DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 08/19/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-15,18-19 and 21 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended. Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from consideration. New claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the minor typographical objections to the Specification, but fails to address the objection to claim 10, as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 5/22/2025. The Specification objection is here withdrawn.
3- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action.
4- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Objections
5- Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 1, “diffraction grating is disposed is adjusted” should read “diffraction grating is disposed and adjusted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
7- 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.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8- Claim(s) 1, 3-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US20200088572) in further view of Handa (US20070291266).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Noguchi teaches a spectroscope (Figs. 1-28, Abstract; spectroscope 10) comprising: a light incidence section including: a first light passing portion (1/1a) which allows light from an outside to be incident (Figs. 8-14 and ¶ 39-41, 71-86 for ex.), and a first light non-passing portion which does not allow the light to pass through the spectroscope (parts of 6 or 17 other than 1 and 6a); a diffraction grating (2) which disperses wavelengths of the light incident on the diffraction grating by the light incidence section (¶ 41, 67-68, 73-74); a light reflector (3) having a reflecting surface having an inclination variable around a rotation axis (3a) of the reflecting surface (¶ 41-43, 47-50); and a light emitter including:
a second light passing portion (4/4a) which emits the light reflected by the light reflector to the outside, and a second light non-passing portion which does not allow the light reflected by the light reflector to emit to the outside (the other parts of walls 4, 5,17, or 19), wherein (¶ 39, 43-44, 60-70 for ex.).
Noguchi fails to disclose expressly wherein at least one of the light incidence section, the diffraction grating, the light reflector, and the light emitter are changeable in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis, and a position of the light emitter is changeable in a direction along a center axis of the light emitted from the light emitter.
Handa teaches wherein at least one of the light incidence section, the diffraction grating, and the light reflector, and the light emitter are changeable in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis (Figure 1, on a Rowland circle; ¶ 25), and wherein a position of the light emitter is changeable in a direction along a center axis of the light emitted from the light emitter (Figure 1, ¶ 25, 29). Noguchi and Handa are directed towards spectroscopes and method of spectroscopy and thus from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noguchi wherein at least one of the light incidence section, the diffraction grating, and the light reflector, and the light emitter are changeable in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis, and wherein a position of the light emitter is changeable in a direction along a center axis of the light emitted from the light emitter suggested by Handa to perform highly accurate spectrometry and increase diffraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the spectroscope of claim 1.
Moreover, Noguchi teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a concave diffraction grating (“2”), each of the light incidence section and the concave diffraction grating is arranged on a Rowland circle (as discussed above).
Noguchi fails to disclose wherein, in a case that the concave diffraction grating is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis, the position of the concave diffraction grating is changeable in a tangential direction of the Rowland circle at the position at which the concave diffraction grating is disposed.
Handa teaches wherein, in a case that the concave diffraction grating is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis ([0005]), a position of the concave diffraction grating is changeable in a tangential direction of the Rowland circle at the position at which the concave diffraction grating is disposed (Figure 1, “303” [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noguchi wherein, in a case that the concave diffraction grating is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis, the position of the concave diffraction grating is changeable in a tangential direction of the Rowland circle at the position at which the concave diffraction grating is disposed as suggested by Handa to increase diffraction efficiency by rotation.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the spectroscope of claim 1.
Moreover, Noguchi suggests wherein in a case that the light emitter is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis (“3a”), the position of the light emitter is changeable so that a focus position of light to be emitted from the light emitter overlaps a position at which the light to be emitted from the light emitter passes through the light emitter (“4”, [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the spectroscope of claim 1.
Moreover, Noguchi in view of Handa suggests wherein in a case that each of the diffraction grating (2) and the light emitter (1) is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis (the combination teaches all the optical elements are moveable and changeable), a light intensity of the light emitted from the light emitter is maximized (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the combination can be moved in such a way to maximize wavelength resolution from the light emitter).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches in a case that each of positions of the diffraction grating (Noguchi, 2) and the light emitter (Noguchi, 1) is changed (the combination teaches all the optical elements are moveable and changeable), a wavelength resolution of the light emitted from the light emitter is maximized (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the combination can be moved in such a way to maximize light emitted from the light emitter).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches in a case that each of positions of the diffraction grating (Noguchi, 2) and the light emitter (Noguchi, 1) is changed (the combination teaches all the optical elements are moveable and changeable), a wavelength shift of the light emitted from the light emitter is minimized. (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the combination can be moved in such a way to minimize a wavelength shift from the light emitter).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the spectroscope according to claim 8, as discussed above.
Noguchi fails to disclose expressly the language of claim 9.
Handa teaches wherein, in a case that a position of the concave diffraction grating (Handa, Figure 1, “303”) is adjustable, and based on: a direction along the rotation axis of the light reflector is an X-axis (Noguchi, light reflector 3 “3a” [0050]), a direction from a center of the concave diffraction grating toward a center of curvature of the concave diffraction grating is a Z-axis, and an axis orthogonal to each of the X-axis and the Z-axis is a Y-axis, the position of the concave diffraction grating is adjustable in a direction along the Y-axis (Handa, Figure 5, “503” [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noguchi wherein, in a case that the position of the concave diffraction grating is adjustable, a direction from a center of the concave diffraction grating toward a center of curvature of the concave diffraction grating is a Z-axis, and an axis orthogonal to each of the X-axis and the Z-axis is a Y-axis, the position of the concave diffraction grating is adjustable in a direction along the Y-axis as suggested by Handa improve accuracy control of a rotation angle for better measurement results.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the spectroscope according to claim 8, as discussed above.
Noguchi teaches wherein the position at which the concave diffraction grating is disposed is adjusted (Figure 1, “2”, [0039])
Noguchi fails to disclose wherein the light incidence section and the light emitter are located on a Rowland circle formed by the concave diffraction grating.
Handa teaches wherein the light incidence section and the light emitter are located on a Rowland circle formed by the concave diffraction grating ([0011-0013])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noguchi wherein the light incidence section and the light emitter are located on a Rowland circle formed by the concave diffraction grating as suggested by Handa to perform highly accurate spectrometry and increase diffraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the spectroscope according to claim 8 as discussed above, wherein, in a case that the position of the light emitter (Handa, Figure 1, “301”) is adjustable, and based on: a direction along the rotation axis of the light reflector is an X-axis (Noguchi, Figure 4, “3a” [0050]), a direction normal to a surface of the light emitter is a Z-axis, and an axis orthogonal to each of the X-axis and the Z-axis is a Y-axis, the position of the light emitter is adjustable in a direction along the Z-axis (Handa, Figure 5, “501” [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Noguchi teaches wherein a position of the light emitter is adjusted so that the light incidence section and the light emitter have an optically conjugate relationship (Figure 8, [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches wherein each of the positions of the concave diffraction grating and the light emitter is adjustable (the combination teaches all the optical elements are moveable and adjustable), and each of the positions of the concave diffraction grating and the light emitter is a position at which a wavelength shift is minimized (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the combination can be moved in such a way to minimize a wavelength shift from the light emitter).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches wherein each of the positions of the concave diffraction grating and the light emitter is adjustable (the combination teaches all the optical elements are moveable and adjustable), and each of the positions of the concave diffraction grating and the light emitter is a position at which a wavelength resolution is maximized. (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the combination can be moved in such a way to maximize wavelength resolution from the light emitter).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the positions of the concave diffraction grating and the light emitter is adjustable (the combination teaches all the optical elements are moveable and adjustable), and each of the positions of the concave diffraction grating and the light emitter is a position at which a light intensity of the light passing through the light emitter is maximized. (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the combination can be moved in such a way to maximize light emitted from the light emitter).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the spectroscope according to claim 1, as explained here above.
Moreover, Handa suggests the spectroscope further comprising: a holder and two positioning pins, wherein a respective position of each of the light incidence section, the diffraction grating, the movable light reflector and the light emitter is changed by the holder and the two positioning pins (¶ 53 for ex; the system of rotational rail, i.e. holder and positioning/fixating pins to maintain the position the component along the rail and hold it while changing location along the Rowland circle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noguchi wherein the spectroscope further comprising: a holder and two positioning pins, wherein a respective position of each of the light incidence section, the diffraction grating, the movable light reflector and the light emitter is changed by the holder and the two positioning pins as suggested by Handa to perform highly accurate spectrometry and increase diffraction efficiency.
9- Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US20200088572) in view of Handa (US20070291266), and further in view of Anan (US20150318144)
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi in view of Handa teaches the limitations of claim 1. Noguchi in view of Handa fails to disclose wherein the diffraction grating includes a plurality of gratings arranged in a predetermined direction, and in a case that the diffraction grating is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis, a position of the diffraction grating is changeable in the predetermined direction.
Anan teaches wherein the diffraction grating includes a plurality of gratings arranged in a predetermined direction (Figure 5, “4” [0035]), and wherein, in a case that the diffraction grating is the one that is changeable (Figure 5, “4” [0035]), the position of the diffraction grating is changeable in a predetermined direction (Figure 5, “62” [0038]).
Noguchi and Anan are directed towards spectroscopes and method of spectroscopy and thus from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noguchi wherein the diffraction grating includes a plurality of gratings arranged in a predetermined direction, and in a case that the diffraction grating is changeable in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis, the position of the diffraction grating is changeable in the predetermined direction suggest by Anan to increase diffraction efficiency.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights