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 .
Priority
The present application, filed 16 April 2025, is a Continuation-In-Part of U.S. Patent App. No. 18/202,944, filed 28 May 2023, which is a Divisional of U.S. Patent App. No. 17/393,424, filed 04 August 2021, which claims benefit to Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 63/121969, filed 06 December 2020. The examiner notes, however, that at least the limitations of “a first image sensing region” and “a second image sensing region” do not appear to have support in any of the parent applications, and as such, the claims are being afforded an effective filing date of 16 April 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 April 2025, 15 September 2025, 10 December 2025, and 08 August 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “A processing circuit, configured to determine a condition of a pre-determined region of the optical device according to the first image and the second image.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “a condition of a pre-determined region of the optical device” is intended to mean. Specifically, it is unclear how the “pre-determined region” relates to the “optical device.” For example, this language could be interpreted as a region around the optical device, a specific portion of the optical device itself, a specific portion of the image sensing regions, etc., and as such it is difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “a region outside the optical device.”
Claim 11 contains similar limitations to that of claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their respective base claims.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant claims: “wherein the first light can totally pass transparent material which is translucent or transparent, and the second light can be reflected by the transparent material.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as by definition, a “transparent material” should be able to pass any kind of light. Further, the examiner notes that, by definition, a “translucent” material does not allow light to totally pass through, further rendering the claim indefinite. Further still, the examiner notes that the use of the word “can” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether or not the claim is further limiting. Specifically, the use of the word “can” in the phrase “can totally pass transparent material,” is able to be interpreted as an alternative or optional limitation.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their respective base claims.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims “wherein the second image of liquid has fluroscene patterns if the liquid has proteins.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “liquid” is being referenced, as no “liquid” has been previously claimed. Additionally, the claim is further rendered indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “fluroscene,” as this does not appear to be a term of art, nor is it defined in Applicant’s specification. The examiner notes that Applicant may have intended to claim “fluorescence patterns” or “fluorescent patterns,” but there is no support in the specification for either of these terms.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their respective base claims.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims: “wherein a first light absorbing rate of the liquid to the first light is lower than a second light absorbing rate of the liquid to the second light.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “liquid” is being referenced, as no “liquid” has been previously claimed.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their respective base claims.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims “wherein the first image sensing region is a CMOS sensor and the second image sensing region is a SWIR sensor or an InGaAs photo detector.” The examiner asserts that this claim is indefinite, as none of the acronyms claimed have been defined in the scope of the claim.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant claims: “wherein the processing circuit determines a liquid type in the predetermined range according to a division result of the first image and the second image.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as no “predetermined range” has been previously claimed. Further, it is unclear, within the scope of the claim, how the “first image” and the “second image” can be “divided.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed towards a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite a mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as the representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An optical device, comprising:
A first light source, configured to emit first light;
A second light source, configured to emit second light, wherein the first light and the second light have different light wave lengths;
A first image sensing region, configured to sense a first image generated according to the first light;
A second image sensing region, configured to sense a second image generated according to the second light; and
A processing circuit, configured to determine a condition of a pre-determined region of the optical device according to the first image and the second image.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process”, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers actions capable of being performed in the human mind. Specifically, the examiner asserts that “determin[ing] a condition” amounts to making a mere mental judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An optical device, comprising:
A first light source, configured to emit first light;
A second light source, configured to emit second light, wherein the first light and the second light have different light wave lengths;
A first image sensing region, configured to sense a first image generated according to the first light;
A second image sensing region, configured to sense a second image generated according to the second light; and
A processing circuit, configured to determine a condition of a pre-determined region of the optical device according to the first image and the second image.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitations of “a first light source” and “a second light source,” the examiner asserts that these amount to a mere generic linking to a particular field of endeavor, since both the first and second light sources are being operated in their typical capacity (i.e., producing light).
Regarding the limitations of “a first image sensing region” and “a second image sensing region,” the examiner asserts that these amount to a mere generic linking to a particular field of endeavor, since both the first and second image sensing regions are operating in their typical capacity (i.e., sensing image data).
Regarding the limitation of “a processing circuit,” the examiner asserts that this amounts to a mere apply-it level integration of a generic circuit to perform the mental process of “determin[ing] a condition….”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above, with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2, dependent claim 2 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 2 merely recites a property of physics. Hence, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3, dependent claim 3 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 3 merely recites the kind of light being emitted by the first and second light sources, both of which are routine. Hence, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4, dependent claim 4 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 4 merely recites a property of physics. Hence, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5, dependent claim 5 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 5 merely recites the kind of light being emitted by the second light source. Hence, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 6, dependent claim 6 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 6 merely provides description of the first and second image sensing regions. Hence, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 7, dependent claim 7 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 7 merely recites a property of physics. Hence, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 8, dependent claim 8 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 8 merely describes the wavelengths of light emitted by the first and second light sources. Hence, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 9, dependent claim 9 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 9 merely recites the kind of image sensor being used by the first and second image sensing regions. Hence, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 10, dependent claim 10 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 10 merely describes how the mental process of “determin[ing]” is performed. Hence, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 11, the examiner notes that independent claim 11 is patent eligible, because “control[ling] an autonomous cleaner…” is not an action capable of being performed in the human mind. Thus, independent claim 11, along with dependent claims 12-20, are patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jallon (US 9074355 B2), hereafter Jallon.
Regarding claim 1, Jallon discloses an optical device, comprising:
A first light source, configured to emit first light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.);
A second light source, configured to emit second light, wherein the first light and the second light have different light wave lengths (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.);
A first image sensing region, configured to sense a first image generated according to the first light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.);
A second image sensing region, configured to sense a second image generated according to the second light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.); and
A processing circuit, configured to determine a condition of a pre-determined region of the optical device according to the first image and the second image (Col. 7, Line 55 - Col. 8, Line 3, As can be seen from FIGS. 4A-4D, the different wavelength characteristic responses caused by the different contaminants can be used to make a determination of the degree of contamination of the liquid being examined, in this case wastewater from the shower. The wavelength characteristics of FIGS. 4A-4D may also be better understood in combination with the graph of FIG. 5, which shows the transmission of different light wavelengths through water contaminated with different substances. The four curves shown in the figure correspond, respectively, to "clean" water (labeled 90), water contaminated with soap (labeled 92), water contaminated with urine (labeled 94) and water contaminated with blood (labeled 96). Viewing these curves simultaneously, it can be seen how they deviate from one another at different wavelengths, thereby allowing the distinction between different contaminants in a liquid under test.).
Regarding claim 2, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first light can totally pass transparent material which is translucent or transparent, and the second light can be reflected by the transparent material (Col. 7, Lines 37-54, FIG. 4A shows the signal output for water that is clean, i.e., free of the target contaminants. As shown, the magnitudes of each of the measured wavelengths are essentially equal, as each of the wavelengths passes relatively easily through the clean water. FIG. 4B shows the wavelength response for water that has been contaminated by urine. As shown, the absorption characteristics of the contaminant result in a significant attenuation of light at the 350 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, and little or no attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength. A different wavelength response is shown in FIG. 4C, which results from water contaminated by blood. In this response, there is a significant attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation at the 350 nm wavelength, and a slight attenuation at 920 nm. Finally, FIG. 4D shows the wavelength response for water contaminated with soap. In this case, there is a moderate attenuation of the signals at 350 nm and 415 nm, and a slight attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength.).
Regarding claim 3, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the first light is IR (infrared) light and the second light is UV (ultraviolet) light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.).
Regarding claim 7, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a first light absorbing rate of the liquid to the first light is lower than a second light absorbing rate of the liquid to the second light (Col. 7, Lines 37-54, FIG. 4A shows the signal output for water that is clean, i.e., free of the target contaminants. As shown, the magnitudes of each of the measured wavelengths are essentially equal, as each of the wavelengths passes relatively easily through the clean water. FIG. 4B shows the wavelength response for water that has been contaminated by urine. As shown, the absorption characteristics of the contaminant result in a significant attenuation of light at the 350 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, and little or no attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength. A different wavelength response is shown in FIG. 4C, which results from water contaminated by blood. In this response, there is a significant attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation at the 350 nm wavelength, and a slight attenuation at 920 nm. Finally, FIG. 4D shows the wavelength response for water contaminated with soap. In this case, there is a moderate attenuation of the signals at 350 nm and 415 nm, and a slight attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength.).
Regarding claim 8, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the light wave length of the first light is smaller than the light wave length of the second light (Col. 7, Lines 37-54, FIG. 4A shows the signal output for water that is clean, i.e., free of the target contaminants. As shown, the magnitudes of each of the measured wavelengths are essentially equal, as each of the wavelengths passes relatively easily through the clean water. FIG. 4B shows the wavelength response for water that has been contaminated by urine. As shown, the absorption characteristics of the contaminant result in a significant attenuation of light at the 350 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, and little or no attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength. A different wavelength response is shown in FIG. 4C, which results from water contaminated by blood. In this response, there is a significant attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation at the 350 nm wavelength, and a slight attenuation at 920 nm. Finally, FIG. 4D shows the wavelength response for water contaminated with soap. In this case, there is a moderate attenuation of the signals at 350 nm and 415 nm, and a slight attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength.).
Regarding claim 10, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processing circuit determines a liquid type in the predetermined range according to a division result of the first image and the second image (Col. 7, Line 37 - Col. 8, Line 3, FIG. 4A shows the signal output for water that is clean, i.e., free of the target contaminants. As shown, the magnitudes of each of the measured wavelengths are essentially equal, as each of the wavelengths passes relatively easily through the clean water. FIG. 4B shows the wavelength response for water that has been contaminated by urine. As shown, the absorption characteristics of the contaminant result in a significant attenuation of light at the 350 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, and little or no attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength. A different wavelength response is shown in FIG. 4C, which results from water contaminated by blood. In this response, there is a significant attenuation of light at the 415 nm wavelength, a moderate attenuation at the 350 nm wavelength, and a slight attenuation at 920 nm. Finally, FIG. 4D shows the wavelength response for water contaminated with soap. In this case, there is a moderate attenuation of the signals at 350 nm and 415 nm, and a slight attenuation at the 920 nm wavelength. As can be seen from FIGS. 4A-4D, the different wavelength characteristic responses caused by the different contaminants can be used to make a determination of the degree of contamination of the liquid being examined, in this case wastewater from the shower. The wavelength characteristics of FIGS. 4A-4D may also be better understood in combination with the graph of FIG. 5, which shows the transmission of different light wavelengths through water contaminated with different substances. The four curves shown in the figure correspond, respectively, to "clean" water (labeled 90), water contaminated with soap (labeled 92), water contaminated with urine (labeled 94) and water contaminated with blood (labeled 96). Viewing these curves simultaneously, it can be seen how they deviate from one another at different wavelengths, thereby allowing the distinction between different contaminants in a liquid under test. Examiner's note: the "division" as claimed is merely a determination of the ratio of emitted light to received light).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jallon in view of Vasefi (US 20210228757 A1), hereafter Vasefi.
Regarding claim 4, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second image of liquid has fluroscene patterns if the liquid has proteins.
Vasefi, however, does teach wherein the second image of liquid has fluroscene patterns if the liquid has proteins (0041-0042, According to some embodiments, the presently disclosed system may provide both detection of contamination and immediate disinfection of contamination. Detection of contaminants may be based on imaging of fluorescence, that is characteristic of known contaminants, and that may be on surfaces that humans regularly contact. According to some embodiments presently disclosed, one mode of fluorescence imaging that is of particular advantage is the ability to determine the presence and location of human saliva and respiratory droplets on a surface. In this mode, the surface may be illuminated with ultraviolet light in the wavelength range of 260-290 nm which is used to excite fluorescence of proteins found in human saliva and respiratory droplets. An additional particular advantage of this chosen illumination wavelength is that it is effective for deactivating viruses, killing bacteria, and killing mold/fungi, providing two functions from one source of illumination. According to some embodiments presently disclosed, another mode of imaging that is of particular advantage is providing illumination using blue/violet wavelengths in the range of 375 nm-425 nm which can be used to excite fluorescence in organic residues, including those containing chlorophyll, porphyrins (often found in bacteria), NADH, FAD, and lipids.).
Jallon and Vasefi are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., liquid detection systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the protein determination of Vasefi in order to provide further means of classifying a detected liquid. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the detection device is properly able to determine the kind of liquid.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jallon and Vasefi teaches the optical device of claim 4, and Jallon further teaches wherein the second light is UV (ultraviolet) light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jallon in view of Fengler (US 20170209050 A1), hereafter Fengler.
Regarding claim 6, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first image sensing region and the second image sensing region are different portions of a single image sensor.
Fengler, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first image sensing region and the second image sensing region are different portions of a single image sensor (0100, The image sensor assembly 223 may include one or more image sensors configured to detect light at least in the UV, visible and/or near-infrared I (NIR-I) wavebands (e.g., below about 900 nm). In particular, in one variation, the image sensor assembly 223 may include a single solid state image sensor comprising technology such as silicon-based CMOS technology, CCD technology, CID technology, etc.).
Jallon and Fengler are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., liquid detection systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the single image sensor of Fengler in order to simplify the construction of the optical device. The motivation to combine is to increase the ease of manufacturing the optical device.
Regarding claim 9, Jallon discloses the optical device of claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first image sensing region is a CMOS sensor and the second image sensing region is a SWIR sensor or an InGaAs photo detector.
Fengler, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first image sensing region is a CMOS sensor (0100, The image sensor assembly 223 may include one or more image sensors configured to detect light at least in the UV, visible and/or near-infrared I (NIR-I) wavebands (e.g., below about 900 nm). In particular, in one variation, the image sensor assembly 223 may include a single solid state image sensor comprising technology such as silicon-based CMOS technology, CCD technology, CID technology, etc.) and the second image sensing region is a SWIR sensor or an InGaAs photo detector (0102, In one example, the image sensor assembly 223 may include at least one indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) image sensor and/or germanium (Ge) image sensor configured to detect light at least in the NIR-II waveband.).
Jallon and Fengler are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., liquid detection systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the particular sensors of Fengler in order to ensure that each wavelength of light is captured properly. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the wavelengths of light emitted are properly received and interpretable.
Claims 11-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jallon in view of Kim (US 20240315507 A1), hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Jallon discloses a device, comprising:
A first light source, configured to emit first light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.);
A second light source, configured to emit second light, wherein the first light and the second light have different light wave lengths (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.);
A first image sensing region, configured to sense a first image generated according to the first light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.);
A second image sensing region, configured to sense a second image generated according to the second light (Col. 6, Lines 47-60, In FIG. 3, three sets of source/detector pairs are shown adjacent to a liquid receptacle 38 within which a liquid to be examined may reside. This receptacle 38 may be, for example, a section of the detection reservoir 37 shown in FIG. 2. Adjacent to the liquid receptacle of FIG. 3 are three light sources which, in this embodiment, are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 40, 42, 44. Each of the LEDs has a different characteristic wavelength, and each has an output directed through a transparent barrier of the liquid receptacle 38. In this embodiment, LED 40 has a characteristic wavelength of 350 nm, LED 42 has a characteristic wavelength of 415 nm and LED 44 has a characteristic wavelength of 920 nm. The outputs of each of the LEDs are directed through the liquid in the receptacle 38 toward the reflector 32 located on the opposite side.); and
A processing circuit, configured to determine a condition of a pre-determined region of the optical device according to the first image and the second image (Col. 7, Line 55 - Col. 8, Line 3, As can be seen from FIGS. 4A-4D, the different wavelength characteristic responses caused by the different contaminants can be used to make a determination of the degree of contamination of the liquid being examined, in this case wastewater from the shower. The wavelength characteristics of FIGS. 4A-4D may also be better understood in combination with the graph of FIG. 5, which shows the transmission of different light wavelengths through water contaminated with different substances. The four curves shown in the figure correspond, respectively, to "clean" water (labeled 90), water contaminated with soap (labeled 92), water contaminated with urine (labeled 94) and water contaminated with blood (labeled 96). Viewing these curves simultaneously, it can be seen how they deviate from one another at different wavelengths, thereby allowing the distinction between different contaminants in a liquid under test.).
Jallon fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the device is an autonomous cleaner, and wherein the autonomous cleaner is controlled to act corresponding to the condition.
Kim, however, does teach wherein the device is an autonomous cleaner, and wherein the autonomous cleaner is controlled to act corresponding to the condition (0192, In operation S760, based on determining that a liquid object is present in the detection region, the cleaning robot 1000 may control the traveling module to move the cleaning robot to avoid the liquid object, and control the cleaning module to clean the surface to be cleaned. Examiner’s note: particularly, Kim is directed towards “a cleaning robot including a cleaning module; a traveling module to move the cleaning robot on a surface to be cleaned; a light emission unit; an infrared light sensor; a visible light sensor; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to control the light emission unit to emit infrared light toward a detection region, control the infrared light sensor to receive the emitted infrared light that is reflected from the detection region, control the visible light sensor to receive visible light reflected from the detection region, determine, based on the reflected visible light and an intensity of the reflected infrared light, whether a liquid object is present in the detection region, control, based on determining that the liquid object is present, the traveling module to move the cleaning robot to avoid the liquid object, and control the cleaning module to clean the surface while the cleaning robot moves. See at least the Abstract of Kim).
Jallon and Kim are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., liquid condition detection devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the cleaning robot-mounted sensor of Kim in order to provide a means of effectively using the sensor. The motivation to combine is to provide further means by which the optical sensor can be utilized.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jallon in view of Kim, and further in view of Vasefi.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jallon in view of Kim, and further in view of Fengler.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights