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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 09/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, recite the term “such that the set distance between the image sensor and the sample is shorter than required for detection of the full vibrational spectrum” renders the claim indefinite. The term “shorter than required” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the claim cite “a distance between the image sensor and the sample is shorter than required” the claim do not provide any explicit definitions that clearly and positively limit the range of what “shorter than required” refers to or as to how proximate or what deviations from a required distance value could an object be located from the image sensor “close to the lens”. Additionally, the claim do not define what value is required for detection of the full vibrational spectrum, therefore is unclear how to compare the “required distance” with a “shorter distance”. Moreover, the term "such that the set distance between the image sensor and the sample is shorter than required for detection of the full vibrational spectrum” " in the claim merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02).
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “such that the set distance between the image sensor and the sample is shorter than required for detection of the full vibrational spectrum” as a distance or any distance between the image sensor and the sample and/or any kind of configuration of some sort.
Regarding Claims 2-12, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 1, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edel et al. (US 2015/0168305 A1), hereafter Edel.
Regarding claim 1, Edel teaches a vibrational spectroscopy platform (Fig. 1 element A V, [abstract, 0053, 0074]) comprising:
a sample light source, [0045, 0053];
an image sensor, (The imaging device can be either a charged coupled device (CCD) or photodiode, [0049, 0051]) disposed a set distance from a sample, (the working distance if 5mm, as shown in Fig. 1 A V, [0075]); and
at least one optical filter disposed in line with the image sensor, (The filters are provided to remove the intense Rayleigh line that would saturate a sensitive detector therefore is in line with the image sensor, [0051, 0053]); wherein the sample light source is configured to deliver a full vibrational spectrum of the sample to the image sensor, (“A spectral range of 200-2400 cm.sup.-1 is used. This allows for the full vibrational spectrum of the analyte to be measured”, [0053]); and
wherein a light from the sample light source passes through the at least one optical filter prior to reaching the image sensor, (since the filters are provided to remove the intense Rayleigh line that would saturate a sensitive detector, therefore the light passes through the optical filter prior to reaching the image sensor, [0051])., and
wherein the at least one optical filter selects a set of spectral bands from the full vibrational spectrum of the sample for detection by the image sensor, ( the long pass filter remove the intense Rayleigh line and reject the anti-Stokes scattered light, therefore selecting a set of spectral bands [0074]) such that the set distance between the image sensor and the sample is shorter than required for detection of the full vibrational spectrum, (the image sensor is at a distance from the sample for detecting a vibrational spectrum, [0074-0075], Additionally, the term "such that the set distance between the image sensor and the sample is shorter than required for detection of the full vibrational spectrum” in the claim merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02).
Regarding claim 2, Edel teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the vibrational spectroscopy platform is a Raman spectrometer, [0052-0053].
Regarding claim 6, Edel teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the image sensor is a CCD image sensor, [0051, 0074].
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 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edel et al. (US 2015/0168305 A1), hereafter Edel, in view of Zuzak et al. (US 2010/0056928 A1), hereafter Zuzak.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7 , Edel teaches the platform.
Edel is silent about:
(claim 3) wherein the sample light source is a continuous wave laser or a pulsed laser.
(claim 4) wherein the image sensor comprises a pixel binning process.
(claim 5) wherein the pixel binning process is selected from the group consisting of 2-pixel binning, 4-pixel binning, 8-pixel binning, and any combinations thereof.
(claim 7) wherein the image sensor comprises a hyperspectral imaging scheme.
However, Zuzak related to spectroscopy measuring system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 3) wherein the sample light source is a continuous wave laser, or a pulsed laser, (supercontinuum laser, [0023, 0042])
(claim 4) wherein the image sensor comprises a pixel binning process, [0193].
(claim 5) wherein the pixel binning process is selected from the group consisting of 2-pixel binning, 4-pixel binning, 8-pixel binning, and any combinations thereof, (2x2 binning process, [0193] and as shown in Figs. 4, 23, [0281]).
(claim 7) wherein the image sensor comprises a hyperspectral imaging scheme, (the sensor generates hyperspectral image cube [0024, 0033] and as shown in Fig. 19, [0235]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Edel by including wherein the sample light source is a continuous wave laser or a pulsed laser, wherein the image sensor comprises a pixel binning process, wherein the pixel binning process is selected from the group consisting of 2-pixel binning, 4-pixel binning, 8-pixel binning, and any combinations thereof, wherein the image sensor comprises a hyperspectral imaging scheme, (as taught by Zuzak) for several advantages such as: allowing to improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the ability to increase frame rate, and increase the sensitivity in image acquisition, thus increase the efficiency of the device, ([0190,0193], Zuzak).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edel et al. (US 2015/0168305 A1), hereafter Edel, in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215 A1), hereafter Devlin.
Regarding claims 8-9, Edel teaches the platform of claim 1.
Edel fail to teach:
(claim 8) wherein the at least one optical filter is integrated on the image sensor.
(claim 9) wherein the at least one optical filter comprises a thin film or a dielectric metasurface.
However, Devlin related to optical imaging systems and this from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 8) wherein the at least one optical filter (Figs. 1-7 element 26), is integrated on the image sensor (Figs. 1-7 element 16a-d), [0101-0102].
(claim 9) wherein the at least one optical filter (Figs. 1-7 element 26), comprises a thin film or a dielectric metasurface, (Figs. 1-7 elements 14a-d), [0111-0112].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Edel by including wherein the at least one optical filter is integrated on the image sensor, wherein the at least one optical filter comprises a thin film or a dielectric metasurface, (as taught by Devlin) for several advantages such as: the imaging systems that integrate metasurface element allows for the combined system to achieve high quality imaging over a large field of view, telecentricity over a large field of view, and with no fall-off in relative illumination. Also it provide a single component with function in the optical imaging process as well as to eliminate unwanted wavelengths from being incident on the image sensor, thus increase the accuracy of the device, ([0084, 0111], Devlin).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edel et al. (US 2015/0168305 A1), hereafter Edel, in view of Angel et al. (US 2022/0397531 A1), hereafter Angel.
Regarding claim 10, Edel teaches the platform of claim 1.
Edel is silent about wherein the set of spectral bands comprises from 250 bands to 750 bands.
However, Angel related to spectroscopy measuring system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the set of spectral bands comprises from 250 bands to 750 bands, (532 nm longpass filter, [0099]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Edel by including wherein the set of spectral bands comprises from 250 bands to 750 bands, (as taught by Angel) for several advantages such as: the device allows to complete image acquisition with corresponding complete spectral information simultaneously and in seconds to minutes rather than hours that can be required using current, prior art hyperspectral Raman techniques, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0054], Angel). Also a long-pass filter allows to increase image contrast and clarity by allowing longer-wavelength light to pass through while blocking or attenuating shorter-wavelength light. This enables better analysis in applications like fluorescence microscopy, medical imaging, and environmental monitoring, where unwanted light can cause distortion or reduce visibility of the desired signal.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edel et al. (US 2015/0168305 A1), hereafter Edel, in view of Shaoxin Li, Gong Chen, Yanjiao Zhang, Zhouyi Guo, Zhiming Liu, Junfa Xu, Xueqiang Li, and Lin Lin, "Identification and characterization of colorectal cancer using Raman spectroscopy and feature selection techniques," Opt. Express 22, 25895-25908 (2014).
Regarding claims 11-12, Edel teaches the platform of claim 1.
Edel fail to teach:
(claim 11) wherein the set of spectral bands are selected using a machine learning process on a computer. Top of Form
(claim 12) wherein the machine learning process comprises a feature selection process selected from the group consisting of ANOVA, x2, mutual information, and ant colony optimization.
However Shaoxin to spectroscopy measuring system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 11) wherein the set of spectral bands are selected using a machine learning process on a computer, (The device uses a combination of ACO “ant colony optimization” with a support vector machine (SVM) that is a machine learning process to filter feature spectra as set spectral bands, and as shown in Fig. 4, ‘[page 4, first paragraph], [page 8, second paragraph]). Top of Form
(claim 12) wherein the machine learning process comprises a feature selection process selected from the group consisting of ANOVA, x2, mutual information, and ant colony optimization, (The device uses a combination of ACO “ant colony optimization” with a support vector machine (SVM) that is a machine learning process to filter feature spectra as set spectral bands, as shown in Fig. 4, ‘[page 4, first paragraph], [page 8, second paragraph]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Edel by including wherein the set of spectral bands are selected using a machine learning process on a computer, Top of Formwherein the machine learning process comprises a feature selection process selected from the group consisting of ANOVA, x2, mutual information, and ant colony optimization, (as taught by Shoaxin) for several advantages such as: the system permits to decreases the number of variables and helps to understand the discovered pattern by eliminating irrelevant features from raw data set, allowing to improve the ability of digging a meaningful low-dimensional data structure in high-dimensional sample space and several feature selection strategies such as filter, thus increase the efficiency of the device, ([Page 3, fourth paragraph, Shoaxin).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877