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: “flashing source for providing”, in claim 9.
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 § 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.
Regarding Claim 13, line 4, the claims cited the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
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 9-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (US 2011/0108720 A1), hereafter Ford, in view of In view of Hirota et al. (US 2019/0257795 A1), hereafter Hirota.
Regarding claims 9-10, Ford teaches a photometric process measurement arrangement (Figs. 1 and 2A) and method with a photometric immersion probe (Fig. 1 elements 10 + 30), [0039, 0041] the photometric immersion probe comprising:
a photometer flashlight source (Fig. 2A element 40) for providing photometric light impulses with a continuous spectrum, (“ tungsten halogen lamp” generate pulse train, [0046, 0053]);
Ford teaches 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 light source assembly 40 and performing a specific set of operating parameters, [0048, 0097].
Ford is silent about 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 when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals the memorized ignition voltage value, (claim 10) wherein the photometric immersion probe comprises a voltage comparator comparing the actual electric capacitor's voltage with the memorized ignition voltage value.
However, Hirota related to optical measuring device with light source manipulation and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches 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 “thyristor”, [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]) which closes the impulse ignition switch in the moment when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals the memorized ignition voltage value, (element 41 closes element 38 in the moment the voltage is equals at the reference voltage as shown in Fig. 4, [0084-0085]),
(claim 10) wherein the photometric immersion probe comprises a voltage comparator (Fig. 3 element 34 + 35, [0074]) comparing the actual electric capacitor's voltage (Fig. 3 element 30) with the memorized ignition voltage value, (Fig. 3 elements 34 35 interact with element 33 to compare the actual voltage of element 30 with the reference voltage, [0075-0076]).
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 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 when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals the memorized ignition voltage value, wherein the photometric immersion probe comprises a voltage comparator comparing the actual electric capacitor's voltage with the memorized ignition voltage value, (as taught by Hirota) for several advantages such as: the device is capable of appropriately detecting a single failure state such as in a state in which one voltage dividing circuit fails allowing to prevent an operation in the single failure state from continuing, thus increase the device’s efficiency, ([0011, 0087], Hirota).
Regarding claim 13, Ford in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric process measurement arrangement of claim 9.
Ford further teaches wherein a land-based control unit (Fig. 1 element 28) for controlling the photometric immersion probe (Fig. 1 elements 10 + 30), is provided, [0043].
Even though Ford teaches whereas the land-based control unit (28) provides a supply voltage for the photometric immersion probe, [0043], is silent about a voltage of less than 100 V, preferably of less than 60 V, (Additionally, the limitations tied to the phrase “preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention as explained above in Section 112(b)).
However, since the device of Ford comprises the land-based control unit (28) that provides a supply voltage for the photometric immersion probe (30 + 10), [0043], A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the land-based control unit (28) performs a known function of providing a voltage and it would have been predictable to apply a voltage less than a specific voltage depending on the device requirements.
Therefore, it would be “obvious to try” to apply a voltage of less than 100 V using the same or modified land-based control unit, as this achieves the predictable result of operating the device within a lower, expected, or optimized power range, as routine optimization in order to improve efficiency as part of the process of adjusting performance to meet a specific design requirement, allowing to reduced amount of current for safety, preventing overheating and reducing power usage, thus increasing the device efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Ford in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric process measurement arrangement of claim 9.
Ford further teaches wherein the photometer flashlight source is a high voltage xenon lamp, [0046].
Regarding claim 15, Ford in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric process measurement arrangement of claim 9.
Ford further teaches wherein the photometric immersion probe is provided with a photometric detector arrangement (Fig. 9, [0072]) comprising at least two wavelength-selective detection elements, (Fig. 9 elements 116, [0061, 0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Ford teaches a method for controlling a photometer flashlight source (Figs. 1 and 2A) of a photometric process measurement arrangement, [0039, 0041]
a photometer flashlight source (Fig. 2A element 40).
Ford fail to teach charging an impulse energy capacitor until the actual capacitor's voltage reaches a charging target voltage value; stopping the charging action; and 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.
However, Hirota related to optical measuring device with light source manipulation and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches charging an impulse energy capacitor (Fig. 3 element 30, [0069]) until the actual capacitor's voltage reaches a charging target voltage value, (as shown in Fig. 3); stopping the charging action, (element 41 closes element 38 in the moment the voltage is equals at the reference voltage as shown in Fig. 4, [0084-0085]),; and in the moment when the falling actual electric capacitor's voltage equals a memorized ignition voltage value (“reference voltage”,[0075]), (Fig. 3 elements 34 + 35 interact with element 33 to compare the actual voltage of element 30 with the reference voltage, [0075-0076]).; a falling-edge ignition trigger (Fig. 3 element 41, [0083]) closing an impulse ignition switch (Fig. 3 element 38 “thyristor”, [0068]) to thereby initiate a photometric light impulse generated by the photometer flashlight source (Fig. 3 element 52), [0083].
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 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 (as taught by Hirota) for several advantages such as: the device is capable of appropriately detecting a single failure state such as in a state in which one voltage dividing circuit fails, allowing to prevent an operation in the single failure state from continuing, thus increase the device’s efficiency, ([0011, 0087], Hirota).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (US 2011/0108720 A1), hereafter Ford, in view of In view of Hirota et al. (US 2019/0257795 A1), hereafter Hirota, in further view of Voutilainen et al. (US 2012/0161731 A1), hereafter Voutilainen.
Regarding claims 11-12, Ford in the combination outlined above teaches the photometric process measurement arrangement of claim 9.
Ford further teaches: (claim 11) wherein the photometric immersion probe (Fig. 1 elements 10 + 30), comprises a charge control (Fig. 10 element 140), and an electronic flyback-converter (Fig. 10 element 144, [0079]).
Ford fail to teach:
(claim 11) wherein the photometric immersion probe comprises a charge control a target charge voltage memory memorizing a charging target voltage value being higher than the memorized ignition voltage value, and an electronic flyback-converter for successively electrically charging the impulse energy capacitor with numerous charging voltage, each charging voltage being a fraction of the charging target voltage value, whereas the charge controller stops the charging action when the actual capacitor's voltage reaches the charging target voltage value.
(claim 12) wherein the difference between the memorized ignition voltage value and the memorized charging target voltage value is higher than the voltage of one charging voltage.
Hirota further teaches:
(claim 11) wherein the photometric immersion probe (Fig. 1 elements 10) comprises a charge control (Fig. 1 element 59) a target charge voltage memory memorizing a charging target voltage value (Fig. 3 element 34, [0071]) being higher than the memorized ignition voltage value (“reference voltage”, [0075]) , and an electronic flyback-converter (Fig. 3 element 36) for successively electrically charging the impulse energy capacitor with numerous charging voltage (Fig. 3 element 30, [0074, 0076]), each charging voltage being a fraction of the charging target voltage value, [0076-0077], whereas the charge controller (Fig. 3 element 59, [0078]) stops the charging action when the actual capacitor's (30) voltage reaches the charging target voltage value, [0076-0077].
(claim 12) wherein the difference between the memorized ignition voltage value and the memorized charging target voltage value is higher than the voltage of one charging voltage, [0076-0077].
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 Ford by including wherein the photometric immersion probe comprises a charge control a target charge voltage memory memorizing a charging target voltage value being higher than the memorized ignition voltage value and an electronic flyback-converter for successively electrically charging the impulse energy capacitor with numerous charging voltage, each charging voltage being a fraction of the charging target voltage value, whereas the charge controller stops the charging action when the actual capacitor's voltage reaches the charging target voltage value, wherein the difference between the memorized ignition voltage value and the memorized charging target voltage value is higher than the voltage of one charging voltage, (as taught by Hirota) for several advantages such as: the device is capable of appropriately detecting a single failure state such as in a state in which one voltage dividing circuit fails allowing to prevent an operation in the single failure state from continuing, thus increase the device’s efficiency, ([0011, 0087], Hirota)., ([0011], Hirota).
Ford in view of Hirota still lack to teach (claims 11-12) charging the energy capacitor with numerous charging voltage quantums,
Voutilainen related to devices that control electric signal and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches (claims 11-12) charging the energy capacitor ( Fig. 10 element C1 , C2 graphene capacitor) with numerous charging voltage quantums, [0115, 0134].
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 Ford by including charging the energy capacitor with numerous charging voltage quantums (as taught by Voutilainen) for several advantages such as: the capacitance of graphene capacitors actually varies in relation to the voltage to the graphene capacitor in question, which allows for enhanced smoothing of the output signaling, thus increase the device efficiency and accuracy, ([0060], Voutilainen).
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