DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 8/23/2024, in which claims 3-12 are currently pending. The Application is a Continuation of 17314553 , filed 05/07/2021, now abandoned; 17314553 is a Continuation of 16788602 , filed 02/12/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 11029509; 16788602 is a Continuation of 15819227 , filed 11/21/2017, now abandoned; 15819227 is a Continuation of 14025050 , filed 09/12/2013, now abandoned, and claims foreign priority to 2012-200218, filed 09/12/2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 8/23/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Gap control unit, order selection unit, processing control unit, detection unit, gap change portion in claims 3-12,
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 § 102
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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
7- The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8- Claims 3-5, 11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuno (PGPUB N. US 20110176128)
As to claim 3, Matsuno teaches an optical module (Abstract and Figs. 1-6) comprising: a first reflective film that transmits a first portion of incident light and reflects a second portion of the incident light; a second reflective film, disposed so as to face the first reflective film, that reflects a third portion of the incident light and transmits a fourth portion of the incident light (Fig. 2; films 53/54 of etalon 5 in Fig. 1 of which a first/second surfaces transmit/reflect light into the etalon, within the etalon and out of the etalon); and a gap control unit (unit 81/82 within control circuit section 8 and drive circuit 7) that changes a size of a gap between the first reflective film and the second reflective film (¶ 9, 21, 27), wherein the gap control unit controls the size of the gap in correspondence with a wavelength to be measured based on an order of a transmission spectrum which is set with respect to each of two or more wavelength region groups constituting a wavelength region to be measured (¶ 84-87, 98, 114-115, 124-129 for ex; the user that programs the gap control unit; equivalent to the “measurer” in the disclosed Specification), wherein a measurement wavelength region includes a first wavelength region and a second wavelength region having a longer wavelength than that of the first wavelength region, wherein m and n are different natural numbers, and m = n + 1, wherein the gap control unit controls the size of the gap using an m-th peak wavelength for light of the first wavelength region, and controls the size of the gap using an n-th peak wavelength for light of the second wavelength region; (claims 4-5) wherein the gap control unit controls the size of the gap using the m-th peak for the shortest wavelength belonging to the first wavelength region, and controls the size of the gap using the n-th peak for the second wavelength region; (claim 5) wherein the gap control unit includes an order selection unit, and wherein the order selection unit selects the m-th order for the shortest wavelength belonging to the first wavelength region, and selects the n-th order for the second wavelength region (Fig. 3 and ¶ 80 for ex.; each order corresponds to the diffraction order associated with a wavelength range centered at each respective l0, l 1, l2, l3 for ex.; and particularly selects a wavelength range rather than another from the wavelength l0, l 1, l2, l3; with for ex., if m=0 and corresponds to l0, n=0+1=1 that corresponds to l1. See also the rejection of the following limitation for the order of the wavelengths), and wherein the gap for extracting light having a shortest wavelength in the second wavelength region is larger than the gap for extracting light having a longest wavelength in the first wavelength region (Fig. 3 and ¶ 22, 80 for ex.; the shortest wavelength l3 in the first of the first region wavelength corresponding to gap g3 and its respective order, and any other wavelength l0, l 1, l2 as the second wavelength in its corresponding second region, gap and order).
(Claim 11) an electronic device comprising: The optical module according to claim 3 (see here above); and a processing control unit (440 and 406) that performs a predetermined process based on light extracted by the first reflective film and the second reflective film (Fig. 5 for ex.), and a detection unit (6 and its electronics and programs) that detects the light extracted by the first reflective film and the second reflective film (Fig. 1, ¶ 58, 143).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10- Claims 6-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno in view of Chang et al. (PGPUB No. 2008/0100827)
As to claims 6/7 and 8/9, Matsuno teaches the optical module according to claims 1 and 4.
Matsuno does not teach expressly further comprising a gap change portion that changes the size of the gap by applying a voltage, wherein the gap control unit includes a storage unit that stores V-l data in which a voltage applied to the gap change portion with respect to a wavelength to be measured is recorded for each wavelength to be measured, the V- l data is data in which the wavelength to be measured is associated with a voltage corresponding to the gap for extracting light of the wavelength to be measured as a peak wavelength of the set order, and the gap control unit applies the voltage, corresponding to the wavelength to be measured, from the V- l data to the gap change portion; (claims 8/9) further comprising a gap change portion that changes the size of the gap by applying a voltage, wherein the gap control unit includes a storage unit that stores V-X data in which a voltage applied to the gap change portion with respect to a wavelength to be measured is recorded for each wavelength to be measured, the V- l, data indicates a relationship between the wavelength to be measured and a voltage corresponding to the gap for extracting light of the wavelength to be measured as a peak wavelength of each order, and the gap control unit selects an order corresponding to the wavelength to be measured, and applies the voltage corresponding to the selected order to the gap change portion, even though Matsuno discloses data tables about gap controlling voltages, and their correspondingly wavelengths, indirectly (Figs. 4-5, ¶ 82-102, 114-116, 124-129).
