DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23, 27, and 28 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 12, 24, 25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2022/0214269, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Klug discloses a blood flow measurement device comprising: an irradiation unit that has a light source emitting near-infrared rays and irradiates an object with the near-infrared rays; and a light receiving section that has a light receiving element for measuring scattered light that is irradiated from the irradiation unit and scattered by the object, wherein in a case where a configuration in which the irradiation unit has an irradiation unit light guide plate that guides the near-infrared rays emitted from the light source and an irradiation diffraction element for emitting the near-infrared rays guided in the irradiation unit light guide plate from the irradiation unit light guide plate to irradiate the object with the near- infrared rays is defined as a first configuration, and a configuration in which the light receiving section has a light receiving section light guide plate that guides the scattered light scattered by the object and a light receiving diffraction element for allowing the scattered light scattered by the object to be incident on the light receiving section light guide plate is defined as a second configuration, the blood flow measurement device has at least one of the first configuration or the second configuration (Fig. 1, [0034]…[0040]: transceiver deflection structures 20 and 22 are diffraction elements for irradiation and receiving configurations, diffracting light into at least one light guide). Klug does not explicitly disclose that the irradiation diffraction element and the light receiving diffraction element are disposed at different positions in a plane direction of a main surface of the irradiation unit light guide plate. However, rearranging the position of the diffraction elements where they would not be in the same plane direction would not have modified the operation of the device because the diffraction would occur in a similar manner (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 9, Klug discloses that the blood flow measurement device has at least one of the first configuration having an incidence diffraction element for allowing the near-infrared rays emitted from the light source to be incident on the irradiation unit light guide plate, or the second configuration having an emission diffraction element for emitting the scattered light guided in the light receiving section light guide plate from the light receiving section light guide plate to be incident on the light receiving element (Fig. 1, [0034]…[0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Klug discloses that the irradiation unit light guide plate and the light receiving section light guide plate are arranged in a plane direction (Fig. 1 shows that all optical components are arranged in a parallel plane direction).
Regarding claim 12, while Klug does not explicitly disclose that at least one of the irradiation unit light guide plate or the light receiving section light guide plate has a first material and a second material having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the first material, and the second material is configured to be encompassed in the first material, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have found it obvious to use optical elements with specific refractive indices, especially when it involves two adjacent optical elements serving as an optical medium, because refractive indices are conventionally and commonly engineered to control the direction of an optical train.
Regarding claim 24, Klug discloses that the near-infrared rays are light in a wavelength range of 650 to 1,400 nm ([0014]).
Regarding claim 25, Klug discloses that the light source includes at least one light emitting diode ([0008]).
Regarding claim 29, Klug does not explicitly disclose that the first configuration has an incidence diffraction element for allowing the near-infrared rays emitted from the light source to be incident on the irradiation unit light guide plate, and the second configuration has an emission diffraction element for emitting the scattered light guided in the light receiving section light guide plate from the light receiving section light guide plate to be incident on the light receiving element. However, Klug teaches the use of diffraction gratings and structures ([0017], [0022]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply an additional well-known and conventional diffraction element, as to provide robust directing of rays.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2022/0214269, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Suzushi (US 2002/0110651, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Klug does not explicitly disclose that at least one of the irradiation diffraction element or the light receiving diffraction element is a liquid crystal diffraction element. However, Suzushi teaches a liquid crystal diffraction device ([0004]…[0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the liquid crystal of Suzushi to the diffraction elements of Klug, as to provide the optical benefits of Suzushi’s cholesteric liquid crystal layer.
Regarding claim 10, Klug does not explicitly disclose that the irradiation unit light guide plate and the light receiving section light guide plate are laminated. However, Suzushi teaches optical components that are laminated (Abstract; [0004]…[0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the lamination taught by Suzushi to the elements of Klug, as to provide a conventional manner of combining optical elements.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2022/0214269, of record), as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Sato (US 2021/0223448, of record).
Regarding claims 4-8, Klug does not explicitly disclose the liquid crystal diffraction element includes a liquid crystal layer having a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in-plane direction, that the liquid crystal compound constituting the liquid crystal layer is helically twisted and aligned in a thickness direction, the liquid crystal layer being a cholesteric liquid crystal layer, that two of the liquid crystal layers in which helical twisted directions of the liquid crystal compounds are different from each other. However, Sato teaches a liquid crystal diffraction element with these traits (Abstract; [0138]…[0144]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the liquid crystal layer of Sato to the diffraction element of Klug, as to provide a high efficiency refraction (see Sato’s Abstract).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2022/0214269, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sato (US 2021/0311259).
Regarding claim 26, Klug does not explicitly disclose that the light source is configured to emit two types of near-infrared rays having different wavelengths. However, Sato teaches a light source emitting at least three different wavelengths ([0659]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply more than one wavelength of light, as to provide excitation light having different wavelengths.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
