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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 5/11/2026. Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are pending.
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, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0265502 ("Nelson") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0003618 ("Fujita") further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0085099 ("Kleppe").
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a spectrometry apparatus comprising:
a light source (410, Fig. 4 or 510, Fig. 5) that produces illumination light (inherent, paragraph [0023]);
a spectrophotometer (460, Fig. 4, or 570, Fig. 5) that disperses signal light rays (dispersive spectrograph, paragraph [0024]) from a sample (420, Fig. 4, or 520, Fig. 5) illuminated with the illumination light (see also 610, Fig. 6) and detects the signal light rays by a two-dimensional array photodetector (CCD, Figs 4-5, paragraphs [0023]-[0025];
a fiber unit (440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5) having a plurality of fibers (Fig. 5, fiber array, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]) laid out in an optical path from the sample (420, Fig. 4, or 520, Fig. 5) to the spectrophotometer (460, Fig. 4, or 570, Fig. 5), the plurality of fibers being adjacently arranged (see Figs. 4-5) at an entrance end surface of the fiber unit (440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5), and the plurality of fibers being arranged in a multi-line shape at intervals at an exit end surface (see 4X x 1D End, Figs. 4-5); and
a processing unit (paragraph [0016]) that, by referring to a layout relationship among the plurality of fibers at the entrance end surface (440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5) and the exit end surface of the fiber unit (450, Fig. 4, or 560, Fig. 5), generates a spectroscopic image (480, 490, Fig. 4, or 590, 595, Fig. 5) of the sample from a result of detection by the two-dimensional array photodetector (470b, or 580b, Fig. 5), and selectively illuminate a plurality of spots (see spots A, B, C, Figs. 4-5) on a region of interest of the sample (420, Fig. 4, or 520, Fig. 5), wherein signal light rays from the plurality of spots enter the fibers of the fiber unit (see spots A, B, C on fiber unit 440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5), respectively.
Nelson does not disclose a spatial light modulator for modulating illumination light nor that the entrance end surface of the fiber unit is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample so that an image of the regions of interest of the sample is formed on the entrance end surface.
However, Fujita discloses a spatial light modulator (117, Fig. 9) that modulates the illumination light from the light source (laser light source, not shown in Fig. 9, see paragraph [0110]) so as to selectively illuminate a plurality of spots on a region of interest of the sample (138, Fig. 9, paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a spatial light modulator as disclosed by Fujita in the device of Nelson in order to illuminate the sample with multi-line illumination.
Nelson in view of Fujita does not disclose that the entrance end surface of the fiber unit is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample so that an image of the regions of interest of the sample is formed on the entrance end surface.
However, Kleppe discloses the entrance end surface (22, Fig. 2, paragraph [0055]) of the fiber unit (20, Fig. 2, paragraph [0055]) is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample (18, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0051], [0106]), so that an image (17, Fig. 1) of the regions of interest (14, Fig. 1, paragraph [0051], [0055]-[0056]) of the sample (2, Fig. 1) is formed on the entrance end surface (paragraph [0051]: “The image 17 of the spot 14 is captured by a detector device 19 in the plane of detection 18.” And see paragraph [0055]: “[0055] The detector device 19 is shown on a larger scale in FIG. 2. Said detector device consists of a fiber optic bundle 20 that feeds a detector array 24.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place the entrance end surface of the fiber unit at a position conjugate to the sample as disclosed by Kleppe in the device of Nelson in view of Fujita in order to correctly transfer the spatial information (paragraph [0026]) from the sample to into the fibers, as it preserves spatial mapping, and increase the resolution.
Regarding claim 7, Nelson discloses a spectrometry method comprising steps of:
illuminating a sample (420, Fig. 4, or 520, Fig. 5, paragraph [0023]) using illumination light from a light source (410, Fig. 4 or 510, Fig. 5);
causing signal light rays from the sample (420, Fig. 4, or 520, Fig. 5) to enter a fiber unit (440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5) from an entrance end surface (440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5) at which a plurality of fibers are adjacently arranged (see Figs. 4-5);
causing the signal light rays to exit from an exit end surface of the fiber unit (450, Fig. 4, or 560, Fig. 5) at which the plurality of fibers are arranged in a multi-line shape at intervals (see 4X x 1D End, Figs. 4-5);
dispersing the signal light rays (dispersive spectrograph, paragraph [0024]) exited from the exit end surface (450, Fig. 4, or 560, Fig. 5) and detecting the signal light rays by a two-dimensional array photodetector (470b, or 580b, Fig. 5); and
referring to a layout relationship among the plurality of fibers at the entrance end surface (440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5) and the exit end surface of the fiber unit (450, Fig. 4, or 560, Fig. 5),
generating a spectroscopic image of the sample (480, 490, Fig. 4, or 590, 595, Fig. 5) from a result of detection by the two-dimensional array photodetector (470b, or 580b, Fig. 5), wherein
selectively illuminate a plurality of spots (see spots A, B, C, Figs. 4-5) on regions of interest of the sample (420, Fig. 4, or 520, Fig. 5), and
signal light rays from the plurality of spots enter the fibers of the fiber unit (see spots A, B, C on fiber unit 440, Fig. 4, or 550, Fig. 5), respectively.
Nelson does not disclose that a spatial light modulator modulates light from the light source, nor that the entrance end surface of the fiber unit is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample so that an image of the regions of interest of the sample is formed on the entrance end surface.
