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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed on 8 January 2025 have been accepted and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108955774 A, translation enclosed), in view of Ohashi et al. (US 2019/0068864 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Zhang discloses: a fiber-optic seawater salinity sensor system (par. [0002]), wherein the sensor system comprises a halogen lamp source (1), a Y type optical fiber (2, par. [0008]), a fiber-optic seawater salinity sensor (sensing unit, 3), an optical spectrometer (spectrometer, 4), and a computer (host computer, 5) which are connected in series via a multimode optical fiber (Fig. 1, 21), wherein light from the halogen light source (1) is transmitted to the fiber-optic seawater salinity sensor (3) via the Y type optical fiber (2), a sensor probe of the fiber-optic seawater salinity sensor (3) is immersed in seawater, reflected light (light returning from 3, par. [0024]) is reflected to the optical spectrometer (4) via the Y type optical fiber (2), and the computer (5) receives and processes a spectrum from the optical spectrometer (4) to obtain spectral intensity of the reflected light from the optical spectrometer (spectrum shift is monitored, shown in Fig. 2).
Zhang discloses the use of a halogen lamp source rather than a semiconductor laser (par. [0024]). Ohashi discloses an endoscope system (abstract) including a semiconductor light source (par. [0097]). Further, Ohashi discloses that semiconductor lasers may be preferable to halogen lamps that provide light having a particular color (par. [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to substitute the halogen lamp source of Zhang for a semiconductor laser, given the guidance of Ohashi, due to the higher efficiency, smaller size, and monochromatic light produced by semiconductor lasers, as opposed to halogen lamps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are 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:
With respect to claim 2, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose the claimed expression of spectral intensity related reflection and expressions of reflection coefficients of s-polarization and p-polarization.
With respect to claim 3, the cited prior art of record does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein evanescent wave intensity increases with rise of an index of refraction of seawater, resulting in an increase in optical loss, and the reflected light received by the optical spectrometer is reduced.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed expressions.
With respect to claims 6-10, the cited prior art does not specify the claimed configurations wherein the propagation pathway comprises incident light, reflected light, evanescent wave, and transmitted light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 16 June 2026
Prosecution Insights