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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mirrors (claim 22) and binary mathematical filters (claim 24) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“scanning unit”, “dispersive element” and “detection unit” in claim 14.
“dispersive element” in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotté (“Spontaneous Compressive Raman technology: developments and applications”, 16 July 2020, from the IDS), hereinafter Scotté, in view of Kersey et al. (US20220057263A1 from the IDS), hereinafter Kersey, further in view of Leblond et al. (US 20200284657 A1), hereinafter Leblond.
As to claims 14 and 26, Scotté teaches [claim 14] an apparatus for detecting one or more chemicals in a sample; [claim 26] a method for parallel detection (Page 19 section “Implementation in spectroscopy and microscopy”; “each frequency is measured in parallel onto an array detector”) of one or more chemicals in a sample (abstract; “Spontaneous Raman scattering is a physical process that provides a unique knowledge of materials at the molecular level… in order to detect molecular species and/or estimate their concentrations”); the apparatus comprising:
a scanning unit comprising a light source configured to scan the sample using a light beam having a linear-shaped illumination (page 105 section 5.1.2 para. 2; Fig. 5.1; “On the illumination side, a continuous wave laser operating at 532 nm is spectrally filtered, expanded, and brought to a point-focus (a) or line-focus (b-c). A piezoelectric stage scanner holding the sample is used to scan either the sample plane (a) or the y-axis only (b-c)”. Thus, the piezoelectric stage scanner comprises the illumination side and scans the sample using a line-focus laser (b-c), i.e. having a linear-shaped illumination);
a dispersive element configured to receive light from the sample and disperse the received light (page 105 section 5.1.2; “dispersed by a blazed grating placed on the conjugate plane of the confocal slit”) spatially in a parallel manner (Fig. 5.1; page 107 figure 5.1 description; combination of amplitude grating G and convex lens L6 disperses the light spatially in a parallel manner according to fig. 5.1);
a spatial light modulator (Fig. 5.1; page 107 figure 5.1 description; digital micromirror device DMD) configured to receive the dispersed light and select one or more wavelength bands of the dispersed light (page 105 section 5.1.2 para. 2; “The spatially dispersed wavelength components of the Raman signal are imaged on a DMD. The DMD
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
λ-axis, in conjunction with the grating, acts as a programmable spectral filter”);
and detection unit (Fig. 5.1: photomultiplier tube PMT) comprising a photon detector (page 108 section 5.2 para. 2; “The spatial modulation (through A) and spectral modulation (through F) lead to the detection of photons on the single pixel detector”).
Scotté suggests “an array of photon counting detectors" (page 168 para. 3).
However, Scotté does not explicitly disclose the detection unit comprising a one-dimensional array of detectors configured to receive the selected one or more wavelength bands and detect the one or more chemicals in the sample based on the selected one or more wavelength bands, each detector of the array of detectors having a detection surface dimension below 50 pm, the dimension being in a direction of the linear-shaped illumination.
Kersey, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the detection unit comprising a one-dimensional array of detectors configured to receive the selected one or more wavelength bands (Kersey fig. 3; [0057]-[0059]; The DMD array 24, such as a CCD array, receives the Raman scattering light) and detect the one or more chemicals in the sample based on the selected one or more wavelength bands (Kersey [0050]; “An exemplary Raman spectrum may include a number of different peaks at a certain wavelengths or “wavenumber” offsets from the incident light, which are uniquely characteristic of the material”. [0070]; DMD 24 can be used to simultaneously analyze a plurality of spectral features/atoms/sub-atoms in a multiplexed fashion. [0003]; Application of the device can be in Raman spectroscopy used in chemical sectors. Thus, the one or more chemicals is detected in the sample based on one or more wavelength bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Scotté to incorporate the teachings of Kersey to include the detection unit comprising a one-dimensional array of detectors configured to receive the selected one or more wavelength bands and detect the one or more chemicals in the sample based on the selected one or more wavelength bands; for the advantage of simultaneous analysis (Kersey [0070]).
Still lacking the limitation such as each detector of the array of detectors having a detection surface dimension below 50 pm, the dimension being in a direction of the linear-shaped illumination.
Leblond, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches each detector of the array of detectors having a detection surface dimension below 50 pm, the dimension being in a direction of the linear-shaped illumination (Leblond [0087]; “The array of detectors has 256×1024 pixels of 26 μm size and can detect up to 256 spectra associated with the image of a line on the sample 302”. Thus, the pixel size, i.e. the detection surface dimension, is below 50 pm, and the dimension is in a direction of the line on the sample 302, i.e. linear-shaped illumination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Scotté in view of Kersey to incorporate the teachings of Leblond to include each detector of the array of detectors having a detection surface dimension below 50 pm, the dimension being in a direction of the linear-shaped illumination; for the advantage of optimizing spectral resolution (Leblond [0087]).
PNG
media_image2.png
931
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Scotté Fig. 5.1
PNG
media_image3.png
642
823
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kersey Fig. 3
As to claim 15, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the scanning unit is configured to scan the sample with a scanning direction which is different from the direction of the linear-shaped illumination (Fig. 5.1; page 105 section 5.1.2 para. 2; “A piezoelectric stage scanner holding the sample is used to scan either the sample plane (a) or the y-axis only (b-c).” A continuous wave laser provides the linear-shaped illumination (a-c). The directions of scanning and of illumination are different).
As to claim 16, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the dispersive element (Fig. 5.1; page 107 figure 5.1 description; combination of amplitude grating G and convex lens L6) is on a plane having a first direction corresponding to the direction of the linear-shaped illumination and a second direction corresponding to the scanning direction (Fig. 5.1; in the same plane of the amplitude grating G and convex lens L6, there is the first direction of the continuous wave laser and the second direction of the piezoelectric stage scanner).
As to claim 17, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the dispersive element is a planar grating (Fig. 5.1; in the same plane of the amplitude grating G and convex lens L6, including the grating G which is flat in fig. 5.1, not curved).
As to claim 18, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the scanning unit is configured to use a raster scan to scan the sample using the light beam (page 105 section 5.1.1 para. 2-3; “Using the DMD pixels along the x-axis, the line can be raster-scanned or modulated with various patterns… the configuration (c) allows to exploit all the possibilities at the same time”. Thus, the line of the sample can be raster-scanned using the light beam).
As to claim 19, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the detectors are single- photon avalanche diode detectors (fig. 4.2; page 74 figure 4.2 description; the multiple SPAD single-photon avalanche photodiodes).
PNG
media_image4.png
474
861
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Scotté Fig. 4.2
As to claim 20, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the spatial light modulator comprises a digital micromirror device (Fig. 5.1; page 107 figure 5.1 description; digital micromirror device DMD).
As to claim 21, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the spatial light modulator ((Fig. 5.1; digital micromirror device DMD) is configured to select N wavelength bands (page 35-36 section 2.2.1; “Q : number of pure chemical species present in the sample… M : number of spectral filters, with M ≥ Q”; therefore a number of wavelength bands is selected, corresponding to number of pure chemical species to be detected).
However, Scotté does not explicitly disclose the one-dimensional array of detectors comprises M detectors, each of the M detectors being configured to receive a respective wavelength band of the N wavelength bands.
Kersey, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the one-dimensional array of detectors comprises M detectors (Kersey fig. 3; [0057]-[0059]; The DMD array 24, such as a CCD array, receives the Raman scattering light), each of the M detectors being configured to receive a respective wavelength band of the N wavelength bands (Kersey [0050]; “An exemplary Raman spectrum may include a number of different peaks at a certain wavelengths or “wavenumber” offsets from the incident light, which are uniquely characteristic of the material”. Thus, each detector in the DMD array 24 is configured to receive a wavelength band uniquely characteristic of the material being detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Scotté to incorporate the teachings of Kersey to include the one-dimensional array of detectors comprises M detectors, each of the M detectors being configured to receive a respective wavelength band of the N wavelength bands; for the advantage of simultaneous analysis (Kersey [0070]).
As to claim 22, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 21.
However, Scotté does not explicitly disclose wherein the spatial light modulator comprises at least N mirrors configured to direct the N wavelength bands towards the M detectors.
Kersey, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the spatial light modulator comprises at least N mirrors configured to direct the N wavelength bands towards the M detectors (Kersey [0051]; [0058]; “The DMD 24 may include several hundred thousand (and in some instances substantially more) microscopic mirrors 34 (sometimes referred to as “micromirrors”, “pixels”, or “mirror-pixels”) arranged in an orthogonal array… In an ON state, each micromirror 34 is positioned to reflect light incident to the micromirror 34 in a first direction; e.g., to deflect the light in a direction that permits collection of the reflected light for analysis of the sample”. Thus, the mirrors 34 are configured to direct the wavelength bands in the reflected light towards the detectors in the DMD array, such as a CCD array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Scotté to incorporate the teachings of Kersey to include wherein the spatial light modulator comprises at least N mirrors configured to direct the N wavelength bands towards the M detectors; for the advantage of decreasing attenuation for certain wavelengths, allowing spectral shapes to be accurately mimicked (Kersey [0060]).
As to claim 23, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the N wavelength bands comprise spectra corresponding to each of the one or more chemicals (page 35-36 section 2.2.1; “Q : number of pure chemical species present in the sample… M : number of spectral filters, with M ≥ Q”; therefore, the wavelength bands of the spectral filters comprise spectra corresponding to each of the number of pure chemical species present in the sample).
As to claim 24, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the spatial light modulator is configured to use one or more binary mathematical filters to filter the spectra, each of the one or more binary mathematical filters corresponding to each of the one or more chemicals (page 35-36 section 2.2.1; “F : L x M matrix of the M binary spectral filters fm”; The binary spectral filters filter the spectra, each one corresponding to each M number of spectral filters, which corresponds to each Q number of pure chemical species present in the sample).
As to claim 25, Scotté teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the light received from the sample includes Raman-scattered light (abstract; “Raman scattered light”).
Citation of pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ben-Amotz et al. (US 20140107944 A1), hereinafter Ben-Amotz, teaches claim 24: wherein the spatial light modulator is configured to use one or more binary mathematical filters to filter the spectra, each of the one or more binary mathematical filters corresponding to each of the one or more chemicals (Ben-Amotz abstract; “A method for measuring a sample to identify a chemical includes receiving respective spectra for each of a plurality of chemicals. Using a processor, a plurality of binary mathematical filters are computed using the received spectra”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kemaya Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11 am – 8 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877