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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 13-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-3, 5, 13, 14, 17 and 18 have overcome each and every objection and U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 24 June 2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-3, 5, 13, 14, 17 and 18 do not overcome the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4 November 2025, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 13-18, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Applicant remarks that the 112(f) claim interpretation is improper.
Applicant remarks that Wang in view of Maier do not teach claim 1 limitations: “a wavelength information acquisition unit configured to acquire the wavelength information; and a correction unit configured to correct a wavelength number shift corresponding to the spectral image based on the wavelength information acquired by the wavelength information acquisition unit”.
Applicant responds to Examiner’s statement: “Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a placement unit configured to place the object thereon (Maier fig. 2; [0031]; the sample placement platform 15 which can be a sample tray or any other surface for placing the sample 12 for optical investigation; and a correction unit configured to correct information about a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light (Maier [0052]-[0053])”.
Applicant remarks that Maier may have disclosed wavenumber shift and a correction. However, the correction disclosed in Maier is the correction of spatial variations and wavelength or image spectrum. However, nowhere in Maier discloses correcting a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on wavelength information.
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner also notes that claim interpretation does not prevent the current application from being in conditions for allowance. Please see the following three-prong test regarding the 112(f) claim interpretation of “placement unit” in claim 1:
From MPEP 2181 Sec. I: Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; The word “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder.
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; The words “placement” and “configured to place an object” indicate the functional language.
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; The “placement unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the functions of “placement” nor “configured to place an object”.
Further, for “spectroscopic unit”, “imaging unit”, “wavelength information acquisition unit” and “correction unit” in claim 1, for “acquisition unit” in claim 5, and for “display control unit” and “display unit” in claim 14, the three-prong test applies similarly. For Prong A, the word “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder. For Prong B, the functional language is the descriptor word before “unit”. For prong C, the units are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the functions.
Also, the amendment causes a new matter issue. The amendment that does not comply with the written description requirement is: “the at least one memory having instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as: a light collecting member… a spectroscopic unit… an imaging unit… a wavelength information acquisition unit… and a correction unit”. Please see page 12-13 below for more details.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maier para. [0028] teaches that the mathematically calculated spectrum 36 of the NIST sample is obtained by using the wavelength of the laser illumination source 16. This wavelength information is used in the spectral imaging. Maier para. [0052] teaches the NIST-based correction methodology acquired from the plurality of images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values, or wavenumbers. For each image at each specific Raman shift value or wavenumber, an average pixel intensity value may be obtained. All such average pixel intensity values for the corresponding images may be combined to generate the average spectrum of the images of the sample. Hence the instrument response-corrected spectrum of the target sample is obtained. The average spectrum includes the average Raman shift or wavenumber shift, thus correcting the wavenumber shift. This correction corresponds to the spectral image based on the wavelength information.
Thus, Maier teaches correcting a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on wavelength information.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 2021 July 14. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-116435 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 15-16, “the wavelength information” should be corrected to say –wavelength information—due to a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, “a wavelength λ1 of the primary light” should be corrected to say –a wavelength λ1 of the primary light-- due to a lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“placement unit”, “spectroscopic unit”, “imaging unit”, “wavelength information acquisition unit” and “correction unit” in claim 1;
“acquisition unit” in claim 5;
“display control unit” and “display unit” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-5 and 13-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitations “correction unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The Specification para. [0052], [0055], [0060], [0075]-[0077], [0088], [0092], [0096], [0097], [0101], [0102], [0105], [0106], [0108], [0111], [0119], [0121] and [0122] mention the correction unit 290 and its functions, but are silent on its structure. Therefore, the correction unit can be a variety of structures and is not clearly defined. For examination purposes, the correction unit is interpreted to mean any unit that performs the function described in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “wavelength information acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitations “acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The Specification para. [0026], [0060], [0061], [0063] and [0067] mention the acquisition unit 30 and its functions, but are silent on its structure. Therefore, the acquisition unit can be a variety of structures and is not clearly defined. For examination purposes, the acquisition unit is interpreted to mean any unit that performs the function described in the claims.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitations “display control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The Specification para. [0063] and [0101] mention the display control unit 40 and its functions, but are silent on its structure. Therefore, the display control unit can be a variety of structures and is not clearly defined. For examination purposes, the display control unit is interpreted to mean any unit that performs the function described in the claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As above, claims 1, 2, 5 and 14 are indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure in the specification. Because there is inadequate disclosure of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Correction is required.
Further, claims 1-5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the amendment that does not comply with the written description requirement is: “the at least one memory having instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as: a light collecting member… a spectroscopic unit… an imaging unit… a wavelength information acquisition unit… and a correction unit”. Specification para. [0124] discloses “the computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions”. However, it does not disclose a processor functioning as: a light collecting member, a spectroscopic unit, an imaging unit, a wavelength information acquisition unit, nor a correction unit”. Just that it performs the functions of one or more of the described embodiments.
Claims 2-5 and 13-18 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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 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.
Claim 1-5, 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20070146699A1), hereinafter Wang, in view of Maier (US 20080034833 A1).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches an identification apparatus (claim 1; spectroscopic apparatus for measuring the Raman spectrum of a physical material) configured to identify a property of an object ([0027]; The Raman spectra are used to identify different properties of the different objects. For example, the Raman spectrum of a Rhodamine 6G sample is used to demonstrate its highly fluorescent nature) based on a spectral image (claim 1; [0024]-[0025]; Raman spectrum comprising the spatial brightness, i.e. the intensity of the Raman signal collected at each point in the image) comprising:
an object (fig. 1; sample 124);
an irradiation member ([0025]; fig. 1; an optical probe 116) optically coupled to a light source and configured to irradiate the object with primary light ([0025]; fig. 1; Light from the broad stripe diode laser 102 is coupled to the optical probe 116 via a multimode optical fiber 112. The optical probe focuses the laser beam onto a sample 124 to excite Raman scattering from the sample 124);
a light collecting member configured to collect secondary light from the object (fig. 1; [0025]; The secondary light is described by Wang as the light emitted from the sample 124. The optical lens 22 collects the Raman scattering signal);
a spectroscopic unit configured to disperse the secondary light collected by the light collecting member (fig. 3; spectrograph 132 known in the art to comprise a dispersive element to disperse light into an optical spectrum);
and an imaging unit configured to capture an optical spectrum dispersed by the spectroscopic unit to acquire a spectral image (fig. 3; [0024]-[0028]; The output of the spectrograph 132 is the Raman spectrum comprising the spatial brightness, i.e. the intensity of the Raman signal collected at each point in the image, for example fig. 3: the Raman spectrum of a diamond sample. Thus, the spectrograph 132 comprises an imaging unit, the InGaAs array).
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose a placement unit configured to place the object; at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as: the light collecting member configured to collect secondary light from the object; the spectroscopic unit configured to disperse the secondary light collected by the light collecting member; the imaging unit configured to capture an optical spectrum dispersed by the spectroscopic unit to acquire the spectral image; a wavelength information acquisition unit configured to acquire the wavelength information; and a correction unit configured to correct a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on the wavelength information acquired by the wavelength information acquisition unit.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a placement unit configured to place the object (Maier fig. 2; [0031]; the sample placement platform 15 which can be a sample tray or any other surface for placing the sample 12 for optical investigation);
at least one processor (Maier; [0031]-[0032]; fig. 2; a spectroscopic instrument 10, i.e. the optical spectroscopy instrument);
and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having instructions (Maier [0041]; fig. 2; the instrument response function may be stored in an electronic memory (e.g., the memory of the control computer 24 in FIG. 2)) that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as:
a light collecting member configured to collect secondary light from the object (Maier claim 12; fig. 2; a light collection optics in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10);
a spectroscopic unit configured to disperse the secondary light collected by the light collecting member (Maier fig. 2; [0032]; The spectrometer 20 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10) is a gratings-based dispersive spectrometer. In the embodiment of FIG. 2, a detection unit 22 is shown optically coupled to the dispersive spectrometer 20 to receive the dispersed optical signals therefrom and to responsively generate one or more spatially accurate wavelength resolved images of the NIST standard sample 12);
an imaging unit configured to capture an optical spectrum dispersed by the spectroscopic unit to acquire a spectral image (Maier [0032]; fig. 2; the control unit 24 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10) is a suitably-programmed computer, which may be configured to interact with a user to receives user inputs and accordingly control operations of various optical components in the spectroscopic instrument 10 to carry out the desired spectral data collection, spectral imaging, or other optical data processing task);
a wavelength information acquisition unit configured to acquire the wavelength information (Maier Fig. 2-3; [0028]; [0032]; The calculated spectrum 36 of the NIST sample is obtained by using the wavelength of the laser illumination source 16 (532 nm in the example), i.e. the wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light. The control computer or control unit 24 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10) controls various system components to carry out the desired spectral data collection, spectral imaging, or other optical data processing task, i.e. generating the calculated spectrum 36. Thus, the control computer or control unit 24 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10) acquires the wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light);
and a correction unit configured to correct a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on the wavelength information acquired by the wavelength information acquisition unit (Maier [0052]-[0053]; NIST-based correction methodology uses the average spectrum acquired from the plurality of images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values or wavenumbers by the control computer or control unit 24 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10). A pixel position-specific instrument response function can be derived by dividing each pixel position-specific spectrum across the plurality of images by the mathematically calculated spectrum of the NIST sample. Fig. 3; [0028]; The mathematically calculated spectrum 36 of the NIST sample is obtained by using the wavelength of the laser illumination source 16 (532 nm in the example), i.e. the wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light, obtained by the control computer or control unit 24 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10). Thus, correcting information corresponds to the spectral image based on wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include a placement unit configured to place the object; at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as: the light collecting member configured to collect secondary light from the object; the spectroscopic unit configured to disperse the secondary light collected by the light collecting member; the imaging unit configured to capture an optical spectrum dispersed by the spectroscopic unit to acquire the spectral image; a wavelength information acquisition unit configured to acquire the wavelength information; and a correction unit configured to correct a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on the wavelength information acquired by the wavelength information acquisition unit; for the advantages of improved analysis via a more homogeneous field of view (Maier [0014]), automating the computer processes like corrections (Maier [0041]), and correction of spatial variations across the image field of view (Maier [0009]).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
1281
1472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
1182
1536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang Fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
2773
1718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Maier Fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
1155
789
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Maier Fig. 3
PNG
media_image6.png
1204
934
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Maier Fig. 4
As to claim 2, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction unit corrects the wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on a transition of the acquired wavelength information.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the correction unit corrects the wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on a transition of the acquired wavelength information (Maier [0052]-[0053]; Fig. 3; The NIST-based correction methodology acquired from the plurality of images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values, or wavenumbers. For each image at each specific Raman shift value or wavenumber, an average pixel intensity value may be obtained. All such average pixel intensity values for the corresponding images may be combined to generate the average spectrum of the images of the sample. Hence the instrument response-corrected spectrum of the target sample is obtained and there is a transition of the acquired wavelength information, i.e. the average spectrum. The average spectrum includes the average Raman shift or wavenumber shift, thus correcting the wavenumber shift. This correction corresponds to the spectral image based on the wavelength information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the correction unit corrects the wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on a transition of the acquired wavelength information; for the advantage of automating the computer processes like corrections (Maier [0041]).
As to claim 3, Wang does not explicitly disclose a storage unit configured to store information about the optical spectrum output by the imaging unit in association with the wavelength information.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a storage unit configured to store information about the optical spectrum output by the imaging unit in association with the wavelength information (Maier [0035]; a high-quality spectrum of the NIST standard sample 12 may be acquired and saved in an electronic memory (e.g., the memory of the control computer 24 in FIG. 2) for future retrieval).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include a storage unit configured to store information about the optical spectrum output by the imaging unit in association with the wavelength information; for the advantage of automating the computer processes like corrections (Maier [0041]).
As to claim 4, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction unit is configured to correct the information about the wavenumber shift in association with the spectral image, based on information about the optical spectrum stored in the storage unit.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the correction unit is configured to correct the information about the wavenumber shift in association with the spectral image, based on information about the optical spectrum stored in the storage unit (Maier [0052]-[0053]; NIST-based correction methodology uses the average spectrum acquired from the plurality of images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values or wavenumbers. A pixel position-specific instrument response function can be derived by dividing each pixel position-specific spectrum across the plurality of images of the NIST sample by the mathematically calculated spectrum of the NIST sample. Fig. 3; [0035]-[0036]; The information about the optical spectrum stored in the storage unit is described by Maier as the spectra 30, 32, 34 of the NIST standard sample measured using three different objectives, which is stored in the electronic memory. Thus, correcting information is based on information about the optical spectrum (spectra 30, 32, 34) stored in the storage unit (the electronic memory)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the correction unit is configured to correct the information about the wavenumber shift in association with the spectral image, based on information about the optical spectrum stored in the storage unit; for the advantage of correction of spatial variations across the image field of view (Maier [0009]).
As to claim 5, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor further functions as an acquisition unit configured to acquire information for identifying the property of the object, based on the optical spectrum.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the at least one processor further functions as an acquisition unit configured to acquire information for identifying the property of the object, based on the optical spectrum ([0032]; fig. 2; the detection unit 22 (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10) is shown optically coupled to the dispersive spectrometer 20 to receive the dispersed optical signals therefrom and to responsively generate one or more spatially accurate wavelength resolved images of the NIST standard sample 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the at least one processor further functions as an acquisition unit configured to acquire information for identifying the property of the object, based on the optical spectrum; for the advantage of spatial accuracy (Maier [0032]).
PNG
media_image7.png
1340
984
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Moshe Fig. 1
As to claim 13, Wang teaches wherein the information about the driving state is information about at least one of a temperature of a casing part of the light source, a temperature, power consumption, and an amount of heat radiation of an oscillation part of the light source ([0024]; fig. 2; Fig. 2 shows the emission spectrum of the laser measured with an ANDO AQ6317B optical spectrum analyzer at a wavelength resolution of 0.01 nm. The laser exhibits a FWHM (full-width at half-maximum) linewidth of about 0.2 nm and a maximum output power of >2.5 W. The temperature sensitivity of the laser wavelength is about 0.08 nm/° C., which is three times lower than that of a broad stripe F-P laser).
As to claim 14, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor further functions as a display control unit configured to display the optical spectrum of the object on a display unit, wherein the wavenumber shift of the optical spectrum is being corrected.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the at least one processor further functions as a display control unit ([0032]; The optical spectroscopy instrument 10 carries out spectral imaging. [0046]; The spectral images may be obtained using the display control unit (in the optical spectroscopy instrument 10), described by Maier as an LCTF based spectroscopic imaging system, a grating based (dispersive) spectroscopic imaging system, or a CTIS) configured to display the optical spectrum of the object on a display unit (claim 8; the imaging display inherent to the imaging system displays the plurality of LCTF images with corresponding spectral intensity values),
wherein the wavenumber shift of the optical spectrum is being corrected (Maier [0052]-[0053]; NIST-based correction methodology uses the average spectrum acquired from the plurality of images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values or wavenumbers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the at least one processor further functions as a display control unit configured to display the optical spectrum of the object on a display unit, wherein the wavenumber shift of the optical spectrum is being corrected; for the advantage of enhanced user interfacing (Maier [0032]).
As to claim 15, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the display control unit is configured to display information about an amount of correction in the wavenumber shift on the display unit.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the display control unit is configured to display information about an amount of correction in the wavenumber shift on the display unit (Maier [0029]; A mapping from detector (e.g. a CCD) pixels to Raman shift in units of wavenumbers can be developed and recorded. The amount of correction in the wavenumber shift is described by Maier as the Raman shift (in units of wavenumbers). [0046]; The spectral images may be obtained using the display control unit, described by Maier as an LCTF based spectroscopic imaging system, a grating based (dispersive) spectroscopic imaging system, or a CTIS. [0052]-[0053]; NIST-based correction methodology uses the average spectrum acquired from the plurality of spectral images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values or wavenumbers. Thus, the display control unit displays information about the Raman shift (in units of wavenumbers)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the display control unit is configured to display information about an amount of correction in the wavenumber shift on the display unit; for the advantage of enhanced user interfacing (Maier [0032]).
As to claim 17, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction unit is configured to, when a wavelength of the primary light increases, perform a correction to increase the wavenumber shift output by the imaging unit.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the correction unit is configured to, when a wavelength of the primary light increases, perform a correction to increase the wavenumber shift output by the imaging unit (Maier [0052]-[0053]; NIST-based correction methodology uses the average spectrum acquired from the plurality of images obtained at a corresponding plurality of Raman shift values or wavenumbers. [0040]; fig. 4; The Raman shift values on the x-axis in the plot in fig. 4 should be multiplied by 10 to obtain the actual RS values or wavenumbers as indicated. Thus, when the wavelength increases, the wavenumber shift increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the correction unit is configured to, when a wavelength of the primary light increases, perform a correction to increase the wavenumber shift output by the imaging unit; for the advantage of correction of spatial variations across the image field of view (Maier [0009]).
As to claim 18, Wang in view of Maier does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction unit is configured to, when a wavelength λ1 of the primary light varies by p times, perform a correction so that a wavenumber shift ∆k corresponding to a light receiving element changes by (1 + (1 - 1 /p)/(∆k x λ1)) times, the wavenumber shift ∆k being output by the imaging unit.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for the limitation wherein the correction unit is configured to, when a wavelength λ1 of the primary light varies by p times, perform a correction so that a wavenumber shift ∆k corresponding to a light receiving element changes by (1 + (1 - 1 /p)/(∆k x λ1)) times, the wavenumber shift ∆k being output by the imaging unit. In Specification para. [0097], Applicant discloses merely that “Consider the operation of the correction unit 290 when the wavelength λ1 of the primary light varies by p times. Here, the correction unit 290 makes a correction so that the wavenumber shift Δk corresponding to the signal output from the light receiving element 350 included in the imaging unit 170 changes by (1 + (1 - 1/p)/(Δk ×λ1)) times”. Furthermore, it has been held that finding the optimal or working ranges of a variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Peterson , 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Wang in view of Maier to incorporate wherein the correction unit is configured to, when a wavelength λ1 of the primary light varies by p times, perform a correction so that a wavenumber shift ∆k corresponding to a light receiving element changes by (1 + (1 - 1 /p)/(∆k x λ1)) times, the wavenumber shift ∆k being output by the imaging unit; for the advantage of quantification and adjustment of errors.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Maier, further in view of Cohen et al. (US20070127022A1), hereinafter Cohen.
As to claim 16, Wang teaches wherein the imaging unit includes a plurality of light receiving elements ([0025]; the spectrograph is an InGaAs array, which is a plurality of light receiving elements).
Wang in view of Maier does not explicitly disclose the light receiving elements are two-dimensionally arranged. Although, Maier teaches that the array detector can be a CCD camera (Maier [0029]), which can comprise of two-dimensionally arranged light receiving elements.
Cohen, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light receiving elements are two-dimensionally arranged (Cohen [0042]; a two-dimensional array of silicon charge-coupled device (“CCD”) detection elements can be employed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Maier to incorporate the teachings of Cohen to include the light receiving elements are two-dimensionally arranged, for the advantage of adapting the system for the type of sample being analyzed (Cohen [0042]).
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rentzepis et al. (US 20230003577 A1), hereinafter Rentzepis, teaches correcting a wavenumber shift corresponding to the spectral image based on wavelength information (Rentzepis [0044]; During image processing, the recorded spectra were rotated, when necessary, in order to vertically display all the spectral lines. The resulting one-dimensional spectra (intensity versus wavelength A) were scaled in the vertical direction, and the spectral intensity was subsequently plotted versus wavenumber. The pixel-to-Raman-shift wavenumber calibration was performed using the known Raman bands. Thus, the pixel-to-Raman-shift wavenumber calibration corresponds to the spectral image based on wavelength information).
Tsuchida et al. (JP 2011214917 A), hereinafter Tsuchida, teaches correcting a wavenumber shift corresponding to the wavelength information (Tsuchida pg. 5 ln. 59-60; The identification means 35 corrects based on the wavelength and intensity of the laser light as described above. The Raman scattering intensity at the wave number of the corresponding Raman shift corrected by 33 is obtained).
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).
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 KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 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, 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 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877