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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. AU2020904721, filed on 12/18/2020.
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 1-12 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 1 details the limitation “combining and averaging each Adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal”. As the limitation includes the inclusive conjunction of “and” between the actions of “combining” and the action of “averaging”, the limitation is not clear as it could be “combining each adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal” and “averaging each Adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal”. That is, the action of “combining” and “averaging” each individually would create a singular output result, thus it is not clear what the combination of the ”combining” and “averaging” actions are performing to output a singular result.
Examiner interprets the limitation as “averaging each adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to dependent on Claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. A method of reducing phase-error signal degradation in a characteristic spectrum produced by a Fourier-Transform interferometer comprising a collimator and a detector array, the method comprising the steps of:
I. Receiving, upon the detector array, a light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels, each of the plurality of light channels being received at one of a plurality of corresponding locations upon the detector array;
II. Producing, for each corresponding location, a Raw Location-Specific Signal (LSS) from the received light channels;
Ill. for each Raw LSS, calculating an Off-Axis Path Difference (OxPaDE) scaling function dependent upon a distance and direction of the corresponding location from a target location;
IV. coordinate-transforming each Raw LSS using their corresponding calculated OxPaDE function to produce, from each Raw LSS, a coordinate-transformed LSS;
V. combining and averaging each Adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal; and
VI. inverse Fourier-Transforming the Combined Signal to produce the characteristic spectrum of the received light beam as a function of wavenumber;
wherein the target location is a corresponding location on the detector array at which phase-error noise is substantially zero.
13. A Fourier-transform spectrometer comprising:
a detector array arranged to receive a light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels, each location producing a Raw Location-Specific (LSS) from the received light channels;
a coordinate-transformation means for coordinate-transforming each Raw LSS according to the corresponding location's position within the array, the coordinate-transformation means producing an Adjusted LSS from each Raw LSS;
an averaging means for determining a Combined Signal from the Adjusted LSS; and
an inversion means for inverse Fourier-transforming the Combined Signal in order to produce a characteristic spectrum of the received light beam as a function of wavenumber.
14. A processor configured to receive a Raw Location-Specific Signal (LSS) as an input from at least one corresponding location within a detector array and enact the following algorithm:
a. determine location information for the at least one corresponding location;
b. calculate an Off-Axis Path Difference (OxPaDE) scaling function using the determined location information;
c. adjust the Raw LSS, being a received signal intensity as a function of an induced path length, based upon the calculated OxPaDE scaling function; and
d. generate an Adjusted LSS by coordinate-transforming the adjusted Raw LSS signal intensity function at each value of the induced path length.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 13, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because receiving a light beam on a detector array and the location of the light upon the detector array is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This is evidenced by Sobol (US20200191650) in Figure 2 and Guerineau (US20190170576) in Figure 4. The additional limitation of a processor is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a generic computer. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional limitation of “wherein the target location is a corresponding location on the detector array at which phase-error noise is substantially zero” is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim that is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention as the target location as detailed is the on-axis position which would have substantially zero phase-error noise. This can be evidenced Bowman (Kevin Bowman, “Instrument line-shape modeling and correction for off-axis detectors in Fourier-transform spectrometry”, July 20th 2000, Applied Optics, Volume 39 Number 21) with Equations 1-13 and in Sobol (US20200191650) in [0066].
Claims 2-12 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowman (Kevin Bowman, “Instrument line-shape modeling and correction for off-axis detectors in Fourier-transform spectrometry”, July 20th 2000, Applied Optics, Volume 39 Number 21).
In regards to Claim 14, Bowman teaches “a. determine location information for the at least one corresponding location (Figure 1a shows a pixel array of a TES detectors receiving light, i.e. light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels; Figure 1B shows the pixel response function, i.e. Raw Location-Specific Signal, from the detector);
b. calculate an Off-Axis Path Difference (OxPaDE) scaling function using the determined location information (The output of the detector is equal to the integral over all incident rays weighted by the pixel response function which is given by Equation 1 – Page 3766, Right Column; Equation 2 is approximated to give equation 5 and 6, and with substitution into equation 1 leads to Equation 7 and Equation 8, where equation 7 details the interferogram and where Equation 8 details the Fresnel kernel, i.e. OxPaDE scaling function, which completely describes the effects of the off-axis geometry on the interferogram and spectrum – Page 3767, Left Column; Equation 13 details the interferogram I with the interferogram measured on axis – Page 3767, Right Column);
c. adjust the Raw LSS, being a received signal intensity as a function of an induced path length, based upon the calculated OxPaDE scaling function (Equation 13 details the interferogram function with I(x) based on the Fresnel Kernal A(vx)); and
d. generate an Adjusted LSS by coordinate-transforming the adjusted Raw LSS signal intensity function at each value of the induced path length (Interferogram is transformed into spectral space, i.e. coordinate-transforming – Page 3768, Left Column).”
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (Kevin Bowman, “Instrument line-shape modeling and correction for off-axis detectors in Fourier-transform spectrometry”, July 20th 2000, Applied Optics, Volume 39 Number 21) in view of Sobol (US20200191650) and Guerineau (US20190170576).
As best understood, in regards to Claim 1, Bowman teaches “I. Receiving, upon the detector array, a light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels, each of the plurality of light channels being received at one of a plurality of corresponding locations upon the detector array (Figure 1a shows a pixel array of a TES detectors receiving light, i.e. light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels);
II. Producing, for each corresponding location, a Raw Location-Specific Signal (LSS) from the received light channels (Figure 1B shows the pixel response function, i.e. Raw Location-Specific Signal, from the detector);
Ill. for each Raw LSS, calculating an Off-Axis Path Difference (OxPaDE) scaling function dependent upon a distance and direction of the corresponding location from a target location (The output of the detector is equal to the integral over all incident rays weighted by the pixel response function which is given by Equation 1 – Page 3766, Right Column; Equation 2 is approximated to give equation 5 and 6, and with substitution into equation 1 leads to Equation 7 and Equation 8, where equation 7 details the interferogram and where Equation 8 details the Fresnel kernel, i.e. OxPaDE scaling function, which completely describes the effects of the off-axis geometry on the interferogram and spectrum – Page 3767, Left Column; Equation 13 details the interferogram I with the interferogram measured on axis – Page 3767, Right Column);
IV. coordinate-transforming each Raw LSS using their corresponding calculated OxPaDE function to produce, from each Raw LSS, a coordinate-transformed LSS (Interferogram is transformed into spectral space, i.e. coordinate-transforming – Page 3768, Left Column);
wherein the target location is a corresponding location on the detector array at which phase-error noise is substantially zero (Figure 1 shows the target location being on the optical axis, i.e. location at which the phase-error noise is zero, and shows the off-axis response function).”
Bowman is silent with regards to the language of “V. combining and averaging each Adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal.”
Sobol teaches “V. combining and averaging each Adjusted LSS to produce a Combined Signal (analyzer averages signals to generate a 1D set of data, i.e. Combined Signal – [0026]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowman to incorporate the teaching of Sobol to have the analyzer average the signals to generate a one dimensional set of data. By averaging the signal to generate a one dimensional set of data, this produces predictable results in the processing of data from interferometers to suppress the noise in the measurements.
Bowman in view of Sobol is silent with regards to the language of “VI. inverse Fourier-Transforming the Combined Signal to produce the characteristic spectrum of the received light beam as a function of wavenumber.”
Guerineau teaches “VI. inverse Fourier-Transforming the Combined Signal to produce the characteristic spectrum of the received light beam as a function of wavenumber (each interferogram is inverted using an inverse Fourier transform to obtain a data set that is homogeneous in terms of the number of wavelengths, i.e. wavenumber – [0120])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowman in view of Sobol to incorporate the teaching of Guerineau to perform an inverse Fourier transformation on the data. By performing an inverse Fourier transformation on the data this yields predictable results for improving the precision of the resolution of interferometers.
In regards to Claim 2, Bowman in view of Sobol and Guerineau discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Bowman further teaches “wherein each Raw LSS is a signal intensity function comprising a set of received signal intensity values and corresponding set of induced path length values (Equation 1 details the interferogram I(x) as based off the functions B which is the illumination across the pixel, P as the angular response of the detector, and L as the input spectrum); and
Step IV comprises, for each Raw LSS, the sub-steps of:
a. applying the OxPaDE Scaling Function to determine an actual path length value for each induced path length value within the set of induced path length values, such that each received signal intensity value subsequently corresponds to an actual path length value (The output of the detector is equal to the integral over all incident rays weighted by the pixel response function which is given by Equation 1 – Page 3766, Right Column; Equation 2 is approximated to give equation 5 and 6, and with substitution into equation 1 leads to Equation 7 and Equation 8, where equation 7 details the interferogram and where Equation 8 details the Fresnel kernel, i.e. OxPaDE scaling function, which completely describes the effects of the off-axis geometry on the interferogram and spectrum – Page 3767, Left Column; Equation 13 details the interferogram I with the interferogram measured on axis – Page 3767, Right Column; From Equations 1-13 and Figure 1, it can be seen that the actual path length and the induced path length are related to the variables x and the angles given by α, and β);
b. coordinate-transforming the set of received intensity values to determine a set of coordinate-transformed signal intensity values, which comprises a coordinate-transformed signal intensity value for each induced path length value (Interferogram is transformed into spectral space, i.e. coordinate-transforming – Page 3768, Left Column); and
c. generating the Adjusted LSS as a signal intensity function comprising the set of induced path length values and corresponding set of coordinate-transformed signal intensity values (Equation 13 details the interferogram I with the interferogram – Page 3767, Right Column).”
In regards to Claim 7, Bowman in view of Sobol and Guerineau discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Bowman further teaches “wherein the detector array comprises a plurality of detector pixels, each detector pixel being positioned at a separate one of the plurality of corresponding locations (Figure 1a details pixel array from pixel+8 to pixel-8); and
the Raw and Adjusted Location-Specific Signals are Raw and Adjusted Single-Pixel Signals, respectively (Figure 1B shows the pixel response function, i.e. Raw Location-Specific Signal, from the detector).”
In regards to Claim 10, Bowman in view of Sobol and Guerineau discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Bowman further teaches “wherein each Raw LSS is a location-specific received signal intensity function (Figure 1B shows the pixel response function, i.e. Raw Location-Specific Signal, from the detector), being received signal intensity as a function of an induced path length variable (L) (Equation 1 details the interferogram I(x) as based off the functions B which is the illumination across the pixel, P as the angular response of the detector, and L as the input spectrum); and Step IV comprises, for each Raw LSS, the sub-step of modifying the received signal intensity function to be received signal intensity as a function of the induced path length variable plus OxPaDE (The output of the detector is equal to the integral over all incident rays weighted by the pixel response function which is given by Equation 1 – Page 3766, Right Column; Equation 2 is approximated to give equation 5 and 6, and with substitution into equation 1 leads to Equation 7 and Equation 8, where equation 7 details the interferogram and where Equation 8 details the Fresnel kernel, i.e. OxPaDE scaling function, which completely describes the effects of the off-axis geometry on the interferogram and spectrum – Page 3767, Left Column; Equation 13 details the interferogram I with the interferogram measured on axis – Page 3767, Right Column).”
In regards to Claim 13, Bowman teaches “a detector array arranged to receive a light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels (Figure 1a shows a pixel array of a TES detectors receiving light, i.e. light beam comprised of a plurality of light channels), each location producing a Raw Location-Specific (LSS) from the received light channels (Figure 1B shows the pixel response function, i.e. Raw Location-Specific Signal, from the detector);
a coordinate-transformation means for coordinate-transforming each Raw LSS according to the corresponding location's position within the array, the coordinate-transformation means producing an Adjusted LSS from each Raw LSS (The output of the detector is equal to the integral over all incident rays weighted by the pixel response function which is given by Equation 1 – Page 3766, Right Column; Equation 2 is approximated to give equation 5 and 6, and with substitution into equation 1 leads to Equation 7 and Equation 8, where equation 7 details the interferogram and where Equation 8 details the Fresnel kernel, i.e. OxPaDE scaling function, which completely describes the effects of the off-axis geometry on the interferogram and spectrum – Page 3767, Left Column; Equation 13 details the interferogram I with the interferogram measured on axis – Page 3767, Right Column; Interferogram is transformed into spectral space, i.e. coordinate-transforming – Page 3768, Left Column).”
Bowman is silent with regards to the language of “an averaging means for determining a Combined Signal from the Adjusted LSS.”
Sobol teaches “an averaging means for determining a Combined Signal from the Adjusted LSS (analyzer averages signals to generate a 1D set of data, i.e. Combined Signal – [0026]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowman to incorporate the teaching of Sobol to have the analyzer average the signals to generate a one dimensional set of data. By averaging the signal to generate a one dimensional set of data, this produces predictable results in the processing of data from interferometers to suppress the noise in the measurements.
Bowman in view of Sobol is silent with regards to the language of “an inversion means for inverse Fourier-transforming the Combined Signal in order to produce a characteristic spectrum of the received light beam as a function of wavenumber.”
Guerineau teaches “an inversion means for inverse Fourier-transforming the Combined Signal in order to produce a characteristic spectrum of the received light beam as a function of wavenumber (each interferogram is inverted using an inverse Fourier transform to obtain a data set that is homogeneous in terms of the number of wavelengths, i.e. wavenumber – [0120])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowman in view of Sobol to incorporate the teaching of Guerineau to perform an inverse Fourier transformation on the data. By performing an inverse Fourier transformation on the data this yields predictable results for improving the precision of the resolution of interferometers.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 3-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are not rejected under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103).
In regards to Claim 3, Bowman teaches the Fresnel kernel as detailed in Equations 8-9 with exponential dependence and not linear dependence upon the distance (path). Thus Bowman in view of Sobol and Guerineau are silent with regards to the language of “wherein the OxPaDE Scaling Function is linearly proportional to induced path length.”
Claims 4-6 are dependent on Claim 3 and Claim 8 is ultimately dependent on Claim 4.
In regards to Claim 9, Bowman in view of Sobol and Guerineau are silent with regards to the language of “negligible change in the OxPaDE Scaling Function ultimately corresponds to a change in the characteristic spectrum that is lower than a spectral resolution of the detector pixel array.”
In regards to Claim 11, Bowman in view of Sobol and Guerineau are silent with regards to the language of “wherein the sub-step of modifying the received signal intensity function comprises modifying the function to comprise the following Equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
67
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
further wherein:
l0 is the idealised signal intensity function; and Π(θ) is the OxPaDE scaling function as a function of the angle of deviation (θ) of a particular light channel.”
Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863