Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 05/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the invocation of 35 USC 112(f) for the optical element and photosensitive element recited in claim 1 (see page 6 of Remarks filed 05/22/2026), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “element for” is treated as a non-structural generic placeholder that may invoke 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. The optical element is recited in the claim as being configured for "separating incident light into a spectrum of constituent wavelength components" and the photosensitive element is recited as being configured for "receiving at least a portion of one of the constituent wavelength components and for generating a respective detector signal". Claim 1 does not provide specific structure that modifies the generic placeholder terms, and the recited functions could be performed by more than one element. For example, both a prism and diffraction grating may separate incident light into a spectrum of wavelength components. Further, both a CCD device and photodiode array may receive wavelength components and generate a respective detector signal. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what particular elements the optical element and photosensitive element are.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Kim and Magana fails to teach the limitation “the scanning mirror is moved in a stepwise manner with a stepping frequency of 1 kHz or less, wherein the stepping frequency of the scanning mirror is slower than a maximum readout frequency of the detector” (see pages 7-8 of Remarks filed 05/22/2026), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kim teaches the optical interferometer (page 3413, column 2, last paragraph) comprises at least one beam splitting device for splitting incident light into at least two illumination paths (see second coupler element, Fig. 1 which splits the incident light from the coupled light sources into two illumination paths), wherein the optical interferometer further comprises at least one scanning mirror in a first illumination path (arm with galvanometer and mirror on a microstage, Fig. 1) and at least one stationary mirror in a second illumination path (reference mirror, Fig. 1), wherein, in the method, the scanning mirror is moved along the first illumination path, wherein the stationary mirror is kept stationary (this is standard for Michelson interferometers, which is what is used in Kim). Further, the claim requires a maximum stepping frequency of 1 kHz or less. Kim teaches a detector device with a maximum readout frequency of 92 kHz (page 3414, 1st column, 1st paragraph). Therefore, the detector of Kim inherently meets the limitation of the maximum readout frequency being faster than the stepping frequency as any stepping frequency below 1 kHz would be slower than the maximum readout frequency of 92 kHz as taught by Kim.
Kim does not teach the stepping frequency of the mirror being 1 kHz or less, and applicant argues Magana does not either, and the combination of Kim and Magana is improper due to impermissible hindsight (see page 8 of Remarks filed 05/22/2026). The claimed invention of the instant application is directed to a method and system for calibrating a spectrometer device which utilizes an interferometer. Kim is generally directed to calibrating a spectrometer device using an interferometer, and Magana is generally directed to improving a spectroscopy device which uses an interferometer. Both Kim and Magana utilize a Michelson interferometer in the spectrometer device (Kim: see page 3413, 2nd column, last paragraph; Magana: see Fig. 1, and page 4, paragraph 3 discloses the use of a Bio-Rad FTS-60 ss-FT-IR instrument, which uses a Michelson interferometer). Magana identifies a problem with spectroscopic devices of this type is the interferometer stepping rate (abstract). Magana uses stepping rate frequencies ranging from 20 Hz-200 Hz to solve this problem (page 8, paragraph 2), and found a stepping rate of 200 Hz was optimal for minimizing baseline drift and therefore improving signal-to-noise ratios (abstract). Therefore, someone looking to calibrate a spectrometer would reasonably want to improve the interferometer itself by using the stepping rate frequency of 200 Hz taught in Magana.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning regarding the stepping frequency taught by Magana (page 8, paragraph 3 of Remarks filed 05/22/2026), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Magana identifies the stepping frequency of interferometers used in spectroscopy systems as a problem for data acquisition (abstract). Magana chooses a stepping frequency of 200 Hz (which falls into the claimed range of 1 kHz or less) as the optimal frequency for such systems because it demonstrates measurements with the least amount of noise as higher frequencies lead to less instrument drift (page 8, paragraph 2). Therefore, the chosen stepping frequency leads to an improved signal-to-noise ratio of the interferometer and would be a desirable frequency as a result.
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 limitation(s) is/are: optical element and photosensitive element in claims 1 and 10, and beam splitting device 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 § 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 (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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ("Accurate Wavelength Calibration Method for Spectrometer Using Low Coherence Interferometry," in Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 3413-3418, 15 Aug.15, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2393881) in view of Magana ("Implementation of time-resolved step-scan fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy using a kHz repetition rate pump laser". Appl Spectrosc. 2011 May;65(5):535-42. doi: 10.1366/10-06179. PMID: 21513597; PMCID: PMC3233350.).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method for calibrating a spectrometer device (title), wherein the spectrometer device comprises at least one detector device (camera - page 3413, 1st column, 1st paragraph) comprising at least one optical element configured for separating incident light into a spectrum of constituent wavelength components (dispersive spectrometers are designed to separate wavelengths of interest, so there would be some sort of element capable of this - page 3413, 1st column, 1st paragraph) and further comprising a plurality of photosensitive elements (a camera has a plurality of pixels, which are photosensitive elements), wherein each photosensitive element is configured for receiving at least a portion of one of the constituent wavelength components (see Fig. 1, which depicts the spectrometer in communication with the camera in some manner) and for generating a respective detector signal depending on an illumination of the respective photosensitive element by the at least one portion of the respective constituent wavelength component (see Fig. 2, which shows the intensity per pixel), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a) illuminating, by using at least one broadband light source, the spectrometer device through at least one optical interferometer (see the broadband light source in Fig. 1);
b) determining for the plurality of photosensitive elements a plurality of detectors signals depending on the illumination through the optical interferometer in step a) (see the intensity per pixel signals in Fig. 2);
and c) determining at least one item of calibration information from the plurality of detector signals (Fig. 5 shows the wavelength as calibration information);
wherein Kim teaches the optical interferometer (page 3413, column 2, last paragraph) comprises at least one beam splitting device for splitting incident light into at least two illumination paths (see second coupler element, Fig. 1 which splits the incident light from the coupled light sources into two illumination paths), wherein the optical interferometer further comprises at least one scanning mirror in a first illumination path (arm with galvanometer and mirror on a microstage, Fig. 1) and at least one stationary mirror in a second illumination path (reference mirror, Fig. 1), wherein, in the method, the scanning mirror is moved along the first illumination path, wherein the stationary mirror is kept stationary (this is standard for Michelson interferometers, which is what is used in Kim), wherein the stepping frequency of the scanning mirror is slower than a maximum readout frequency of the detector device (page 3414, 1st column, 1st paragraph discloses a detector has a maximum readout frequency of 92 kHz. The upper limit of the scanning mirror frequency required by the claim is 1 kHz, therefore the maximum readout frequency of the detector is higher than any possible stepping frequency).
Kim fails to teach the scanning mirror is moved in a stepwise manner with a stepping frequency of 1kHz or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometers including interferometers, Magana teaches the scanning mirror frequency varied from 25 Hz to 200 Hz (page 8, paragraph 2), with a detector capable of a much faster readout frequency (page 5, paragraph 3 discloses the detector has a 15 ns rise time, which would be a readout frequency on the order of MHz).
Magana discloses the chosen frequency for the scanning mirror minimizes baseline drift (abstract), therefore improving accuracy and the signal-to-noise ratio of the interferometer. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Kim with the scanning mirror having a stepping frequency of 1 kHz or less taught in Magana to improve accuracy and the signal-to-noise ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the optical interferometer is selected from the group consisting of a Michelson interferometer; a Fabry-Perot interferometer; and a cube corner interferometer (Kim: page 3413, 2nd column, last paragraph discloses the use of a Michelson interferometer).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches in step a), a transmission frequency of the optical interferometer is varied over a predetermined spectral range (Kim: page 3413, 2nd column, last paragraph through page 3414, 1st column, 1st paragraph disclose varying the spectral range; Fig. 2 shows the transmission), and
wherein, in step b), the plurality of detectors signals is determined depending on the transmission frequency of the optical interferometer (Kim: section "B. Interferometric Wavelength Calibration" on page 3414).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the at least one item of calibration information is determined by comparing the transmission frequency of the optical interferometer with at least one of a pixel position and an identification number of the plurality of photosensitive elements generating intensity peaks in the plurality of detector signals associated with the transmission frequency (Kim: Figs. 2a-c depicts the transmission as a function of pixel index, which would include an ID and position of the pixel).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ("Accurate Wavelength Calibration Method for Spectrometer Using Low Coherence Interferometry," in Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 3413-3418, 15 Aug.15, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2393881) in view of Magana ("Implementation of time-resolved step-scan Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy using a kHz repetition rate pump laser". Appl Spectrosc. 2011 May;65(5):535-42. doi: 10.1366/10-06179. PMID: 21513597; PMCID: PMC3233350.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hutchens (US20200072735A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach in step b), the plurality of detector signals is determined for a plurality of positions of the scanning mirror in the first illumination path, wherein the plurality of positions of the scanning mirror are different from each other, wherein step c) comprises correlating the plurality of detector signals with the plurality of positions of the scanning mirror, wherein, in step c), the plurality of detector signals correlated to the plurality of positions of the scanning mirror is used for determining the at least one item of calibration information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of calibrating spectroscopy data, Hutchens teaches a method where different mirror positions are correlated with a plurality of detector signals ('interference patter', 'light intensity I(x)' - paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0011]) in order to gain calibration information (paragraphs [0005], [0011]).
Hutchens discloses tracking the mirror positions ensures the signal is properly associated with the correct interference pattern, and it is a basic step in the field of interferograms (paragraph [0005]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Kim as modified by Magana with the detector signals associated with mirror positions as taught in Hutchens in order to ensure the signal is properly associated with the correct interference pattern with the corresponding mirror position.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ("Accurate Wavelength Calibration Method for Spectrometer Using Low Coherence Interferometry," in Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 3413-3418, 15 Aug.15, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2393881) in view of Magana ("Implementation of time-resolved step-scan Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy using a kHz repetition rate pump laser". Appl Spectrosc. 2011 May;65(5):535-42. doi: 10.1366/10-06179. PMID: 21513597; PMCID: PMC3233350.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wan (US20110032529A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches in step c) comprises processing the plurality of detector signals determined in the step b) (Kim: see section "III. Results and Discussion" starting on page 3414), thereby obtaining a plurality of processed detector signals, wherein the determining of the at least one item of calibration information in step c) comprises determining the at least one item of calibration information from the plurality of processed detector signals (Kim: seen in Fig. 5).
Kim as modified by Magan fails to teach the processing of the plurality of detector signals comprises transforming the plurality of detector signals, wherein the plurality of detector signals is transformed by using at least one Fourier transformation.
However, in the same field of spectrometer calibration, Wan discloses the use of a Fourier Transform spectrometer, which inherently uses a Fourier transform to process the data (paragraph [0040]).
Using a Fourier Transform spectrometer is a well-known and well-used technique to achieve high speeds and accuracy. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably use the known technique of using a Fourier Transform spectrometer and achieve the same expected result of analyzing light across wavelengths. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Kim as modified by Magana with the Fourier Transform taught in Wan as it is a well-known technique that allows for high speeds and accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the item of calibration information comprises at least one of an item of wavelength calibration information (Kim: Fig. 5).
Kim as modified by Magana fails to teach an item of stray light calibration information.
However, Wan discloses comparing spectral data with reference data of a spectrometer to determine any deviation (paragraph [0040]; this would include stray light deviation).
Wan discloses proper calibration is needed to ensure precision of the system over time (paragraph [0004]). This calibration is especially important for unwanted stray light. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Kim as modified by Magana with the calibration method taught in Wan in order to ensure precision of the system.
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Magana and Wan teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches the item of wavelength calibration information comprises at least one wavelength calibration function, wherein the wavelength calibration function assigns at least one of a pixel position and an identification number of the photosensitive elements to a wavelength position (Kim: Fig. 5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ("Accurate Wavelength Calibration Method for Spectrometer Using Low Coherence Interferometry," in Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 3413-3418, 15 Aug.15, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2393881) in view of Magana ("Implementation of time-resolved step-scan Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy using a kHz repetition rate pump laser". Appl Spectrosc. 2011 May;65(5):535-42. doi: 10.1366/10-06179. PMID: 21513597; PMCID: PMC3233350.) and Wan (US20110032529A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zong ("Simple spectral stray light correction method for array spectroradiometers", Applied Optics, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 1111-1119 (2006)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Magana and Wan teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, but fails to teach the item of stray light calibration information comprises at least one signal distribution function, wherein the signal distribution function describes a distribution of responses of the plurality of photosensitive elements to incident light having a specific wavelength.
However, in the same field of endeavor of stray light calibration of a spectrometer, Zong teaches a method to calculate and correct for stray light which involves calculated a spectral stray light signal distribution function (SDF - page 1112, 2nd column, second paragraph) that is wavelength dependent (page 1113, 2nd column, second paragraph) representing the distribution of the stray light measured by a multipixel array detector (Fig. 1).
Zong discloses the use of distribution functions to calculate stray light calibration is faster and simper compared to other methods (page 1112, 2nd column, second paragraph). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Kim as modified by Magana and Wan with the stray light distribution function taught in Zong as it is a faster and simpler method than other methods.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (US20110032529A1) in view of Kim ("Accurate Wavelength Calibration Method for Spectrometer Using Low Coherence Interferometry," in Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 3413-3418, 15 Aug.15, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2393881) and Magana ("Implementation of time-resolved step-scan Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy using a kHz repetition rate pump laser". Appl Spectrosc. 2011 May;65(5):535-42. doi: 10.1366/10-06179. PMID: 21513597; PMCID: PMC3233350.).
Regarding claim 10, Wan teaches a system for calibrating a spectrometer device (paragraph [0003]), wherein the system comprises the spectrometer device comprising at least one detector device (1218, Fig. 1) , wherein the detector device comprises at least one optical element (1216, Fig. 12) configured for separating incident light into a spectrum of constituent wavelength components (paragraph [0088] discloses the optical system, 1216, is used for dispersion) and further comprising a plurality of photosensitive elements ('2D optical detector' - paragraph [0088]), wherein each photosensitive element is configured for receiving at least a portion of one of the constituent wavelength components and for generating a respective detector signal depending on an illumination of the respective photosensitive element by the at least one portion of the respective constituent wavelength component (paragraph [0088] discloses the 2d optical detector receives the dispersed fringes from the optical system, 1216), wherein the system further comprises at least one broadband light source (104, Fig. 1; paragraph [0038]) and at least one optical interferometer (106, Fig. 1) arranged to illuminate the spectrometer device (112, Fig. 1)with the broadband light source through the optical interferometer (paragraph [0038]), wherein the system further comprises at least one evaluation unit ('controller' - paragraph [0039]),
Wan fails to teach the evaluation unit is configured for performing the method according to claim 1.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor of calibrating a spectrometer device, teaches the method according claim 1 (see explanation in claim 1 above) and discloses the calibration of spectrometers are integral in ensuring there are no errors (abstract). Kim further discloses the described method for calibrating a spectrometer reduces calibration errors and ensures accurate calibration (“Conclusion”). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the evaluation unit taught in Wan with calibration method taught in Kim in order to reduce errors and ensure accuracy in the calibration.
Wan as modified by Kim fails to disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the scanning mirror is moved in a stepwise manner with a stepping frequency of 1 kHz or less.
Magana, in the same field of endeavor of interferometry applications, discloses the frequency of 1 kHz or less as claimed in claim 1 minimizes baseline drift (abstract), therefore further improving accuracy of the device. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Wan as modified by Kim with the frequency taught in Magana in order to further improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, Wan as modified by Kim and Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10 and further teaches the broadband light source comprises at least one of an incandescent lamp; a blackbody radiator; an electric filament; or a light emitting diode (Wan: paragraph [0038] discloses an LED).
Regarding claim 12, Wan as Modified by Kim and Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10 and further teaches the optical element comprises at least one wavelength selective element , wherein the wavelength selective element is selected from the group consisting of a prism; a grating; a linear variable filter; and an optical filter (Wan: paragraph [0088] discloses the optical element may be a prism or a grating).
Regarding claim 13, Wan as modified by Kim and Magana teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, but and further teaches the detector device comprises the plurality of photosensitive elements arranged in a linear array, wherein the linear array of photosensitive elements comprises a number of 10 to 1000 photosensitive elements (Kim: Fig. 2 discloses 1000 pixels).
It is well-known in the art the more numbers of pixels (photosensitive elements), the greater the resolution. Wan discloses high resolutions are needed for precise measurements (paragraph [0087]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Wan with the 1000 photosensitive elements taught in Kim in order to achieve precise measurements.
Regarding claim 14, Wan as modified by Kim and Magana teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program (Wan: 'control unit' - paragraph [0042]) which, when the program is executed by the system according to claim 10, cause the evaluation unit (Wan: 'controller' - paragraph [0039]) of the system to perform the method for calibrating a spectrometer device (Wan: paragraph [0039]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
