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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Regarding to claims 1, 9, 15:
Eligibility Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/apparatus/medium.
Eligibility Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the limitation of calculating the corresponding wavelength at each pixel using the equation identified in the claims. This limitation is analyzed including concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims:
- rotating the rotatable grating and determining a functional relationship between a grating rotation angle and a central wavelength (Insignificant pre/post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, rotating the rotatable grating and determining a functional relationship between a grating rotation angle and a central wavelength, are well known in the field as addressed by the prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 form, do not add an inventive concept to the claim because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Regarding to claims 2-3, 10-11, 16-17: Similarly to the rejection of claims 1, 9, 15 addressed above, the claims recite the limitation of performing a least square fitting according to the linear function identified in the claims, this limitation is analyzed including concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Regarding to claims 6-8, 14, 19-20: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, rotating the rotatable grating via a stepper motor and emitting a line spectrum by a light source such as a lamp, are well known in the field as addressed by the prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 form, do not add an inventive concept to the claim because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9, are 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
The claims do not define the meaning of ƛ’ in the equation.
It is unclear how the determined parameters in the physical model are linked to the calibration of the spectrometer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 18 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 and the 112 issue of the parent claims as addressed above is cleared.
Regarding to claims 4, 12, 18: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claims is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein, determining parameters in the physical model comprises: moving a plurality of characteristic peaks of the calibration light source to a central position of the detector respectively via the rotatable grating and collecting spectrograms thereof, respectively; determining a corresponding grating rotation angle via a corresponding central wavelength by using the functional relationship; obtaining a wavelength value and a pixel position of a plurality of characteristic peaks in each of the spectrograms; and through the corresponding grating rotation angle, the wavelength value and the pixel position of the plurality of characteristic peaks as obtained, performing fitting based on the physical model to obtain the parameters is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Claims 5 and 13 are allowed because they depend directly/indirectly on claim1 or 9.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The pertinent prior art is cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights