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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 December 2025, have been fully considered. Claims 1-11, 13-15, 18-23 are pending. Claims 1, 13, 15, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21-23 have been added.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to respond to objections are persuasive, therefore all claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to fix issues regarding 112(b) are persuasive, however the amendments have introduced new issues. See 112(b) rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the distinguishability of the pending claims over the prior art of record have been considered.
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended to recite that “the information for identifying the substance includes at least one of a name of the substance and a classification to which the substance belongs.” The applicant argues that “information for identifying [a] substance” should be distinguished from information such as raw spectral data or elemental/molecular data of a substance, and provides examples of qualifying information such as “austenitic steel” or “SUS304” (as in ¶276 of the present application).
The examiner agrees that, as amended, the “information for identifying [a] substance” is not met simply by raw spectral data, but disagrees that it should be distinguished from elemental/molecular data. The amended claim language states only that the “information for identifying the substance” must include either a “name of the substance” or a “classification to which the substance belongs.” If a sample of carbon were to be analyzed, and the substance library provided the name “carbon” or ‘C’, this would meet the claim language; the same would apply if the substance applied were silicon dioxide and the substance library provided the name “SiO2”. In each case, these are valid names of the substances under analysis, and these are not unreasonable choices of substances to be analyzed by a spectrometer. The examiner does not see this interpretation as inconsistent with the principle of reading the claim language in light of the specification (See MPEP 2111: “In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (Claim 9 was directed to a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas. The process comprised selecting the data to be analyzed by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation. The examiner made rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 102. In the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the examiner explained that the claim was anticipated by a mental process augmented by pencil and paper markings. The court agreed that the claim was not limited to using a machine to carry out the process since the claim did not explicitly set forth the machine. The court explained that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim." The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.”).
The applicant further argues that, while Bol’shakov shows the ability to distinguish between new and old oil, it does not disclose a substance library storing names or classifications for “old oil” and “new oil”. The examiner agrees with this argument.
The applicant further argues that, while Bol’shakov shows creating a chemical map of a sample (ruby in zoisite), Bol’shakov does not explicitly disclose estimating the substance containing said elements based on their type and content. The examiner agrees in part. It is clear that Bol’shakov discloses use of LIBS for identifying ruby and zoisite (Column 38, lines 18-32: “LIBS was effective in identifying main ruby and zoisite crystals); however, it is not immediately clear from Bol’shakov whether the names of the minerals themselves and/or their elemental compositions were displayed explicitly, or whether a human interpreter had to conclude the presence of particular elements/molecules/minerals from the spectral data.
The applicant further argues that Bol’shakov does not disclose a substance library, distinct from the analysis history holding section, which contains information for associating substances with information for identifying those substances (such as a name of the substances). In the previous office action, the examiner pointed to Bol’shakov’s reference database, which enables a user to “detect [and] identify…chemical elements present in a sample” by comparing them to reference spectra (see Column 6, lines 10-38). The examiner acknowledges that neither Bol’shakov nor McManus explicitly recite a distinct substance library which contains names for identifying a substance or classifications to which a substance belongs. Considering the above interpretation, the examiner considers that it would have been obvious for such a library to exist; for a sample of brass, a result stating “brass” would quickly convey important information to a user about the nature of the sample. However, see 103 rejections in light of the amended claims below.
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 20 and 22-23 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 20 recites, at the bottom of page 11, “are held as an analysis history.” The amendments cause confusion as to whether the analysis history contains only those analysis records similar to “one component analysis result,” or whether other records may also be included. The examiner assumes that the applicant intends to recite that the “plurality of analysis records similar to one component analysis result” are part of, but not necessarily the entirety of, the analysis history. The examiner will use this interpretation for examination purposes. To reflect this interpretation, the examiner recommends rewriting the last indented section of claim 20 on page 11 as:
identify a plurality of analysis records similar to one component analysis result obtained by performing component analysis and substance estimation of the sample, wherein the plurality of analysis records are held as part of an analysis history and include component analysis results and substance estimation results obtained by performing component analysis and substance estimation, obtained by irradiating the sample or another sample with an electromagnetic wave or an electron beam in advance
Claims 22-23 depend from claim 20, therefore they inherit the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bol’shakov discloses an analysis device (Fig. 1, laser ablation apparatus 100) that performs component analysis of a sample (Abstract: the invention is directed to a method of using LIBS for materials analysis of a sample), the analysis device comprising:
a placement stage on which the sample is placed (Fig. 1, stage 106);
an emitter which emits an electromagnetic wave or an electron beam to the sample placed on the placement stage (Fig. 1, pulse laser 102);
a spectrum acquirer which acquires a spectrum obtained from the sample irradiated with the electromagnetic wave or electron beam emitted from the emitter (Fig. 1, spectrometer 120 and ICCD 130);
a storage that holds a substance library in which each substance is associated with a characteristic of the substance and information for identifying the substance (Column 6, lines 10-38: “a real-time measured spectrum” may be compared to “a reference database in memory of a system computer” of spectra; this reference database is a substance library which, for each substance, contains a characteristic of the substance (its spectrum), and information for identifying the substance (a name or ID associated with the spectrum, such as “carbon” or “C”));
a component analysis section which performs component analysis of the sample, wherein the component analysis section extracts, as a characteristic of the sample, a constituent element constituting the sample and a content of the constituent element (Column 6, lines 10-38: “Further embodiments [include]…the real time computational analysis of digital spectral data to identify at least partially chemical composition and characterize the elemental composition of a plurality of sample forms. The computational methods enabling real time analysis of elemental composition include quantifying the elements according to the known spectral standards, and performing explorative (visualization), qualitative (classification), or quantitative (calibration) statistical analysis…This method allows users to detect, identify, and quantify chemical elements present in a sample using an automated mode of operation.”), and performs substance estimation based on the characteristic (Column 33, lines 3-18: four oil samples were analyzed, taking into account various elements and molecules. Then, “the chemometric algorithms” were able to distinguish between new and used oil. New oil and used oil are two different substances because they have different chemical compositions, and their estimation is based on quantifying their elemental compositions);
a display controller (Fig. 1, system computer 140) and a display (Fig. 1, display 142).
Bol’shakov does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 1.
Thermo discloses an x-ray fluoroscopy (XRF) precious metal analyzer (Title: “Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”). The analyzer scans a sample and associates substances (metals) with a characteristic of the substance (spectroscopic signatures) and information for identifying the substance including a name of the substance (a name of each metal in the sample is provided; see pg. 1, bottom left figure: column 1 indicates the metals in a sample and column 2 indicates the proportion of each metal in the sample). While Thermo does not explicitly describe a substance library, it would have been obvious to include a substance library of metals which associate spectral signatures of each metal with a name of the metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Thermo with the invention of Bol’shakov by providing a storage that holds a substance library in which each substance is associated with a characteristic of the substance and information for identifying the substance, wherein the information for identifying the substance includes at least a name of the substance. Doing so would enable one to provide a user with a name of an element found in a sample. Furthermore, in light of the above, it would have been obvious to perform substance estimation based on the substance library held by the storage in order to provide names of the substances found in a sample.
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 1.
McManus teaches a method of analyzing a material using LIBS and comparing its spectra to a library of spectra (Abstract). McManus teaches that this can be useful for determining the identity, place of origin, and /or treatment history of an unknown sample (¶2).
Bol’shakov also teaches that an instrument can create a reference library from analyzing a number of its own samples (Column 15, lines 14-27: “The apparatus 100 can be used for LIBS on biological materials. Analysis of biological material can include building a library of known spectral signatures including elemental and compositional data for specific biological material.”).
Bol’shakov further teaches creating a chemical map of a sample (Abstract: “A large number of sites within solid phase sample structures and be analyzed using a movable x-y-z stage and displayed in a chemical map”) and the ability to distinguish between ruby and zoisite in a sample rock of ruby-in-zoisite using information about the distribution of elements (Column 38, lines 18-32: “In another example of elemental mapping for ruby-in-zoisite gem rock, LIBS revealed the distribution of elements such as H, O, Li, K, Na, and Mg…Instant LIBS was effective in identifying main ruby and zoisite crystals as well as other constituent minerals within the analyzed area. Spatially resolved chemical information provides valuable insight on mineral phases present, location of inclusions, [and] mineral distribution.”).
Bol’shakov further teaches creating a 2D or 3D map of a sample’s composition (Column 5, lines 7-13: “The present disclosure also includes various embodiments for performing rapid chemical imaging of any solid samples in 2D and 3D using the LIBS described herein. The embodiments provide a 2D and/or 3D elemental composition of a solid sample by mapping and effectuating LIBS analysis of a series of preselected sample sites in x, y and z axes, quantifying and compiling these chemical composition data.”). Bol’shakov teaches that this is useful for many fields, such as “environmental forensics, geological studies, analyzing drilling cores, shale exploration, and many other fields” (Column 37, lines 53-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McManus with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo by including an analysis history holding section which holds, as an analysis history, a plurality of analysis records which include component analysis results and substance estimation results obtained by the component analysis section. Doing so would enable one to create a chemical map of multiple samples and use this information to compare an unknown sample with previously analyzed samples. This could be useful for determining whether two samples have the same chemical identity or place of origin. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure the analysis history holding section to accumulate a newly obtained analysis record in the analysis history in response to the component analysis section performing component analysis of the sample. Doing so would be useful for building the library each time a sample is analyzed, so that the sample can be compared with a future sample analysis.
McManus further teaches comparing one sample to other samples in a library in order to determine information about the sample (Abstract). This includes finding spectra in the library which are most likely to match the sample and determining a degree to which a reference and sample matches (¶25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McManus with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by including an identifying section which identifies, among the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section, a plurality of analysis records having a component analysis result similar to one component analysis result obtained by the component analysis section. Doing so would enable one to automatically determine which samples are most similar to the unknown sample.
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus does not explicitly disclose that the display controller causes the display to display:
the plurality of analysis records identified by the identifying section,
a component analysis result included in one of the identified analysis records and a component analysis result of the sample, each of which includes at least one of: (i) the constituent element constituting the sample and a content of the constituent element, and (ii) the molecular structure constituting the sample, obtained by the component analysis section; and
a substance estimation result included in one of the identified analysis records and the substance estimation result of the sample, each of which includes information for identifying the substance obtained by the component analysis section;
nor does Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus disclose an input receiver which receives a switching instruction to switch the component analysis result and substance estimation result included in an analysis record displayed from one analysis record to those included in a selected analysis record, wherein
the display controller, based on the switching instruction received by the input receiver, sequentially switches and displays the component analysis result and the substance estimation result included in the selected analysis record.
Bol’shakov discloses displaying a map of a sample showing a distribution and concentration of fluorine and oxygen in the sample (Figs. 22B and 22C). Bol’shakov also describes determining the location of ruby and zoisite in a sample (Column 38, lines 18-32; see above).
It would have been obvious to display a plurality of analysis records identified by the identifying section, as it is common to display a list of similar results.
It would have been obvious, considering the teachings of Bol’shakov, to display a chemical map of both an unknown sample and an identified similar record for a user to visually compare. Each map would include a substance and content of the substance in the form of a contour map. It also would have been obvious to include a substance estimation result for both maps, such as an ID or name (like “ruby”) to communicate to a user what substance concentration is being displayed. Finally, note that the limitations describing the functions of the input receiver merely describes making a selection from the list of similar results to switch the map to the selected similar result. Including this functionality would have been obvious in order to enable a user to choose which similar record to compare with the unknown sample.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 repeats many of the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. The remaining limitations include a processor in communication with a memory, the processor being configured to execute instructions stored in the memory that cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1. These limitations are met by a general computer implementing the method performed by the analysis device of claim 1. Bol’shakov discloses a general computer (Fig. 1, system computer 140), and it would have been obvious to cause the computer to perform the method of claim 1 so that the method may be performed autonomously. Furthermore, while claim 1 only limits the “one component analysis result” to be “obtained by the component analysis section,” claim 20 further limits it to represent component analysis of the sample (claim 20 recites that the “one component analysis result [is] obtained by performing component analysis and substance estimation of the sample”). However, the arguments for rejecting claim 1 still apply.
Regarding claim 2, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bol’shakov further discloses a first camera which receives reflection light reflected by the sample placed on the placement stage (Column 5, lines 18-21: “A compact CMOS camera provides magnified images of the sample surface for visual inspection, monitoring and controlling the movement of the sample”); and
an imaging processor which generates images of the sample based on the reflection light received by the first camera (a CMOS camera is an electronic camera and therefore uses an imaging processor).
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus does not explicitly disclose that, for each analysis record of the plurality of analysis records in the analysis history, the analysis record further includes an image associated with the component analysis result included in the analysis record, and which was obtained when the component analysis result included in the analysis record was acquired, respectively. However, Bol’shakov discloses showing an original image of a sample along with its chemical map (Fig. 22A), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus to take and keep an original image for each sample and keep it in the records in order to record what a sample’s visual appearance is.
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus does not explicitly teach that the input receiver receives a search start input for performing identification of the one component analysis result by the identifying section,
the identifying section identifies an analysis record having a component analysis result similar to the one component analysis result obtained by the component analysis section as a similar analysis record from among the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section in response to reception of the search start input by the input receiver, and
the display controller causes the display to display:
an image generated by the imaging processor for the one component analysis result, and
an image included in the similar analysis record identified by the identifying section.
The above limitations are met by searching for a sample in the analysis history similar to the unknown sample, and displaying images of both the unknown sample and the similar record. Starting the search would have been obvious in light of the arguments in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, where the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus identifies samples similar to an unknown sample). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to display images of both records for a user to visually compare the unknown sample with the identified similar sample.
Regarding claim 3, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 2. McManus further teaches calculating a similarity degree between an unknown sample and the records in the library of spectra (McManus, ¶61: the electronic processor can “(a) [compare] each spectrum in [a] sequence for the [unknown] sample to the different spectra in the library to identify...spectra...most likely to match the spectra in the sequence for the [unknown] sample; (b) [identify] which reference samples from the library include all of the identified spectra; and (c) [identify] a degree to which the sequence for the [unknown] sample matches a sequence for each of the identified reference samples. The above comparing and identifying step can be performed by using a data analysis process.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McManus with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by causing the identifying section to calculate a similarity degree between the one component analysis result and the component analysis result included in each of the analysis records for the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section, and identify a plurality of the similar analysis records based on the similarity degree. Doing so would enable one to establish a metric by which to quantify more and less similar records.
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus does not explicitly disclose that the display controller causes the display to display a list of images respectively included in the plurality of similar analysis records. However, this is common computer functionality, as the claim language is met by including thumbnails on the list of similar records (“thumbnails” are small images which help one quickly preview and browse a large collection of files quickly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include this functionality to help a user browse similar records more easily.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20170172545 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Lee teaches a method and apparatus for displaying ultrasound images (Abstract). As part of the invention, Lee discloses displaying images similar to a reference image (¶91: “the display apparatus 101 may automatically select an image similar to a currently captured image from among prestored images and display the automatically selected image.”). Lee further teaches receiving selection of a similar record from among a plurality of records displayed in a list on a display (¶121: controller 1701 selects a most similar image “from among the second thumbnail images 3130” on display 3100, see Fig. 10; Abstract: second images are “prestored”) and switching an image to be displayed on the display to the image associated with the record (¶121: the selected image is displayed “as its enlarged version 3140” on display 3100, see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by configuring the input receiver to receive selection of one similar analysis record from among the plurality of similar analysis records displayed in a list on the display, and to switch a component analysis result and the image associated with the component analysis result to be displayed on the display to a component analysis result of the one similar analysis record selected by the input receiver and the image associated with the component analysis result. This describes a common and convenient process for replacing one record’s image content with a desired record’s image content.
Regarding claim 5, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5.
Lee teaches a method and apparatus for displaying ultrasound images (Abstract). As part of the invention, Lee discloses displaying images similar to a reference image (¶91: “the display apparatus 101 may automatically select an image similar to a currently captured image from among prestored images and display the automatically selected image.”). Lee teaches receiving selection of a record from among a plurality of records (¶120: “user may select one image from among the first thumbnail images 3110,” which will then “be displayed as its enlarged version 3120”; see Fig. 10), identifying a similar record similar to the selected record from among a plurality of records (¶121: “an image that is most similar to the image 3120 from among the second thumbnail images 3130” is selected) held in a history holding section (Abstract: “second images” are selected “from among prestored images”), and displaying the record and the similar record identified (Fig. 10, image 3120 and similar image 3140 are displayed; see ¶121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by causing the input receiver to receive selection of an analysis record having the one component analysis result from among the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section, and by setting the display controller to cause the display to display the one component analysis result and a component analysis result included in the similar analysis record identified by the identifying section. Doing so would enable one to conduct a similarity search with records in storage and visually compare image data of a selected record with a record determined by the analysis device to be similar.
Regarding claim 6, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee teaches the limitations of claim 4. Furthermore, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee displays an unknown sample image and similar image (see rejection of claim 1, where an unknown sample is compared to similar samples; see also rejection of claim 2 where images from a camera are created and displayed). Images are displayed in some are of the display; let the unknown sample be displayed in a “reference image display area” and the similar image be displayed in a “similar image display area.” Then the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee already teaches that a display controller causes the display to display:
a reference image display area to which an image, generated by the imaging processor based on reflection light received by the first camera when the one component analysis result is acquired, is assigned; and
a similar image display area to which the image included in the one similar analysis record is assigned.
Finally, it would have been obvious to update an image to be displayed in the similar image display area to an image included in the one similar analysis record selected by the input receiver. This just describes selecting another similar record and displaying its image in place of the previously displayed similar record, and this would have been obvious to do so as to have a portion of the screen which displays the most recently selected similar record’s image.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1) and Lee (US 20170172545 A1), and further in view of Tsai (US 20240385119 A1). Note that provisional application 63/001,064 filed March 27, 2020, discloses all the features of Tsai relied upon in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 7, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee teaches the limitations of claim 6. Claim 7 repeats limitations of claim 2, except that claim 7 recites “a second camera which has a wider visual field range than the first camera,” so that the image generated, stored and displayed is a “wide-area image generated based on the reflection light received by the second camera.”
Tsai teaches use of a wide angle imaging lens in order to localize a sample position on the horizontal plane of the sample stage (¶33: the first of “two main functions” is “to localize the sample position on the horizontal plane” to align the sample to the spectroscopy probes; ¶34: “the first function may utilize a wide angle imaging lens”) and to visualize whole samples (¶34: the “wide angle imaging lens...has enough field of view to cover all the samples” on a stage with multiple samples). Tsai also teaches displaying samples to a user using the wide angle imaging lens to allow a user to align gemstones horizontally with the stage (¶107: a user can maneuver gemstones into the camera field of view by moving the stage horizontally; ¶33 and ¶34 the wide angle imaging lens is used to align the stage horizontally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tsai with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee by including a second camera which has a wider visual field range than the first camera, by generating and storing wide-area images from the second camera, and by displaying a component analysis result and a wide-area image in the manner recited in claim 7. Doing so would facilitate sample identification by displaying the whole sample (Bol’shakov, Column 5, lines 18-21 teaches that the CMOS camera “provides magnified images of the sample surface for visual inspection,” thus it may not capture whole images of a sample).
Regarding claim 8, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee and Tsai teaches the limitations of claim 7. Lee further teaches that a similar display area (Fig. 10, left region of 3100) is divided into a main display area (Fig. 10, 3140) and sub-display areas (Fig. 10, 3130) each of which is set to have a smaller display size on the display than a display size of the main display area (Fig. 10, images in 3130 are smaller than 3140) and displays images included in a similar record (¶117: “thumbnail images 3130 [correspond] to the second images”; ¶10: the second images comprise “images that are...similar to the first image”; see rejection of claim 6), and, in response to receiving selection of one image from among the images displayed in the sub-display areas, displays the selected image in the main display area (¶121: a controller 1701 selects “an image that is most similar to the image 3120 from among the second thumbnail images 3130” and displays the selected image “as its enlarged version 3140”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lee and Tsai by setting the display controller to cause the display to display the similar image display area to be divided into a main display area and sub-display areas each of which is set to have a smaller display size on the display than a display size of the main display area and displays images included in the similar analysis record, and, in response to the input receiver receiving selection of one image from among the images displayed in the sub-display areas, displays the selected image in the main display area. Doing so would enable one to view multiple images associated with a similar analysis record and select one for closer viewing.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1), and further in view of Lee, Tae-hee et al (US 20170054911 A1; hereinafter “Tae-hee”).
Regarding claim 9, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches that the identifying section calculates an analysis similarity degree, which is the similarity degree between the one component analysis result and the component analysis result included in the analysis record, for the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section, and identifies a plurality of the similar analysis records based on the analysis similarity degree (see rejection of claim 3).
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus does not teach that the identifying section calculates an image similarity degree, which is a similarity degree between the image associated with the one component analysis result and the image included in the analysis record, for the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section, and identifies a plurality of the similar analysis records based on the image similarity degree.
Tae-hee teaches calculating a similarity degree between two images for images held in a holding section, and identifying similar images based on the image similarity degree (¶118: “lens position information” may be compared for images held in buffers “to determine a similarity between...two images.” If the lens distance difference is below a predetermined value, the two images are determined to be similar.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tae-hee with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by causing the identifying section to calculate an image similarity degree as defined above for the plurality of analysis records held in the analysis history holding section and to identify a plurality of the similar analysis records based on the analysis similarity degree and the image similarity degree. Doing so would enable one to incorporate test conditions when determining whether an analysis record is similar.
Regarding claim 10, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Tae-hee teaches the limitations of claim 9. Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Tae-hee further teaches that the identifying section calculates the image similarity degree based on an acquisition condition associated with the one component analysis result and the acquisition condition included in the analysis record (Tae-hee, ¶118: lens position information is an acquisition condition; see rejection of claim 9).
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Tae-hee does not teach causing the analysis history holding section to hold, as the analysis record, an acquisition condition of the image generated based on the reflection light received by the first camera and the component analysis result in association with each other. However, it would have been obvious to do so in order to enable a user to conduct a similar sample search using acquisition condition information at any time.
Regarding claim 11, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Tae-hee teaches the limitations of claim 10. Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Tae-hee further teaches that the acquisition condition includes lens information (see rejection of claim 9; Tae-hee, ¶118: lens position information is lens information), and that the identifying section calculates the image similarity degree such that the image similarity degree increases as a matching degree between lens information associated with the one component analysis result and the lens information included in the analysis record increases (Tae-hee, ¶118: if the lens distance difference is below a predetermined value the two images are determined to be similar, and are determined to be dissimilar otherwise).
Claims 13, 15, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1), and further in view of Franklin (US 4346998 A).
Regarding claim 13, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13.
Franklin teaches a method of determining the concentration of one or more trace elements of interest in a sample (Column 3, lines 36-39: “This invention provides in its broader aspects an emission spectrometer arrangement for determining the concentration of one or more trace elements of interest in a biological sample”). Thus, Franklin shows that there is interest in enabling one to determine the concentration of an element or molecule of interest which is estimated to be in a sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Franklin with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by including an analysis setting section that receives an analysis setting for a specific element or a specific molecular structure for performing the component analysis,
wherein the display controller causes the display to display a component analysis result obtained by the component analysis section and, after displaying the component analysis result, causes the display to display an analysis setting screen for editing the analysis setting, in response to an instruction to start editing the analysis setting received by the input receiver,
the analysis setting section receives selection or an input of an essential item estimated to be included in the sample via the analysis setting screen,
the component analysis section re-extracts a characteristic as the characteristic of the sample by setting the essential item as an extraction target when the analysis setting section receives the selection or input of the essential item, and
the display controller causes the display to display a component analysis result obtained by the component analysis section based on the re-extracted characteristic.
Including an analysis setting section, inputting an estimated item, performing re-extraction, and displaying the result as described in the limitations above would enable a user to estimate the concentration of one or more expected elements in a sample and display the result (note that the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus is already capable of determining the concentration of elements and/or molecules in a sample; see the rejection of claim 1 and Figs. 22B-C of Bol’shakov). Additionally, the above limitations of displaying a component analysis result and analysis setting screen in response to an edit instruction just describes selecting a record and obtaining a pop-up screen to edit settings. It would have been obvious to include this functionality to enable a user to edit settings.
Regarding claim 15, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin teaches the limitations of claim 13. McManus further teaches receiving an analysis setting for performing component analysis (¶48: “the mean value of the energy used to generate the spectra” is used for scaling spectra while performing component analysis; ¶80: “in some embodiments, prior to irradiating laser pulses to a sample, other analytical parameters (e.g., laser wavelength, laser power, or spectral delay)…can be set”). Note that the mean energy used to generate a spectrum is equal to the time-averaged integral of the intensity emitted by the emitter while generating the spectrum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McManus with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Lefew by causing the analysis setting section to receive at least one of an intensity of the electromagnetic wave or a primary ray emitted from the emitter and an integration time of the spectrum acquired by the spectrum acquirer as the analysis setting. This information would be useful for scaling the spectra produced by the analysis device to facilitate cross-comparison when estimating the concentration of one or more expected elements in the sample.
Regarding claim 18, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin teaches the limitations of claim 13. Considering the rejection of claim 13, it would have been obvious for the analysis history holding section to hold, as the analysis record, the analysis setting and the component analysis result in association with each other. Doing so would be useful in order to keep a record of the user-selected elements expected to be in a sample as well as their concentrations. Furthermore, note that McManus teaches calculating a similarity degree between the one component analysis result and the component analysis result included in each of the analysis records (see rejection of claim 3 and McManus ¶61).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin to cause the identifying section to calculate a similarity degree such that a similarity degree between the one component analysis result and the component analysis result included in each of the analysis records increases as a matching degree between an analysis setting corresponding to the one component analysis result and the analysis setting included in the analysis record increases. By doing so, the similarity result of two samples would increase as the concentration of one or more elements in both samples matches. This follows the expectation that similar samples should include similar ratios of elemental composition.
Regarding claim 21, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin teaches the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to cause each of the analysis records held in the analysis history holding section to further include the spectrum acquired by the spectrum acquirer (see opening paragraph of the rejection of claim 19, which relies only upon Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be interested in being able to select and compare elemental concentrations between component analysis results as a way to determine similarity for a specific element of interest (see also rejection of claim 18 which states that one would expect similar samples to have similar ratios of elemental composition). Taking the component analysis result of the sample as the “one component analysis result” (see rejection of claim 1), a natural choice would be to compare the sample’s component analysis result with the identified analysis records described in claim 1 (those records which have a component analysis result similar to the “one component analysis result”). To do so, it would be convenient to configure the analysis setting screen to have an option whereby a user may cause the selection or input of the essential item to apply both to the component analysis result of the sample and one or more of of the identified analysis records. Doing so would facilitate a user’s ability to cross-compare concentrations of elements between the sample and an identified similar analysis record.
For the reasons above, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin to cause the display controller to, in response to the instruction to start editing the analysis setting, display the analysis setting screen for editing the analysis setting for both a component analysis result of the sample and a component analysis result included in one of the identified analysis records, and
to cause the component analysis section to, in response to the selection or input of the essential item via the analysis setting screen, re-extract a characteristic of the sample based on the spectrum of the sample, and re-extract a characteristic included in the one of the identified analysis records based on the spectrum included in said one of the identified analysis records, by setting the essential item as an extraction target for both re-extractions.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites a processor which performs limitations found in claim 13, and these limitations are rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations of claim 23 are found in claim 21 and are rejected for the same reasons (Slight differences in the claim language arise, originating in claims 1 and 20. In the independent claims, the “plurality of analysis records” compared to the “one component analysis result” are obtained in claim 1 by “the component analysis section” and in claim 20 by “irradiating the sample or another sample with an electromagnetic wave or an electron beam in advance.” However, the arguments for rejecting claim 1 can apply to the slightly different language of claim 20. For this reason, the arguments for rejecting claim 21 apply for to claim 23 even though claim 21 recites that the records in the analysis history include spectra “acquired by the spectrum acquirer” while claim 23 recites that those spectra are “generated from the sample or said another sample.”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1), and further in view of Franklin (US 4346998 A), and further in view of Lefew (US 20200312642 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin teaches the limitations of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
Lefew teaches receiving selection or an input of an item estimated to be included in a sample (¶10: a user selects “one or more ions from [an] ion data repository expected to be included in [a] sample”), and comparing sample spectral data with the item data (¶10: the sample spectral data and “data for each of the one or more ions selected” are compared to determine whether any of the one or more ions is present in the sample). Lefew further teaches receiving selection or an input of an excluded item estimated not to be included in the sample (¶54: “[an] artifact ion can then be flagged or otherwise indicated as being excluded from further analysis of the sample data’’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lefew with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Franklin by setting the analysis setting section to receive selection or an input of an excluded item estimated not to be included in the sample, and setting the component analysis section to re-extract a characteristic as the characteristic of the sample by setting the excluded item to be excluded from extraction targets when the analysis setting section receives the selection or input of the excluded item. Doing so would enable a user to exclude a known or estimated artifact from sample analysis.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bol’shakov (US 11247295 B1) in view of Thermo (“Thermo Scientific Niton DXL Precious Metal Analyzer”) and McManus (US 20130204531 A1), and further in view of Goodrich (US 20050282143 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus teaches the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus to cause the analysis history holding section to hold the spectrum and the component analysis result in association with each other as the analysis record. Doing so would enable one to keep all data of a single sample in a single record.
Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 19.
Goodrich teaches displaying a difference spectrum (Fig. 7) representing a difference between a spectrum associated with one component analysis result and a second component analysis result (Fig. 7 represents a difference between the two absorption spectra plotted in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Goodrich with the invention of Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus by setting the display controller to cause the display to display a difference spectrum representing a difference between a spectrum associated with the one component analysis result and a spectrum included in the similar analysis record. Doing so would enable one to easily visualize how the spectra of two samples differ.
In light of the above arguments, Bol’shakov in view of Thermo and McManus and Goodrich does not explicitly teach that the display displays a peak position of the spectrum associated with the one component analysis result to be distinguishable on the difference spectrum, however it would have been obvious to set the display controller to cause the display to do so in order to easily visualize how two spectra differ near a peak of interest for the sample under analysis.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857