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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “operations comprising:” or “method comprising:” “acquiring a measurement result… and generating an optical spectrum”.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is to acquire data and perform a mental process on said data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations amount to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind. Such a process is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ 2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no direct application of a judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no positively recited steps are to how the data is measured; instead, the claim only requires acquiring and evaluating data. Without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is measured, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There does not appear to be any additional limitation in the claim other than the abstract idea of observing and evaluating data. Since there are no additional limitations, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the claims recite the further abstract step of selecting a light ray, a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, and 8, the claims recite the further abstract step of acquiring data.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the further abstract step of determining data, a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is eligible under 35 USC 101, as the claim recites the non-abstract element of a “measurement unit configured to measure intensity of a light ray”. This is a physical device which performs a measurement, and does not merely “acquire” data.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2025/0264738 A1), hereinafter “Watanabe” and further in view of Tsadka (US 2022/0229162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an optical spectrum measurement program to measure, in a single sweep, optical spectra of multiple light rays to be measured, the optical spectrum measurement program configured to cause a processor to execute operations (abstract, Fig. 2, 4A; When “the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” MPEP 2111.02 Sec. II), the operations comprising:
acquiring a measurement result of intensity of a light ray among the multiple light rays to be measured (Fig. 4A shows a intensity graph of a light ray among multiple light rays in Fig 2, paragraph [0056]); and
generating an optical spectrum of each light ray to be measured by associating the light ray to be measured that has been selected during measurement with the acquired measurement result (as shown in Fig. 4A, paragraph [0061]).
Watanabe is silent regarding the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays.
However, Tsadka teaches an optical measurement method (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1, ref 160).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Tsadka by including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays in order to process the signals with a single detector.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise selecting the light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured.
However, Tsadka teaches wherein the operations further comprise selecting the light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Tsadka by including wherein the operations further comprise selecting the light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured in order to process the signals with a single detector.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe teaches wherein the operations further comprise, in a first period during which the light intensity at a first wavelength is measured in the sweep, acquiring a measurement result of the light intensity at the first wavelength for at least one light ray to be measured (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0056]).
Watanabe is silent regarding the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays.
However, Tsadka teaches an optical measurement method (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1, ref 160).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Tsadka by including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays in order to process the signals with a single detector.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches wherein the operations further comprise, in the first period, acquiring measurement results of the light intensity at the first wavelength for all the multiple light rays to be measured (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe teaches an optical spectrum measurement method of generating, in a single sweep, optical spectra of multiple light rays to be measured (abstract, Fig. 2, 4A; When “the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” MPEP 2111.02 Sec. II), the optical spectrum measurement method comprising:
acquiring a measurement result of intensity of a light ray among the multiple light rays to be measured (Fig. 4A shows a intensity graph of a light ray among multiple light rays in Fig 2, paragraph [0056]); and
generating an optical spectrum of each light ray to be measured by associating the light ray to be measured that has been selected during measurement with the acquired measurement result (as shown in Fig. 4A, paragraph [0061]).
Watanabe is silent regarding the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays.
However, Tsadka teaches an optical measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1, ref 160).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Tsadka by including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays in order to process the signals with a single detector.
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe teaches an optical spectrum analyzer configured to generate, in a single sweep, optical spectra of multiple light rays to be measured (abstract, Fig. 2, 4A; When “the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” MPEP 2111.02 Sec. II), the optical spectrum analyzer comprising:
at least one measurement unit configured to measure intensity of a light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured (Fig. 4A shows a intensity graph of a light ray among multiple light rays in Fig 2, paragraph [0056]); and
a controller configured to generate an optical spectrum of each light ray to be measured, by associating the light ray to be measured that has been selected during measurement of the light intensity by the measurement unit with a measurement result of the light intensity by the measurement unit (as shown in Fig. 4A, paragraph [0061]).
Watanabe is silent regarding the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays.
