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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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) 1, 2, 10-11, 13, 17-20, 23-24 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANGYUE (CN 214844782 U) (herein after JIANGYUE)[cited in IDs filed by the applicant] in view of Deliwala (US 20230108409 A1) (herein after Deliwala).
As to claim(s) 1, 10-11, 13, 24 and 34, JIANGYUE discloses a system/method for measuring properties of water at site, the system comprising:
a light source [1@page 8] configured to emit a broadband source signal comprising a particular bandwidth for use in measuring a range of particular properties of water [The utility model discloses water quality sensor based on spectrum method utilizes different materials in the water to carry out assay to the extinction mechanism of ultraviolet ray (190-. The method is characterized in that a UV Light Emitting Diode (LED)…page 7];
an optical device [3] configured to split the source signal into a measurement signal and a corresponding reference signal [Then, a part of the reference light passes through the optical sorting mirror 3 and is emitted to the photodetector 7 as a reference light through an optical filter…page 8];
a sensor unit [6/8 (photoelectric detectors)] configured to communicate the measurement signal through water at the sensor unit [page 8]; and
a device configured to receive both the measurement signal having been communicated through water at the sensor unit and the reference signal from the optical device [The central microprocessor 10 in the upper chamber is used to process the signals of the photodetectors, temperature sensors, etc., and incorporates the functions of signal calculation and turbidity correction…page 8],
the device configured to separate the received measurement signal and the reference signal into common component wavelengths, those the common component wavelengths being associated with expected properties of water [Be responsible for simultaneously judging monitoring devices state itself, include: electric quantity, smooth condition of light path, concentration change, motor load, storage capacity, temperature and the like, and correspondingly reacts. The device can give instructions to drive a motor, send an alarm signal, enter a power saving mode, enter a protection mode and the like. All recorded data will be stored in the memory 11…page 8]; and
wherein the system is further configured to use respective ones of the component wavelengths of the measurement signal together with those of the reference signal to determine one or more particular properties of measured water [This light, after passing through the light absorbing substance/target contaminant in the water, is incident on the upper housing 12, passes through the optical filter toward the photodetector 6 for low concentration measurement or the photodetector 8 for high concentration measurement…page 8].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
The system configured such that the device receives both the measurement signal and the reference signal simultaneously for a particular emission from the light source [page 8].
The system configured such that the device separates at least one of the received measurement signal and the received reference signal into a plurality of the component wavelengths simultaneously [page 8].
The system configured such that the spectrometer separates the received measurement signal and reference signal into a plurality of the component wavelengths simultaneously [page 8].
JIANGYUE discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “a spectrometer”.
However, Deliwala from the same field of endeavor discloses a spectrometer to receive both the measurement signal having been communicated through water at the sensor unit and the reference signal from the optical device [a system using a CLS, when used as a spectrometer, can provide separate reading of individual ones of the encoded spectral bins at each of the response light detectors 141…¶0105][¶0113].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of JIANGYUE such that the spectrometer configured to receive both the measurement signal having been communicated through water at the sensor unit and the reference signal from the optical device; as taught by Deliwala, for the advantages such as: to ensure accuracy—and possibly before every measurement of the response characteristic of the target object…¶0020.
As of claim 2, JIANGYUE discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the spectrometer comprises a diffraction grating and wherein the diffraction grating is configured to separate both the received measurement signal and the received reference signal into their component wavelengths [the photoelectric detectors are composed of a plurality of photodiodes to form an array form, so that a multi-channel detector is formed; in addition, the filter in fig. 2 should also become a grating…page 8].
As of claim 17, JIANGYUE discloses the system wherein the optical device is configured as an optical coupler [3][page 8].
As of claim 18, JIANGYUE discloses the system configured to use measured component wavelengths of the measurement signal and the reference signal, together with ancillary data, in order to determine properties of measured water [page 8 and see claim 1].
As of claim 19, JIANGYUE discloses the system configured wherein the ancillary data comprises data associated with at least one of location of the system, a time of measurement, a temperature, and properties of a measured water matrix [page 8].
As of claim 20, JIANGYUE discloses the system wherein the system comprises, or is in communication with, a database comprising a plurality of calibration datasets for use in determining properties of measured water based on the measurement and reference signals, and wherein the system is configured to select one or more particular calibration datasets for use, based on the ancillary data [page 8].
As of claim 23, JIANGYUE discloses the system wherein the particular bandwidth comprises a wavelength band between 190 nm and 420 nm [page 8].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 14 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:
As to claim 3, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the diffraction grating is configured as a concave grating being symmetrical and having a principal optical focal plane, and wherein the received measurement and reference signals are projected toward the diffraction grating along respective off-axis focal lines, the off-axis focal line of the measurement signal being different from the off-axis focal line of the reference signal.” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 14, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the sensor unit comprises a slotted gap, within which water is located in use, and through which the measurement signal is communicated, and wherein the sensor unit is configured such that an opening of the slotted gap is directed downwardly when positioned in water, in use.” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Claims 4-9 are allowable due to their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights