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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been withdrawn.
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) 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, S., et al., US 5135304 A (hereinafter Miles), in view of Brown, G. et al., US 20080180661 A1 (hereinafter Brown), and further in view of Florisson, O. et al., US 4783168 A (hereinafter Florisson).
Regarding claim 17, Miles teaches a Raman photometer comprising: a base module (fig. 3 element 110, lines 55-58) having a measuring cell (fig. 3 element 126, col 10 lines 55-58) for generating Raman radiation by a substance sample (col 5 lines 3-6); at least one expansion module (fig. 3 element 136, col 10 lines 64-68; at least one expansion module corresponds to the spaces where the optical elements and 136 occupied) having at least one first semi-permeable interference filter (col 1 lines 62-68; this means the element 136 has at least one first semi-permeable interference filter).
Miles does not teach for simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample and a slot diaphragm arranged between the measuring cell and the first semi- permeable interference filter.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches for simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample (this is shown in fig. 2, element 230 simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample; also, Brown teaches at least one first semi-permeable interference filter which is the bandpass filters 232).
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 Brown to Miles to have for simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample in order to measure one or several solid, liquid, or gaseous analytes, or mixture (Abstract last sentence). Note element 230 of Brown is an expansion of Mile element 136.
Miles, when modified by Brown, does not teach a slot diaphragm arranged between the measuring cell and the first semi- permeable interference filter.
Florisson, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches a slot diaphragm arranged between the measuring cell and the first semi- permeable interference filter (fig. 1 element 10, col 4 line 35).
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 Florisson to Miles, when modified by Brown, to have a slot diaphragm arranged between the measuring cell and the first semi- permeable interference filter in order to direct signals into the central processing unit (col 4 lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 19, Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the first interference filter comprises a band-pass filter for a first Raman band which is captured by the first receiving device.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the first interference filter comprises a band-pass filter for a first Raman band which is captured by the first receiving device (para [0021] lines 1-5).
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 Brown to Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the first interference filter comprises a band-pass filter for a first Raman band which is captured by the first receiving device in order to extract target spectral bands from the return signal corresponding to specific chemicals of interest (para [0021] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 18, wherein the first interference filter comprises a band-pass filter for a first Raman band which is captured by the first receiving device.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 18, wherein the first interference filter comprises a band-pass filter for a first Raman band which is captured by the first receiving device (Brown: para [0027] lines 1-11).
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 Brown to Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 18, wherein the first interference filter comprises a band-pass filter for a first Raman band which is captured by the first receiving device in order to extract target spectral bands from the return signal corresponding to specific chemicals of interest (para [0021] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 21, Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 19, wherein the first interference filter is configured to reflect a beam path which is outside the first Raman band, the reflected beam path being directed to a second semi-permeable interference filter in the expansion module.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches Raman photometer as claimed in claim 19, wherein the first interference filter is configured to reflect a beam path which is outside the first Raman band, the reflected beam path being directed to a second semi-permeable interference filter in the expansion module (Brown: para [0027] lines 1-13).
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 Brown to Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 19, wherein the first interference filter is configured to reflect a beam path which is outside the first Raman band, the reflected beam path being directed to a second semi-permeable interference filter in the expansion module in order to extract target spectral bands from the return signal corresponding to specific chemicals of interest (para [0021] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 22, Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the expansion module includes at least three receiving devices which are each configured to receive a Raman band. Regarding claim 23, Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one receiving device of the at least three receiving devices comprises a photodetector.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the expansion module includes at least three receiving devices which are each configured to receive a Raman band (Brown: fig. 2 shows 6 receiving devices 233), the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one receiving device of the at least three receiving devices comprises a photodetector (Brown: para [0027] lines 1-13).
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 Brown to Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the expansion module includes at least three receiving devices which are each configured to receive a Raman band, the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one receiving device of the at least three receiving devices comprises a photodetector in order to extract target spectral bands from the return signal corresponding to specific chemicals of interest (para [0021] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 24, Miles teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one receiving device of the at least three of the receiving devices is configured to have no cooling system (fig. 3, element 136 has no cooling system).
Regarding claim 25, Miles teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the measuring cell is configured to emit the beam path perpendicular to a beam direction of an excitation light source (col 7 lines 26-29; fig. 3 shows the light emitted by the sample is perpendicular to the laser).
Regarding claim 26, Miles teaches The Raman photometer as claimed in claim 25, wherein the excitation light source comprises a laser (col 7 lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 30, Miles teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the base module is connected to from two to six expansion modules (fig. 3 shows 8 elements 136).
Regarding claim 33, Miles does not teach a spectrometer system for capturing a composition of a substance sample, the spectrometer system comprising a Raman photometer and an evaluation unit which is connected thereto, wherein the Raman photometer is configured as claimed in claim 17.
Brown teaches a spectrometer system for capturing a composition of a substance sample (this is device shown in figs. 1-2), the spectrometer system comprising a Raman photometer (para [0011] lines 1-3) and “an evaluation unit which is connected thereto, wherein the Raman photometer is configured as claimed in claim 17” (figs. 1-2 elements 150, 250, p. 5 claim 32).
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 Brown to Miles, when modified by Florisson, to have a spectrometer system for capturing a composition of a substance sample, the spectrometer system comprising a Raman photometer and an evaluation unit which is connected thereto, wherein the Raman photometer is configured as claimed in claim 17 in order to have a small, low cost, and robust device (para [0011]).
Claim(s) 18, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Brown, and Florisson, and further in view Ng, K., US 20190301931A1 (hereinafter Ng).
Regarding claim 18, Miles teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, further comprising: at least one first receiving device arranged in the expansion module (fig. 3 element 136).
The modified device of Miles does not teach said at least one first receiving device being formed as a strip.
Ng, from the same field of endeavor as Brown, teaches said at least one first receiving device being formed as a strip (para [0020] lines 7-9).
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 Ng to the modified device of Miles to have said at least one first receiving device being formed as a strip in order to control the amount of light entering to the detector in order to effectively detect the dimensional-images radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 35, Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the slot diaphragm is configured to spatially filter the Raman radiation generated by the measuring cell.
Florisson, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches wherein the slot diaphragm is configured to filter the Raman radiation generated by the measuring cell (fig. 1 element 10, col 4 line 35).
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 Florisson to Miles, when modified by Brown, to have wherein the slot diaphragm is configured to filter the Raman radiation generated by the measuring cell in order to direct signals into the central processing unit (col 4 lines 35-38).
Miles, when modified by Brown and Florisson, fails to teach spatially filtering the Raman radiation.
Ng, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches spatially filtering the Raman radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9; the strip corresponds to spatially filtering the Raman radiation).
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 Ng to Miles, when modified by Florisson, to have spatially filtering the Raman radiation in order to effectively detect the dimensional-images radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Brown, and Florisson, as applied to claim(s) 26, and in view of Jalali, B. et al., US 20110122407 A1 (hereinafter Jalali).
Regarding claim 27, the modified device of Miles fails to teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 26, wherein the laser has a central wavelength from 350 nm to 550 nm.
Jalali, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 26, wherein the laser has a central wavelength from 350 nm to 550 nm (Jalali: para [0145] lines 1-7).
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 Jalali to the modified device of Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 26, wherein the laser has a central wavelength from 350 nm to 550 nm in order to specifically detect a biological sample (Jalali: para [0145] lines 1-7).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Brown, and Florisson, as applied to claim(s) 17, and in view of Goldring, D. et al., US 9383258 B2 (hereinafter Goldring).
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least the first interference filter has a half width of up to 20 nm around a central wavelength.
Goldring, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least the first interference filter has a half width of up to 20 nm around a central wavelength (Goldring: col 16 lines 5-17; 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 Goldring to the modified device of Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least the first interference filter has a half width of up to 20 nm around a central wavelength in order to effectively pass range of wavelengths greater than the bandwidth of the filter (Goldring: col 7 lines 43-46).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Brown, and Florisson, as applied to claim(s) 17, and in view of Potyrailo, R. et al., US 6541264 B1 (hereinafter Potyrailo).
Regarding claim 29, the modified device of Miles does not teach the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one semi- permeable interference filter of the Raman photometer has a central wavelength from 350 nm to 555 nm.
Potyrailo, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one semi- permeable interference filter of the Raman photometer has a central wavelength from 350 nm to 555 nm (col 12 lines 33-41; 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 Goldring to the modified device of Miles to have the Raman photometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one semi- permeable interference filter of the Raman photometer has a central wavelength from 350 nm to 555 nm in order to have a rapid measurement of the sample (col 1 lines 8-12).
Claim(s) 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Florisson, Ng, and Brown.
Regarding claim 31, Miles teaches a method for measuring a composition of a substance sample via a Raman photometer, the method comprising: a) irradiating the substance sample via an excitation light source (col 3 lines 37-49), generating a Raman radiation (col 3 lines 46-50) b) optically directing a beam path of the Raman radiation onto a first interference filter (col 1 lines 62-68; this means the element 136 has at least one first semi-permeable interference filter); and wherein at least one of the first and second receiving device is operated without a cooling system (fig. 3 has no cooling system).
Miles does not teach a) spatially filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm; c) passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band.
Florisson, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches a) filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm (fig. 1 element 10, col 4 line 35).
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 Florisson to Miles, to have a) filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm in order to direct signals into the central processing unit (col 4 lines 35-38).
Miles, when modified by Florisson, does not teach a) spatially filtering the Raman radiation; c) passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band.
Ng, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches a) spatially filtering the Raman radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9; the strip corresponds to spatially filtering the Raman radiation).
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 Ng to Miles, when modified by Florisson, to have a) spatially filtering the Raman radiation in order to effectively detect the dimensional-images radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9).
Miles, when modified by Florisson and Ng, does not teach c) passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches “c) passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band” (all of these are shown in fig. 2 inside element 231).
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 Brown to Miles, when modified by Florisson and Ng, to have “c) passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band” in order to measure one or several solid, liquid, or gaseous analytes, or mixture (Abstract last sentence). Note element 230 of Brown is an expansion of Mile element 136.
Regarding claim 32, Miles does not teach the method as claimed in claim 31, wherein capture of the first and second Raman bands occur essentially simultaneously.
Brown teaches the method as claimed in claim 31, wherein capture of the first and second Raman bands occur essentially simultaneously (fig. 2 shows the filters 233 simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample; para [0021] lines 13-15).
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 Brown to Miles, when modified by Florisson and Ng, to have the method as claimed in claim 31, wherein capture of the first and second Raman bands occur essentially simultaneously in order to measure one or several solid, liquid, or gaseous analytes, or mixture (Abstract last sentence). Note element 230 of Brown is an expansion of Mile element 136.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Brown, and Florisson, and further in view Ng.
Regarding claim 34, Miles teaches “a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with program instructions which, when executed by a processor of a computer” (col 3 lines 46-50, the processing means has a processor of a computer), , the Raman device comprising a base module (fig. 3 element 110, lines 55-58) having a measuring cell (fig. 3 element 126, col 10 lines 55-58) for generating Raman radiation by a substance sample (col 3 lines 46-50), at least one expansion module (fig. 3 element 136, col 10 lines 64-68; at least one expansion module corresponds to the spaces where the optical elements and 136 occupied) having at least one first semi-permeable interference filter (col 1 lines 62-68; this means the element 136 has at least one first semi-permeable interference filter), and wherein at least one of the first and second receiving device is operated without a cooling system (fig. 3 has no cooling system).
Miles does not teach “causes the computer to simulate an operating behavior of a Raman device photometer having a physics module which is configured to simulate a reflection behavior and transmission behavior of an interference filter”, for simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample, and a slot diaphragm arranged between the measuring cell and the first semi-permeable interference filter, the program instructions comprising: a) program code for irradiating the substance sample via an excitation light source, generating a Raman radiation and spatially filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm; b) program code for optically directing a beam path of the Raman radiation onto a first interference filter; c) program code for passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) program code for at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches “causes the computer to simulate an operating behavior of a Raman device photometer having a physics module (fig. 2 is the Raman photometer; the code in element 150) which is configured to simulate a reflection behavior and transmission behavior of an interference filter (this is shown in fig. 2 inside element 231)”, for simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample (fig. 2 inside element 231), the program instructions comprising: a) program code for irradiating the substance sample via an excitation light source, generating a Raman radiation (this is shown in fig. 2); b) program code for optically directing a beam path of the Raman radiation onto a first interference filter (fig. 2 inside element 231); c) program code for passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band (fig. 2 inside element 231); and d) program code for at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter (fig. 2 inside element 231); wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band (fig. 2 inside element 231).
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 Brown to Miles to have “causes the computer to simulate an operating behavior of a Raman device photometer having a physics module which is configured to simulate a reflection behavior and transmission behavior of an interference filter”, for simultaneously capturing a first and a second component of the substance sample, and a slot diaphragm arranged between the measuring cell and the first semi-permeable interference filter, the program instructions comprising: a) program code for irradiating the substance sample via an excitation light source, generating a Raman radiation; b) program code for optically directing a beam path of the Raman radiation onto a first interference filter; c) program code for passing part of the Raman radiation through the first interference filter to a first receiving device which captures a first Raman band; and d) program code for at least partially reflecting a remaining Raman radiation at the first interference filter to a second interference filter; wherein the second interference filter is connected upstream of a second receiving device which is configured to capture a second Raman band in order to measure one or several solid, liquid, or gaseous analytes, or mixture (Abstract last sentence). Note element 230 of Brown is an expansion of Mile element 136.
Miles, when modified by Brown, fails to teach spatially filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm.
Florisson, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm (fig. 1 element 10, col 4 line 35).
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 Florisson to Miles, when modified by Brown, to have filtering the Raman radiation via a slot diaphragm in order to direct signals into the central processing unit (col 4 lines 35-38).
Miles, when modified by Brown and Florisson, fails to teach spatially filtering the Raman radiation.
Ng, from the same field of endeavor as Miles, teaches spatially filtering the Raman radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9; the strip corresponds to spatially filtering the Raman radiation).
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 Ng to Miles, when modified by Florisson, to have spatially filtering the Raman radiation in order to effectively detect the dimensional-images radiation (para [0020] lines 7-9).
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