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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 8 as found in Fig. 2, element 30 as found in Fig. 3, and element 37 as found in Fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: collimating lens 33 as found in paragraph 0090 with regard to Fig. 3. Additionally, while present in Fig. 3, Fig. 6 fails to include element 14 as discussed in paragraph 0118. Finally, light blocking device 17 found in paragraph 0120 with regard to Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "38" and "23" have both been used to designate the detector of the transmission measurement channel (see Fig. 3 for element 38 and Fig. 4 for element 23). Additionally, element 18 has been used for a lens that occulter 47 is placed just in front of, in addition to an optical system of lenses 18 and 19 in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the light blocking device of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The examiner notes repeated use of idiomatic English throughout the instant specification. However, beyond the specific instances pointed out below, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0092, the specification states that the ratio of beam splitter 10 can be 50/50. However, paragraph 0094 states that the ratio of beam splitter 10 can also be 90/10, but paragraph 0094 appears to describe beam splitter 9 instead of beam splitter 10.
In paragraph 0096, the specification states that “part of it is transmitted on transmission measurement channel 5”, but the specification fails to say what “it” is here.
In a continuation of the above drawing objection, paragraph 0096 calls the detector in measurement channel 5 element 38 (as seen in Fig. 3), but paragraphs 0099 and 0100 call the detector element 23 (as seen in Fig. 4). Only a single element number may be used for this detector, and the specification (and drawings, as set forth above) needs to be amended accordingly.
In a continuation of the above drawing objection, paragraph 0120 calls two different lenses element 18, one of them placed near occulter 47 and the other being part of an optical system with lens 19. The element numbering here needs to be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 26, in line 12 of the claim, the word “When” should be amended to read “when”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“A guide assembly, configured to guide the collimated optical beam from the emission source to the measurement channels through the sampling volume” in claims 16 and 18-27.
“An absorbing element configured to absorb the optical beam . . .” in claims 19-20.
“A light-blocking device arranged in the focal plane of the scattering objective lens” in claim 24.
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.
Claims 24 and 28-30 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.
Claim limitation “a light-blocking device” as found in claim 24 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “a light-blocking device” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the examiner turns to the specification to ascertain the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function of “light-blocking”. However, no structure can be found in the specification. Indeed, the specification only refers to a light-blocking device using the term used in the claim – “the light-blocking device” (see paragraphs 0120 and 0122). There are no details as to what the light-blocking device is, and the light-blocking device, while given element number 17, is not produced in the drawings to give one having ordinary skill in the art an idea as to what kind of structure makes up the light-blocking device. Is it a shutter? An aperture or pinhole? A solid sheet? Some other element capable of blocking light? Without answers to these questions, the written description does not meet the requirement for disclosing sufficient structure to perform the entire function for the 112(f) limitation, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 28, line 2 of the claim recites “comprising at least one iteration consisting in carrying out”. However, this phrase is unclear, as it cannot be determined what “consisting in carrying out” means in this case. Should this say “consisting of carrying out”? Or some other variation that shows what the one iteration of the method comprises?
Regarding claim 28, the claim appears to recite what are intended to be steps of a method using nouns to describe the method rather than using verbs to actively perform the method. Nonlimiting examples include “emission of a collimated optical beam”; “a measurement of a reference optical intensity”; and “a measurement of an optical intensity”. It is unclear if these steps are positively recited steps that must be performed as part of the claimed method as a result.
For the above issue, the examiner recommends using a claiming format similar to what is found in the method claims of US 2009/0103085.
Further regarding claim 28, the claim recites, in the last clause of the claim, “a check of the measurements carried out concomitantly”. However, it is unclear what is meant by “check” in this limitation. As a check is generally defined to be an inspection for verification, does this phrasing mean that a check is performed to ensure that the measurements are carried out concomitantly as suggested by paragraph 0064 of the instant specification? Or does “check” here refer to some other potential process, such as stopping the process as could be read from a different definition of the word “check”. Clarification is required.
Further regarding claim 28, the claim recites, in the last clause of the claim, “a check of the measurements carried out concomitantly”. However, as an extension of the rejection above, it is unclear whether this “check” is performed concomitantly, or if the measurements themselves that are found earlier in the claim are all performed concomitantly. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation with the measurements being carried out concomitantly.
Claim 29 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 28, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation the sampling volume is a cloudy environment, and the claim also recites in particular an ice-phase cloud which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for a light-blocking device as claimed, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23 and 25-27 are allowable in view of the prior art.
Claims 28-30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system for determining the attenuation of a light wave passing through a sampling volume, the system comprising, among other essential features, a transmission measurement channel, configured to measure a transmitted optical intensity in the sampling volume and scattered in the sampling volume in a polar angle range between 0° and a collection angle θcoll > 0, the polar angle being defined with respect to the optical axis of the collimated optical beam, where 0° indicates the direction of propagation; and a scattering measurement channel, configured to measure a scattered optical intensity in the sampling volume, at a plurality of polar angles relative to the optical axis of the collimated optical beam between θcoll and a maximum detection angle θmax > θcoll in order to characterize the properties of the sampling volume in a near forward angular sector; in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 28, in the best understanding of the examiner, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of determining the attenuation of a light wave passing through a sampling volume, the method comprising, among other essential steps, measuring an optical intensity transmitted into the sampling volume and scattered in the sampling volume in a polar angle range between 0° and a collection angle θcoll > 0, the polar angle being defined with respect to the optical axis of the collimated optical beam, where 0° indicates the direction of propagation; measuring an optical intensity scattered in the sampling volume, at a plurality of polar angles relative to the optical axis of the collimated optical beam between θcoll and a maximum detection angle θmax > θcoll in order to characterize the properties of the sampling volume in a near forward angular sector; in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, US 2009/0103085 to Hu discloses a method and apparatus for spectrophotometric characterization of turbid materials. The device includes (Fig. 1) a light source 1 that is split by a beam splitter 5. The reflected light is sent to a detector 6 as a reference beam (see paragraph 0041). The transmitted light is passed to a sample assembly 8 comprising a turbid material (see paragraph 0042). Scattered light signals are present in both the reflected and transmitted directions (see paragraph 0042). The reflected beam is detected by detector 7 (see paragraph 0042); the two transmitted beams are detected by detectors 10 (this is the forwardly scattered light; see paragraph 0046) and 14 (this is transmitted light; see paragraph 0045). The incident angle of the incident light beam 19 on the medium is between 2-10 degrees; or between 5-100 degrees (see paragraph 0043).
Additionally, US 2019/0212256 to Joch et al. discloses a sensor for virtually simultaneous measurement of transmission and/or forward scattering in a liquid sample. The device (Fig. 1) features a source LQ(1) that sends light through a splitter STS(1), with the reflected light being detected by reference detector DET(1). The transmitted light passes through a measurement gap MS filled with a liquid. Part of the light is detected by a transmission detector DET(3), and part of the light is detected by a forward scattering detector DET(4). For the above, see paragraphs 0120-0125. This detection is performed simultaneously (see paragraph 0083).
However, neither Hu nor Joch, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the specific limitations of the above claims, particularly the polar angles set forth in the transmission measurement and the scattering measurements as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0233825 to Sugrim et al. discloses a distributive transmissometer similar to certain embodiments in the instant application (such as Figs. 5 and 7); US 2014/0185049 to Yada et al discloses a spectroscopic analysis method and device where a movement mechanism 7 allows for measurement of either a sample 5 or a reference 6 (see Fig. 1); US 2014/0152986 to Trainer discloses an apparatus for performing scattered light measurements of particles with multiple detectors (see Fig. 1); US 2012/0044493 to Smart et al. discloses a light scattering colloid analyzer (see Fig. 2); and JPH0427845 discloses a device for measuring the spectral absorption characteristics of a sample having scattering properties (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights