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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 18-19 and 26-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application No. 18790944, claims filed May 29, 2026. Because the claims from the '944 contains all the salient limitations of the claims in the instant application and thus fully anticipates the claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the '944 discloses the optical device (line 6) comprising: a separating element to separate the optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands that are spatially or angularly separated along a band separation direction (lines 7-8), wherein spectral ranges differ among each spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (lines 9-10), a dispersive element comprising a plurality of dispersive regions, wherein each dispersive region of the plurality of dispersive regions is to disperse spectral components of a respective spectral band, of the plurality of spectral bands, along a dispersion direction to form a plurality of dispersed spectral bands; (lines 11-15), a plurality of optical elements, wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a respective dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands in association with imaging the respective spectral band onto a detector area of a detector array (lines 16-19), and the detector array comprising the detector area (line 20).
Regarding claim 18, claim 13 of the '944 discloses wherein the detector array comprises a plurality of detector areas that are stacked along the band separation direction (lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, claim 13 of the '944 discloses wherein the detector array is a two dimensional (2D) array (lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, claim 1 of the '944 discloses an optical device (line 4), comprising: a separating element to separate an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands having different spectral ranges and being spatially or angularly separated along a band separation direction (lines 7-10); a plurality of optical elements, wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a respective spectral band, of the plurality of spectral bands, in association with imaging the respective spectral band onto a detector area (lines 16-19); and a detector array comprising the detector area (line 20).
Regarding claim 27, claim 1 of the '944 discloses comprising a dispersive element including a plurality of dispersive regions, wherein a dispersive region of the plurality of dispersive regions is to disperse spectral components of the spectral band along a dispersion direction (lines 11-15).
Claims 2-8 , 11-13, and 17, 20-25, 29-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18790944 in view of Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983). The claims are obvious in view of ‘944 and Barnard for the reasons set forth below in the rejection under 35 USC 103.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 2, ‘944 does not claim wherein the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction (discloses that the second grating has dispersion lines oriented at right angles to those of the first grating, the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 44-54).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 3, ‘944 does not claim wherein the plurality of spectral bands are substantially non-overlapping.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) are substantially non-overlapping (discloses separation of spectral ranges, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the plurality of spectral bands are substantially non-overlapping in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 4, ‘944 does not claim wherein a spectral resolution of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a spectral resolution of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands.
However, Barnard teaches wherein a spectral resolution of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a spectral resolution of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands(discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
It would be obvious to claim wherein a spectral resolution of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a spectral resolution of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 5, ‘944 does not claim wherein a bandwidth of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a bandwidth of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands.
However, Barnard teaches wherein a bandwidth of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) is different from a bandwidth of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
It would be obvious to claim wherein a bandwidth of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a bandwidth of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 6, ‘944 does not claim wherein a spectrum formed by a sum of a set of spectral bands, of the plurality of spectral bands, that is imaged on the detector array is non-continuous.
However, Barnard teaches wherein a spectrum formed by a sum of a set of spectral bands, of the plurality of spectral bands, that is imaged on the detector array is non-continuous (discloses selective imaging of spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 36-37, shutter-based exclusion of entire wavelength ranges, Col. 4, lines 42-61, and selection of non-interfering portions of spectral bands, Col. 5, lines 23-25).
It would be obvious to claim wherein a spectrum formed by a sum of a set of spectral bands, of the plurality of spectral bands, that is imaged on the detector array is non-continuous in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 7, ‘944 does not claim wherein at least one spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is not imaged onto any detector area of the detector array.
However, Barnard teaches wherein at least one spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is not imaged onto any detector area of the detector array (discloses a movable shutter 46, “when the shutter is closed to block the second portion, preventing dispersion of the visible range to the detector, the ultraviolet radiation is dispersed and passed to the detector”, Col. 4, lines 42-54).
It would be obvious to claim wherein at least one spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is not imaged onto any detector area of the detector array in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 8, ‘944 does not claim wherein an optical power of a spectral band, of the plurality of spectral bands, at the detector array is more than 90% of an optical power of the spectral band prior to the separating element.
However, Barnard teaches wherein an optical power of a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), at the detector array is more than 90% of an optical power of the spectral band prior to the separating element (discloses reflective gratings, enlarged grating areas for weaker bands, selective shuttering, inherently result in most of the optical power of each spectral band reaching the detector, Col. 4, lines 32-36).
It would be obvious to claim wherein an optical power of a spectral band, of the plurality of spectral bands, at the detector array is more than 90% of an optical power of the spectral band prior to the separating element in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 11, ‘944 does not claim wherein the separating element comprises a diffraction grating.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the separating element comprises a diffraction Grating (20).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the separating element comprises a diffraction grating in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 12, ‘944 does not claim wherein the plurality of dispersive regions are stacked along the band separation direction.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of dispersive regions are stacked along the band separation direction (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the plurality of dispersive regions are stacked along the band separation direction in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 13, ‘944 does not claim wherein a given dispersive region, of the plurality of dispersive regions, disperses a spectral band, of the plurality of spectral bands, incident thereon independently of dispersion by other dispersive regions of the plurality of dispersive regions.
However, Barnard teaches wherein a given dispersive region, of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26), disperses a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), incident thereon independently of dispersion by other dispersive regions of the plurality of dispersive regions(discloses each grating portion handles its own spectral band independently, Col. 4, lines 18-32).
It would be obvious to claim wherein a given dispersive region, of the plurality of dispersive regions, disperses a spectral band, of the plurality of spectral bands, incident thereon independently of dispersion by other dispersive regions of the plurality of dispersive regions in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 17, ‘944 does not claim wherein the plurality of optical elements are to provide spatial rearrangement of the plurality of spectral bands on a plane of the detector array.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60) are to provide spatial rearrangement of the plurality of spectral bands on a plane of the detector array (discloses a movable shutter 46, “when the shutter is closed to block the second portion, preventing dispersion of the visible range to the detector, the ultraviolet radiation is dispersed and passed to the detector”, Col. 4, lines 42-54).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the plurality of optical elements are to provide spatial rearrangement of the plurality of spectral bands on a plane of the detector array in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 20, ‘944 does not claim wherein the detector array comprises one
or more one dimensional (ID) detector arrays.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array comprises one or more one dimensional (1D) detector arrays (“the detector preferably is formed as a two dimensional array of small photodetectors 32, but alternatively may be a single photodetector … relative to the gratings”, Col. 4, lines 1-3).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the detector array comprises one or more one dimensional (ID) detector arrays in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 21, ‘944 does not claim wherein the detector array is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array (discloses a charge coupled device (CCD), Col. 4, lines 4-8).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the detector array is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 22, ‘944 does not claim wherein the detector array comprises an array of time-resolved photon counting detectors.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprises an array of time-resolved photon counting detectors (discloses each pixel responds to individual photons, inherently supports photon counting, Col. 4, lines 1-17).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the detector array comprises an array of time-resolved photon counting detectors in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 23, ‘944 does not claim wherein the detector area comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas is different from a size of a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas.
However, Regarding claim 23, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas is different from a size of a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the detector area comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas is different from a size of a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 24, ‘944 does not claim wherein the detector area comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas, a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas, wherein an optical resolution of the first spectral band matches an optical resolution of the second spectral band, a bandwidth of the first spectral band is smaller than a bandwidth of the second spectral band, and a total width and pixel size of the first detector area in the dispersion direction matches a total width and pixel size of the second detector area in the dispersion direction such that the first spectral band has a higher spectral resolution than the second spectral band.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41), and a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas (discloses UV band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas(discloses visible band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), wherein an optical resolution of the first spectral band matches an optical resolution of the second spectral band, a bandwidth of the first spectral band is smaller than a bandwidth of the second spectral band (discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40), and a total width and pixel size of the first detector area in the dispersion direction matches a total width and pixel size of the second detector area in the dispersion direction such that the first spectral band has a higher spectral resolution than the second spectral band (“fixed solid state charge transfer device which effects signals proportional to the intensity of corresponding spectral lines impinging at various locations”, implies that both spectral bands are mapped across detector pixels with similar dispersion direction width, UV has a smaller bandwidth per pixel, higher spectral resolution, Col. 4, lines 4-7).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the detector area comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas, a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas, wherein an optical resolution of the first spectral band matches an optical resolution of the second spectral band, a bandwidth of the first spectral band is smaller than a bandwidth of the second spectral band, and a total width and pixel size of the first detector area in the dispersion direction matches a total width and pixel size of the second detector area in the dispersion direction such that the first spectral band has a higher spectral resolution than the second spectral band in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 25, ‘944 does not claim wherein the detector area comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area, of the plurality of detector areas, in the dispersion direction matches a size of a second detector area, of the plurality of detector areas, in the dispersion direction and a size of the first detector area in the band separation direction is different from a size of the second detector area in the band separation direction.
However, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41), and a size of a first detector area (discloses UV band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of detector areas (UV band and visible band), in the dispersion direction matches a size of a second detector area (discloses visible band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of detector areas (UV band and visible band), in the dispersion direction and a size of the first detector area in the band separation direction is different from a size of the second detector area in the band separation direction (“fixed solid state charge transfer device which effects signals proportional to the intensity of corresponding spectral lines impinging at various locations”, implies that both spectral bands are mapped across detector pixels with similar dispersion direction width, UV has a smaller bandwidth per pixel, higher spectral resolution, Col. 4, lines 4-7).
It would be obvious to claim wherein the detector area comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area, of the plurality of detector areas, in the dispersion direction matches a size of a second detector area, of the plurality of detector areas, in the dispersion direction and a size of the first detector area in the band separation direction is different from a size of the second detector area in the band separation direction in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 29, ‘944 does not claim wherein a property of a first dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands differs from a property of a second dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands.
However, Barnard teaches wherein a property of a first dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) differs from a property of a second dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40, discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
It would be obvious to claim wherein a property of a first dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands differs from a property of a second dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands in order to have more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 30, ‘944 does not claim wherein at least one of a location, size, or orientation in space of a manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by the manipulation of the dispersed spectral band differs from a location, size, or orientation in space of a second manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by manipulation of a second dispersed spectral band.
However, Barnard teaches wherein at least one of a location, size, or orientation of a manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by the manipulation of the dispersed spectral band differs from a location, size, or orientation of a second manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by manipulation of a second dispersed spectral band (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
It would be obvious to claim wherein at least one of a location, size, or orientation in space of a manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by the manipulation of the dispersed spectral band differs from a location, size, or orientation in space of a second manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by manipulation of a second dispersed spectral band in order to have more accurate measurements.
Claims 14, 16, 28, 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18790944 in view of Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983) and Becker-Ross et al. (US 2008/0094626 A1). The claims are obvious in view of ‘944 and Barnard and Becker-Ross for the reasons set forth below in the rejection under 35 USC 103.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 14, ‘944 does not claim wherein each optical element is to manipulate the respective dispersed spectral band such that a size of the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction matches a size of the detector area along at least one of the dispersion direction or the band separation direction.
However, Barnard teaches wherein each optical element (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60), such that a size of the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction matches a size of the detector area along at least one of the dispersion direction (discloses the combination of dispersive gratings 20/22, mirrors 26/28, lens 30, 2D CCD detector 34, inherently ensures that the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction is imaged to fit the detector, Col. 3, lines 44-61 and Col. 4, lines 1-12 and lines 42-46) or the band separation direction.
Becker-Ross teaches wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate the respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to claim the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard in order to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 16, ‘944 does not claim wherein the plurality of optical elements are to manipulate the plurality of dispersed spectral bands such that images of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands are stacked along the band separation direction at a plane of the detector array.
However, Barnard teaches that images of the spectral bands are stacked along the band separation direction at a plane of the detector array (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Becker-Ross teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements are to manipulate the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]) such that images of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses each Echelle grating generates a two-dimensional spectrum for its assigned wavelength range, [0034] and [0037 are stacked along the band separation direction ([0020] and [0037-0038]) at a plane of the detector array (discloses both spectra are focused into imaging plane 40 where detector array 42 is located, [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to claim the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard in order to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 28, ‘944 does not claim a method, comprising: separating, by a separating element of an optical device, an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands each having a different spectral range and being spatially or angularly separated along a band separation direction; dispersing, by a dispersive element of the optical device, spectral components of the plurality of spectral bands, along a dispersion direction to form a plurality of dispersed spectral bands.; and manipulating, by each of a plurality of optical elements of the optical device, a respective dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands, in association with imaging the respective dispersed spectral band onto a detector area of a detector array of the optical device.
However, Barnard teaches a method, comprising:
separating, by a separating element (20) of an optical device, an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) each having a different spectral range and being spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction;
dispersing, by a dispersive element (22) of the optical device, spectral components of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), along a dispersion direction to form a plurality of dispersed spectral bands (Col. 3, lines 56-60); and
onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) of a detector array of the optical device (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2 ).
Becker-Ross teaches manipulating, by each of a plurality of optical elements of the optical device, a respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]) of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses each Echelle grating generates a two-dimensional spectrum for its assigned wavelength range, [0034] and [0037]), in association with imaging the respective spectral band (discloses camera mirrors 38 and 66 focus the respective spectra into the imaging plane 40, [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to claim the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard in order to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 31, ‘944 does not claim wherein each optical element is configured to direct the respective dispersed spectral band onto a separate detector area of the detector array.
However, Barnard teaches onto a separate detector area of the detector array (“the first portion 38 has a configuration of first grooves 40 for effecting the dispersed beam 24 in a first selected spectral range. The second portion 42 has a configuration of second grooves 44 for effecting the dispersed beam in a second selected spectral range different than the first spectral range”, Col. 4, lines 18-26).
Becker-Ross teaches wherein each of a plurality of optical element is configured to direct the respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to claim the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard in order to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Claims 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18790944 in view of Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983) in view of Becker-Ross et al. (US 2008/0094626 A1)(hereinafter, “Becker-Ross”), further in view of Vincent et al. ( US Patent 4,870,268)(hereinafter, “Vincent”). The claims are obvious in view of ‘944 and Barnard and Becker-Ross and Vincent for the reasons set forth below in the rejection under 35 USC 103.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 9, ‘944 does not claim wherein a spectral component at or near a boundary between a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands and a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is split such that a first portion of the spectral component is in the first spectral band and a second portion of the spectral component is in the second spectral band, wherein a sum of a power of the first portion and a power of the second portion is a total power of the spectral component.
However, Vincent teaches split such that a first portion of the spectral component is in the first spectral band and a second portion of the spectral component is in the second spectral band (discloses light at the blue-green boundary is partially reflected to the blue sensor and partially transmitted to the green sensor, Col. 13, lines 10-20 and lines 23-38), wherein a sum of a power of the first portion and a power of the second portion is a total power of the spectral component (“the spectra of the spectrally-tailored fluorescent lamp as separated by the dichroic beamsplitters 16 and 17 and detected by CCD photodiode arrays 18, 19 and 20, produce a color gamut nearly equivalent t standard monitor phosphor output”, implies that all incident light is either reflected or transmitted, nearly full spectral power accounting, Col. 13, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to claim the dichroic beamsplitter of Vincent to Barnard in view of Becker-Ross in order to improve spectral fidelity (Col. 12, lines 41-44), optical power conservation(Col. 6, lines 51-54), reduced shutter reliance(Col. 20, lines 13-15), and enhanced detector performance(Col. 8, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 10, ‘944 does not claim wherein the separating element comprises a plurality of thin film interference filters, each associated with a different spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands.
However, Vincent teaches wherein the separating element comprises a plurality of thin film interference filters (dichroic layer, Col. 14, lines 44-47 and Col. 16, lines 20-24), each associated with a different spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses each dichroic layer or layer device is tuned to a distinct spectral band, Col. 14, lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to claim the dichroic beamsplitter of Vincent to Barnard in view of Becker-Ross in order to improve spectral fidelity (Col. 12, lines 41-44), optical power conservation(Col. 6, lines 51-54), reduced shutter reliance(Col. 20, lines 13-15), and enhanced detector performance(Col. 8, lines 18-22).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 , 11-14, and 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983) in view of Becker-Ross et al. (US 2008/0094626 A1)(hereinafter, “Becker-Ross”).
Regarding claim 1, Barnard teaches an optical device(10), comprising:
a separating element (20) to separate an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) that are spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction,
wherein spectral ranges differ among each spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands(discloses that different spectral bands correspond to different spectral ranges, a first band covers 167-405 nm and a second band covers 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40);
a dispersive element (22) comprising a plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 18-19), wherein each dispersive region of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26) is to disperse spectral components of a respective spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), along a dispersion direction to form a plurality of dispersed spectral bands (Col. 3, lines 56-60);
a plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60), onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) of a detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2 ); and
the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprising the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38).
Barnard fails to disclose wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a respective dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands, in association with imaging the respective spectral band.
Becker-Ross teaches wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]) of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses each Echelle grating generates a two-dimensional spectrum for its assigned wavelength range, [0034] and [0037]), in association with imaging the respective spectral band (discloses camera mirrors 38 and 66 focus the respective spectra into the imaging plane 40, [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 2, Barnard teaches wherein the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction (discloses that the second grating has dispersion lines oriented at right angles to those of the first grating, the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 3, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) are substantially non-overlapping (discloses separation of spectral ranges, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 4, Barnard teaches wherein a spectral resolution of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a spectral resolution of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands(discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 5, Barnard teaches wherein a bandwidth of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) is different from a bandwidth of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 6, Barnard teaches wherein a spectrum formed by a sum of a set of spectral bands, of the plurality of spectral bands, that is imaged on the detector array is non-continuous (discloses selective imaging of spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 36-37, shutter-based exclusion of entire wavelength ranges, Col. 4, lines 42-61, and selection of non-interfering portions of spectral bands, Col. 5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 7, Barnard teaches wherein at least one spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is not imaged onto any detector area of the detector array (discloses a movable shutter 46, “when the shutter is closed to block the second portion, preventing dispersion of the visible range to the detector, the ultraviolet radiation is dispersed and passed to the detector”, Col. 4, lines 42-54).
Regarding claim 8, Barnard teaches wherein an optical power of a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), at the detector array is more than 90% of an optical power of the spectral band prior to the separating element (discloses reflective gratings, enlarged grating areas for weaker bands, selective shuttering, inherently result in most of the optical power of each spectral band reaching the detector, Col. 4, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 11, Barnard teaches wherein the separating element comprises a diffraction Grating (20).
Regarding claim 12, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of dispersive regions are stacked along the band separation direction (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 13, Barnard teaches wherein a given dispersive region, of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26), disperses a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), incident thereon independently of dispersion by other dispersive regions of the plurality of dispersive regions(discloses each grating portion handles its own spectral band independently, Col. 4, lines 18-32).
Regarding claim 14, Barnard teaches wherein each optical element (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60), such that a size of the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction matches a size of the detector area along at least one of the dispersion direction (discloses the combination of dispersive gratings 20/22, mirrors 26/28, lens 30, 2D CCD detector 34, inherently ensures that the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction is imaged to fit the detector, Col. 3, lines 44-61 and Col. 4, lines 1-12 and lines 42-46) or the band separation direction.
Barnard fails to disclose wherein each optical element is to manipulate the respective dispersed spectral band.
Becker-Ross teaches wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate the respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 16, Barnard teaches that images of the spectral bands are stacked along the band separation direction at a plane of the detector array (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Barnard fails to disclose wherein the plurality of optical elements are to manipulate the plurality of dispersed spectral bands such that images of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands are stacked along the band separation direction at a plane of the detector array.
Becker-Ross teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements are to manipulate the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]) such that images of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses each Echelle grating generates a two-dimensional spectrum for its assigned wavelength range, [0034] and [0037 are stacked along the band separation direction ([0020] and [0037-0038]) at a plane of the detector array (discloses both spectra are focused into imaging plane 40 where detector array 42 is located, [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 17, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60) are to provide spatial rearrangement of the plurality of spectral bands on a plane of the detector array (discloses a movable shutter 46, “when the shutter is closed to block the second portion, preventing dispersion of the visible range to the detector, the ultraviolet radiation is dispersed and passed to the detector”, Col. 4, lines 42-54).
Regarding claim 18, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprises a plurality of detector areas (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) that are stacked along the band separation direction (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 19, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array is a two dimensional (2D) array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array comprises one or more one dimensional (1D) detector arrays (“the detector preferably is formed as a two dimensional array of small photodetectors 32, but alternatively may be a single photodetector … relative to the gratings”, Col. 4, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 21, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array (discloses a charge coupled device (CCD), Col. 4, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 22, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprises an array of time-resolved photon counting detectors (discloses each pixel responds to individual photons, inherently supports photon counting, Col. 4, lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 23, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas is different from a size of a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 24, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41), and a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas (discloses UV band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas(discloses visible band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), wherein an optical resolution of the first spectral band matches an optical resolution of the second spectral band, a bandwidth of the first spectral band is smaller than a bandwidth of the second spectral band (discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40), and a total width and pixel size of the first detector area in the dispersion direction matches a total width and pixel size of the second detector area in the dispersion direction such that the first spectral band has a higher spectral resolution than the second spectral band (“fixed solid state charge transfer device which effects signals proportional to the intensity of corresponding spectral lines impinging at various locations”, implies that both spectral bands are mapped across detector pixels with similar dispersion direction width, UV has a smaller bandwidth per pixel, higher spectral resolution, Col. 4, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 25, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41), and a size of a first detector area (discloses UV band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of detector areas (UV band and visible band), in the dispersion direction matches a size of a second detector area (discloses visible band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of detector areas (UV band and visible band), in the dispersion direction and a size of the first detector area in the band separation direction is different from a size of the second detector area in the band separation direction (“fixed solid state charge transfer device which effects signals proportional to the intensity of corresponding spectral lines impinging at various locations”, implies that both spectral bands are mapped across detector pixels with similar dispersion direction width, UV has a smaller bandwidth per pixel, higher spectral resolution, Col. 4, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 26, Barnard teaches an optical device (10), comprising:
a separating element (20) to separate an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) having different spectral ranges and being spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction;
a plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60), onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38); and
the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprising the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38).
Barnard fails to disclose wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a respective dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands, in association with imaging the respective spectral band.
Becker-Ross teaches wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]) of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses each Echelle grating generates a two-dimensional spectrum for its assigned wavelength range, [0034] and [0037]), in association with imaging the respective spectral band (discloses camera mirrors 38 and 66 focus the respective spectra into the imaging plane 40, [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 27, Barnard teaches further comprising a dispersive element (22) including a plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 18-19), wherein a dispersive region of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26) is to disperse spectral components of the spectral band along a dispersion direction (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52).
Regarding claim 28, Barnard teaches a method, comprising:
separating, by a separating element (20) of an optical device, an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) each having a different spectral range and being spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction;
dispersing, by a dispersive element (22) of the optical device, spectral components of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), along a dispersion direction to form a plurality of dispersed spectral bands (Col. 3, lines 56-60); and
onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) of a detector array of the optical device (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2 ).
Barnard fails to disclose manipulating, by each of a plurality of optical elements of the optical device, a respective dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands, in association with imaging the respective dispersed spectral band onto a detector area of a detector array of the optical device.
Becker-Ross teaches manipulating, by each of a plurality of optical elements of the optical device, a respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]) of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (discloses each Echelle grating generates a two-dimensional spectrum for its assigned wavelength range, [0034] and [0037]), in association with imaging the respective spectral band (discloses camera mirrors 38 and 66 focus the respective spectra into the imaging plane 40, [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Regarding claim 29, Barnard teaches wherein a property of a first dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) differs from a property of a second dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40, discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 30, Barnard teaches wherein at least one of a location, size, or orientation of a manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by the manipulation of the dispersed spectral band differs from a location, size, or orientation of a second manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by manipulation of a second dispersed spectral band (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 31, Barnard teaches onto a separate detector area of the detector array (“the first portion 38 has a configuration of first grooves 40 for effecting the dispersed beam 24 in a first selected spectral range. The second portion 42 has a configuration of second grooves 44 for effecting the dispersed beam in a second selected spectral range different than the first spectral range”, Col. 4, lines 18-26).
Barnard fails to disclose wherein each optical element is configured to direct the respective dispersed spectral band.
Becker-Ross teaches wherein each of a plurality of optical element is configured to direct the respective dispersed spectral band (discloses the first spectrometer 14 processes a first wavelength range; the second spectrometer 12 processes a different wavelength range. Each spectrometer has its own optical element set, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the independent imaging optical paths for the different spectral ranges of Becker-Ross to Barnard to improve wavelength-specific optical performance.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983) in view of Becker-Ross et al. (US 2008/0094626 A1)(hereinafter, “Becker-Ross”), further in view of Vincent et al. ( US Patent 4,870,268)(hereinafter, “Vincent”).
Regarding claim 9, Barnard teaches wherein a spectral component at or near a boundary between a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) and a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Barnard in view of Becker-Ross fails to disclose split such that a first portion of the spectral component is in the first spectral band and a second portion of the spectral component is in the second spectral band, wherein a sum of a power of the first portion and a power of the second portion is a total power of the spectral component.
Vincent teaches split such that a first portion of the spectral component is in the first spectral band and a second portion of the spectral component is in the second spectral band (discloses light at the blue-green boundary is partially reflected to the blue sensor and partially transmitted to the green sensor, Col. 13, lines 10-20 and lines 23-38), wherein a sum of a power of the first portion and a power of the second portion is a total power of the spectral component (“the spectra of the spectrally-tailored fluorescent lamp as separated by the dichroic beamsplitters 16 and 17 and detected by CCD photodiode arrays 18, 19 and 20, produce a color gamut nearly equivalent t standard monitor phosphor output”, implies that all incident light is either reflected or transmitted, nearly full spectral power accounting, Col. 13, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the dichroic beamsplitter of Vincent to Barnard in view of Becker-Ross to improve spectral fidelity (Col. 12, lines 41-44), optical power conservation(Col. 6, lines 51-54), reduced shutter reliance(Col. 20, lines 13-15), and enhanced detector performance(Col. 8, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 10, Barnard in view of Becker-Ross fails to disclose wherein the separating element comprises a plurality of thin film interference filters, each associated with a different spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands.
Vincent teaches wherein the separating element comprises a plurality of thin film interference filters (dichroic layer, Col. 14, lines 44-47 and Col. 16, lines 20-24), each associated with a different spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses each dichroic layer or layer device is tuned to a distinct spectral band, Col. 14, lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the dichroic beamsplitter of Vincent to Barnard in view of Becker-Ross to improve spectral fidelity (Col. 12, lines 41-44), optical power conservation(Col. 6, lines 51-54), reduced shutter reliance(Col. 20, lines 13-15), and enhanced detector performance(Col. 8, lines 18-22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 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, 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights