DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 29 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 14-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 18 have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 30 January 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-5, 14, 15, 17 and 18 do not overcome all of the U.S.C. 112 rejections nor the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 29 May 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 14-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has newly cited references teaching the amended claim.
Applicant Remarks
Regarding the U.S.C. 112 rejections, Applicant remarks that the amendments delete all phrases stating, to the effect, that the “processor functions as an optical element”, which are replaced with structural definitions of the apparatus configuration.
Applicant remarks that the 112(f) claim interpretation is improper and cites the 112(f) 3-prong analysis. However, to advance prosecution, Applicant has remarked the amended claims remove any interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant remarks that the distinguishable feature of the claimed invention (i.e. claim 1) includes: "a branching unit disposed between the light source and the irradiation member, and configured to extract partial light from the primary light; and at least one processor configured to identify the object based on the spectral image and information about a wavenumber shift, wherein the at least one processor is configured to correct the information about the wavenumber shift assigned to the spectral image based on the wavelength information."
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully points out that the claim 1 limitation still states “the at least one processor to function as: a placement unit… a branching unit… a spectroscopic unit… an imaging unit… a wavelength information acquisition unit… and an identifier unit…”. Therefore, the 112 rejections remain in place. The Specification does not support a processor functioning as:
a placement unit ([0112]; comprising a track),
a branching unit ([0103]; a beam splitter),
a spectroscopic unit ([0053]; a transmissive diffraction grating),
an imaging unit ([0047]; a CCD and CMOS),
a wavelength information acquisition unit ([0104]; a spectrometer),
nor an identifier unit (not mentioned in the Specification).
Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant amend the claim language to say the processor controls these units, or the processor is configured to perform the specified functions (omitting the word “unit”). Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant omit “identifier unit” because it is not mentioned in the Specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments overcome the U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations. Examiner also notes that claim interpretation does not prevent the current application from being in conditions for allowance, and therefore, amending the claims to address the U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations will not necessarily advance prosecution. Examiner respectfully points out that the claim interpretation emphasizes interpretation of the claim itself, and any “structure, material, or acts for performing the functions” in the Specification does not affect the claim if it is not present in the claim.
From the previous office action (with additional notes added), please see the following three-prong test regarding the U.S.C. 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. In this case, the unit is the means for performing the function: placement. From Merriam-Webster, “unit” means “a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function”. The Specification does not redefine the word “unit”.
(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. In this case, the placement function is performed by the unit, i.e. the means of placement.
(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”. The limitation of “a placement unit on which the object is placed” (emphasis added) only further describes the function of the unit. The unit performs this function. There is no structure, material, or acts for performing the functions in the claims (emphasis added).
Further, for “branching unit”, “spectroscopic unit”, “imaging unit”, “wavelength information acquisition unit” and “identifier unit” in claim 1, 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.
For more details, please see sections: Claim Interpretation and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 for more details. Also, Examiner respectfully points out that the amendment does not state “at least one processor configured to identify the object based on the spectral image and information about a wavenumber shift”. Instead, the amendment states: “an identifier unit configured to identify the object based on the spectral image and information about a wavenumber shift”. Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant omit “identifier unit”, and amend to say --the processor is configured to identify the object based on the spectral image and information about a wavenumber shift--.
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”, “branching unit”, “spectroscopic unit”, “imaging unit”, “wavelength information acquisition unit” and “identifier unit” in claim 1.
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 limitation “identifier 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.
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, claim 1 is indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure in the specification regarding the “identifier unit”. Because there is inadequate disclosure of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant omit “identifier unit”. 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 placement unit… a branching unit… a spectroscopic unit… an imaging unit… a wavelength information acquisition unit… and an identifier 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 placement unit, a branching unit, a spectroscopic unit, an imaging unit, a wavelength information acquisition unit, nor an identifier unit”. Just that it performs the functions of one or more of the described embodiments. Specification para. [0124] is the only paragraph that mentions the processor(s) or the computer they are comprised in. From the Specification: [0112] states the placement unit comprises a track; [0103] states the branching unit is a beam splitter; [0053] states the spectroscopic unit can be a transmissive diffraction grating; [0047] states the imaging unit comprises a CCD and CMOS; [0104] states the wavelength information acquisition unit comprises a spectrometer; and an “identifier unit” is not mentioned. Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant amend the claim language to say the processor controls these units, or the processor is configured to perform the specified functions. Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant omit “identifier unit”.
Claims 2-5 and 13-18 are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchida et al. (JP 2011214917 A), hereinafter Tsuchida (the English translation of the reference was attached with the office action mailed on 30 January 2026).
As to claim 1, Tsuchida teaches an identification apparatus (Tsuchida abstract; fig. 3; “an identification means 35 for identifying an identification target”) comprising:
an irradiation member (Tsuchida fig. 2; condenser lens 13) configured to irradiate an object placed on a placement unit with primary light emitted from a light source (Tsuchida fig. 2; pg. 5 ln 8-10; The laser light L generated by the semiconductor laser generator 12 is reflected by the mirror 14a, is further reflected by the dichroic mirror 14b, is guided to the condenser lens 13, and is condensed by the condenser lens 13 to the identification plastic P);
a light collecting member configured to collect secondary light from the object (Tsuchida fig. 2; pg. 5 ln 11-12; “The detection unit head 11 condenses the Raman scattered light R scattered from the identification plastic P by the irradiation of the laser light L by the condenser lens 13 and guides it to the optical fiber 21”);
at least one processor (Tsuchida fig. 2; pg. 4 ln. 61-62; “a data processing device 30 for processing and a semiconductor laser drive power source 40 for driving a semiconductor laser generator 12”);
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 ((Tsuchida fig. 1; pg. 4 ln. 52-57; “a synchronous control device 8 for controlling operations of the Raman scattering identification device 5 and the air gun driving device 7 in synchronization”), causes the at least one processor to function as:
a placement unit on which the object is placed (Tsuchida fig. 3; pg. 4 ln. 58-59; “the identification target plastic P placed on the belt 4a”);
a branching unit disposed between the light source and the irradiation member, and configured to extract partial light from the primary light (Tsuchida fig. 2; pg. 5 ln. 5-6; “The dichroic mirror 14b reflects the laser light L and transmits the Raman scattered light R”);
a spectroscopic unit (Tsuchida fig. 4; a spectroscope 23 such as a reflective diffraction grating) configured to disperse the secondary light collected by the light collecting member (Tsuchida fig. 4; pg. 5 ln. 19-20; “the multichannel spectroscope 22 detects a spectroscope 23 such as a reflective diffraction grating that reflects and splits the Raman scattered light R and the reflected laser light, and detects the light split by the spectroscope 23”);
an imaging unit configured to capture the secondary light dispersed by the spectroscopic unit to acquire a spectral image (Tsuchida fig. 5, 7; pg. 6 ln. 49-52; The photodetector 26 of the multi-channel spectroscope 22a outputs the spectral image. For example, fig. 7: pixel group 26b, a portion of the Raman scattered light R dispersed by the spectroscope 24);
a wavelength information acquisition unit configured to acquire wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light based on the extracted partial light from the branching unit (Tsuchida fig. 2; pg. 5 ln. 15-16; “The optical fiber 21 guides the Raman scattered light R (i.e. secondary light) and the reflected laser light (i.e. primary light) collected by the condenser lens 13 of the detection unit head 11 to the multichannel spectrometer 22”);
and an identifier unit configured to identify the object (Tsuchida abstract; fig. 3; “an identification means 35 for identifying an identification target”) based on the spectral image (Tsuchida pg. 5 ln. 48-50; fig. 8; For example, analysis with fig. 8: acquiring the Raman scattering spectrum of each of known plastics (acrylic, PC, ABS, PS, PVC) as a reference material by the plastic identifying apparatus) and information about a wavenumber shift (Tsuchida pg. 5 ln. 41-43; “Raman shift wave number acquired by the Raman scattering information acquiring means 31 and the Raman scattering intensity at the Raman shift wave number”),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to correct the information about the wavenumber shift assigned to the spectral image based on 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”).
PNG
media_image1.png
972
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
716
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
429
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
409
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
417
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 5
PNG
media_image6.png
700
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 7
PNG
media_image7.png
883
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tsuchida Fig. 8
As to claim 2, Tsuchida teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to obtain the wavelength information based on information output from the light source (Tsuchida fig. 3; pg. 5 ln. 25-26; “The data processing device 30 has a Raman scattering information acquisition unit 31 (see FIG. 3) for obtaining Raman scattering information from the input Raman scattering signal”).
As to claim 3, Tsuchida teaches a storage unit (Tsuchida fig. 3; the storage means 34) configured to store information about an optical spectrum output by the imaging unit in association with the wavelength information (Tsuchida pg. 5 ln. 58-61; “The identifying means 35 identifies the material of the plastic to be identified based on the obtained Raman scattering intensity and the reference value stored in the storage means 34”).
As to claim 4, Tsuchida teaches wherein the at least one processor 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 (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”).
As to claim 5, Tsuchida teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire information for identifying a property of the object, based on an optical spectrum (Tsuchida pg. 3 ln. 27-29; “The material of the identification object can be identified based on the Raman scattering intensity at the wave number of Raman shift and the Raman scattering intensity at the wave number of Raman shift corresponding to the known baseline position”).
As to claim 16, Tsuchida teaches wherein the imaging unit includes a plurality of two-dimensionally arranged light receiving elements (Tsuchida pg. 5 ln. 20-22; “The two-dimensional photodetector 24 of 1024 pixels, such as a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) or a linear array photodiode”. Thus, the pixels are described by Tsuchida as the plurality of two-dimensionally arranged light receiving elements).
As to claim 17, Tsuchida teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to, when a wavelength of the primary light increases, perform a correction to increase the wavenumber shift output by the imaging unit (Tsuchida pg. 3 ln. 30-34; “The correction means determines the Raman based on the wavelength and intensity of the laser light. It is desirable to correct the scattering information. Thus, more accurate Raman scattering information can be obtained by correcting the Raman scattering information in accordance with fluctuations in the wavelength and intensity of the laser light”. Thus, when a wavelength of the primary light increases, the correction means performs a correction to increase the wavenumber shift output).
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida in view of Maier (US 20080034833 A1).
As to claim 14, Tsuchida does not explicitly disclose a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display an optical spectrum of the object on the display, wherein the wavenumber shift of the optical spectrum is being corrected.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a display (Maier claim 8; the imaging display inherent to the imaging system displays the plurality of LCTF images with corresponding spectral intensity values),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display an optical spectrum of the object on the display (Maier [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),
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 Tsuchida to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display an optical spectrum of the object on the display, wherein the wavenumber shift of the optical spectrum is being corrected; for the advantage of enhanced user interfacing (Maier [0032]).
As to claim 15, Tsuchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display information about an amount of correction in the wavenumber shift on the display.
Maier, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display information about an amount of correction in the wavenumber shift on the display (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 Tsuchida to incorporate the teachings of Maier to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display information about an amount of correction in the wavenumber shift on the display; for the advantage of enhanced user interfacing (Maier [0032]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida.
As to claim 18, Tsuchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor 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 at least one processor 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 modify Tsuchida to incorporate wherein the at least one processor 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.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
As to claim 1, 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).
As to claim 1, Wang et al. (US20070146699A1), hereinafter Wang, teaches a branching unit disposed between the light source and the irradiation member, and configured to extract partial light from the primary light (fig. 1; [0025]; the dichroic filter 120 is disposed between the laser 102 and the optical lens 122, and filters out the Rayleigh scattering and the reflected laser light from the sample 124, i.e. extracts partial light);
and a wavelength information acquisition unit configured to acquire wavelength information about a wavelength of the primary light based on the extracted partial light from the branching unit (claim 1; fig. 1; The spectrograph 132 acquires wavelength information about relative intensity of different wavelength components of the Raman scattering signal (the extracted partial light from the dichroic filter 120), which includes a wavelength of the scattered optical signal; the same wavelength of the laser light, i.e. the primary light).
As to claim 16, Cohen et al. (US20070127022A1), hereinafter 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights