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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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, and 13-19 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 limitation “wherein the method is at least partially computer-implemented” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how the method is implemented using a computer. As currently written, claim 1 recites limitations directed to using an evaluation unit but fails to define a processor or computer that allows the method to be implemented using a computer. The claim fails to particularly point out how the method is partially computer implemented.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “photodetector is configured for performing the method for determining at least one compensated detector signal of at least one photodetector according to claim 1” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how the photodetector is able to perform all of claim 1. As currently written, claim 1 recites a limitation directed to the step of determining at least one compensated detector signal for compensating at least one temperature drift by using at least one evaluation unit. Claim 13 fails to define how the photodetector is able to perform the determination step that is performed by an evaluation unit. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out how the photodetector is able to perform all of the steps of claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the method comprising using the method for a purpose of use selected from the group consisting of:” renders the claim indefinite. As currently written, the claim fails to define which method is being used because two methods are recited. The claim recites “the method” without defining which method is being referred to. Further, the claim fails to define how the method is being used. As currently written, the claim fails to recite limitations directed to steps for the method being used for each purpose. The claim is not a proper method claim due to not reciting steps that are involved in the method. See MPEP 2173.05(q). The claim fails to particularly point out what subject matter is considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the photodetector is configured for performing the method for determining at least one item of measurement information on at least one measurement object according to claim 11” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how to perform the method steps of claim 11. Claim 11 recites limitations directed to “providing optical radiation” and “determining at least one item of measurement information”. As currently written, the claim fails to define how the photodetector is capable of providing optical radiation and determining measurement information. The specification discloses that a radiation emitting element emits optical radiation in [0082] and discloses that an evaluation unit performs the determination. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out the subject matter that is considered the invention. Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “using the spectrometer for a purpose of use selected from the group consisting of” renders the claim indefinite because limitations directed to how the spectrometer is used. As currently written, the claim fails to recite active positive steps directed to using the spectrometer. The claim is not a proper method claim. See MPEP 2173.05(q). The claim fails to particularly point out what subject matter is considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “using the spectrometer for a purpose of use selected from the group consisting of” renders the claim indefinite because limitations directed to how the spectrometer is used. As currently written, the claim fails to recite active positive steps directed to using the spectrometer. The claim is not a proper method claim. See MPEP 2173.05(q). The claim fails to particularly point out what subject matter is considered part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15, 18, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are not proper method claims. The claims recite limitations directed to “using” but fail to recite any active, positive steps that delimit how the use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feuerstein (WO 2021/069544).
Regarding claim 12:
Feuerstein discloses a non-transient computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least one of:
- determine at least one compensated detector signal for compensating at least one temperature drift of the at least one detector element by using at least one evaluation unit for evaluating the at least one dark sensor resistance and the at least one bright detector signal; or
- determine at least one item of measurement information on the at least one measurement object by using the at least one compensated detector signal (pg. 22, lines 4-40, responsivity estimated based on dark resistance).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, and 10-11 are allowable.
9, 13-14, 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
15, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Feuerstein (WO 2021/069544).
Regarding claim 1:
Feuerstein discloses a method for determining at least one compensated detector signal for at least one photodetector, wherein the at least one photodetector comprises at least one detector element configured for generating at least one detector signal depending on an illumination of the at least one detector element, wherein the at least one detector element is configured as a photoconductor, the method comprising the following steps:
a) determining at least one dark detector resistance by using the at least one detector element and inhibiting illumination of the at least one detector element (Pg. 20, lines 11-35, dark resistance);
b) generating at least one bright detector signal by using the at least one detector element and allowing illumination of the at least one detector element (Pg. 18, lines 26-35, bright resistance); and
c) determining at least one compensated detector signal for compensating at least one temperature drift of the at least one detector element by using at least one evaluation unit for evaluating the at least one dark sensor resistance and the at least one bright detector signal (Pg. 19, lines 4-41).
However, Feuerstein fails to disclose wherein in step c) the at least one compensated detector signal is determined by using Equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
41
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Scomp(T0,λ) refers to the compensated detector signal at a first temperature T0 of the at least one detector element, wherein λ refers to a wavelength of optical radiation illuminating the at least one detector element, wherein S(T0+ΔT, λ) refers to a bright detector signal at a second temperature T0+ΔT of the at least one detector element, wherein ΔT refers to a temperature change of the at least one detector element, wherein a temperature change ΔT is determined by measuring the at least one dark detector resistance RD of the at least one detector element, wherein α(T0,λ) refers to a resistive responsivity of the at least one detector element at the first temperature T0 of the at least one detector element, wherein Γ is defined as
PNG
media_image2.png
41
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein γα refers to a predetermined resistive responsivity coefficient of the at least one detector element, and wherein γR refers to a predetermined dark resistance coefficient of the at least one detector element.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-11, and 13-19 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights