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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 of this title, 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al. (US 20170184833 A1) (herein after OKAMOTO) in view of Sobron et al. (US 20220082435 A1) (herein after Sobron).
As to claim(s) 1, OKAMOTO discloses an auto-focus spectrometer, comprising:
a grating element [60] configured to split light [@fig.1: spectroscope 60 includes diffraction grating for splitting incident light into wavelength…¶0048];
an imaging element [12] configured to converge a light beam [Curved mirror 20 corresponds to a reflective lens which reflects parallel light 4 from objective lens 12 to convert parallel light 4 to convergent light 6…¶0047];
a controller [52] configured to move the imaging element, and connected to the imaging element [A position controller 52 adjusts a position of objective lens 12 relative to sample SMP based on information on an observed image obtained with camera 28…¶0053]; and
a detector [28][ Camera 28 may be configured to have detection sensitivity also to observation light…¶0066];
wherein an incident light is diffracted through the grating to the imaging element, and then converged to the detector through the imaging element to obtain spectrogram information [¶0048, 0050, 0054].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
OKAMOTO discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “the controller configured to move the imaging element to realize autofocus”.
However, Sobron from the same field of endeavor discloses a controller configured to move the imaging element to realize autofocus [@fig.1A: the photodiode 150 may be included in the architecture 101 of an autofocusing spectroscopy system. In other cases, the photodiode 150 may be externally coupled (e.g., removably coupled) to the architecture 101 of an autofocusing spectroscopy system …¶0027] [The one or more cameras may be configured to image the target of an autofocusing spectroscopy system (and corresponding optical signal emitted by an optical source). As described herein, an optical source coupled to an autofocusing spectroscopy system may emit an optical signal…¶0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of OKAMOTO such that the controller configured to move the imaging element to realize autofocus as taught by Sobron, for the advantages such as: optimized electrical signal corresponding to a maximum power measurement indicated by the one or more power measurements.
As of claim 2, OKAMOTO discloses the auto-focus spectrometer according to claim 1, further comprising a collimating element [20] configured to collimate light [¶0047]; wherein the incident light is collimated through the collimating element and then reflected to the grating [¶0046-0047].
As of claim 3, OKAMOTO discloses the auto-focus spectrometer according to claim 1, further comprising: a spectrometer housing [see fig.1]; wherein the collimating element, the grating element, the imaging element and the controller are provided in the spectrometer housing, and the detector is provided on the spectrometer housing [¶0047-0048].
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al. in view of Sobron et al. and further in view of TOTH et al. (US 20060176480 A1) (herein after TOTH).
As of claims 4-7, OKAMOTO discloses the auto-focus spectrometer further comprising: a linear sliding table on which the imaging element is mounted [¶0051]; wherein, the linear sliding table is in a direction that is consistent with an optical path direction of the imaging element [¶0051, 0068].
OKAMOTO when modified by Sobron discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The auto-focus spectrometer according to claim 3, further comprising: at least one incident slit and at least one outgoing slit that are provided on the spectrometer housing; wherein the incident light enters the collimating element through one of the at least one incident slit and enters the detector through one of the at least one outgoing slit.
The auto-focus spectrometer according to claim 4, further comprising: an entrance optical element configured to allow the light passing through the incident slit to enter the collimating element; and an exit optical element configured to allow the light from the imaging element to enter the detector through the outgoing slit”.
However, TOTH from the same field of endeavor discloses at least one incident slit [@fig.1, 93] and at least one outgoing slit [63] that are provided on the spectrometer housing [¶0038, 0045]; wherein the incident light enters the collimating element through one of the at least one incident slit and enters the detector through one of the at least one outgoing slit [¶0038]; an entrance optical element configured to allow the light passing through the incident slit to enter the collimating element [¶0041]; and an exit optical element configured to allow the light from the imaging element to enter the detector through the outgoing slit [¶0044, 0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of OKAMOTO when modified by Sobron such that the at least one incident slit and the at least one outgoing slit that are provided on the spectrometer housing; wherein the incident light enters the collimating element through one of the at least one incident slit and enters the detector through one of the at least one outgoing slit; the entrance optical element configured to allow the light passing through the incident slit to enter the collimating element; and the exit optical element configured to allow the light from the imaging element to enter the detector through the outgoing slit; as taught by TOTH, for the advantages such as: improved optical path and direct drive diffraction grating for constituent or characteristics analysis of a sample.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al. in view of Sobron et al. and further in view of Haldane et al. (US 20170211974 A1) (herein after Haldane).
As of claim 10, OKAMOTO when modified by Sobron discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The auto-focus spectrometer wherein the grating element is a planar grating, or a grating turret comprising a plurality of gratings.”.
However, Haldane from the same field of endeavor discloses a grating element is a planar grating, or a grating turret comprising a plurality of gratings [¶0067-0068].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of OKAMOTO when modified by Sobron such that the grating element is the planar grating, or the grating turret comprising the plurality of gratings; as taught by Haldane, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 8, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “acquire a light full width at half maximum of the spectrogram information at each grating rotation angle and a corresponding imaging element position; construct a relationship curve between the full width at half maximum and the imaging element position based on the light full width at half maximum and the corresponding imaging element position, to determine the optimal imaging element position at each grating rotation angle; and construct the rotation angle position graph according to the optimal imaging element position at each grating rotation angle” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 are allowable due to their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877