www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/826,477
`
`03/23/2020
`
`KENJI NARUMI
`
`083710-2960
`
`4237
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`BOLOGNA,DOMINIC JOSEPH
`
`2877
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/19/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-17 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)(] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 3/23/2020 is/are: a)(¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220701
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/826,477
`NARUMetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`DOMINIC J BOLOGNA
`2877
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/23/2020.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element ina claim for a combination may be expressed as
`a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`3.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
`
`the plain meaning of the claim languagein light of the specification as it would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
`
`(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
`
`specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection |, claim limitations that meet the following
`
`three-prongtest will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112,sixth
`
`paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 3
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
`
`“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
`
`having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language,typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
`
`or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim with functional languagecreatesa
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
`
`the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
`
`function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation
`
`recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the
`
`recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 4
`
`otherwiseindicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
`
`not use the word “means”(or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`4.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraph, becausethe claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
`
`functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
`
`generic placeholder is not preceded bya structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`“imaging device to outputa first image signal representing a first image resulting from the laser
`
`light emitted fromafirst target area that is away from the first portion... and to output a
`
`second imagesignal representing a second image resulting from the laser light emitted from a
`
`second target area that is away from the second portion”in claim 1, and
`
`5.
`
`“imaging device to output image signals indicating an image includinga first image
`
`resulting from the laser light emitted from a first target area that is away from the first portion
`
`and a second imageresulting from the laser light emitted from a second target area that is
`
`away from the first portion” in claim 7.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
`
`corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 5
`
`limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
`
`present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
`
`the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims 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-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 7 recites the limitation
`
`"’the second portion”"
`
`in the fourth to last line. Thereis
`
`Ws
`
`All
`
`insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore,it is unclear how to
`
`calculate “a second distance between the second portion and a center of the second target
`
`area”.
`
`Is the second portion away from the first portion, as in claim 1? Is the second portion
`
`the same as the first portion? Does the claim mean that the second portion can be either away
`
`or the same place as the first portion? For the purposes of examination,it is assumed that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 6
`
`second portion is the same as the first portion, as suggested by Fig. 9, reg 105a, paragraph
`
`[0168].
`
`9.
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected based upon their dependency on claim 7.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`10.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction
`
`of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the
`
`prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under
`
`either status.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application
`for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
`the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of
`the claimed invention.
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1, 3-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`Narita et al. (US 2011/0263955), hereinafter “Narita”.
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Narita discloses a measurement apparatus (abstract, Figs. 5, 6, 8) for
`
`obtaining information about a target object (Fig. 5, ref 110) that is present inside a scatterer
`
`(ref 109), the measurement apparatus comprising:
`
`a light source that emits laser light to the scatterer (ref 803, paragraph [0083]);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 7
`
`an imaging device (ref 809, Fig. 5 ref 104, paragraph [0084]);
`
`a signal processing circuit (refs 810, 811, paragraph [0084]); and
`
`a controller that controls the light source and the imaging device and that controls an
`
`irradiation position of the laser light on the scatterer (ref 801, paragraph [0087]), wherein
`
`the controller causes the light source to irradiate a first portion of the scatterer with the
`
`laser light and causes the imaging device to output a first image signal representing a first
`
`image resulting from the laser light emitted from a first target area that is away from the first
`
`portion (Fig. 6, refs 107, 108, 109, far, paragraphs [0066]-[0072));
`
`the controller causes the light source to irradiate a second portion of the scatterer with
`
`the laser light and causes the imaging device to output a second imagesignal representing a
`
`second image resulting from the laser light emitted from a second target area that is away from
`
`the second portion (Fig. 6, refs 107, 108, 109, near, paragraphs [0066]-[0072]);
`
`the signal processing circuit generates data regarding a position of the target object
`
`inside the scatterer based on the first image signal and the second imagesignal and outputs the
`
`data (paragraph [0088], distribution of tissue 110 is position); and
`
`a first distance between the first portion and a center of the first target area is equal to
`
`a second distance between the second portion and a center of the second target area, ora
`
`difference between the first distance and the second distance is smaller than 10% of a smaller
`
`one ofthe first distance and the second distance (paragraphs [0066]-[0072] describe that
`
`distance 301 is set during scanning, and only changes to obtain information at a different
`
`depth).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 8
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Narita discloses wherein the signal processing circuit calculates a first
`
`average luminance indicating an average of luminance of the first image and a first luminance
`
`dispersion indicating a dispersion of luminance of the first image, based on the first image
`
`signal, calculates a second average luminance indicating an average of luminance of the second
`
`image and a second luminance dispersion indicating a dispersion of luminance of the second
`
`image, based on the second imagesignal, and generates the data based on the first average
`
`luminance, the second average luminance, the first luminance dispersion, and the second
`
`luminance dispersion and outputs the data (paragraphs [0369], Fig. 36 describe that average
`
`luminance at successive scans is used to create the image, see also paragraphs [0218], ][0293]-
`
`[0294]).
`
`15.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Narita discloses wherein
`
`the controller causes the light source to irradiate a third portion of the scatterer with
`
`the laser light and causes the imaging device to output a third imagesignal representing a third
`
`image resulting from the laser light emitted from a third target area that is away from the third
`
`portion (Fig. 6, refs 107, 108, central, paragraphs [0066]-[0072]); and
`
`the first distance is equal to a third distance between the third portion and a center of
`
`the third target area, or a difference between the first distance and the third distance is smaller
`
`than 10% of a smaller one of the first distance and the third distance (paragraphs [0066]-[0072]
`
`describe that distance 301 is set during scanning, and only changes to obtain information at a
`
`different depth).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 9
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Narita discloses wherein the first portion, the second portion, and
`
`the third portion are arranged on a surface of the scatterer in one direction at certain intervals
`
`(as shown in Fig. 6).
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Narita discloses. The measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the controller causes the light source to irradiate a third portion of the scatterer with
`
`the laser light and causes the imaging device to output a third image signal representing a third
`
`image resulting from the laser light emitted from a third target area that is away from the third
`
`portion; and the third portion is a portion that is different from both the first portion and the
`
`second portion and where the target object is not present (Fig. 16 shows scanning at both
`
`where the object is present and wherethe object is not present, paragraphs [0170]-[0172]).
`
`18.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Narita discloses wherein the signal processing circuit divides an
`
`absolute value of a difference between the first average luminance and the second average
`
`luminanceby the first average luminance or the second average luminanceto calculate a
`
`changerate of the average luminance, divides an absolute value of a difference between the
`
`first luminance dispersion and the second luminance dispersion by the first luminance
`
`dispersion or the second luminance dispersion to calculate a change rate of the luminance
`
`dispersion, and determines in which of two or more areas the target object is present, based on
`
`a ratio of the change rate of the average luminance to the changerate of the luminance
`
`dispersion, the two or more areas being located inside the scatterer and having different
`
`depths from a surface of the scatterer (paragraphs [0077]-[0081], [0137] and claim 36).
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Narita discloses wherein the scatterer is a living body (paragraph
`
`[0094]); and the target object is a portion that is located inside the living body and where a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 10
`
`hemoglobin concentration is higher than a hemoglobin concentration in surroundings of the
`
`portion (paragraph [0094]).
`
`20.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Narita discloses wherein a scattering property of the target objectis
`
`different from a scattering property of the scatterer (paragraphs [0061]-[0062], [0095]).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`21.
`
`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 ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`22.
`
`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 obviousnessor
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`ownedas ofthe 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 ofthe effective filing date
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 11
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita, and
`
`further in view of Shiono (US 2016/0313244).
`
`25.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Narita teaches a measurement apparatus (abstract, Figs. 5, 6, 8) for
`
`obtaining information about a target object (Fig. 5, ref 110) that is present inside a scatterer
`
`(ref 109), the measurement apparatus comprising:
`
`a light source that emits laser light to the scatterer (ref 803, paragraph [0083]);
`
`an imaging device (ref 809, Fig. 5 ref 104, paragraph [0084]);
`
`a signal processing circuit (refs 810, 811, paragraph [00084]); and
`
`a controller that controls the light source and the imaging device (ref 801, paragraph
`
`[0087]), wherein
`
`the controller causes the light source to irradiate a first portion of the scatterer with the
`
`laser light (Fig. 3, ref 201, paragraph [0066]) and causes the imaging device to output image
`
`signals indicating an image includinga first image (paragraph [0066]) resulting from the laser
`
`light emitted from a first target area that is away from the first portion (Figs. 3, 6) and a second
`
`imageresulting from the laser light emitted from a second target area that is away from the
`
`first portion (Fig. 6, paragraph [0074]);
`
`the signal processing circuit generates data regarding a position of the target object
`
`inside the scatterer based onafirst signal representing the first image and a second signal
`
`representing the second image,the first signal and the second signal being included in the
`
`imagesignals, and outputs the data (paragraph [0088], distribution of tissue 110 is position).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 12
`
`26.
`
`Narita is silent regarding a first distance between the first portion and a center of the
`
`first target area is equal to a second distance between the second portion and a center of the
`
`second target area, or a difference between the first distance and the second distanceis
`
`smaller than 10% of a smaller one of the first distance and the second distance.
`
`27.
`
`However, Shiono teaches optical sensing (abstract, Fig. 1A) including a first distance
`
`between the first portion and a center of the first target area is equal to a second distance
`
`between the second portion and a center of the second target area, or a difference between
`
`the first distance and the second distance is smaller than 10% of a smaller one of the first
`
`distance and the second distance (paragraphs [0094]-[0097], Fig. 1 showslight incident on
`
`detectors places equidistant from wherethe light is incident on target object 9).
`
`28.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Narita with the teaching of Shiono
`
`by including a first distance between the first portion and a center of the first target area is
`
`equal to a second distance between the second portion and a center of the second target area,
`
`or a difference between the first distance and the second distanceis smaller than 10% of a
`
`smaller one of the first distance and the second distance in order to simultaneously image on
`
`both sides of the incidentlight, decreasing image acquisition time.
`
`29.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Narita teaches wherein the signal processing circuit calculates a first
`
`average luminance indicating an average of luminance of the first image and a first luminance
`
`dispersion indicating a dispersion of luminance of the first image, based on the first signal,
`
`calculates a second average luminanceindicating an average of luminance of the second image
`
`and a second luminancedispersion indicating a dispersion of luminance of the second image,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 13
`
`based on the second signal, and generates the data based on the first average luminance, the
`
`second average luminance, the first luminance dispersion, and the second luminance dispersion
`
`and outputs the data (paragraphs [0369], Fig. 36 describe that average luminance at successive
`
`scans is used to create the image, see also paragraphs [0218], ][0293]-[0294)).
`
`30.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Narita teaches wherein
`
`the controller causes the light source to irradiate a second portion of the scatterer with
`
`the laser light and causes the imaging device to output an imagesignal representing a third
`
`image resulting from the laser light emitted from a third target area that is away from the
`
`second portion (Fig. 6, refs 107, 108, central, paragraphs [0066]-[0072]); and
`
`the second portion is a portion that is different from the first portion and where the
`
`target object is not present (Fig. 16 shows detection where the object is present and whereitis
`
`not present).
`
`31.
`
`Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita, as applied to
`
`claim 1 above, and further in view of Popescu et al. (US 2009/0040527), hereinafter “Popescu”.
`
`32.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Narita is silent regarding wherein the controller includes an actuator
`
`that changes at least one selected from the group consisting of a position of the light source
`
`and a position of the scatterer; and the controller drives the actuator to changethe irradiation
`
`position.
`
`33.
`
`However, Popescu teaches optical measurement (abstract) wherein the controller
`
`includes an actuator that changesat least one selected from the group consisting of a position
`
`of the light source and a position of the scatterer; and the controller drives the actuator to
`
`changethe irradiation position (paragraph [0038]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 14
`
`34.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Narita with the teaching of
`
`Popescu byincluding wherein the controller includes an actuator that changes at least one
`
`selected from the group consisting of a position of the light source and a position of the
`
`scatterer; and the controller drives the actuator to changethe irradiation position as a well-
`
`known device to movea irradiation position.
`
`35.
`
`Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita, as
`
`applied to claim 1 above.
`
`36.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Narita is silent regarding wherein a coherencelength of the laser
`
`light is 1 mm or more and 400 mm or less.
`
`37.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a coherence length of the laser
`
`light is 1 mm or more and 400 mm or less as it has been held that [W]here the general
`
`conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
`
`workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
`
`(CCPA 1955).
`
`In this case, one would choosethe claimed coherence length depending on the
`
`desired level of path-length selectivity, and thus, desired depth.
`
`38.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Narita is silent regarding wherein a coherencelength of the laser
`
`light is 2 mm or more and 100 mm or less.
`
`39.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a coherence length of the laser
`
`light is 2 mm or more and 100 mm or lessas it has been held that [W]here the general
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 15
`
`conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
`
`workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
`
`(CCPA 1955).
`
`In this case, one would choosethe claimed coherence length depending on the
`
`desired level of path-length selectivity, and thus, desired depth.
`
`AO.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Narita is silent regarding wherein a coherence length of the laser
`
`light is S mm or more and 20 mm or less.
`
`41.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a coherence length of the laser
`
`light is S mm or more and 20 mm or less as it has been held that [W]here the general conditions
`
`of acclaim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
`
`ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
`
`1955).
`
`In this case, one would choosethe claimed coherence length depending on the desired
`
`level of path-length selectivity, and thus, desired depth.
`
`42.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita, as applied to
`
`claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiono (US 2016/0313244).
`
`43.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Narita teaches the signal processing circuit determines whether or
`
`not the content is located at a correct depth and outputs a determination result (paragraphs
`
`[0007], [0010]) but is silent regarding wherein the scatterer is food; the target object is content
`
`contained in the food; and
`
`44.
`
`However, Shiono teaches wherein the scatterer is food; the target object is content
`
`contained in the food (paragraphs [0002], [0032]); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/826,477
`Art Unit: 2877
`
`Page 16
`
`45.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Narita with the teaching of Shiono
`
`by including wherein the scatterer is food; the target object is content contained in the food in
`
`order to determine if a foreign object is in the food.
`
`46.
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita, as applied to
`
`claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiwaki et al. (US 2018/0164160), hereinafter
`
`“Nishiwaki”.
`
`47.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Narita is silent regarding wherein the light source is capable of
`
`switching a coherence length of the laser light between values that are different from each
`
`other.
`
`48.
`
`However, Nishiwaki teaches optical measurement(abstract) including wherein the light
`
`source is capable of switching a coherence length of the laser light between values that are
`
`different from each other (paragraph [0118]).
`
`49.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Narita with the teaching of
`
`Nishiwaki by including wherein the light source is capable of switching a coherence length of
`
`the laser light between values that are different from each other in order to change depth or
`
`resolution of the measurement, as needed.
`
`Conclusion
`
`50.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whosetelephone number is (571)272-
`
`9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
`
`

`

`Application/Control N