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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f) based on an application (Application No. DE102024124894.7) filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 30 Aug 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 Jul 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "7" and "21" in Fig. 1 are referring to the same part. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. In particular, “Housing for a sensor and sensor” is unclear and not descriptive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 8, and 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein at least one partition wall of the lower housing part” should read “wherein the at least one partition wall of the lower housing part” (claims 1 and 8);
“wherein each hole forms” should read “wherein each hole of the plurality of holes forms” (claims 2 and 11);
“wherein at least two holes are” should read “wherein at least two holes of the plurality of holes are” (claims 3 and 12);
“wherein at least one hole has” should read “wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes has” (claims 4 and 13); and
“the range of X to Y mm” should read “a range of X and Y mm” (claims 3-5 and 12-14).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a structure for guiding light is formed or arranged in or on the lower housing part and oriented toward the optical filter”. It is unclear whether “light” recited in the limitation is the same or different from “light” also recited in claim 1, line 4. Claims 2-7 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein a structure for guiding the light is formed or arranged in or on the lower housing part and oriented toward the optical filter”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid, wherein at least one hole has a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm”. The antecedent basis for “at least one hole” in the limitation is unclear. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes, wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes has a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the structure is arranged and formed between two non-transparent partition walls, each partition wall separating two passages in the lower housing part from each other”. It is unclear whether “two non-transparent partition walls” and “each partition wall” recited in the limitation are the same or different from “at least one partition wall” recited in claim 1, to which claim 6 depends. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the structure is arranged and formed between two non-transparent partition walls of the at least one partition wall, each of the at least one partitional wall separating two passages in the lower housing part from each other”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein at least one partition wall of the lower housing part forms a receptacle or receiving tray for an optical filter”. It is unclear whether “at least one partition wall of the lower housing part” is the same or different from “at least one partition wall” also recited in claim 8, line 9. Claims 9-16 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 8. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the at least one partition wall of the lower housing part forms a receptacle or receiving tray for an optical filter”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a structure for guiding light is formed or arranged in or on the lower housing part and oriented toward the optical filter”. It is unclear whether “light” recited in the limitation is the same or different from “excitation light” or “fluorescent light” also recited in claim 8, line 3. Claims 9-16 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 8. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein a structure for guiding the excitation or fluorescent light is formed or arranged in or on the lower housing part and oriented toward the optical filter”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the passages for the LEDs are each separated from the second passage for the photodiode by an opaque partition wall”. It is unclear whether “an opaque partition wall” in the limitation is the same or different from “at least one partition wall” also recited in claim 8. Claims 9-16 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 8. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “the passages for the LEDs are each separated from the second passage for the photodiode by the at least one partition wall”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a light-tight adhesive film which is arranged on the lower housing part and has a recess through which both excitation light and reflected light can pass”. First, it is unclear whether “excitation light” recited in the limitation is the same or different from “excitation light” recited in claim 8, to which claim 10 depends. Second, it is unclear whether “reflected light” is referring to reflected “excitation light” or to “fluorescent light” recited in claim 8, to which claim 10 depends. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “a light-tight adhesive film which is arranged on the lower housing part and has a recess through which both the excitation light and reflected excitation light can pass”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid, wherein at least one hole has a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm”. The antecedent basis for “at least one hole” in the limitation is unclear. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes, wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes has a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the structure is arranged and formed between two non-transparent partition walls, each partition wall separating two passages in the lower housing part from each other”. It is unclear whether “two non-transparent partition walls” and “each partition wall” recited in the limitation are the same or different from “at least one partition wall” recited in claim 8, to which claim 15 depends. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the structure is arranged and formed between two non-transparent partition walls of the at least one partition wall, each of the at least one partitional wall separating two passages in the lower housing part from each other”.
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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevenson et al. (US PG Pub No. 2014/0134052) – hereinafter referred to as Stevenson.
Regarding claim 1, Stevenson discloses a housing for a sensor (at least Fig. 4) comprising:
an upper housing part (Fig. 4: light shield 10) and a lower housing part (Fig. 4: containing body 11) which, when assembled (Fig. 11 vs. Fig. 4), for a receiving space suitable for receiving a circuit board (Fig. 4: circuit board 6) with at least one light emitting diode (LED; Fig. 4: LED 1) which emits light through the lower housing part (Fig. 4: dotted/dashed line from LED 1 towards sensor pad 2; [0100]: collimator controls and confines light (see dot/dashed line) from LED 1 to the colourmetric sensor pad 2),
wherein a plurality of passages are formed in the lower housing part, which are each separated from one another by at least one partition wall (Fig. 4: channels within collimator 4 for each of LED 1 and light detector 3; see annotated Fig. 4 below for at least one partition wall):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and
wherein at least one partition wall of the lower housing part forms a receptacle or receiving tray for an optical filter (Fig. 4: optical filter 18 within the walls of the passage for light detector 3), and
wherein a structure for guiding light is formed or arranged in or on the lower housing part and oriented toward the optical filter (Fig. 4: collimator 4 with 2 diverging channels for detector 3, wherein optical filter 18 is oriented within 1 of the channels).
Regarding claim 2, Stevenson discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid (see annotated Fig. 12 below) comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
386
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
wherein each hole forms a light channel or leads into a light channel (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 with a channel ending in an opening for each of LED 1 and detector 3).
Regarding claim 6, Stevenson discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure is arranged and formed between two non-transparent partition walls (Fig. 4: collimator 4 with partition walls between channels for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; [0100]: design of collimator prevents any stray light and cross over from other pads),
each partition wall separating two passages in the lower housing part from each other (see annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anwar et al. (WIPO Pub No. 2024/072812) – hereinafter referred to as Anwar.
Regarding claim 3, Stevenson discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 8 above),
wherein at least two holes are separated from each other by a web (see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 2 above showing holes separated by a web).
Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein at least two holes are separated from each other by the web whose width is in the range of 0.01 to 1 mm.
In the same field of optical sensor, Anwar, however, teaches:
at least two holes that are separated from each other by a web whose width is in the range of 0.01 to 1 mm (Fig. 2C and [0072]: pitch (distance between equivalent points on consecutive fibers) between 6 µm (or 0.06 mm) and 30 µm (or 0.3 mm)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Anwar’s holes that are separated by a web whose width is in a range of 0.06 and 0.3 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing holes that are apart in a range of 0.06 and 0.3 mm, as disclosed by Anwar), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Anwar are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to “improve imaging resolution by attenuating divergent light that contributes to blur, effectively restricting the field of view (FOV) of each pixel to a smaller area”, as taught by Anwar ([0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Stevenson discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 2 above).
Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein at least one hole has a diameter or width which is in the range of 0.01 to 0.8 mm.
In the same field of optical sensor, Anwar, however, teaches:
at least one hole having a diameter or width which is in the range of 0.01 to 0.8 mm (Fig. 2C and [0072]: individual fibers possess a diameter of 9 µm (or 0.09 mm)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Anwar’s hole having a diameter of 0.09 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing a hole having a diameter of 0.09 mm, as disclosed by Anwar), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Anwar are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to “improve imaging resolution by attenuating divergent light that contributes to blur, effectively restricting the field of view (FOV) of each pixel to a smaller area”, as taught by Anwar ([0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Stevenson discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 2 above).
Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein at least one hole has a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm.
In the same field of optical sensor, Anwar, however, teaches:
at least one hole having a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm (Fig. 2C and [0074]: thickness of collimator comprising at least one hole between 50 µm (or 0.5 mm) and 0.2 cm (or 2 mm)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Anwar’s hole having a length in a range of 0.5 and 2 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing a hole having a length in a range of 0.5 and 2 mm, as disclosed by Anwar), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Anwar are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to “improve imaging resolution by attenuating divergent light that contributes to blur, effectively restricting the field of view (FOV) of each pixel to a smaller area”, as taught by Anwar ([0075]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US PG Pub No. 2024/0197213) – hereinafter referred to as Yoshikawa.
Regarding claim 7, Stevenson discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein the upper housing part and/or the lower housing part is or are made of a plastic which does not contain any glass fibers.
In the same field of optical sensor, Yoshikawa, however, teaches:
a lower housing part is made of a plastic which does not contain any glass fibers (Fig. 43 and [0333]: disposable portion comprising plastic waveguide structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Yoshikawa’s plastic lower housing part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., configuring lower housing part to be plastic, as disclosed by Yoshikawa), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Yoshikawa are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been since “The plastic material that makes up the waveguide must be largely transparent, should have a high refractive index to facilitate coupling from LEDs into the waveguide, should have low autofluorescence, and should generally have some resistance moisture”, as taught by Yoshikawa ([0333]).
Claims 8, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa.
Regarding claim 8, Stevenson discloses a sensor (at least Fig. 4) comprising:
two light emitting diodes (LEDs; Fig. 4: 2 LEDs 1) for emitting excitation light and a photodetector (Fig. 4: light detector 3) for detecting reflected light ([0097]: LED 1 to shine light at sensor area 2 and reflected hue is read by light detector 3);
an optical filter (Fig. 4: optical filter 18); and
a housing comprising an upper housing part (Fig. 4: light shield 10) and a lower housing part (Fig. 4: containing body 11) which, when assembled (Fig. 11 vs. Fig. 4), for receiving a circuit board (Fig. 4: circuit board 6) with at least one light emitting diode (LED; Fig. 4: LED 1) which emits light through the lower housing part (Fig. 4: dotted/dashed line from LED 1 towards sensor pad 2; [0100]: collimator controls and confines light (see dot/dashed line) from LED 1 to the colourmetric sensor pad 2),
wherein a plurality of passages are formed in the lower housing part (Fig. 4: channels within collimator 4 for each of LED 1 and light detector 3 within containing body 11),
each separated from one another by at least one partition wall (Fig. 4: channels within collimator 4 for each of LED 1 and light detector 3; see annotated Fig. 4 below for at least one partition wall):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and
wherein at least one partition wall of the lower housing part forms a receptacle or receiving tray for an optical filter (Fig. 4: optical filter 18 within the walls of the passage for light detector 3), and
wherein a structure for guiding light is formed or arranged in or on the lower housing part and oriented toward the optical filter (Fig. 4: collimator 4 with 2 diverging channels for detector 3, wherein optical filter 18 is oriented within 1 of the channels).
wherein the LEDs (Fig. 4: LEDs 1) each project into a first and a third passage of the plurality of passages (Fig. 4: each LED 1 with respective channel),
the photodetector (Fig. 4: light detector 3) projects into a second passage of the plurality of passages which opens into the structure (Fig. 4, 12: light detector 3 with 2 channels opening into holes at the ends; see annotated Fig. 12 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
386
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
the passages for the LEDs are each separated from the second passage for the photodetector by an opaque partition wall (Fig. 4: channels for LEDs 1 and light detector 3 separated by partition walls of collimator 4; [0100]: design of collimator 4 prevents any stray light and cross over from other pads; see annotated Fig. 4 above for partition walls).
Stevenson does not disclose:
a circuit board comprising the two LEDs for emitting excitation light and a photodiode for detecting fluorescent light.
In the same field of optical sensor, Yoshikawa, however, teaches:
a circuit board (Fig. 6A-C: printed circuit (PC) board) comprising two light emitting diodes (LEDs) for emitting excitation light and a photodiode for detecting fluorescent light (Fig. 6A-C: PC Board comprising LED and detector; [0155]: LED as excitation light source and fluorescent light detector (i.e., photodiode)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Yoshikawa’s circuit board and photodiode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., configuring a circuit board comprising LEDs and a photodiode, as disclosed by Yoshikawa), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Yoshikawa are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide “a simple high-throughput fluorimeter”, as taught by Yoshikawa ([0155]), in which the light source and the light detector are controlled by a controller enclosed in the sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid (see annotated Fig. 12 below) comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 above in claim 8),
wherein each hole forms a light channel or leads into a light channel (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 with a channel ending in an opening for each of LED 1 and detector 3).
Regarding claim 15, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure is arranged and formed between two non-transparent partition walls (Fig. 4: collimator 4 with partition walls between channels for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; [0100]: design of collimator prevents any stray light and cross over from other pads),
each partition wall separating two passages in the lower housing part from each other (see annotated Fig. 4 in claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 16, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein the upper housing part and/or the lower housing part is or are made of a plastic which does not contain any glass fibers.
In the same field of optical sensor, Yoshikawa, however, teaches:
a lower housing part is made of a plastic which does not contain any glass fibers (Fig. 43 and [0333]: disposable portion comprising plastic waveguide structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s sensor to include Yoshikawa’s plastic lower housing part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., configuring lower housing part to be plastic, as disclosed by Yoshikawa), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Yoshikawa are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been since “The plastic material that makes up the waveguide must be largely transparent, should have a high refractive index to facilitate coupling from LEDs into the waveguide, should have low autofluorescence, and should generally have some resistance moisture”, as taught by Yoshikawa ([0333]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (US PG Pub No. 2015/0351669) – hereinafter referred to as Weber.
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein the optical filter comprises a glass plate which carries an optical thin-film filter.
In the same field of optical sensor, Weber, however, teaches:
an optical filter comprising a glass plate which carries an optical thin-film filter (Fig. 4: glass filter 40 including dichroic filter coating 44; [0039]: glass filter 40 includes dichroic filter coating 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s sensor to include Weber’s glass optical filter with a film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., configuring a film on an optical filter of glass, as disclosed by Weber), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Weber are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to aid the optical filter in reflecting unwanted optical wavelengths while allowing transmission of wanted optical wavelengths to the detector (see [0042]-[0043] of Weber).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gretz et al. (US PG Pub No. 2015/0245799) – hereinafter referred to as Gretz.
Regarding claim 10, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson does not disclose:
a light-tight adhesive film which is arranged on the lower housing part and has a recess through which both excitation light and reflected light can pass.
In the same field of optical sensor, Gretz, however, teaches:
a light-tight adhesive film (Fig. 3: black-pigmented adhesive layers 4-6) which is arranged on a lower part of the sensor (Fig. 3 and [0015]: soot pigmentation of adhesive layers 4-6 imparts a light-absorbing function to the adhesive, and film 3 on adhesive 4 serves to dimensionally stabilise the functional punched part frame and serves as a barrier or spacer between the medical (skin) and technical (sensor) side of the coupling layer) and has a recess through which both excitation light and reflected light can pass (Fig. 3 and [0016]: sensor head with LEDs and photodiode is attached in such a way that direct penetration of light from the LEDs into the photodiode is prevented by the black webs 14 within layers 4-6 between the LEDs and the photodiode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s sensor to include Gretz’s adhesive film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., configuring the film with a recess between the sensor and the patient, as disclosed by Gretz), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Gretz are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have to “enable[s] the sensor to examine the skin undisturbed with its LEDs and photodiodes”, as taught by Gretz [0011]), while the sensor is attached to the skin of the patient.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Anwar.
Regarding claim 12, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 8 above),
wherein at least two holes are separated from each other by a web (see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 8 above showing holes separated by a web).
Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein at least two holes are separated from each other by the web whose width is in the range of 0.01 to 1 mm.
In the same field of optical sensor, Anwar, however, teaches:
at least two holes that are separated from each other by a web whose width is in the range of 0.01 to 1 mm (Fig. 2C and [0072]: pitch (distance between equivalent points on consecutive fibers) between 6 µm (or 0.06 mm) and 30 µm (or 0.3 mm)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s sensor to include Anwar’s holes that are separated by a web whose width is in a range of 0.06 and 0.3 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing holes that are apart in a range of 0.06 and 0.3 mm, as disclosed by Anwar), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Anwar are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to “improve imaging resolution by attenuating divergent light that contributes to blur, effectively restricting the field of view (FOV) of each pixel to a smaller area”, as taught by Anwar ([0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 8 above).
Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein at least one hole has a diameter or width which is in the range of 0.01 to 0.8 mm.
In the same field of optical sensor, Anwar, however, teaches:
at least one hole having a diameter or width which is in the range of 0.01 to 0.8 mm (Fig. 2C and [0072]: individual fibers possess a diameter of 9 µm (or 0.09 mm)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Anwar’s hole having a diameter of 0.09 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing a hole having a diameter of 0.09 mm, as disclosed by Anwar), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Anwar are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to “improve imaging resolution by attenuating divergent light that contributes to blur, effectively restricting the field of view (FOV) of each pixel to a smaller area”, as taught by Anwar ([0075]).
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson in view of Yoshikawa discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Stevenson further discloses:
wherein the structure comprises a perforated grid comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 4, 12: collimator 4 comprising channels ending in openings for guiding light to and from LED 1 and detector 3; see annotated Fig. 12 in claim 8 above).
Stevenson does not disclose:
wherein at least one hole has a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm.
In the same field of optical sensor, Anwar, however, teaches:
at least one hole having a length as a light channel which is in the range of 0.5 to 2 mm (Fig. 2C and [0074]: thickness of collimator comprising at least one hole between 50 µm (or 0.5 mm) and 0.2 cm (or 2 mm)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson’s housing to include Anwar’s hole having a length in a range of 0.5 and 2 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing a hole having a length in a range of 0.5 and 2 mm, as disclosed by Anwar), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Stevenson and Anwar are directed to an optical sensor for detecting a reflected light. The motivation for the combination would have been to “improve imaging resolution by attenuating divergent light that contributes to blur, effectively restricting the field of view (FOV) of each pixel to a smaller area”, as taught by Anwar ([0075]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freudenberg (DE202010014729, a copy of machine translation relied upon attached to this Office action) discloses an optical sensor comprising an LED and a photodiode each with a passage and the optical sensor housed in a plastic material (at least Fig. 3 and [0024]); and
Schultz et al. (US PG Pub No. 2018/0214057) discloses an optical sensor with an LED and a light detector each with a passage (at least Fig. 26).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
6/18/26
Prosecution Insights