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 use the word “means,” and are 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 emission means in claims 1 and 10
Measurement means in claims 1, 2 and 10
Light reflection means in claims 1, 10 and 11
Computing means in claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
Light blocking means in claim 5
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US20220091034A1) in view of Liu (US20070201788A1) and Kohl (US5825488A).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches An optical characteristic value measuring device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a light emission means configured to emit a light from a surface to an inside of an object (21, Fig. 1);
a measurement means (25 and 32, Fig. 1) configured to measure an intensity of the light reflected at the inside and emitted to an outside of the object; and a computing means (4, Fig. 1) configured to calculate an absorption coefficient and a scattering coefficient of the object based on the intensity obtained by the measurement means (paragraph [0007]).
Sato fails to teach the light is reflected to at least two points on the surface mutually different in distance from the light emission means; and
a light reflection means that is placed to cover the surface between the light emission means and the measurement means and is configured to increase a reflectance of the light emitted from the inside to the outside.
However, in the same field of endeavor of scattering and absorption measurement of tissue, Liu teaches a measurement means (40, Fig. 1) with three detection sites (34, 36, and 38, Fig. 1) at mutually different distances (shown by D1, D2, and D3 in Fig. 1).
The use of multiple measurement means at different distances from the light emission means allows for different layers of the object to be measured (Liu: paragraph [0038]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato with the multiple measurement points taught in Liu in order to fully measure all layers of the object.
Sato as modified by Liu fails to teach a light reflection means that is placed to cover the surface between the light emission means and the measurement means and is configured to increase a reflectance of the light emitted from the inside to the outside.
However, in the same field of endeavor of reflectance measurements used to calculate scattering and absorption, Kohl teaches a light reflection means (intermediate areas with metallically reflective film (column 6, lines 45-50) which covers the area between the emission and measurement points (reflection means correspond to 25a and 25b in Fig. 3) in order to increase the reflectance (column 4, lines 59-62 discloses a highly reflective surface).
Manipulating the reflectance of the light through a light reflection means allows for the influences of scattering and absorption to be separated (Kohl: column 3, lines 18-24), which allows uncomplicated methods to be used to evaluate the scattering and absorption coefficients (Kohl: column 3, lines 42-47). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato as modified by Liu with the light reflection means taught in Kohl in order to simplify the calculation of scattering and absorption coefficients.
Regarding claim 2, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the measurement means is configured to measure the intensity of the light reflected at the inside and emitted to the outside of the object at three points on the surface mutually different in distance from the light emission means (Liu: three detection sites: 34, 36 and 38 shown in Fig. 1).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato with the multiple measurement points taught in Liu in order to fully measure all layers of the object.
Regarding claim 3, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches an internal reflectance of the light reflection means is variable (Kohl: column 6, lines 1-3).
As discussed above, the variable light reflection means allows simple methods of calculating scattering and absorption coefficients to be used. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato as modified by Liu with the light reflection means taught in Kohl in order to simplify the calculation of scattering and absorption coefficients.
Regarding claim 6, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the computing means is configured to calculate a diffuse reflectance at the object of the light by a Monte Carlo method simulation to calculate the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the computing means is configured to calculate a diffuse reflectance at the object of the light as a solution of a light diffusion equation to calculate the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the computing means is configured to calculate a diffuse reflectance at the object of the light as a solution of a light transport equation to calculate the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Sato teaches An optical characteristic value measuring method in an optical characteristic value measuring device (paragraph [0034]), the method comprising:
a first step of emitting the light from the surface to the inside (part of S1, Fig. 3);
a second step of measuring the intensity of the light reflected at the inside and emitted to the outside of the object at at least two points on the surface (S1, Fig. 3); and
a third step of calculating an absorption coefficient and a scattering coefficient of the object based on the intensity obtained by the measurement in the second step (S4, Fig. 3).
Sato fails to teach a light reflection means is placed between an emission position of a light from a surface to an inside of an object and a measurement position at which an intensity of the light reflected at the inside and emitted to an outside of the object is measured and the light reflection means is configured to increase a reflectance of the light emitted from the inside to the outside covers the surface and the two points on the surface having mutually different in distance from the emission position.
However, However, Liu teaches a measurement means (40, Fig. 1) with three detection sites (34, 36, and 38, Fig. 1) at mutually different distances (shown by D1, D2, and D3 in Fig. 1).
The use of multiple measurement means at different distances from the light emission means allows for different layers of the object to be measured (Liu: paragraph [0038]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato as modified by Kohl with the multiple measurement points taught in Liu in order to fully measure all layers of the object.
Sato as modified by Kohl fails to teach a light reflection means is placed between an emission position of a light from a surface to an inside of an object and a measurement position at which an intensity of the light reflected at the inside and emitted to an outside of the object is measured and the light reflection means is configured to increase a reflectance of the light emitted from the inside to the outside covers the surface.
However, Kohl teaches a light reflection means (intermediate areas with metallically reflective film (column 6, lines 45-50) which cover the area between the emission and measurement points (reflection means correspond to 25a and 25b in Fig. 3) in order to increase the reflectance (column 4, lines 59-62 discloses a highly reflective surface).
Manipulating the reflectance of the light through a light reflection means allows for the influences of scattering and absorption to be separated (Kohl: column 3, lines 18-24), which allows uncomplicated methods to be used to evaluate the scattering and absorption coefficients (Kohl: column 3, lines 42-47). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato with the light reflection means taught in Kohl in order to simplify the calculation of scattering and absorption coefficients.
Regarding claim 12, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches in the third step, a diffuse reflectance at the object of the light is calculated by a Monte Carlo method simulation to calculate the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches in the third step, a diffuse reflectance at the object of the light is calculated as a solution of a light diffusion equation to calculate the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches in the third step, a diffuse reflectance at the object of the light is calculated as a solution of a light transport equation to calculate the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0045]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US20220091034A1) in view of Liu (US20070201788A1) and Kohl (US5825488A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Guo ("Fast electro-optical mode in photo-aligned reflective deformed helix ferroelectric liquid crystal cells," Opt. Lett. 37, 2343-2345 (2012)).
Regarding claim 4, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the internal reflectance is periodically modulated.
However, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl discloses the light reflection means may be an lcd or a ferroelectric display, with variable reflection properties (Kohl: column 6, lines 9-16).
In the same field of endeavor of ferroelectric liquid crystal reflectors, Guo teaches a light reflecting means (a liquid crystal cell) which is periodically modulated (eq. 3 represents the intensity of the reflected light, which discloses a sinusoidal modulation; page 1, column 1, paragraph 2 discloses the modulation of the liquid crystal).
Kohl discloses the use of modulated light to remove interference of the measurements (column 5, lines 40-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying the periodically modulated reflection light taught in Guo to the variable light reflection means of Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl based on the disclosure of the advantage of modulation by Kohl. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the variable light reflection means of Liu as modified by Kohl with the periodically modulated reflection means of Guo in order to remove interference in the measurements of the reflection light.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US20220091034A1) in view of Liu (US20070201788A1), Kohl (US5825488A) and Guo ("Fast electro-optical mode in photo-aligned reflective deformed helix ferroelectric liquid crystal cells," Opt. Lett. 37, 2343-2345 (2012)) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ramsteiner (US20140213860A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a light blocking means disposed between the object and the light reflection means to avoid a light piping that occurs at a boundary between the object and the light reflection means.
However, in the same field of endeavor of absorption calculation of biological material, Ramsteiner teaches a device with a light blocking layer (112, Fig. 5; paragraph [0023] discloses this layer as an absorbing layer) between the object being measured (111, Fig. 5) and a light reflecting layer (52, Fig. 5; paragraph [0035] discloses this layer is reflective for the reflected light). Ramsteiner does not disclose this layer is used to avoid light piping, however it is the position of the examiner that the avoidance of the light piping effect is simply a result of the placement of the light blocking layer.
Absorption can be difficult to measure in the presence of strong scattering (Ramsteiner: paragraph [0003]). The device, including the layer placement, of Ramsteiner enables the detection of different parameters despite absorption strength (Ramsteiner: paragraph [0007]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl with the light blocking layer taught in Ramsteiner in order to take measurements despite the weakness of absorption measurements of the material.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US20220091034A1) in view of Liu (US20070201788A1) and Kohl (US5825488A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Durian ("Photon migration at short times and distances and in cases of strong absorption," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 235-245 (1997)).
Regarding claim 7, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches calculating the absorption and scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0007]) from diffuse reflectance through multiple calculation methods (Sato: paragraph [0045]), but fails to a telegraph equation as one of those calculation methods.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical diffusion measurements, Durian teaches the use of diffuse reflectance (eq. 5.14 and section 5, subsection C) as a solution for a telegrapher's equation (eq. 3.14 and section 3).
Liu discloses that simpler models for light transport lead to significant errors, especially in non-homogeneous media (paragraph [0007]). Durian discloses the telegraph equation is a simpler model computationally than other models (page 236, column 2, paragraph 1) but is still accurate for non-homogenous (anisotropic) situations (page 236, column 2, paragraph 2). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the computing means of Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl with the telegraph equation taught in Durian as it is a simpler model, without sacrificing accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches calculating the absorption and scattering coefficient (Sato: paragraph [0007]) from diffuse reflectance through multiple methods (Sato: paragraph [0045]), but fails to a telegraph equation as one of those methods.
However, Durian teaches the use of diffuse reflectance (eq. 5.14 and section 5, subsection C) as a solution for a telegrapher's equation (eq. 3.14 and section 3).
Liu discloses that simpler models for light transport lead to significant errors, especially in non-homogeneous media (paragraph [0007]). Durian discloses the telegraph equation is a simpler model computationally than other models (page 236, column 2, paragraph 1) but is still accurate for non-homogenous (anisotropic) situations (page 236, column 2, paragraph 2). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the computing means of Sato as modified by Liu and Kohl with the telegraph equation taught in Durian as it is a simpler model, without sacrificing accuracy.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20070201788A1) in view of Kohl (US5825488A).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches an optical characteristic value measuring device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a measurement means that is disposed on a surface of an object (the optical fibers, 34, 36 and 38 in Fig. 1) and is configured to measure an intensity of a light emitted from an inside to an outside of the object (paragraph [0048]);
a light emission means (30, Fig. 1) configured to selectively emit the light from the surface to the inside (paragraph [0025]) at at least three points on the surface (34, 36, and 38) mutually different in distance from the measurement means (represented as D1, D2 and D3 in Fig. 1); and
a computing means (paragraph [0010] discloses calculations are done. The examiner is interpreting this to mean there is a computing means of some sort) configured to calculate an absorption coefficient and a scattering coefficient (paragraph [0039]) of the object based on the intensity obtained by the measurement means (paragraph [0048]).
Liu fails to teach a light reflection means that is placed to cover the surface between the light emission means and the measurement means and is configured to increase a reflectance of the light emitted from the inside to the outside.
However, Kohl teaches a light reflection means (intermediate areas with metallically reflective film (column 6, lines 45-50) which cover the area between the emission and measurement points (reflection means correspond to 25a and 25b in Fig. 3) in order to increase the reflectance (column 4, lines 59-62 discloses a highly reflective surface).
Manipulating the reflectance of the light through a light reflection means allows for the influences of scattering and absorption to be separated (Kohl: column 3, lines 18-24), which allows uncomplicated methods to be used to evaluate the scattering and absorption coefficients (Kohl: column 3, lines 42-47). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Liu with the light reflection means taught in Kohl in order to simplify the calculation of scattering and absorption coefficients.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877