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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 9 – 10 and 14 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chakraborty (IEEE, published on 8/28/2022).
With respect to independent claim 1, Chakraborty teaches a method for extracting one or more imaging markers of a THz-TDS scan, the method comprising:
obtaining an image of a sample using pulsed terahertz time-domain spectroscopy THz-TDS in the second paragraph of the left column on the first page; and
determining the one or more imaging markers in the second paragraph of the left column on the first page; index of refraction and the absorption in Abstract using a maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) estimation applied to the obtained image.
With respect to dependent claim 2, as discussed above Chakraborty teaches in Abstract wherein the one or more imaging markers are refractive index (n),absorption coefficient (α), or both.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Chakraborty teaches in Fig. 2 generating an image map based on the refractive index, an image map based on the absorption coefficient, or both.
With respect to independent claim 10, Chakraborty teaches in the second paragraph of the left column on the first page a pulsed THz TDS, and therefore, should have a system for THz time domain spectroscopy of a sample, comprising:a pulsed radiation generator for generating a probe beam and a pump beam; an emitter configured to receive the pump beam and emit a THz reference pulse (Eref) as in Fig. 1; a detector configured to receive the probe beam and measure a THz sample pulse (Esam) as in Fig. 1 after the THz reference pulse interacts with the sample; a spectrometer for measuring the THz sample pulse and THz reference pulse; and a processor in electronic communication with the detector, the processor configured to: obtain, from the detector, the measured sample pulse; obtain, from the detector, the measured reference pulse; and determine a refractive index (n), an absorption coefficient (a), or both by minimizing an error between the obtained sample pulse and a modeled sample pulse (Esam.model) as in Fig. 1 in the time domain, wherein the modeled sample pulse is produced by passing the reference pulse through a filter see the second paragraph of the right column on the first page that parametrically models the influence of wave propagation through the sample.
With respect to dependent claims 14 – 15, Chakraborty teaches in the second paragraph of the right column on the first page wherein the filter is a Fresnel function for a single dielectric layer in transmission geometry and wherein the filter function
K
θ
ω
=
β
4
n
(
n
+
1
)
2
e
i
ω
d
c
(
1
-
n
)
α
d
2
where β is the amplitude scaling factor treated as Gaussian distribution of white noise, ωis angular frequency, d is sample thickness, and c is the speed of light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty, and further in view of Krivitskiy (US 2022/0326151 A1).
The teaching of Chakraborty has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Chakraborty is silent with a stage for moving the sample.
In paragraph [0158], Krivitskiy, a pertinent art, teaches stage for moving a sample. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Chakraborty in order to obtain two dimensional map of the sample (see paragraph [0196] of Krivitskiy). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Krivitskiy teaches a control unit 618 and therefore, teaches wherein the processor is configured to obtain additional sample pulses at different locations of the sample, and to repeat the step of determining a refractive index, an absorption coefficient, or both for each additional sample pulse.
With respect to dependent claim 13, when modified by Krivitskiy Chakraborty modified by Krivitskiy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate an image map based on the refractive index of each sample pulse location, an image map based on the absorption coefficient of each sample pulse location, or both.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 8, and 16 – 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 3 and its dependent claims 4 – 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein determining the one or more imaging markers further comprises minimizing an error between the obtained image (Esam) and a modeled image (Esam.model) in the time domain, wherein the modeled image is produced by passing a reference pulse (Eref) through a filter that parametrically models the influence of wave propagation through the sample.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein minimizing the error is performed according to:
θ
^
(
n
-
α
)
=
E
s
a
m
-
F
-
1
K
θ
∙
F
{
E
r
e
f
}
2
where F is a fast Fourier transform (FFT) operator.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the minimized error is a mean-squared error.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the error is minimized using maximum likelihood estimation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM,Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884