However, Fujita discloses a spatial light modulator (117, Fig. 9) modulates the illumination light from the light source (laser light source, not shown in Fig. 9, see paragraph [0110]) so as to selectively illuminate a plurality of spots on a region of interest of the sample (138, Fig. 9, paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a spatial light modulator as disclosed by Fujita in the device of Nelson in order to illuminate the sample with multi-line illumination.
Nelson in view of Fujita does not disclose that the entrance end surface of the fiber unit is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample so that an image of the regions of interest of the sample is formed on the entrance end surface.
However, Kleppe discloses the entrance end surface (22, Fig. 2, paragraph [0055]) of the fiber unit (20, Fig. 2, paragraph [0055]) is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample (18, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0051], [0106]), so that an image (17, Fig. 1) of the regions of interest (14, Fig. 1, paragraph [0051], [0055]-[0056]) of the sample (2, Fig. 1) is formed on the entrance end surface (paragraph [0051]: “The image 17 of the spot 14 is captured by a detector device 19 in the plane of detection 18.” And see paragraph [0055]: “[0055] The detector device 19 is shown on a larger scale in FIG. 2. Said detector device consists of a fiber optic bundle 20 that feeds a detector array 24.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place the entrance end surface of the fiber unit at a position conjugate to the sample as disclosed by Kleppe in the device of Nelson in view of Fujita in order to correctly transfer the spatial information (paragraph [0026]) from the sample to into the fibers, as it preserves spatial mapping, and increase the resolution.
Regarding claim 6 and 12, Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe discloses the spectrometry apparatus according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 7, and Nelson further discloses that signal light rays exited from different ones of the fibers (560, Fig. 5) are detected without being overlapped (paragraphs [0025], [0032]) at a light-receiving surface of the two-dimensional array photodetector (see 580b, Fig. 5).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0268104 ("Treado").
Regarding claim 3, Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe discloses the spectrometry apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a camera that captures an optical image of the sample, wherein the plurality of spots on the regions of interest of the sample extracted based on the optical image are selectively illuminated.
However, Treado discloses a camera that captures an optical image of the sample (paragraph [0070], [0086]), wherein the plurality of spots on the regions of interest of the sample extracted based on the optical image are selectively illuminated (paragraph [0056], region of interest is illuminated for further interrogation after initial imaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a camera for identifying regions of interest as disclosed by Treado in the device of Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe in order to help in surveillance and detection of regions of interest.
Regarding claim 9, Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe discloses the spectrometry method according to claim 7, but does not disclose that an optical image of the sample is captured by a camera, and the plurality of spots on the regions of interest of the sample extracted based on the optical image are selectively illuminated.
However, Treado discloses that an optical image of the sample is captured by a camera (paragraph [0070], [0086]), and the plurality of spots on the regions of interest of the sample extracted based on the optical image are selectively illuminated (paragraph [0056], region of interest is illuminated for further interrogation after initial imaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a camera for identifying regions of interest as disclosed by Treado in the device of Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe in order to help in surveillance and detection of regions of interest.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,615,673 ("Berger").
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Nelson in view of Fujita and Kleppe discloses spectrometry apparatus according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 7, but does not disclose that the plurality of fibers have a hexagonal close-packed arrangement at the entrance end surface of the fiber unit.
However, Berger discloses the plurality of fibers have a hexagonal close-packed arrangement (see Fig. 2) at the entrance end surface of the fiber unit (202, Fig. 2, col. 6, lines 39-41).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the fiber bundle into any shape as required for an application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kleppe does not disclose a spectrometry apparatus and therefore cannot be properly combined with the spectrometry apparatus disclosed in Nelson or Fujita. Furthermore, applicant states that a spectrophotometer that disperses the signal light rays such as used in Nelson or Fujita cannot be employed in the laser scanning microscope disclosed by Kleppe because a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio cannot be obtained when a conventional two-dimensional array CCD detector is used.
In response to applicant's argument that Kleppe is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kleppe is only used to teach the position of the entrance end surface of the fiber unit, irrespective of whether the detector used is arranged as a single row, single detector, or in a two-dimensional arrangement. As cited above, in paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0051] and [0106], Kleppe discloses placing the fiber unit at the detection plane, which is the a conjugate plane of the where the sample is located, as doing so oversamples the intensity distribution of the still image (see paragraph [0056]) which in turn improves resolution. Furthermore, any benefit obtained from placing the entrance end surface of the fiber unit at a position conjugate to the sample, even if it is an unintended or unstated benefit, will be realized by Kleppe’s device given that it is structured similarly.
In response to applicant's argument that Kleppe teaches a scanning microscope, not a spectrophotometer, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant further argues that Kleppe does not teach that the entrance end surface of the fiber unit is laid out at a position conjugate to the sample so that an image of the plurality of spots forms on the entrance end surface of the fiber unit because Kleppe instead teaches that the illumination spot has the shape of point or a linear spot.
Examiner reiterates that Kleppe is not cited to teach the shape of the illumination spot, because the illumination spots are disclosed by Fujita. Nonetheless, examiner disagrees. In paragraph [0015] and [0054], [0056], Kleppe discloses parallel sampling of a plurality of point spots can be used as well.
As explained above, the rejection is proper.
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 MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights