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 .
Detailed Action
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 7-12 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.
In Claim 1, applicant has claimed “a measurement cycle control for adapting the total number of integrated cycle impulses of an impulse integration cycle to the impulse intensity of the single electric impulses”. However, from the language it isn’t clear what “integrated cycle impulses of an impulse integration cycle to the impulse intensity” means. It’s not clear what an integrated cycle impulse is, what an impulse integration cycle is, nor how one is adapting the total number of integrated cycle impulses. Thus, the limitation is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al (PGPub 2011/0108720) (Ford) in view of Kurchuk et al ("Signal-Dependent Variable-Resolution Clockless A/D Conversion With Application to Continuous-Time Digital Signal Processing," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 982-991, May 2010, doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2010.2043987) (Kurchuk).
Regarding Claims 7 & 11, Ford discloses a photometric process measurement arrangement, comprising:
a photometric immersion probe (30), the photometric immersion probe comprising a photometer flashlight source (40) for providing photometric light impulses (Paragraph 46);
a photometric detector arrangement (Fig. 9A) comprising a wavelength-selective detection element (116, Paragraph 72); and
a photometer control controlling (130, Paragraph 82) the photometer flashlight source and the detector arrangement, the photometer control comprising:
impulse signal integrators for integrating the electric impulses having the impulse intensity generated by the detection element of one impulse integration cycle (Paragraph 104). As the paragraph alludes to the detectors have to integrate the detected pulses into electric signals they output;
a measurement cycle control for adapting the total number of integrated cycle impulses of an impulse integration cycle to the impulse intensity of the single electric impulses (Paragraph 103);
A/D-converters (Fig. 10, 144) for converting the voltage of the impulse signal integrator in a compulsory A/D conversion interval after the impulse integration cycle (Paragraph 79);
a flashlight driving module (130) for controlling an impulse ignition switch triggering the photometer flashlight source during the impulse integration cycle (Paragraph 48); and
Ford fails to explicitly disclose an A/D-conversion management module for balancing the total number of A/D conversion intervals within a time frame, wherein the A/D conversion management module provides optional supplementary A/D conversion intervals after the compulsory A/D conversion interval depending on the length of the corresponding impulse integration cycle, so that a long impulse integration cycle is followed by more supplementary A/D conversion intervals than a short impulse integration cycle;
However, Kurchuk discloses a signal-dependent variable-resolution clockless A/D conversion method, comprising: an A/D-conversion management module for balancing the total number of A/D conversion intervals within a time frame, wherein the A/D conversion management module provides optional supplementary A/D conversion intervals after the compulsory A/D conversion interval depending on the length of the corresponding impulse integration cycle, so that a long impulse integration cycle is followed by more supplementary A/D conversion intervals than a short impulse integration cycle (Page 982, Right Column, & Page 986, Section A. Overview of the CT DSP, Figs. 111-13);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ford with an A/D-conversion management module for balancing the total number of A/D conversion intervals within a time frame, wherein the A/D conversion management module provides optional supplementary A/D conversion intervals after the compulsory A/D conversion interval depending on the length of the corresponding impulse integration cycle, so that a long impulse integration cycle is followed by more supplementary A/D conversion intervals than a short impulse integration cycle because such a method allows for lower power dissipation without performance degradation
The method of Claim 11 is also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claim 8, Ford as modified by Kurchuk discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose wherein the total number of A/D conversion intervals within the timeframe for all possible lengths of impulse integration cycles is within a range of 50% to 100% of the maximum possible total number of A/D conversion intervals within the timeframe;
However, Kurchuk discloses adjust the total number of A/D conversion intervals.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use or combine Kurchuk in the range as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 9 & 12, Ford as modified by Kurchuk discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement cycle control comprises a cycle pattern table memory memorizing different cycle pattern with predefined impulse integration cycles and a related predefined number of compulsory and supplementary A/D conversion intervals; and wherein the measurement cycle control selects a cycle pattern from the cycle pattern table memory dependent on the impulse intensity of the current impulse integration cycle;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ford as modified by Kurchuk with wherein the measurement cycle control comprises a cycle pattern table memory memorizing different cycle pattern with predefined impulse integration cycles and a related predefined number of compulsory and supplementary A/D conversion intervals; and wherein the measurement cycle control selects a cycle pattern from the cycle pattern table memory dependent on the impulse intensity of the current impulse integration cycle because a look-up table detailing the number of A/D conversion intervals to run with each integration time length would be functionally equivalent to the method of Kurchuk and look-up tables have the advantages as require little to no processing overhead and are fast to use.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Kurchuk and further in view of Duncan et al (US PAT 5,677,532) (Duncan).
Regarding Claim 10, Ford as modified by Kurchuk discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement cycle control adapts the total number of integrated cycle impulses of an impulse integration cycle so that a predefined integration target voltage value is reached, whereas the integration target voltage value is at least 20% below the saturation voltage of the impulse signal integrators;
However, Duncan discloses a spectral imaging method, comprising:
wherein the measurement cycle control adapts the total number of integrated cycle impulses of an impulse integration cycle so that a predefined integration target voltage value is reached, whereas the integration target voltage value is at least 20% below the saturation voltage of the impulse signal integrators (Column 8, lines 16-36) Speeding up or slowing down integration duration will also affect the total number of cycles;
Further, Duncan discloses adjusting the number of the integrated cycles based upon the saturation voltage.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use or combine Duncan in the range as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ford as modified by Kurchuk with wherein the measurement cycle control adapts the total number of integrated cycle impulses of an impulse integration cycle so that a predefined integration target voltage value is reached, whereas the integration target voltage value is at least 20% below the saturation voltage of the impulse signal integrators because avoiding reaching saturation voltage in ones detectors prevents the signal from being noisy thus improving the detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 10, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877