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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Noltemeyer (DE102019216130).
Regarding claims 1, Noltemeyer teaches an optical device (Abstract), comprising: a reflective surface (5) positioned apart from a sample (P) and configured to receive a first portion (LR) of scattered light from the sample and to redirect the first portion of the scattered light back to one or more discrete spots on the sample in a non-random manner to produce redirected scattered light from the sample (fig. 1, [0037] the reflective surface reflects the light LR reflected from the sample back onto the sample P in a substantially identical direction, hence nonrandom, compared to an incidence direction of the reflected light LR from the sample P onto the reflection surface 5); and a spectrometer (Detector DE/evaluation device AE) configured to receive coupled light from the sample at an input (detector aperture 3) thereof and to obtain a spectrum of the sample based on the coupled light, the coupled light comprising at least a portion of the redirected scattered light (fig. 1, [0037], 0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 1, wherein the coupled light further comprises a second portion of the scattered light directly coupled from the sample into the spectrometer ([0042] the coupled light includes both the light that passes directly through the detector aperture (directly coupled) and the light that is redirected by the reflection surface (redirected scattered light)).
Regarding claim 4, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 3, wherein the one or more spots comprise a single spot within a field of view (FOV) of the spectrometer, the single spot having an extended spot size based on the redirected scattered light, and wherein the reflective surface is further configured to receive another portion of the redirected scattered light and to redirect the other portion of the redirected scattered light back to the single spot on the sample to produce additional redirected scattered light, wherein the coupled light further comprises at least a portion of the additional redirected scattered light ([0041]-[0042], [0046] the illumination reflector device 1 can now shape the light so that as much of it as possible falls into the FOV of the sensor, the light is reflected back and forth between the sample and the reflector housing several times, therefore extending the spot size slightly, providing additional redirected scattered light coupled to the spectrometer DE/AE).
Regarding claim 20, Noltemeyer teaches a method for increasing collection of a spectrometer (Detector DE/evaluation device AE), comprising: receiving a first portion of scattered light from a sample (sample P) at a reflective surface (5) positioned apart from the sample (fig. 1, [0037], 0043]); redirecting the first portion of the scattered light back to one or more discrete spots on the sample in a non-random manner to produce redirected scattered light from the sample (fig. 1, [0037], 0043]); and receiving coupled light from the sample at an input (detector aperture 3) of the spectrometer to obtain a spectrum of the sample based on the coupled light, the coupled light comprising at least a portion of the redirected scattered light (fig. 1, [0037], 0043]).
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.
Claim 2, 7, 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noltemeyer (DE102019216130) in view of Webb (US 5309339A).
Regarding claim 2, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: an illumination system positioned between the reflective surface and the sample and configured to illuminate the sample with input light that is scattered from the sample as the scattered light.
However, Webb from the same field of endeavor teaches an illumination system (32’) positioned between the reflective surface (12) and the sample (14) and configured to illuminate the sample with input light that is scattered from the sample as the scattered light (fig. 3A, col. 3, lines 67-68-col. 4, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noltemeyer by incorporating an illumination system positioned between the reflective surface and the sample and configured to illuminate the sample with input light that is scattered from the sample as the scattered light to better guide the light to the sample.
Regarding claim 7, Noltemeyer, when modified by Webb, teaches the optical device of claim 2, wherein the reflective surface (12) comprises a first section (Webb: annotated fig. 3) adjacent the illumination system (32’) and a second section (Webb: annotated fig. 3) configured to redirect the first portion of the scattered light, wherein the first section has a first curvature and the second section has a second curvature different than the first curvature (the first section and the second sections are different by the diameter).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Noltemeyer, when modified by Webb, teaches the optical device of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the reflective surface completely surrounds the sample.
However, Webb from another embodiment teaches wherein the reflective surface (42) completely surrounds the sample (44) (col. 5, lines 22-27: FIG. 5 shows a concentrator system 40 for concentrating diffusely re-emitted optical energy from a diffusely transmissive diffuser 44. The illustrated concentrator system 40 has a concentrator 40' with a spherical reflective surface 42 for reflecting optical energy to a concentration point 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective surface of Noltemeyer with the reflective surface completely surrounding the sample of Webb for enhanced collection of the reflected radiation as evidenced by Milosevic (US4853542: Col. 2, line 21)
Regarding claim 10, Noltemeyer, when modified by Webb, teaches the optical device of claim 9, further comprising: a sample holder configured to hold the sample, wherein the sample holder extends in one of two perpendicular directions (Noltemeyer : fig. 1, the sample P would require a holder which inherently expands in one of two perpendicular directions).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noltemeyer (DE102019216130), in view of Milosevic (US4853542).
Regarding claim 6, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the reflective surface comprises a half- sphere or a sphere.
However, Milosevic, from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the reflective surface comprises a half- sphere ( hemispherical shell 14) or a sphere (fig. 2, col. 2, lines 53-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective surface of Noltemeyer with the hemispherical shell 14 of Milosevic for enhanced collection of the reflected radiation (Col. 2, line 21).
Regarding claim 21, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 20, but fails to disclose illuminating the sample with input light from an illumination system positioned between the reflective surface and the sample, wherein the input light is scattered from the sample as the scattered light.
However, Webb, from the same field of endeavor teaches illuminating the sample (14) with input light from an illumination system (32’) positioned between the reflective surface (12) and the sample, wherein the input light is scattered from the sample (14 diffuses or scatters) as the scattered light (fig. 3A, col. 3, lines 67-68-col. 4, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noltemeyer by incorporating illuminating the sample with input light from an illumination system positioned between the reflective surface and the sample, wherein the input light is scattered from the sample as the scattered light to better guide the light to the sample.
Regarding claim 22, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 21, wherein the coupled light further comprises a second portion of the scattered light directly coupled from the sample into the spectrometer ([0042] the coupled light includes both the light that passes directly through the detector aperture (directly coupled) and the light that is redirected by the reflection surface (redirected scattered light))..
Regarding claim 23, Noltemeyer teaches the optical device of claim 22, wherein the one or more spots comprise a single spot within a field of view of the spectrometer, the single spot having an extended spot size based on the redirected scattered light, and further comprising: receiving another portion of the redirected scattered light at the reflective surface; and redirecting the other portion of the redirected scattered light back to the single spot on the sample to produce additional redirected scattered light, wherein the coupled light further comprises at least a portion of the additional redirected scattered light ([0041]-[0042], [0046] the illumination reflector device 1 can now shape the light so that as much of it as possible falls into the FOV of the sensor, the light is reflected back and forth between the sample and the reflector housing several times, therefore extending the spot size slightly, providing additional redirected scattered light coupled to the spectrometer DE/AE).
Regarding claim 25, Noltemeyer, when modified by Webb, teaches the method of claim 23, but fails to disclose wherein the reflective surface comprises a half-sphere or a sphere.
However, Webb teaches the reflective surface comprises a half-sphere or a sphere (a hemispheric reflective surface 12) (col. 2, lines 61-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective surface of Noltemeyer with hemispheric reflective surface of Webb for enhanced collection of the reflected radiation as evidenced by Milosevic (US4853542: Col. 2, line 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 11-19, 24, 26-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “a diffuse reflective material on each side of the sample to reflect at least a portion of the input light back to the reflective surface for redirection of the input light towards the single spot on the sample” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the first section comprises two outside sections and the illumination system comprises two light sources, each positioned adjacent to one of the two outside sections” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the reflective surface is configured to receive the first portion of the scattered light from a first spot on the sample having a spot area at least partially outside of a field of view of the spectrometer and to redirect the first portion of the scattered light to a second spot on the sample within the field of view of the spectrometer” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 would be allowable due to dependency to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the illumination system comprises at least two light sources, each configured to direct a respective portion of the input light to a respective spot on the sample, and wherein the reflective surface is configured to receive the first portion of the scattered light from each of the respective spots on the sample and to redirect the first portion of the scattered light to a collection area within a field of view of the spectrometer from which the coupled light is directed to the spectrometer” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 13.
Claims 14-16 would be allowable due to dependency to claim 13.
Regarding claim 17:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the reflective surface comprises a corner cube mirror, and further comprising: a corrugated window positioned between the illumination system and the sample positioned, wherein the illumination system is configured to illuminate the sample with the input light via the corrugated window at a first spot on the sample, the input light being scattered from the sample as the first portion of the scattered light and directed towards the corner cube mirror via a second spot on the sample, wherein the corner cube mirror is configured to redirect the first portion of the scattered light back to a third spot on the sample via the corrugated window to produce the redirected scattered light that is coupled into the spectrometer via a fourth spot on the sample” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 17.
Claim 18 would be allowable due to dependency to claim 17.
Regarding claim 19:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the reflective surface comprises a first off- axis parabolic mirror and a second off-axis parabolic mirror, the first off-axis parabolic mirror being configured to receive the first portion of the scattered light from a first spot on a first side of the sample and to direct the first portion of the scattered light as a set of parallel rays to the second off-axis parabolic mirror, the second off-axis parabolic mirror being configured to collect the set of parallel rays and to direct reflected scattered light corresponding to the set of parallel rays to a second spot on a second side of the sample opposite the first side to produce the redirected scattered light,” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 24:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “reflecting at least a portion of the input light back to the reflective surface via a diffuse reflective material on each side of the sample for redirection of the input light towards the single spot on the sample” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 24.
Regarding claim 26:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “receiving the first portion of the scattered light at the reflective surface from a first spot on the sample having a spot area at least partially outside of a field of view of the spectrometer; and redirecting the first portion of the scattered light to a second spot on the sample within the field of view of the spectrometer” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 26.
Claim 27 would be allowable due to dependency to claim 26.
Regarding claim 28:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the illumination system comprises at least two light sources, each configured to direct a respective portion of the input light to a respective spot on the sample, and further comprising: receiving the first portion of the scattered light from each of the respective spots on the sample at the reflective surface; and redirecting the first portion of the scattered light to a collection area within a field of view of the spectrometer from which the coupled light is directed to the spectrometer” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the reflective surface comprises a corner cube mirror, and further comprising: illuminating a first spot on the sample with the input light via a corrugated window positioned between the illumination system and the sample, the input light being scattered from the sample as the first portion of the scattered light and directed towards the corner cube mirror via a second spot on the sample; and redirecting the first portion of the scattered light back from the corner cube mirror back to a third spot on the sample via the corrugated window to produce the redirected scattered light that is coupled into the spectrometer via a fourth spot on the sample” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the
specifications: “wherein the reflective surface comprises a first off-axis parabolic mirror and a second off-axis parabolic mirror, and further comprising: receiving the first portion of the scattered light at the first off-axis parabolic mirror from a first spot on a first side of the sample; directing the first portion of the scattered light as a set of parallel rays from the first off-axis parabolic mirror to the second off-axis parabolic mirror; and directing reflected scattered light corresponding to the set of parallel rays to a second spot on a second side of the sample opposite the first side to produce the redirected scattered light,” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 30.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Edward (US 3349665 A), Graham (US 4645340 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877