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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2025 was/were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 29 recites “using an optical detector unit according to any one of the previous claims”, while the previous claims are a “spectral sensor system”. To be properly dependent on a parent claim, claim 29 must include the entire “spectral sensor system”.
Claims 30-32 are rejected due to its dependencies.
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 1-2, 4-12, 21-24, 26, 29-32 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.
The terms “harsh environment” and “sufficiently resistant” in claims 1 and 29 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “harsh environment” and “sufficiently resistant” are relative terms that the specification does not sufficiently define. MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear how “harsh” the environment must be and how “sufficiently” resistant the layer must be.
All the remaining claims are rejected due to its dependencies.
Claim 7 is rejected under 112b, as the phrase “specification of the international IK00 standard” is indefinite. If the standard changes or becomes obsolete, it can create ambiguity about the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 4 recites “harsh environment is characterized by being so humid, hot, pressurized, acidic and/or corrosive”. The term “so humid, etc.” is a relative term that the specification does not sufficiently define. It is unclear how “humid, etc.” the environment must be.
Claim 11 recites “very high NIR transmission compounds”. The term “very high” is a relative term that the specification does not sufficiently define. It is unclear how “high” the transmission must be.
As for claim 22, the term "optionally" does not create ambiguity in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180172510 A1 (hereinafter Sagee).
Regarding claim 1, Sagee teaches a spectral sensor system for analysing a sample in a harsh environment, the system comprising: - an illumination unit configured for emitting light to the sample (fig. 1 element “S”, para [0087] lines 9-11) at at least two wavelengths (para [0098] lines 7-8); - an optical detector unit comprising a plurality of detector elements (fig. 7 element 190, para [0128]), wherein each respective detector element of the plurality of detector elements is configured for detecting one or more respectively different wavelength regions (para [0128]),
wherein the optical detector unit is configured for detecting a spectrum of the light, the spectrum having non-zero components at the at least two wavelengths (para [0128]), after the light has interacted with the sample ((para [0128])); and - at least one layer arranged between the sample and the optical detector unit (fig. 7 element 162, para [0149] lines 4-10); wherein the at least one layer is at least partially optically transparent to the detected spectrum of the light (para [0149] lines 4-10); and wherein the at least one layer is sufficiently resistant to the harsh environment (para [0149] lines 4-10; the sealed glass protects the unit from the harsh environment as shown in fig. 33B element 102), to avoid that the harsh environment impair the optical detector unit (para [0149] lines 4-10; the sealed glass protects the unit from the harsh environment as shown in fig. 33B element 102).
Regarding claim 2, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least two wavelengths are in the near-infrared spectrum of light (para [0268] lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 4, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the harsh environment is characterized by being so humid, hot (para [0330] lines 13-18; an inside of an oven can be hot), pressurized, acidic and/or corrosive, that contact of the harsh environment with the optical detector unit would impair the optical detector unit by damaging the optical detector unit or by hindering operation of the optical detector unit (para [0330] lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 5, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer has a permeability coefficient to fluids of less than 10-12 cm2 (para [0149] lines 4-10; glass is impermeable).
Regarding claim 6, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is configured to provide protection against ingress of dust and fluids following the specifications of the international IP41 standard (para [0149] lines 4-10; again, glass is impermeable, which prevents from entering dust and fluids).
Regarding claim 7, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is configured to provide protection against impact following the specifications of the international IK00 standard (para [0149] lines 4-10; glass is impermeable and chemically inert).
Regarding claim 8, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is composed of a material that is chemically inert to the surrounding environment (para [0149] lines 4-10; glass is impermeable and chemically inert).
Regarding claim 9, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is also arranged between the illumination unit and the sample (fig. 5 element 142, para [0143] lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of the spectral sensor system of wherein the at least one layer comprises a single layer (elements 162 and 142), wherein the single layer is arranged between the sample and the optical detector unit (fig. 7 element 162, para [0149] lines 1-10), and wherein the single layer is arranged between the sample and the illumination unit (fig. 5 element 142, para [0143] lines 1-8); or wherein the at least one layer comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is arranged between the sample and the optical detector unit, and wherein the second layer is arranged between the sample and the illumination unit.
Regarding claim 11, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is made of any one or more of the following materials: a polymer, such as polypropylene, polystyrene or high-density polyethylene, glass (para [0143] lines 1-8), quartz, sapphire, silicon, germanium or very high NIR transmission compounds.
Regarding claim 12, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer comprises at least one stratified layer, wherein the strata of the stratified layer are made of at least two different materials (fig. 7 shows there are multiple layers below element 162, para [0149] lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 21, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer has a thickness extending between the sample and the optical detector unit in a range between 1 mm and 20 cm (para [0141] last sentence; fig. 6 shows elements 132 and 142 have the same thickness and this means element 142 has a thickness of about 1 mm).
Regarding claim 24, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is configured for avoiding influence from the background of the environment (para [0149] lines 4-8; the fact it is sealed, it indicates the window protects influence from the background of the environment).
Regarding claim 26, Sagee teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is at least in part defined by a pre-existing surface layer of a device, such that the spectral sensor system is retrofitted to the device (these are shown in figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 29, Sagee teaches a method of analysing a sample in a harsh environment; the method comprising: - emitting light to the sample (fig. 1 element “S”, para [0087] lines 9-11) at, at least two wavelengths (para [0098] lines 7-8); and - using an optical detector unit according to any one of the previous claims (fig. 7 element 190, para [0128]), detecting a spectrum of the light (para [0128]), the spectrum having non-zero components at the at least two wavelengths (para [0128]), after the light has interacted with the sample (para [0128]), wherein at least one layer is arranged between the sample and the optical detector unit (fig. 7 element 162, para [0149] lines 4-10); wherein the at least one layer is at least partially optically transparent to the spectrum of the light (para [0149] lines 4-10); and wherein the at least one layer is sufficiently resistant to the harsh environment (para [0149] lines 4-10; the sealed glass protects the unit from the harsh environment as shown in fig. 33B element 102), to avoid that the harsh environment impair the optical detector unit (para [0149] lines 4-10; the sealed glass protects the unit from the harsh environment as shown in fig. 33B element 102).
Regarding claim 30, Sagee teaches the method of claim 29, comprising determining at least one constituent material of the sample, based on the detected spectrum of the light (para [0101] lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 31, Sagee teaches the method of claim 29, comprising transmitting the detected spectrum of the light to a processing server (this is shown in fig. 2, para [0090] lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 32, Sagee teaches the method of claim 31, comprising controlling a machine based on the determined at least one constituent material of the sample (para [0267-68]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagee as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of US20120038925A1 (hereinafter Gahr).
Regarding claim 22, Sagee does not teach the spectral sensor system of claim 1, comprising a calibration unit configured for: - determining whether a physical condition of the at least one layer meets a deterioration threshold condition; - if it is determined that the physical condition of the at least one layer meets the deterioration threshold condition, sampling at least one calibration sample; and - recalibrating the spectral sensor system to take into account the physical condition of the at least one layer; and - if it is determined that the physical condition of the at least one layer meets the deterioration threshold condition, optionally triggering a maintenance procedure on the at least one layer.
Gahr, from the same field of endeavor as Sagee, teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, comprising a calibration unit (fig. 1a-b elements 201-203, para [0071] lines 5-13) configured for:- determining whether a physical condition of the at least one layer meets a deterioration threshold condition (this is shown in fig. 4; these processes are explained in para [0088-0092]); - if it is determined that the physical condition of the at least one layer meets the deterioration threshold condition (para [0090], these are interval boundaries as shown in fig. 4 and threshold values in para [0091]), sampling at least one calibration sample (para [0073]); and - recalibrating the spectral sensor system to take into account the physical condition of the at least one layer (para [0090], these are the correction values); and “- if it is determined that the physical condition of the at least one layer meets the deterioration threshold condition, optionally triggering a maintenance procedure on the at least one layer” (para [0091], “…further aging…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Gahr to Sagee to have the spectral sensor system of claim 1, comprising a calibration unit configured for: - determining whether a physical condition of the at least one layer meets a deterioration threshold condition; - if it is determined that the physical condition of the at least one layer meets the deterioration threshold condition, sampling at least one calibration sample; and - recalibrating the spectral sensor system to take into account the physical condition of the at least one layer; and - if it is determined that the physical condition of the at least one layer meets the deterioration threshold condition, optionally triggering a maintenance procedure on the at least one layer in order to have a high accuracy measurements (para [0019] last sentence).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagee as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of WO 2006086085 A2 (hereinafter Panasyuk).
Regarding claim 23, Sagee does not teach the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is configured for collecting most of the radiation from the sample by acting as an additional macro lens.
Panasyuk, from the same field of endeavor as Sagee, teaches the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is configured for collecting most of the radiation from the sample by acting as an additional macro lens (p. 32 para 4 line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Gahr to Sagee to have the spectral sensor system of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer is configured for collecting most of the radiation from the sample by acting as an additional macro lens in order to increase the collection of light signals into the detectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights