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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence will be read as “According to an aspect, a detection device includes: a sensor panel that has a detection area in which optical sensors are arranged; a light source unit comprising multiple types of light sources; a member on which an object to be detected is [[
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification showing tracking of changes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 8 are objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the claims showing tracking of changes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2021/0326623 A1) in view of Chan et al. (US 2013/0099120 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Kato discloses a detection device (Figure 1: element 1 is a detection device; [0036]) comprising:
a sensor panel (Figure 1: element 21 is a sensor base; [0036]) that has a detection area (Figure 1; [0038] “sensor base 21 has a detection area AA”) in which a plurality of optical sensors are two-dimensionally arranged (Figure 1; [0038] “detection area AA is an area provided with a plurality of photodiodes PD (refer to FIG. 4)”; [0060] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the sensor 10 has a plurality of partial detection areas PAA arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration. Each of the partial detection areas PAA is provided with the photodiode PD”);
a light source unit (Figure 1; [0036] “a first light source base 51, a second light source base 52”) comprising multiple types of light sources (Figure 1; [0036] “first light sources 61, and second light sources 62”) configured to emit light in colors different from one another ([0043] “The first light L61 is blue or green light, and the second light L62 is red light”); and
a detection circuit (Figure 1: element 48 is a detection circuit; [0036]) configured to obtain outputs of the optical sensors (Figure 3; [0071] “signals from the partial detection areas PAA (photodiodes PD) included in the detection area groups PAG1 and PAG2 are put together and output to the detection circuit 48”), wherein
each of the optical sensors comprises a photodiode ([0060] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the sensor 10 has a plurality of partial detection areas PAA … Each of the partial detection areas PAA is provided with the photodiode PD”) and is configured to obtain an output (Figure 3; [0078] “a current … flows through the signal line SGL”, wherein “a current” is interpreted as an output) corresponding to a photocurrent generated corresponding to light ([0078] “a current corresponding to an amount of the light”) detected by the photodiode (Figure 3; [0078] “light irradiating the photodiode PD in each of the partial detection areas PAA”), and
the light sources (Figure 1; [0036] “first light sources 61, and second light sources 62”) configured to emit the light in different colors ([0043] “The first light L61 is blue or green light, and the second light L62 is red light”) are configured not to be turned on simultaneously but to be turned on in different periods (Figure 12; [0119] “the first light sources 61 and the second light sources 62 may be alternately turned on at intervals of the period t”), but does not specifically teach:
a member on which an object to be detected is placed so as to interpose the object to be detected between the detection area and the light source unit;
an exposure time when each optical sensor detects the light differs between the light sources that emit light in different colors, and
the output of each optical sensor under conditions where the object to be detected is not placed falls within an output range corresponding to a predetermined target value, regardless of the color of the light emitted by one of the light sources that is turned on.
However, Kato, in a different embodiment – see Figure 17 – teaches a member (Figure 17; [0143] “the first filter 63 and the second filter 64”) on which an object to be detected is placed (Figure 17; [0146] “two fingers Fg1 and Fg2”) so as to interpose the object to be detected between the detection area and the light source unit (Figure 17; [0146] “The first light L61 emitted from the first light sources 61 is transmitted through the finger Fg1 and the first filter 63, and enters the sensor 10. The second light L62 emitted from the second light sources 62 is transmitted through the finger Fg2, the second filter 64, and the sensor base 21, and enters the sensor 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Kato with the embodiment of Figure 17, for a member on which an object to be detected is placed so as to interpose the object to be detected between the detection area and the light source unit, because this setup is used to analyze properties of an object by quantifying how much light it absorbs, scatters, or alters.
Kato is also silent with respect to: an exposure time when each optical sensor detects the light differs between the light sources that emit light in different colors, and
the output of each optical sensor under conditions where the object to be detected is not placed falls within an output range corresponding to a predetermined target value, regardless of the color of the light emitted by one of the light sources that is turned on.
However, Chan, in the same field of analyzing biological samples, teaches an exposure time when each optical sensor detects the light (Figure 2: element 240 is a detection device; [0042] “An exemplary detection device is a CCD camera”) differs (Figure 6; [0072] “images were taken at various exposure times”) between the light sources that emit light in different colors (Figure 6; [0072] “using blue, green, and UV LEDs”), and
the output of each optical sensor under conditions where the object to be detected is not placed ([0072] “Images were taken using blue, green, and UV LEDs at oblique incidence using a simple Nexcelom counting slide and no samples”) falls within an output range corresponding to a predetermined target value (Figure 6 shows three graphs with a range of intensity values), regardless of the color of the light emitted by one of the light sources that is turned on (Figure 6; [0072] “using blue, green, and UV LEDs”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Kato with the teachings of Chan, such that an exposure time when each optical sensor detects the light differs between the light sources that emit light in different colors, and the output of each optical sensor under conditions where the object to be detected is not placed falls within an output range corresponding to a predetermined target value, regardless of the color of the light emitted by one of the light sources that is turned on, because “the background was significantly reduced for blue, green, and UV LEDs. […] Thus, the detection limit was significantly improved (allowing lower fluorescence for various excitation sources or fluorophores).” (Chan, para 75)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kato discloses the detection device according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the output of each optical sensor under the conditions where the object to be detected is not placed is an average of the outputs of the optical sensors provided in the detection area.
However, Chan, in the same field of analyzing biological samples, teaches that the output of each optical sensor under the conditions where the object to be detected is not placed ([0072] “Images were taken using blue, green, and UV LEDs at oblique incidence using a simple Nexcelom counting slide and no samples”) is an average of the outputs of the optical sensors provided in the detection area (implicit that when no sample is present, i.e., blank measurement, the output of each pixel will be approximately same, and consequently equal to the average output of all pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Kato with the teachings of Chan, such that the output of each optical sensor under the conditions where the object to be detected is not placed is an average of the outputs of the optical sensors provided in the detection area, because having a uniform blank measurement across all pixels (or color channels) maximizes the instrument's measurable absorbance range without saturating specific color channels.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kato discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the multiple types of light sources comprise:
a first light source configured to emit light in a first color ([0043] “The first light L61 is blue or green light”, wherein “blue” is interpreted as light in a first color);
a second light source configured to emit light in a second color ([0043] “The first light L61 is blue or green light”, wherein “green light” is interpreted as light in a second color); and
a third light source configured to emit light in a third color ([0043] “the second light L62 is red light”, wherein “red light” is interpreted as light in a third color).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kato discloses the detection device according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the exposure times of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another are set in advance.
However, Chan, in the same field of analyzing biological samples, teaches that the exposure times (Figure 6; [0072] “images were taken at various exposure times”) of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another (Figure 6; [0072] “using blue, green, and UV LEDs”) are set in advance (as known in the art, exposure times are set in advance to prevent detector saturation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Kato with the teachings of Chan, such that the exposure times of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another are set in advance, to standardize detector saturation levels, optimize the signal-to-noise ratio, and maintain a highly predictable baseline.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kato disclose the detection device according to claim 1, comprising a control circuit (Figure 1: element 122 is a control circuit; [0036]) configured to determine, after energization is started by turning power on (Figure 1: element 123 is a power supply circuit; [0036]), the exposure times of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another (a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kato discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the optical sensors are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration ([0060] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the sensor 10 has a plurality of partial detection areas PAA arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration. Each of the partial detection areas PAA is provided with the photodiode PD”) in the detection area (Figure 1; [0038] “sensor base 21 has a detection area AA”), and
the detection area (Figure 1; [0038] “sensor base 21 has a detection area AA”) has a plurality of partial areas ([0060] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the sensor 10 has a plurality of partial detection areas PAA”), but does not specifically teach:
the exposure times of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another are determined for each of the partial areas.
However, Chan, in the same field of analyzing biological samples, teaches that the exposure times (Figure 6; [0072] “images were taken at various exposure times”) of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another (Figure 6; [0072] “using blue, green, and UV LEDs”) are determined for each of the partial areas (as known in the art, exposure times are determined for each photodiode to prevent detector saturation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Kato with the teachings of Chan, such that the exposure times of the multiple types of light sources that emit light in colors different from one another are determined for each of the partial areas, because pulsing LEDs sequentially and adjusting the corresponding detector's integration time helps limit spectral interference between closely spaced wavelengths.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2021/0326623 A1) and Chan et al. (US 2013/0099120 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeung et al. (US 2004/0070763 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kato discloses the detection device according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the target value is set within 90% to 100% of the range of the output produced by each optical sensor.
However, Yeung, in the same field of absorption spectrometry, teaches that the target value is set within 90% to 100% of the range of the output produced by each optical sensor ([0113] “the diodes preferably are only 85-90% saturated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Kato with the teachings of Yeung, such that the target value is set within 90% to 100% of the range of the output produced by each optical sensor, because setting the blank measurement to the upper end of the detector's capability provides the widest possible dynamic range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the output range is within an output error of 5% with respect to the output of each optical sensor corresponding to the target value.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2011/0063433-A1 discloses a system comprising a mobile electronic device comprising a color sensitive light sensor, a processor, and outward facing optics, the processor comprising computer executable instructions for quantitative analysis of absorbance in colored samples, and a light source. One aspect further comprises a fixed optical path length for the colored sample. Another aspect further comprises a fluorescent lamp as light source. Another aspect further comprising a user interface physically built into the mobile device. In another aspect, the mobile electronic device comprises a backlit display configured for use as light source. Another aspect further comprises an optical fiber configured to transmit light from the backlit display to a sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 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, Tarifur R 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights