DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…a controller that determines a resonance frequency based on a light amount of the detected transmission light and controls an oscillation frequency of an output signal based on the determined resonance frequency; and a temperature adjusting unit that adjusts a temperature of the gas cell and a temperature of the light generator, wherein the temperature adjusting unit adjusts, based on a temperature and resonance frequency relation in each of the gas cell and the light generator, the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator to a set temperature of the gas cell and a set temperature of the light generator, respectively, which are set so that an amount of change in resonance frequency when both the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator change is smaller than an amount of change in resonance frequency when either the temperature of the gas cell or the temperature of the light generator changes.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the term “resonance frequency” is used in multiple places as underlined in the claim limitation above and those are not following antecedent basis requirement; if they are referring to the previously defined “a resonance frequency” then the term “resonance frequency” in the following multiple places should be “the resonance frequency”, otherwise the term “resonance frequency” in multiple places should clearly define the differences; and also the claim doesn’t clearly describe the “resonance frequency” is belonged to which component.
(ii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “an output signal” is not clear since the claim doesn’t clearly describe the “output signal” is being which component’s output signal; and
(iii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a temperature” above should be “the temperature” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring back to previously defined one; otherwise the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a temperature” should clearly define the differences.
Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2-6 are depending on the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “…the temperature adjusting unit adjusts, based on the relation, the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator to a set temperature of the gas cell and a set temperature of the light generator, respectively, which are set so as to reduce an amount of change in resonance frequency when the temperature of the gas cell changes by an amount of change in resonance frequency when the temperature of the light generator changes.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the relation”;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “a set temperature of the gas cell” should be “the set temperature of the gas cell” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “a set temperature of the light generator” should be “the set temperature of the light generator” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(iv). the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “an amount of change” should be “the amount of change” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(v). the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be consistent with the claim 1;
(vi). the sixth underlined portion of the claim limitation “an amount of change” should be “the amount of change” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(vii). the seventh underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be consistent with the claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “…the temperature adjusting unit adjusts, based on the relation, the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator to a set temperature of the gas cell and a set temperature of the light generator, respectively, which are set so that an amount of change in resonance frequency due to a change in temperature of the gas cell and an amount of change in resonance frequency due to a change in temperature of the light generator have mutually opposite signs.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the relation”;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “a set temperature of the gas cell” should be “the set temperature of the gas cell” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “a set temperature of the light generator” should be “the set temperature of the light generator” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(iv). the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “an amount of change” should be “the amount of change” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(v). the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be consistent with the claim 1;
(vi). the sixth underlined portion of the claim limitation “temperature of the gas cell” should be “the temperature of the gas cell” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(vii). the seventh underlined portion of the claim limitation “an amount of change” should be “the amount of change” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(viii). the eighth underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be consistent with the claim 1; and
(ix). the nineth underlined portion of the claim limitation “temperature of the light generator” should be “the temperature of the light generator” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “…determines a resonance frequency for each of the plurality of combinations, extracts a combination in which an amount of change in resonance frequency due to a change in temperature of the gas cell and an amount of change in resonance frequency due to a change in temperature of the light generator have mutually opposite signs from among the plurality of combinations based on the relation, and sets the set temperature of the gas cell and the set temperature of the light generator based on the extracted combination; and the temperature adjusting unit adjusts the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator to the set temperature of the gas cell and the set temperature of the light generator, respectively.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be “the resonance frequency” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring to previously defined “a resonance frequency” in claim 4; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences and must be consistent with the amendment made to the claim 1;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be “the resonance frequency” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring to previously defined “a resonance frequency” in claim 4; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences and must be consistent with the amendment made to the claim 1; and
(iii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “the relation”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “…determines a resonance frequency…” should be “…determines the resonance frequency…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “…determining a resonance frequency based on a light amount of the detected transmission light; and controlling to adjust, based on a temperature and resonance frequency relation in each of the gas cell and the light generator, the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator to a set temperature of the gas cell and a set temperature of the light generator, respectively, which are set so that an amount of change in resonance frequency when both the temperature of the gas cell and the temperature of the light generator change is smaller than an amount of change in resonance frequency when either the temperature of the gas cell or the temperature of the light generator changes.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the term “resonance frequency” is used in multiple places as underlined in the claim limitation above and those are not following antecedent basis requirement; if they are referring to the previously defined “a resonance frequency” then the term “resonance frequency” in the following multiple places should be “the resonance frequency”, otherwise the term “resonance frequency” in multiple places should clearly define the differences; and also the claim doesn’t clearly describe the “resonance frequency” is belonged to which component; and
(ii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a temperature” above should be “the temperature” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring back to previously defined one; otherwise the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a temperature” should clearly define the differences.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “…determining a resonance frequency for each of the plurality of combinations, extracting a combination in which an amount of change in resonance frequency due to a change in temperature of the gas cell and an amount of change in resonance frequency due to a change in temperature of the light generator have mutually opposite signs from among the plurality of combinations based on the relation,…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be “the resonance frequency” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring to previously defined “a resonance frequency” in claim 8; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences and must be consistent with the amendment made to the claim 7;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “resonance frequency” should be “the resonance frequency” according to antecedent basis requirement if referring to previously defined “a resonance frequency” in claim 8; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences and must be consistent with the amendment made to the claim 7; and
(iii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “the relation”.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-8 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 and to include all of the limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849