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 .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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: detecting device in claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14; positioning mechanism in claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, and 18; control module in claims 3, 14, and 15; and first positioning mechanism and second positioning mechanism in claim 15.
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 § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (2021/0223103).
As for claim 1, Lin in a spectral imaging device discloses/suggests the following: a remote sensing system (Fig. 1A with paragraph 0037) comprising: a detecting device (Fig. 1A: 14) configured to detect electromagnetic radiation; a first filter (first filter 131 of paragraph 0020 and first filter wheel of Fig. 3 or first filter coatings in Fig. 5 and 7 with paragraphs 0027-0031) disposed at least partially within an optical path of the detecting device, and configured to allow electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths below a first threshold to pass towards the detecting device; and a second filter (second filter 132 in paragraph 0020 or second filter wheel of Fig. 3 or second filter coatings in Fig. 5 and 7 and paragraphs 0027-0031) disposed at least partially within the optical path of the detecting device, and configured to allow electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths above a second threshold to pass towards the detecting device; wherein the first threshold is larger than the second threshold (if not, no light would pass through the filter combination and no light would reach the detector); and wherein at least one of a value of the first threshold or a value of the second threshold is determined based at least in part on a spectrum of interest (if not image acquisition by the device of the spectrum of interest would be useless).
As for claims 2-5 and 13-15, Lin discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Lin appears to disclose a positioning mechanism configured to move at least one of the first filter and the second filter along a plane parallel to an active surface of the detecting device along a direction of spectral variation of the first filter and/or the second filter, so that the first threshold and/or the second threshold have the determined value (claim 2); a control module configured to control the positioning mechanism to move at least one of the first filter or the second filter (claim 3); wherein the positioning mechanism is configured to move the first filter and the second filter independently with respect to each other, and/or to move the first filter and the second filter together with respect to the detecting device (claim 4); wherein the positioning mechanism comprises a linear positioning mechanism or a rotational positioning mechanism (claim 5); and wherein the detecting device is configured to capture at least one exposure (claim 13-15)(Fig. 2: disclosing a rotational movement of both filters or Figs. 5 and 7: demonstrating translational movement of both filter layers through a positioning mechanism: paragraphs 0027-0033).
As for claim 8, Lin suggests that the first filter and the second filter are linear variable filters (FIG. 5B).
As for claim 9, Lin demonstrates that the remote sensing system is a hyperspectral remote sensing system (paragraph 0039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (2021/0223103) in view of Buchsbaum (6,700,690), Wang (WO 2011085144), Li (CN-113008368), and Yu (CN-113125010).
As for claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 16-19, Lin discloses/suggests everything as stated above (see claims 1 and 14). In addition, Lin’s disclosure appears to at the minimum to make obvious the limitations of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 16-19; however, the examiner has cited four supporting documents.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877