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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filled on 07/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 9-16 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim interpretation of 35 U.S.C § 112(f) of Claim 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection of 35 U.S.C § 112(b) of Claim 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-10, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection of 35 U.S.C § 103 of Claims 9-15 have been withdrawn.
In page 7 applicant argues that Ford is not analogous to the application since does not comprise specific elements as a capacitor, ignition switch, ignition voltage memory falling edge-trigger. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees since
Ford discloses a photometric immersion probe comprising a flashlight source configured to provide photometric light impulses and a control system to adjust and/or modify the operation parameters by sending signal to the assembly for operations, [0097].Therefore, even though Ford lack to teach (silent) these elements argues above, as a Phosita comprehend Ford is analogous to the application as it’s in the same field of endeavor of a photometric immersion probe comprising a flashlight source with controlling parameters by signals.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/10/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C § 103 to newly amended limitations in claim 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the term “much less than 1.0 V” in claim 9 and 13-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “much less than 1.0 V” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While Page 3 Lines 28-31 of the specification comprise the term “much less than 1.0 V”, the specification do not describe variations or preferable values for what “much less than” would refer to, these are not explicit definitions that clearly and positively limit the range of what “much less than 1.0 V” refers to or as to how proximate or what deviations from a stated proximity value could an object be located within for it to be considered “much less than 1.0 V”. For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “artificial structure” as any structure for estimating the geometrical shape.
Regarding Claims 10-15, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 9, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (US 2011/0108720 A1), hereafter Ford, in view of Lys et al. (US 2012/0235585 A1), hereafter Lys.
Regarding claim 16, Ford teaches a method for controlling a photometer flashlight source (Fig. 1 elements 10 + 30 and Fig. 2A element 40) of a photometric process measurement arrangement (Figs. 1 and 2A), [0039, 0041] comprising:
Even though ford teaches a photometer flashlight source (Fig. 2A element 40) configured to provide photometric light impulses, (“ tungsten halogen lamp” generate pulse train, [0046, 0053]) and a control circuitry (Fig. 2A element 130) that can trigger light source control circuitry (not shown) of the light source assembly 40, such as defining operational parameters for the flashlight source 40 and performing a specific set of operating parameters based on control signals, [0048, 0097], Ford is silent about charging an impulse energy capacitor until the actual capacitor's voltage reaches a charging target voltage value; stopping the charging action; and in a self-discharge phase of the impulse energy capacitor, in the moment when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals a memorized ignition voltage value, a falling-edge ignition trigger closing an impulse ignition switch to thereby initiate a photometric light impulse generated by the photometer flashlight source, wherein triggering occurs exclusively on the falling edge during self-discharge for precise voltage control and spectral stability.
However, Lys related to controlling a light source operation and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
charging an impulse energy capacitor (Fig. 2 C213) until the actual capacitor's voltage reaches a charging target voltage value, [0057];
stopping the charging action, (as shown in Figs. 3a-c); and
in a self-discharge phase of the impulse energy capacitor (C213), in the moment when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals a memorized ignition voltage value (as shown in Figs. 3a-c, [0058, 0062]);, a falling-edge ignition trigger closing an impulse ignition switch to thereby initiate a photometric light impulse generated by the photometer flashlight source, wherein triggering occurs exclusively on the falling edge during self-discharge, (the falling edge of the signal waveform of the rectified voltage Urect, the first capacitor C213 discharges through the second capacitor C214, and the digital input 218 is clamped to one diode drop below ground by the second diode D212. When a trailing edge is used, the falling edge of the signal waveform corresponds to the beginning of the chopped portion of the waveform. [0052, 0057]) for precise voltage control and spectral stability, Additionally the term "for precise voltage control and spectral stability" in the claim merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02)
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 Ford by including charging an impulse energy capacitor until the actual capacitor's voltage reaches a charging target voltage value; stopping the charging action; and in a self-discharge phase of the impulse energy capacitor, in the moment when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals a memorized ignition voltage value, a falling-edge ignition trigger closing an impulse ignition switch to thereby initiate a photometric light impulse generated by the photometer flashlight source, wherein triggering occurs exclusively on the falling edge during self-discharge for precise voltage control and spectral stability. (as taught by Lys) for several advantages such as: a resulting logic level digital pulse follows the movement of a rectified voltage, thus increase the device efficiency, (Lys et al. [0057]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A photometric process measurement arrangement with a photometric immersion probe, the photometric immersion probe comprising: a photometer flashlight source for providing photometric light impulses with a continuous spectrum; an impulse energy capacitor for storing the electric impulse energy and having an actual electric capacitor's voltage; an impulse ignition switch electrically arranged between the impulse energy capacitor and the photometer flashlight source; an ignition voltage memory memorizing an ignition voltage value; and a falling-edge ignition trigger which closes the impulse ignition switch in the moment exclusively during a self-discharge phase of the impulse energy capacitor when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals the memorized ignition voltage value, wherein the true ignition voltage is achieved with a maximum deviation of much less than 1.0 V from the memorized ignition voltage value for improved stability of the intensity spectrum of the light impulses.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 10-15 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 9 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Hirota et al. (US 2019/0257795 A1), discloses an impulse energy capacitor (Fig. 3 element 30) for storing the electric impulse energy, [0069] and having an actual electric capacitor's voltage, (as shown in Fig. 3); an impulse ignition switch (Fig. 3 element 38 “thyristors”, [0068]) electrically arranged between the impulse energy capacitor (Fig. 3 element 30) and the photometer flashlight source (Fig. 3 element 52), (as shown in Fig. 3, [0083]); an ignition voltage memory (Fig. 3 element 33, [0084]) memorizing an ignition voltage value, ( “reference voltage”,[0075]); and a falling-edge ignition trigger (Fig. 3 element 41, [0083]), However, Hirota fail to teach a falling-edge ignition trigger which closes the impulse ignition switch in the moment exclusively during a self-discharge phase of the impulse energy capacitor when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals the memorized ignition voltage value, wherein the true ignition voltage is achieved with a maximum deviation of much less than 1.0 V from the memorized ignition voltage value for improved stability of the intensity spectrum of the light impulses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ens et al. (US 4,618,230) discloses trigger the RST to interrupt and consequently the flashes produced by element 10. The signal from BNC jack 150 is fed into a National Semiconductor LM339 voltage comparator integrated circuit 246 having a threshold of 2.5 volts determined by a resistor divider. Increasing the input voltage over the 2.5-volt threshold causes the presentation of a falling edge to Motorola 4528 monostable multivibrator 248 which, in turn, produces a controlled pulse of about 10 milliseconds duration.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights