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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “conversion unit” “generation unit”
Claim 2: “specifying unit”
Claim 9: “analysis unit”
Claim 11: “light source unit”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pixel unit”, but instant specification paragraph 33 states “The pixel unit 11 includes a plurality of pixels 21 receiving the wavelength-resolved light L1 and converting the light into an electrical signal.”, indicating the pixel unit comprises structure “pixels 21” with a photovoltaic function.
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
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raicu et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20120257196) in view of Maruno et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20200371261), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “RM”.
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.”);
a generation unit integrating the [signal] of a plurality of pixels belonging to the same column (Figure 16B, paragraph 0099 “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 conversion unit converting the electrical signal from the plurality of pixels into a number of photons, or outputting this number as a [signal]. However, it is known in the art as taught by Maruno. Maruno teaches a photoelectric detector (Figure 1) comprising a conversion unit converting the electrical signal from the plurality of pixels into a number of photons, and outputting this number as a [signal] to a bin (Figure 13, paragraph 0060 “In the embodiment, when the measurement is started in a state in which the photon counting device 1 is operated, 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 output to the computer 20 (step S3). The digital value is corrected for each pixel by the correction unit 22 of the computer 20 (step S4). The corrected digital value is binned (step S5).” and “The summed value, that is, the binned digital value is compared with the threshold value data (step S6), and is converted to the number of photons on the basis of a comparison result (step S7).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a conversion unit converting the electrical signal from the plurality of pixels into a number of photons, and outputting this number as a [signal] to a bin, in order to curb the influence of the variation in the gain and the offset value among the plurality of pixels.
As to claim 2, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Raicu teaches a specifying unit 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 unit to do such specifying).
As to claim 3, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Maruno teaches the specifying unit 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.” and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to not use data that is beneath a threshold).
As to claim 4, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 3, in addition 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, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Maruno teaches the specifying unit 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 specifying unit 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 7, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Raicu teaches the specifying unit 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 8, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Maruno teaches the conversion unit includes a first conversion unit converting the electrical signal into a digital value and a second conversion unit 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 conversion unit include a first conversion unit converting the electrical signal into a digital value and a second conversion unit 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.
As to claim 9, RM teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Raicu teaches an analysis unit 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, RM 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, RM teaches a Raman spectroscopic measurement device comprising: the spectroscopic device according to claim 1 (above).
Raicu as modified by Maruno above teaches:
a light source unit generating light with which a sample is irradiated (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 (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.
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 specifying unit 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 generation unit 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
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