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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 08/04/25, regarding rejected claims 1, 16, on pages 6-8, and 10-12 the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “It is submitted that none of Lee, Ja, nor Atkinson, nor their combination, discloses or suggests Applicant's claimed the sample area is arranged at between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit, because (1) Lee is limited to describing that area A is arranged above the light emitting module 607 and the light receiving module 606 (Lee, FIG. 6A), (2) Ja cannot make up this deficiency because Ja is limited to describing a light source arranged between the sensing slide 16 and the detector 24, and (3) Atkinson cannot make up this deficiency because Atkinson is limited to describing a detector outside of the laser… It is submitted that amended claims 16 and 18 are different from Lee in that Lee does not show that a further optical detector is arranged adjacent to the emitter, and that the sample area is arranged between the optical detector and the further optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit.”
3. First: The new added limitation “the sample area is arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit” is just an arrangement positions between the elements of the emitter, optical detector, and the sample area. The shape, position differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape, position of the elements is anything more than one of numerous shapes, positions a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
4. Second: Further, the new added limitation “the sample area is arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit” has been found in
new refence of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893), (figure 1, emitter 100, sample area 112, detector 116; Figure 25, source 1, source 2, sample cell, detector 1, detector 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the sample area being arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit in order to detect light beam transmitted through the sample (figure 1, emitter 100, sample area 112, detector 116; Figure 25, source 1, source 2, sample cell, detector 1, detector 2).
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/25 was filed after the mailing date of the 05/02/25 on Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-2, 6-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0113387) in view of Ja (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0033410), or Atkinson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,032), further in view of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893). Hereafter “Lee”, “Ja”, “Atkinson”, “Bonyuet”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Lee teaches a spectrometer, method for detecting electromagnetic radiation ([0004, 0005, 0008, 0009]; Figures 1, 2 is not different from a spectrometer) comprising:
- an emitter that is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation ([0093], lines 1-3; figures 4A, 4B, 6A-D, emitting module 410a, 430a, 607, is not different from an emitter),
- a sample area that is arranged at an outer face of the spectrometer (the following figure 6A, area A is not different from a sample area that is arranged at an outer face of the spectrometer),
- a modulation unit ([0110, 0128], figure 8A, the ASIC 856 is not different from a modulation unit) comprising an electrochromic material (Abstract; [0150], electrochromic glass layer is not different from an electrochromic material),
- an optical filter ([0109], lines 5-9),
- an integrated circuit that has a main plane of extension ([0060], lines 17-19; [0067], lines 5; [0110], lines 1-5; [0128]. It is inherent that any IC chip must have a main plane of extension), and
wherein
- the electrochromic material is electrically connected with the integrated circuit ([0150], figures 1, 2. It is inherent that electrochromic glass layer must be connected to a control circuit/integrated circuit), and
- the modulation unit is configured to modulate electromagnetic radiation temporally, and the electromagnetic radiation passing the modulation unit ([0110, 0128, 0107]. ASIC 856/608 is not different from the modulation unit. It is inherent that emitter 607 generates light under the control of control unit when it is needed. In the other words, control unit modulates light temporally).
However, Lee does not teach the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time, and intensity of the electromagnetic radiation is modulated. Ja teaches the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time, and intensity of the electromagnetic radiation is modulated ([0275]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time in order to perform “high dynamic range” (HDR) imaging that can accommodate extremely bright spots and reveal spatial and/or spectral details hidden in relatively low intensity portions of a scene. Such capability is highly desirable for FPA-based and/or other types of detection platforms with relatively limited intensity dynamic range, (Ja, [0275]).
Atkinson also teaches the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time, and intensity of the electromagnetic radiation is modulated (column 14, lines 5-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time in order to fluctuate between high and low intensity levels that periodically bring the gain medium 20 just above and below the threshold required for laser operation (Atkinson, column 14, lines 5-34).
Moreover, Lee does not teach the sample area is arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit. Bonyuet teaches this limitation, (figure 1, emitter 100, sample area 112, detector 116; Figure 25, source 1, source 2, sample cell, detector 1, detector 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the sample area being arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit in order to detect light beam transmitted through the sample (figure 1, emitter 100, sample area 112, detector 116; Figure 25, source 1, source 2, sample cell, detector 1, detector 2).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Lee teaches the optical filter is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation modulated by the modulation unit ([0109], lines 5-9; [0126]. It is inherent that emitter 607 generates light under the control of control unit).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Lee teaches optical detector is arranged adjacent to the emitter (figure 4A-B, elements 410a, 410b, 430a, 430b).
Regarding Claim(s) 7-12, Lee teaches the emitter, the modulation unit, the optical filter, the optical detector and the integrated circuit (figures 6A-D, optical detector 606, emitter 607, sample area 602; [0109, 0110, 0128]), transmission region (figures 6A-D, glass 603), opening (figures 6A-D, the area above external wall 604a is not different from an opening), a transmission region is arranged between the sample area and the emitter in a vertical direction that is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit (figures 6A-D, glass 603 is not different from a transmission region, sample area 602, emitter 607), and the sample area is arranged adjacent to an opening within the spectrometer (figures 6A-D, sample area 602 is arranged adjacent to the area above external wall 604a, which is not different from an opening).
However, Lee in view of Ja or Atkinson do not teach the modulation unit, the optical filter, and the integrated circuit are arranged on the same side of the sample area, or the modulation unit is arranged between the emitter and the sample area in a vertical direction that is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit, or the transmission region has a transmissivity of at least 0.7 for electromagnetic radiation emitted by the emitter, or the sample area is arranged between the emitter and the optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit, or the optical filter is arranged between the modulation unit and the optical detector in a vertical direction that is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit, the modulation unit is arranged between the optical filter and the optical detector in a vertical direction that is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit. The shape/location/range differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape/location of these elements is anything more than one of numerous shapes/location a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Lee teaches an intensity of the electromagnetic radiation passing the modulation unit is modulated ([0110, 0128], the ASIC 856 is not different from a modulation unit. It is inherent that intensity of the electromagnetic radiation passes through the ASIC 856 including driver integrated circuit in order to control the light emitting module 607).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Lee teaches the portable device being in particular a mobile phone, a wearable or a laptop computer, (figures 4A-B).
8. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0113387) in view of Ja (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0033410), or Atkinson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,032), further in view of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893), and further in view of Tamada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0369742), or of Kato et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0276158). Hereafter “Lee”, “Ja”, “Atkinson”, “Tamada”, “Kato”, “Bonyuet”.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the integrated circuit comprising a lock-in detection function. Tamada teaches circuit comprising a lock-in detection function ([0065]), and Kato also teaches circuit comprising a lock-in detection function, ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, by having a lock-in detection function in order to detect signal more efficiently.
9. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0113387) in view of Ja (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0033410), or Atkinson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,032), further in view of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893), and further in view of Ollila et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0364736). Hereafter “Lee”, “Ja”, “Atkinson”, “Ollila”, “Bonyuet”.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for to detect electromagnetic radiation in the visible and in the infrared range. Ollila teaches to detect electromagnetic radiation in the visible and in the infrared range, ([0034, 0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, by detecting electromagnetic radiation in the visible and in the infrared range in order to detect Biometric data (Ollila, [0034, 0050]).
10. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0113387) in view of Ja (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0033410), or Atkinson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,032), further in view of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893), and further in view of Goldring et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0234729). Hereafter “Lee”, “Ja”, “Atkinson”, “Goldring”, “Bonyuet”.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the optical detector is a photon detector or a thermal detector. Goldring teaches the optical detector is a photon detector or a thermal detector, ([0074]; Claim 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, by having a thermal detector in order to measure a sampled material's temperature (Goldring, [0074]; Claim 11).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)]
PNG
media_image1.png
702
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
11. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0113387) in view of Ja (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0033410), or Atkinson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,032), further in view of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893), and further in view of Zang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,528,782). Hereafter “Lee”, “Ja”, “Atkinson”, “Zang”, “Bonyuet”.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the integrated circuit is configured to control a frequency of a voltage that is applied to the electrochromic material. Zang teaches the integrated circuit is configured to control a frequency of a voltage that is applied to the electrochromic material (column 9, lines 19-23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee, Ja, Atkinson, Bonyuet, by having a frequency control in order to compensate some factors such as temperature (Zang, column 9, lines 19-23).
12. Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0113387) in view of Ja (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0033410), or Atkinson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,032), further in view of Bonyuet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0293893), and further in view of Convent et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,658,154). Hereafter “Lee”, “Ja”, “Atkinson”, “Convent”, “Bonyuet”.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, 18, Lee teaches a method for detecting electromagnetic radiation, the method comprising:
emitting electromagnetic radiation by an emitter, ([0093], lines 1-3; figures 4A, 4B, 6A-D, emitting module 410a, 430a, 607, is not different from an emitter),
directing the emitted electromagnetic radiation to a sample area, (the above figure 6A, area A is not different from a sample area that is arranged at an outer face of the spectrometer),
placing sample matter on or above the sample area, (figure 6A, layer 602 is not different from sample matter on or above the sample area A),
temporally modulating electromagnetic radiation emitted by the emitter in a modulation unit ([0110, 0128, 0107]. ASIC 856/608 is not different from the modulation unit. It is inherent that emitter 607 generates light under the control of control unit when it is needed. In the other words, control unit modulates light temporally) comprising an electrochromic material (Abstract; [0150], electrochromic glass layer is not different from an electrochromic material),
transmitting electromagnetic radiation within a predefined wavelength range by an optical filter ([0109], lines 5-9), and
detecting electromagnetic radiation transmitted by the optical filter by an optical detector, (figures 6A-D, light receiving module 606 is not different from an optical detector), wherein
However, Lee does not teach the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time. Ja teaches the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time ([0275]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time in order to perform “high dynamic range” (HDR) imaging that can accommodate extremely bright spots and reveal spatial and/or spectral details hidden in relatively low intensity portions of a scene. Such capability is highly desirable for FPA-based and/or other types of detection platforms with relatively limited intensity dynamic range, (Ja, [0275]).
Atkinson also teaches the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time (column 14, lines 5-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the intensity of modulated electromagnetic radiation varies periodically with time in order to fluctuate between high and low intensity levels that periodically bring the gain medium 20 just above and below the threshold required for laser operation (Atkinson, column 14, lines 5-34).
Lee does not teach a further optical detector is arranged adjacent to the emitter. Convent teaches a further optical detector is arranged adjacent to the emitter, (main figure, area of grating 20 is not different of the sample area, the optical detector 25, 22, and the further optical detector 24, 25, are arranged at opposite sides of the sample area of grating 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the optical detector and the further optical detector are arranged at opposite sides of the sample area, in order to detect different spectral ranges of the light (Convent, column 5, lines 37-59).
Moreover, Lee does not teach the sample area is arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit. Bonyuet teaches this limitation, (figure 1, emitter 100, sample area 112, detector 116; Figure 25, source 1, source 2, sample cell, detector 1, detector 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee by having the sample area being arranged between the emitter and an optical detector in a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the main plane of extension of the integrated circuit in order to detect light beam transmitted through the sample (figure 1, emitter 100, sample area 112, detector 116; Figure 25, source 1, source 2, sample cell, detector 1, detector 2).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Lee teaches electromagnetic radiation emitted by the emitter is modulated before passing the optical filter, and the optical filter is configured to transmit the modulated electromagnetic radiation ([0109] lines 5-9, module 605 includes optical filter; [0126], lines 5-9; Figure 8A, emitter 855, modulation unit 856, module 853 includes optical filter).
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 2, 2025
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877