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 Amendment
The Claim Interpretation of claim 1 “conversion unit” “generation unit”, claim 2 “specifying unit”, claim 9 “analysis unit”, claim 11 “light source unit” is withdrawn as those terms do not appear in the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the existing rejection does not address all the limitations of the amended claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Raicu (US 20120257196) in view of Tull (US 20220154232).
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that Raicu does not teach converting an electric signal from each pixel into a number of photons, and the Maruno reference does not teach this deficiency.
Examiner acknowledges that the Maruno reference teaches binning before converting a signal to a number of photons (paragraph 0060), and therefore does not teach the cited deficiencies of the Raicu reference. As such the Tull reference will be used for that teaching.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raicu et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20120257196) in view of Tull (United States Patent Application Publication 20020154232, the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “RT”.
As to claim 1, Raicu teaches a spectroscopic device (Abstract “a two-photon microscope with spectral resolution” and “Two-dimensional (spatial) images with a complete wavelength spectrum are generated from a single scan of a sample.”) receiving light wavelength-resolved in a predetermined direction (Figures 16A-B, paragraph 0054 “The dispersive element 160 disperses the light into its spectral components to form a continuous spectrum of varying wavelengths that spread in the y-direction of the detector 158. Accordingly, the fluorescence beams 154, after passing through the dispersive element 160, reach the detector 158 as three wavelength spectra extending along the y-direction.”) by a spectroscopic optical system (Figure 2) including a spectroscopic element to output spectroscopic spectrum data of the light (paragraph 0004 “Embodiments enable, via a single scan, generation of 2-D or 3-D (spatial) images for a complete wavelength spectrum.”), the spectroscopic device comprising:
a pixel unit including a plurality of pixels receiving the wavelength-resolved light (Figure 16A, paragraph 0095 “array of pixels 452”) to convert the light into an electrical signal (paragraph 0100 “Each pixel 470 is treated separately and the associated electrical signals of each pixel 470 are output by the detector 452 as a particular data value representing the amount of light emitted from the sample at an associated wavelength”), and the plurality of pixels being arranged in a row direction along a wavelength resolution direction and in a column direction perpendicular to the row direction (paragraph 0097 “FIG. 16B illustrates a first binning technique to address the spread of the wavelength spectrum 450 along the x-axis and to result in more accurate images. For each wavelength range (i.e., row 456), a bin 460 is used to cover multiple pixel columns.”);
an electrical signal from each pixel of the plurality of pixels [as data] (paragraph 0090 “The detector 158 includes a generally planar detection surface including an array of detector elements (i.e., pixels) that convert energy (e.g., light) into electrical signals for output to an imaging device” and “The electrical signals may then be interpreted, combined, filtered, and/or organized to generate an image.”); and
a spectrum data generator integrating the [data] of a plurality of pixels belonging to the same column (Figure 16B, paragraph 0090 “the imaging module 118 of the controller 102 may receive data for each pixel of the detector and sum the values according to the bins”) to generate spectroscopic spectrum data based on an integration result (paragraph 0106 “The microscopes described herein are operable to provide a complete spectrum from a single scan.”).
Raicu does not teach a signal converter converting the electrical signal from each pixel of the plurality of pixels into a number of photons as the output [data]. However, it is known in the art as taught by Tull. Tull teaches a digital camera (Abstract “A digital camera”) with a light detector (Abstract “active-pixel sensor CMOS image sensors”) including a signal converter converting the electrical signal from each pixel of the plurality of pixels into a number of photons (paragraph 0031 “For each pixel, the number of photons or the electrical charge accumulated during the exposure is then measured as a voltage which is converted by an AJD converter to a digital value which corresponds to the number of photons falling upon a particular sensor.” and this happens before analysis of columns of pixels occurs, see paragraphs 0035-0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a signal converter converting the electrical signal from each pixel of the plurality of pixels into a number of photons, in order to produce values that better correspond to the overall image (paragraph 0014 “Each pixel corresponding to each sensor where exposure was stopped is adjusted to the proper exposure by linearly extrapolating the exposure the sensor did receive, so that the pixel corresponding to that sensor has an intensity corresponding to the dynamic range of the entire image.”, see paragraphs 0033-0036).
As to claim 2, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Raicu teaches pixel specifying processor specifying a pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons among the plurality of pixels belonging to the same column (paragraph 0097 “In some embodiments, the number of pixels for each bin 460 may be adjusted, e.g., based on the actual spread of the wavelength spectrum 450. For instance, each bin 460 may be three pixels wide, ten pixels wide, etc.” and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date that since the bin size can be adjusted, there must exist a processor to do such specifying).
As to claim 7, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Raicu teaches the pixel specifying processor holds in advance area information indicating an area where there is no input of the light in the pixel unit, and excludes a pixel corresponding to the area information from the integration of the number of photons (Figure 16A, the actual spectrum is centered on the pixels 450 with the spread into adjacent pixels indicated by element 458, see paragraph 0096 “an actual imprint 458 of the wavelength spectrum 450 on the pixel array 452 spreads over into neighboring pixel columns”, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the system know this in advance and not take data from outside this area, in order to limit the amount of data the computer has to handle).
As to claim 9, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Raicu teaches a spectrum data analyzer analyzing the spectroscopic spectrum data (paragraph 0050 “an analysis module 120 for analyzing the pixel data from the detector 116 and/or images formed by the imaging module 118”).
As to claim 10, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Raicu teaches a spectroscopic optical system including a spectroscopic element dispersing the light in the wavelength resolution direction (paragraph 0054 “The dispersive element 160 disperses the light into its spectral components to form a continuous spectrum of varying wavelengths that spread in the y-direction of the detector 158.”).
As to claim 11, RT teaches a Raman spectroscopic measurement device comprising: the spectroscopic device according to claim 1 (above);
Raicu as modified by Tull above teaches:
an excitation light source generating light with which a sample is irradiated (Raicu Figure 2, paragraph 0051 “a pump laser 134 and a pulsed laser 136”); and
a light guiding optical system guiding Raman scattered light generated by irradiating the sample with the light to the spectroscopic device (Raicu paragraph 0141 “the energy emitted by the sample 132 in response to a scan for detection by the detector 158 may include one or more of … elastically scattered light (i.e., Raman)”).
As to claim 12, the method would flow from claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RT, and further in view of Maruno et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20200371361).
As to claim 3, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the pixel specifying processor specifies a pixel whose readout noise is equal to or less than a threshold as the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons. However, it is known in the art as taught by Maruno. Maruno teaches a photonic detector (Abstract “A photon counting device includes a plurality of pixels each including a photoelectric conversion element configured to convert input light to charge”) in which a pixel specifying processor specifies a pixel whose readout noise is equal to or less than a threshold as the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons (Figure 3, paragraph 0036 teaches the use of thresholds with respect to readout noise “When a threshold value for distinguishing between the adjacent numbers of electrons has been set, an incorrect detection rate of the number of detected electrons changes according to readout noise.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the pixel specifying processor specifies a pixel whose readout noise is equal to or less than a threshold as the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons, in order to not use data that is too low/small to be reliable.
As to claim 4, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 3, with the exception of the threshold of the readout noise is set to 0.3 [e-rms]. However, it is known in the art as taught by Maruno. Maruno teaches the threshold of the readout noise is set to 0.3 [e-rms] (paragraph 0036 “FIG. 3 is a graph showing a relationship between the readout noise and the incorrect detection rate when a threshold value is an intermediate value between the numbers of electrons, such as 0.5e, 1.5e, 2.5e, . . . .” where the progression is obvious to 3.5, and the choice of threshold is an obvious data analysis choice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the threshold of the readout noise be set to 0.3 [e-rms], in order to provide an incorrect detection rate of around 8% (see Figure 3, where the choice or e-rms threshold affects the rate).
As to claim 5, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the pixel specifying processor specifies the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons such that the number of pixels to be used for integration of the number of photons is the same in each column. However, it is known in the art as taught by Maruno. Maruno teaches the pixel specifying processor specifies the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons such that the number of pixels to be used for integration of the number of photons is the same in each column (paragraph 0097 “In some embodiments, the number of pixels for each bin 460 may be adjusted, e.g., based on the actual spread of the wavelength spectrum 450. For instance, each bin 460 may be three pixels wide, ten pixels wide, etc.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the pixel specifying processor specifies the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons such that the number of pixels to be used for integration of the number of photons is the same in each column, in order to make the bin input balanced.
As to claim 8, RT teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the signal converter includes a first converter converting the electrical signal into a digital value and a second converter converting the digital value into a number of photons on the basis of reference data held in advance. However, it is known in the art as taught by Maruno. Maruno teaches the signal converter includes a first converter converting the electrical signal into a digital value and a second converter converting the digital value into a number of photons on the basis of reference data held in advance (Figure 13, paragraph 0060 “light incident on the pixels of the CMOS image sensor 10 is first converted to charge by the photodiode 12 (step S1). The converted charge is converted to a voltage by the amplifier 13 (step S2). The voltage is converted to a digital value by the A/D converter 15” and “The summed value … is converted to the number of photons on the basis of a comparison result (step S7).” and paragraph 0044 “The correction unit 22 corrects the digital value corresponding to each pixel output from the A/D converter 15. In the embodiment, the digital value is corrected so that an influence of the variation in the gain and offset value among the plurality of pixels 11 is curbed.” and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to that in order to correct, the correction factors must be known in advance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the signal converter include a first converter converting the electrical signal into a digital value and a second converter converting the digital value into a number of photons on the basis of reference data held in advance, in order to better curb the influence of the variation in the gain and the offset value among the plurality of pixels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a spectroscopic device wherein the pixel specifying processor specifies the pixel to be used for integration of the number of photons and an integration ratio of the pixels on the basis of aberration information of the light in the spectroscopic optical system, and the spectrum data generator integrates the number of photons of the plurality of pixels by using the integration ratio, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights