient .alpha. are stored in a storage (not illustrated) in the exposure apparatus 100”, [0047])
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 modified device of Imai by including a correction coefficient corresponding to a physical property of the object to be measured, a storage that stores the correction coefficient (as taught by Yamamoto) for several advantages such as: allowing to perform adjustment of the illumination mode of the device thus increasing the device accuracy, ([0047, Yamamoto). Additionally, allow for the removal or minimization of systematic errors and uncertainties, leading to more accurate data by adjusting for factors like instrument imperfections (aberrations, angle truncation), environmental conditions (humidity, temperature), or sample properties.
Regarding claim 8, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches The photometric apparatus according to claim 6.
Imai further teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 1 element 122) obtains, based on an instruction from a user (operator, [0040]), an output value output from the light receiver (Fig. 1 element 110) in the state in which the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 elements 104) is inserted in the light path and an output value output from the light receiver (Fig. 1 element 110) in the state in which the light attenuation member (104) is not inserted in the light path, [0031-0032].
Imai fail to teach obtains the correction coefficient based on the output values.
However, Yamamoto further teaches obtains the correction coefficient based on the output values, (the processor 102 determine the correction coefficient “output ratio” from the detected value P0 and P1, [0030, 0047]).
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 modified device of Imai by including obtains the correction coefficient based on the output values (as taught by Yamamoto) for several advantages such as: allowing to perform adjustment of the illumination mode of the device thus increasing the device accuracy, ([0047, Yamamoto). Additionally, allow for the removal or minimization of systematic errors and uncertainties, leading to more accurate data by adjusting for factors like instrument imperfections (aberrations, angle truncation), environmental conditions (humidity, temperature), or sample properties.
Regarding claim 9, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches The photometric apparatus according to claim 8.
Iman further teaches wherein an exposure time (length of a measurement period , [0040]) for obtaining the output value output from the light receiver in the state in which the light attenuation member is inserted and an exposure time for obtaining the output value output from the light receiver in the state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted, [0031, 0040].
But, Imai is silent about wherein an exposure time (length of a measurement period , [0040]) for obtaining the output value output from the light receiver in the state in which the light attenuation member is inserted is longer than an exposure time for obtaining the output value output from the light receiver in the state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted, However, since the operator such as input of the fluctuation cycle of the quantity of light to be measured and length of a measurement period , (Imai, 0040]) and Kubo teaches the exposure time is manually set by an operation unit, 506, [0204]. Accordingly, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time exposure (as taught by the modified device of Imai) with wherein an exposure time for obtaining the output value output from the light receiver in the state in which the light attenuation member is inserted is longer than an exposure time for obtaining the output value output from the light receiver in the state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted without deviating from the general teaching concept of the modified device of Imai since such a modification constitutes only a change of form, proportions, or degree, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A) in order to attain a particular design choice. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring time (as taught by the modified of Imai) with a specific measuring time exposure as result of routine optimization in order to decrease the saturation in the photodiode 128 is suppressed irrespective of the measurement time and the quantity of the light 604 to be measured, and the quantity of the light 604 to be measured can be properly measured, thus allowing to increase efficiency of the measurement process, [0049], Imai,) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 8.
Imai further teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 1 element 122) obtains the output value in a case where the output value output from the light receiver (Fig. 1 element 110) in the state in which the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 elements 104) is inserted in the light path and the output value output from the light receiver (Fig. 1 element 110) in the state in which the light attenuation member (Fig. 1 elements 104) is not inserted in the light path are within a predetermined range, [0031, 0052-0053].
Imai fail to teach wherein the controller obtains the correction coefficient.
However, Yamamoto further teaches wherein the controller obtains the correction coefficient, (the processor 102 determine the correction coefficient “output ratio” from the detected value P0 and P1, [0030, 0047]).
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 modified device of Imai by including wherein the controller obtains the correction coefficient, (as taught by Yamamoto) for several advantages such as: allowing to perform adjustment of the illumination mode of the device thus increasing the device accuracy, ([0047, Yamamoto). Additionally, allow for the removal or minimization of systematic errors and uncertainties, leading to more accurate data by adjusting for factors like instrument imperfections (aberrations, angle truncation), environmental conditions (humidity, temperature), or sample properties.
Regarding claim 11, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 7.
Even though Yamamoto teaches wherein the storage stores correction coefficients corresponding to an object to be measured, [0031, 0047], The modified device of Imai is silent about wherein the storage stores a plurality of correction coefficients corresponding to a plurality of objects to be measured.
However, since the modified device of Imai teaches wherein the storage stores correction coefficients corresponding to an object to be measured, ([0031, 0047], Yamamoto), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate storage correction coefficients corresponding to an object to be measured as the duplication “wherein the storage stores a plurality of correction coefficients corresponding to a plurality of objects to be measured”, is a matter of obviousness since it at most replicates’ elements/process taught by the modified device of Imai without altering the design, function, and/or mode of operation of the general teaching concept of the modified device of Imai. Therefore, such a duplication constitutes a design choice which has been held to be a matter of obviousness as stated in MPEP 2144.04 Section VI-B.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Kubo and Yamamoto and further in view of Nozawa et al. (US 2015/0103229 A1), hereafter Nozawa.
Regarding claim 12, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 6.
The modified device of Imai do not clearly teach wherein the physical property of the object to be measured is a reflectance of the object to be measured.
However, Nozawa related to optical measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the physical property of the object to be measured is a reflectance of the object to be measured, [0238].
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 Imai by including a corrector that corrects a difference between a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is inserted in the light path and a measured value calculated by the controller in a state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path (as taught by Kubo) for several advantages such as: obtaining the reflectance allows to generate multiple spectra images, perform comparisons between spectra and a probable film thickness can also be estimated thus increase the device efficiency, [0238], Nozawa).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Kubo and further in view of Ni et al. (US 2023/0030688 A1), hereafter Ni.
Regarding claim 20, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 19.
The modified device of Imai fail to teach wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a thin film filter.
However, Ni related to optical measuring apparatus and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a thin film filter, [0117-0118].
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 modified device of Imai by including wherein the wavelength-selective filter is a thin film filter, (as taught by Ni) for several advantages such as: using multiple thin layers allow to precisely control light, thus enable to selectively transmit, reflect, or block specific wavelengths in order to increase measurement accuracy.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Kubo and further in view of Takinami et al. (US 2017/0010273 A1), hereafter Takinami.
Regarding claim 21, Imai in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric apparatus according to claim 1.
The modified device of Imai is silent about wherein the light attenuation member includes a thin film filter.
However, Takinami related to optical measuring apparatus and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the light attenuation member includes a thin film filter, [0089].
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 modified device of Imai by including the light attenuation member includes a thin film filter, (as taught by Takinami) for several advantages such as: a reflective neutral density filter reduces intense light by reflecting it away, allowing to use longer shutter speeds in bright conditions, use wider apertures, control exposure in video, protect sensors from lasers, all without altering color, thus reduces laser intensity for protecting sensitive equipment or photometers without changing the light's quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A calibration system for calibrating the photometric apparatus according to claim 8, the calibration system comprising an information processing apparatus, wherein in a case where the correction coefficient according to claim 8 is defined as a first correction coefficient, the information processing apparatus requests the controller to obtain the first correction coefficient based on an instruction from a user, and further requests the controller to obtain a second correction coefficient based on a reference value of the object to be measured and an output value output from the light receiver when the light receiver receives light from the object to be measured in the state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 14 is directly/indirectly dependent on claim 13 and is allowable based on their dependencies.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A calibration system for calibrating the photometric apparatus according to claim 8, the calibration system comprising an information processing apparatus, wherein in a case where the correction coefficient according to claim 8 is defined as a first correction coefficient, the information processing apparatus has a mode in which, apart from processing of requesting, based on an instruction from a user, the controller to obtain the first correction coefficient, the information processing apparatus requests the controller to perform only processing of obtaining a second correction coefficient based on a reference value of the object to be measured and an output value output from the light receiver when the light receiver receives light from the object to be measured in the state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A calibration system for calibrating the photometric apparatus according to claim 8, the calibration system comprising an information processing apparatus, wherein in a case where the correction coefficient according to claim 8 is defined as a first correction coefficient, the information processing apparatus has a mode in which the information processing apparatus requests the controller to perform only processing of obtaining the first correction coefficient, apart from processing of requesting, based on an instruction from a user, the controller to obtain a second correction coefficient based on a reference value of the object to be measured and an output value output from the light receiver when the light receiver receives light from the object to be measured in the state in which the light attenuation member is not inserted in the light path.”, in the combination required by the claim.
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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877