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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweatt et al. (US 2002/0105725), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Sweatt discloses an optical computing device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a light diffraction element group (16+20) including light diffraction elements (16, 20) having an optical computing function (paras. [0002, 0035]); and
a filter (e.g., elements within 12 including 14, Fig. 1; para. [0035]) that:
is disposed between the light diffraction element group (16+20) and a non-illuminant object or an illuminant object (e.g., from 100, Fig. 1; para. [0035]), and
selectively transmits light (100) traveling in a direction that forms an angle of less than or equal to a specific angle with an optical axis of a first light diffraction element (16) closest to the filter among the light diffraction elements (e.g., particularly at 14, Fig. 1; para. [0035]), wherein the selectively transmitted light (100) is either:
reflected or scattered from parts of the non-illuminant object and travelling in different directions (paras. [0034-0035]), wherein the non-illuminant object is located outside the optical computing device (10) and is not a display (paras. [0034-0035]), or
emitted from parts of the illuminant object and travelling in different directions, wherein the illuminant object is located outside the optical computing device and is not a display, wherein
the light diffraction element group (16+20) passes the selectively transmitted light (100) through the light diffraction elements in turn (Fig. 1), and
the filter (12, 14) is not a light diffraction element including microcells that each have an independently set thickness and refractive index (para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Sweatt discloses wherein
the filter is a diaphragm (14), and
the specific angle is a maximum value of the angle formed between the optical axis of the first light diffraction element (16) and a light beam that has passed through an aperture of the diaphragm (14) and is incident on the first light diffraction element (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sweatt discloses wherein the filter is a lens (Fig. 1; para. [0054]), and
the specific angle is a maximum value of the angle formed between the optical axis of the first light diffraction element (16) and a light beam that has passed through the lens and is incident on the first light diffraction element (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sweatt discloses an optical computing method for carrying out optical computing (paras. [0002, 0035]) with an optical computing device (10, Fig. 1) comprising a light diffraction element group (16+20) including light diffraction elements (16, 20) and a filter (e.g., elements within 12 including 14, Fig. 1; para. [0035]) disposed between the light diffraction element group (16+20) and a non-illuminant object or an illuminant object (e.g., from 100, Fig. 1; para. [0035]), comprising:
with the filter (12 including 14), selectively transmitting light (100) traveling in a direction that forms an angle of less than or equal to a specific angle with an optical axis of a first light diffraction element (16) closest to the filter among the light diffraction elements (e.g., particularly at 14, Fig. 1; para. [0035]), wherein the selectively transmitted light (100) is either:
reflected or scattered from parts of the non-illuminant object and travelling in different directions (paras. [0034-0035]), wherein the non-illuminant object is located outside the optical computing device (10) and is not a display (paras. [0034-0035]), or
emitted from parts of the illuminant object and travelling in different directions, wherein the illuminant object is located outside the optical computing device and is not a display; and
passing the selectively transmitted light (100) through the light diffraction elements (16, 20) in turn (Fig. 1), wherein the filter (12, 14) is not a light diffraction element including microcells that each have an independently set thickness and refractive index (para. [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt et al. (US 2002/0105725), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozcan et al. (US 2021/0142170), of record.
Regarding claim 4, Sweatt fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filter is a block that includes a material having a refractive index greater than that of air and that is disposed such that a surface of the block on a side opposite to a side facing the first light diffraction element is orthogonal to the optical axis, and the specific angle is a critical angle at the surface of the block.
However, Ozcan discloses an optical computing device (Figs. 1-2), wherein
the filter (16) is a block (Fig. 5) that includes a material having a refractive index greater than that of air (paras. [0103, 0142]) and that is disposed such that a surface of the block on a side opposite to a side facing the first light diffraction element is orthogonal to the optical axis (Figs. 1-2), and
the specific angle is a critical angle at the surface of the block (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the filter is a block that includes a material having a refractive index greater than that of air and that is disposed such that a surface of the block on a side opposite to a side facing the first light diffraction element is orthogonal to the optical axis, and the specific angle is a critical angle at the surface of the block, as in Ozcan, into the optical computing device of Sweatt to use a uniform thickness filter for evenness in the device as desired.
Regarding claim 6, Sweatt fails to explicitly disclose a light source that emits light for illuminating the non-illuminant object or the illuminant object, to a limited specific area including an optical axis of the first light diffraction element.
However, Ozcan discloses a light source (12) that emits light for illuminating the non-illuminant object (14) or the illuminant object, to a limited specific area including an optical axis of the first light diffraction element (16) (Figs. 1-2; paras. [0096-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source that emits light for illuminating the non-illuminant object or the illuminant object, to a limited specific area including an optical axis of the first light diffraction element, as in Ozcan, into the optical computing device of Sweatt to provide illumination in the optical system as necessary.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt et al. (US 2002/0105725), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Backlund et al. (US 2006/0050391), of record.
Regarding claim 7, Sweatt discloses wherein the light diffraction element group (16+20) includes at least one additional light diffraction element (20) (Fig. 1).
Sweatt fails to explicitly disclose the at least one additional light diffraction element including multiple microcells with thicknesses and refractive indexes set independently of each other.
However, Backlund discloses a light diffraction element including multiple microcells with thicknesses and refractive indexes set independently of each other (Figs. 5; paras. [0083-0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the at least one additional light diffraction element including multiple microcells with thicknesses and refractive indexes set independently of each other, as in Backlund, into the optical computing device of Sweatt to optimize the spectral response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Sweatt, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 8 to include limitations of former dependent claims 9 and 10, respectively, and has argued that this overcomes the prior ground of rejection over Sweatt. Specifically, Applicant has argued that light incident to the telescope 12 is collimating light from stars or other celestial bodies at infinity, thus is not reflected or scattered from parts of the non-illuminant object, or emitted from parts of the illuminant object, and travelling in different directions, as required in the claims. However, Sweatt discloses light 100 (e.g., reflected or scattered sunlight) enters the apparatus 10 through a telescope 12 that collects the light 100, which is then approximately collimated and directed onto a diffraction grating 16 (para. [0035]). Thus, the light has not been collimated when it reaches the telescope, but after it passes through it. Therefore, the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Sweatt has been maintained and modified as necessary due to the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, filed November 24, 2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ozcan, and in accordance with the amendments to the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 8 over Ozcan has been overcome and is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871