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Chang teaches an optical module (Abstract) comprising: a first reflective film; a second reflective film that is disposed so as to face the first reflective film (Figs. 1 and 4 and ¶ 9 for ex.; tunable FP filter TFPF 402 with mirrors 102 and 104 with gap 106); a first electrode; Serial No.14/025,050 Page 8 of 17 a second electrode that is disposed so as to face the first electrode (¶ 51-52, the controller/analyzer 406), a gap between the first reflective film and the second reflective film changing by applying a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode (¶ 9, 52, tunable FP filters); and a detector (the system of detectors 434, 436 and 438); wherein the gap control unit includes stored V-l data in which a voltage applied to the actuator with respect to a wavelength to be measured is recorded for each wavelength to be measured, the V- l data including data in which the wavelength to be measured is associated with a voltage corresponding to the gap for extracting light of the wavelength to be measured as a peak wavelength of a set order, and the gap control unit applies the voltage, corresponding to the wavelength to be measured, from the V- l data to the actuator; wherein the gap control unit stores V- l data in which a voltage applied to the actuator with respect to a wavelength to be measured is recorded for each wavelength to be measured, the V- l data representing a relationship between the wavelength to be measured and a voltage corresponding to the gap for extracting light of the wavelength to be measured as a peak wavelength of each order, and the order selection unit selects an order corresponding to the wavelength to be measured, and the gap control unit applies the voltage corresponding to the selected order to the gap change portion (Figs. 4-5 and ¶ 81; the voltage-resonant wavelength, i.e. peak wavelength, relationship is established and depicted in the graph "input DAC-TFPF vs wavelength". Chang discloses clearly that it is known to be inherent and necessary to establish the V-l relationship as a control tool to set the piezo accordingly at given voltages corresponding to the resonant, i.e. peak order, wavelengths and correspondent gaps, to be selected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to use the module of Matsuno according to the teachings of Chang so that further comprising a gap change portion that changes the size of the gap by applying a voltage, wherein the gap control unit includes a storage unit that stores V-l data in which a voltage applied to the gap change portion with respect to a wavelength to be measured is recorded for each wavelength to be measured, the V- l data is data in which the wavelength to be measured is associated with a voltage corresponding to the gap for extracting light of the wavelength to be measured as a peak wavelength of the set order, and the gap control unit applies the voltage, corresponding to the wavelength to be measured, from the V- l data to the gap change portion; further comprising a gap change portion that changes the size of the gap by applying a voltage, wherein the gap control unit includes a storage unit that stores V- l data in which a voltage applied to the gap change portion with respect to a wavelength to be measured is recorded for each wavelength to be measured, the V- l, data indicates a relationship between the wavelength to be measured and a voltage corresponding to the gap for extracting light of the wavelength to be measured as a peak wavelength of each order, and the gap control unit selects an order corresponding to the wavelength to be measured, and applies the voltage corresponding to the selected order to the gap change portion, with the advantage of optimizing the device parameters in the measurement process.
As to claim 10, Matsuno teaches the optical module according to claim 5.
Moreover, Matsuno does not teach expressly wherein the gap control unit acquires the gap with respect to each of a plurality of the wavelengths to be measured included in the measurement wavelength region, and performs a sequential change to the acquired gap from a maximum value of the gap in a direction in which the gap is reduced.
Chang teaches the module wherein the gap control unit determines a size of the gap with respect to each of a plurality of the wavelengths to be measured included in the measurement wavelength region (¶ 55; the gap length value is continuously measured and tracked using optical module 416 and 418 of system 408); a processing control unit (440 and 406) that performs a spectroscopic analysis on the basis of light extracted by the first reflective film and the second reflective film (Figs. 4 and ¶ 57; ADC 440 and controller/analyzer 406; the outputs of the first, second, and third detection branches 442, 444, and 446 are respectively connected to the 440, which processes the outputs into digital form and forwards the respective data to the controller/analyzer, i.e. a spectroscopic analysis in the OSA 400 formed therein. ¶ 26, 50 and 52 for example).
The combination does not teach expressly that the control unit performs a sequential change to the determined gap from a maximum value of the gap in a direction in which the gap is reduced, which is interpreted as changing the gap length value from an initial max value towards a min value.
However, Chang teaches clearly, Fig. 5 and ¶ 81, 84, 86, the DAC circuit controls the cavity length, i.e. gap, in a sweeping mode to scan and tune over the different wavelength components, i.e. sequential change, which is obvious for one with skills in the art to set in an increasing or decreasing fashion as a mere engineering and/or design choice, as one sweeping direction has no clear advantage over the other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to use the module taught by Matsuno and Chang such that the gap control unit acquires the gap with respect to each of a plurality of the wavelengths to be measured included in the measurement wavelength region, and performs a sequential change to the acquired gap from a maximum value of the gap in a direction in which the gap is reduced with the advantage taught by Chang of providing a seamless scanning of the wavelength bands in a simplified, low cost and high performance system (¶ 84, 98).
11- Claim 12 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno and Chang in view of Mestha et al. (20060132787, cited by Applicants)
As to claim 12, Matsuno teaches the device according to claim 11.
Matsuno does not teach expressly wherein the processing control unit causes a transformation matrix for transforming a measurement spectrum into an optical spectrum to act on the measurement spectrum based on the amount of light of each wavelength to be measured which is detected by the detection unit, and estimates an optical spectrum of measurement light incident on the first reflective film and the second reflective film.
However, Chang teaches the processing control unit transforming a measurement spectrum into an optical spectrum to act on the measurement spectrum based on the amount of light of each wavelength to be measured which is detected by the detection unit, and estimates an optical spectrum of measurement light incident on the first reflective film and the second reflective film (Figs. 4 and ¶ 57; ADC 440 and controller/analyzer 406; the outputs of the first, second, and third detection branches 442, 444, and 446 are respectively connected to ADC 440, which processes the outputs, which are electric signals corresponding to the different intensities or amounts of light, into digital form and forwards the respective data, i.e. the measurement spectrum, to the controller/analyzer).
The combination does not teach expressly using a transformation matrix for transforming the optical spectrum into a measurement spectrum.
However, Mestha teaches, in ¶ 27-33, using matrix calculations to transform the optical measurements and amounts of light flux, measured by optoelectronic detectors, into voltages, i.e. electric spectral measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to use the module of Matsuno and Chang according to the teachings of Mestha and include using a transformation matrix for transforming an optical spectrum into a measurement spectrum, with the advantage taught by Mestha of optimizing the FP device parameters (¶ 26).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877