However, Tsadka teaches an optical measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1, ref 160).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Tsadka by including wherein the light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays in order to process the signals with a single detector.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe is silent regarding a switch configured to switch connection so as to input, to the measurement unit, a single light ray to be measured that is selected from the multiple light rays to be measured, wherein the controller is configured to select, by controlling the switch, the single light ray to be measured that is input to the measurement unit, from among the multiple light rays to be measured.
However, Tsadka teaches a switch configured to switch connection so as to input, to the measurement unit, a single light ray to be measured that is selected from the multiple light rays to be measured, wherein the controller is configured to select, by controlling the switch, the single light ray to be measured that is input to the measurement unit, from among the multiple light rays to be measured (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe is silent regarding wherein when there are two or more measurement units, each of the two or more measurement units is configured to measure light intensity of a light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays to be measured.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein when there are two or more measurement units, each of the two or more measurement units is configured to measure light intensity of a light ray to be measured that is selected one-by-one from among the multiple light rays to be measured as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have multiple measurement units in order to perform multiple measurements simultaneously, averaging the measurements to increase accuracy or check for errors.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Tsadka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakagami et al. (US 2015/0160449 A1), hereinafter “Sakagami”.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise acquiring a measurement result after an invalid period has elapsed since selecting a single light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured and switching to the single light ray to be measured.
However, Sakagami teaches an optical measurement device (abstract) including wherein the operations further comprise acquiring a measurement result after an invalid period has elapsed since selecting a single light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured (paragraphs [0292], [0305]).
Furthermore, Tsadka teaches switching to the single light ray to be measured (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1, ref 160).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Sakagami and Tsadka by including Regarding claim 7, Watanabe is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise acquiring a measurement result after an invalid period has elapsed since selecting a single light ray to be measured from among the multiple light rays to be measured and switching to the single light ray to be measured in order to ignore measurements when the light source is unsteady.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Tsadka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2017/0059475 A1), hereinafter “Zhao”.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise, when multiple times of measurements of the light intensity at a measurement wavelength are performed, acquiring, as a measurement result of the light intensity at the measurement wavelength, a value calculated by statistical processing of multiple measurement values acquired in the respective multiple times of measurements.
However, Zhao teaches an optical measuring method (abstract) including wherein the operations further comprise, when multiple times of measurements of the light intensity at a measurement wavelength are performed, acquiring, as a measurement result of the light intensity at the measurement wavelength, a value calculated by statistical processing of multiple measurement values acquired in the respective multiple times of measurements (paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Watanabe with the teaching of Zhao by including wherein the operations further comprise, when multiple times of measurements of the light intensity at a measurement wavelength are performed, acquiring, as a measurement result of the light intensity at the measurement wavelength, a value calculated by statistical processing of multiple measurement values acquired in the respective multiple times of measurements in order to have a more accurate result by taking additional measurements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Tsadka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaba (US 4834541).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe is silent regarding wherein the switch is configured to accept input of a trigger signal and switch, in response to the input of the trigger signal, the light ray to be measured that is input to the measurement unit.
However, Yamaba teaches an optical measurement device (abstract) including wherein the switch is configured to accept input of a trigger signal and switch, in response to the input of the trigger signal, the light ray to be measured that is input to the measurement unit (col. 4, lines 52-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Watanabe with the teaching of Yamaba by including wherein the switch is configured to accept input of a trigger signal and switch, in response to the input of the trigger signal, the light ray to be measured that is input to the measurement unit in order to change the selected beam at a constant rate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include 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 5, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform operations, the operations comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the operations further comprise selecting light rays to be measured so that a number of light rays to be measured that are selected in a second period, during which the light intensity at a second wavelength is measured in the sweep, differs from a number of light rays to be measured that are selected in the first period, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1-3 and the above claim.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform operations, the operations comprising, among other essential elements, determining, based on accuracy required of measurement of each light ray to be measured, a number of light rays to be measured that are selected in each period during which the light intensity at each wavelength is measured in the sweep, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1-3 and the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He (US 2005/0073679) teaches measuring multiple beams to obtain an optical spectrum and appears to be able to be combined with the above prior art to render at least the independent claims obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights