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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 was/were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bello, J., US 20120099102 A1 (hereinafter Bello).
Regarding claim 1, Bello teaches a Raman spectroscopy device comprising: a spectroscopic optical system (fig. 2, as described in para [0044]); and a photodetector (fig. 2 element 68, para [0044] last sentence), “wherein the spectroscopic optical system includes a first spectrometer for dispersing first Raman scattered light that is emitted from a sample when the sample is irradiated with a first excitation light beam” (this corresponds to the spectrometer with light source 12, as shown in figs. 1-2, para [0040] lines 4-13), and “a second spectrometer for dispersing second Raman scattered light that is emitted from the sample when the sample is irradiated with a second excitation light beam having a shorter wavelength than the first excitation light beam” (this represents to the spectrometer with light source 14, as shown in figs. 1-2, para [0040] lines 4-13), “the second Raman scattered light having a shorter wavelength than the first Raman scattered light, the photodetector receives the first Raman scattered light and the second Raman scattered light output from the spectroscopic optical system” (the two Raman lights from sample 38 are receive by detector connected to element 68 as shown in fig. 2, para [0044] last sentence), the second spectrometer is formed from a greater number of spectral optical elements (fig. 2, the spectral elements are 44 and 64, para [0044]) than the first spectrometer (fig. 2, the spectral element is 42, para [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Bello teaches The Raman spectroscopy device according to claim 1, wherein the first spectrometer is formed from one spectral optical element (fig. 2, the spectral element is 42, para [0044]), and the second spectrometer is formed from two spectral optical elements (fig. 2, the spectral elements are 44 and 64, para [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Bello teaches “the Raman spectroscopy device according to claim 1, wherein the spectroscopic optical system includes a condensing optical element, and the condensing optical element causes the first Raman scattered light output from the first spectrometer and the second Raman scattered light output from the second spectrometer to be concentrated on the photodetector” (the condensing optical element is element 68 as shown in fig. 2, para [0044] last sentence).
Regarding claim 4, Bello teaches the Raman spectroscopy device according to claim 1, wherein the photodetector includes a plurality of photodetection elements that are two-dimensionally arranged (para [0043] last statement, para [0060] last sentence; CCD has a plurality of photodetection elements that are two-dimensionally arranged).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bello as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Kususe, H., JP 2009230021 A (hereinafter Kususe).
Regarding claim 5, Bello does not teach the Raman spectroscopy device according to claim 4, further comprising a signal processor that is connected to the photodetector, wherein the signal processor performs binning processing on a plurality of electrical signals that are output from the plurality of photodetection elements.
Kususe, from the same field of endeavor as Bello, discloses “the Raman spectroscopy device according to claim 4, further comprising a signal processor that is connected to the photodetector, wherein the signal processor performs binning processing on a plurality of electrical signals that are output from the plurality of photodetection elements” (para [0034] describes the processor and para [0038] is the binning process; note that this is a general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kususe to Bello to have the Raman spectroscopy device according to claim 4, further comprising a signal processor that is connected to the photodetector, wherein the signal processor performs binning processing on a plurality of electrical signals that are output from the plurality of photodetection elements in order to shorten the measurement time (para [0038] last sentence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877