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 Objections
2. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 5, replace the incorrect spelling “supress” with the correct spelling --suppress--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-13 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.
5. In claim 1, lines 6, the phrase “a prescribed way” is indefinite and is not clearly define in the specification. Is “a prescribed way” equivalent to the filter selectively passing specific wavebands and/or spectrum of light while blocking and/or absorbing other wavebands and/or spectrum of light. If so, what spectral range of wavebands and/or spectrum of light is suppressed, absorbed, and/or blocked by the filter while permitting selective wavebands and/or spectrum of light to pass through the filter? Any filter will be considered to suppress, absorb, and/or block unwanted light while passing selective light to define “a prescribed way”.
6. In claim 2, lines 3, the phrase “the UV” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase, “the UV” be replaced with “UV” to set forth correct antecedent basis?
7. In claim 2, lines 4, the phrase “the visible part” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase, “the visible part” be replaced with “a visible part” to set forth correct antecedent basis?
8. In claim 3, lines 2, the phrase “the spectral range” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase “the spectral range” be replaced with “a spectral range” to set forth correct antecedent basis?
9. In claim 4, lines 3, the phrase “the visible light spectrum” appears to lack antecedent basis. Is “the visible light spectrum” and “the visible part” in clam 2 one in the same. Should the “visible light spectrum” be replaced with “the visible part” and/or “the visible part” be replace with “the visible light spectrum”? For examining purpose, the visible light spectrum and the visible part will be treated as one in the same. Claim language consistency throughout the claims is required.
10. In claim 7, lines 3, the phrase “the light spectrum” appears to lack antecedent basis. Is “the light spectrum”, “visible light spectrum” in claim 4, and “the visible part” in claim 2 one in the same? For examining purpose, the light spectrum, the visible light spectrum, and the visible part will be treated as one in the same. Claim language consistency throughout the claims is required.
11. In claim 8, lines 2, the phrase “the spectrum” appears to lack antecedent basis. Is “the spectrum” in claim 8, “the light spectrum” in claim 7, “the visible light spectrum” in claim 4, and “the visible part” in clam 2 one in the same? Claim language consistency throughout the claims is required.
12. In claim 11, lines 4, the phrase “the spectral properties” appears to lack antecedent basis. Should the phrase “the spectral properties” be replaced with “spectral properties” to set forth correct antecedent basis?
13. In claim 11, lines 7, the phrase “the optical properties” appears to lack antecedent basis. Is the phrase “the optical properties” one in the same as “the spectral properties”? Claim language consistency throughout the claims is required.
14. In claim 13, lines 2, the phrase, “wherein said at least one filter is mounted in a filter wheel” is merely descriptive and does not support using method and/or steps in mounting at least one filter in a filter wheel. Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and claim 10 depends from claim 1. Claim 13 is a method claim and claim 10 and claim 1 are apparatus claims. Should claim 13 depend from claim 11 to be consistent with method claims. Claim 13 will be treated as dependent on claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-6, 9-10, 12 rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gudaitis (US2002/0097454A1).
17. As to 11, Gudaitis discloses (fig. 1) a method for providing a light source arrangement (color measurement system), for sensitivity measurements of sensors (104), comprising the steps of: providing a light source (105); determining (determined) spectral properties (spectral information, spectral characteristics) of said light source (105); providing desired spectral properties (spectral information, spectral characteristics) of said light source arrangement (color measurement system); providing at least one filter (106): and designing (in some desired implementation using different filters of various spectral characteristics) defines designing said filter (106) such that the optical properties (special information, spectral characteristics) of said filter (106) provide said desired spectral properties (special information, spectral characteristics) of said light source arrangement (color measurement system), (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US2022/0413636A1) in view of Nisper et al (US2007/0035740A1).
20. As to claim 1, Lu et al disclose (fig. 3) a light source arrangement (10), for sensitivity measurements of color and ambient light sensors (54, 18A), (paragraphs [0042], [0044]), comprising: a light source (54E), (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]); and at least one filter (thin-film interference filter, color filter), wherein said filter (thin-film interference filter, color filter), (paragraph [0049]) is built to suppress at least partly at least one part of spectrum (emit red light without emitting blue and green light) of said light source (54E), (paragraph [0052]). Lu et al fail to disclose at least one spectral filter. Nisper et al disclose (fig. 1) at least one spectral filter (112, 114, 116, 118), (paragraph [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lu et al to include at least one spectral filter as taught by Nisper et al in order to filter and/or suppress undesired light while permitting desired light to pass through the spectral filter to improve spectral responsivity and/or color measurements.
21. As to claim 2, Lu et al disclose (fig. 3) the light source arrangement (10) wherein said at least one filter (thin-film interference filter, color filter), (paragraph [0049]) is configured to suppress UV (ultraviolet) and IR part (infrared light spectrum) of the spectrum (bands of wavelengths) of said light source (54E) and to transmit at least partly the visible part (visible light, visible light spectrum, band of wavelengths, or other desired portion of the light spectrum) of the spectrum (visible light spectrum, band of wavelengths, or other desired portion of the light spectrum) of said light source (54E), (paragraphs [0049], [0052]).
22. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US2022/0413636A1) in view of Nisper et al (US2007/0035740A1), and further in view of Gudaitis (US2002/0097454A1).
23. As to claim 9, Lu et al disclose (fig. 3) the light source arrangement (10) wherein whereby said light source (54E), (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Lu et al in view of Nisper et al fail to disclose light source is built as a plasma pumped light source or halogen light source. Gudaitis discloses (fig. 3) light source (105, illumination source) is built as halogen light source (halogen illumination source), (paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lu et al in view of Nisper et al to include wherein said light source is built as a halogen light source as taught by Gudaitis in order to provide bright, high quality white light with an exceptional color rendering index and a low initial purchase cost.
24. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US2022/0413636A1) in view of Nisper et al (US2007/0035740A1), and further in view of Strobel et al (5,561,290).
25. As to claim 10, Lu et al disclose (fig. 3) the light source arrangement (10) wherein said at least one filter (thin-film interference filter, color filter), (paragraph [0049]). Lu et al in view of Nisper et al fail to disclose at least one filter is arranged in a filter wheel. Strobel et al disclose (fig. 3) at least one filter (52, 54) is arranged (mounted) in a filter wheel (22), (column 5, lines 1-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lu et al in view of Nisper et al to include the at least one filter is arranged in a filter wheel as taught by Strobel et al in order to limit spectral content of the radiation transmitted by the lamp as well as to permit discrete control of the amount of transmitted radiation, (see column 5, lines 6-9 to Strobel et al).
26. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gudaitis (US2002/0097454A1) in view of Strobel et al (5,561,290).
27. As to claim 13, Gudaitis discloses (fig. 1) the method wherein said at least one filter (106), (paragraph [0024]-[0025]). Gudaitis fail to disclose the at least one filter is mounted in a filter wheel. Strobel et al disclose (fig. 3) at least one filter (52, 54) is mounted (mounted) in a filter wheel (22), (column 5, lines 1-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gudaitis to include the at least one filter is mounted in a filter wheel as taught by Strobel et al in order to limit spectral content of the radiation transmitted by the lamp as well as to permit discrete control of the amount of transmitted radiation, (see column 5, lines 6-9 to Strobel et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
28. Claims 3-8, 12 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 prior art of record fail to teach either singly or in combination light source arrangement wherein the spectral range of wavelengths which pass said at least one filter is set to 350 - 1100 nm, wherein said filter configured such that said light source arrangement provides a flat spectral response in at least part of the visible light spectrum, wherein said filter
Conclusion
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON J WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m..
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/DON J WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights