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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: all claims are the same as presented last.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in pg.6 of the remarks that Houck et al. do not teach “the reflective element be arranged on at least a part of one or both the lid element and the frame element”. Although, Houck et al. being the secondary reference and was not relied upon to teach the argued limitation. Houck et al. teach: element 118 of fig.3B is reflective (para. [0030]), element 120 of fig.1 is reflective (para. [0033]), element 122 of fig.1 is reflective (para. [0034]), element 116 of fig.1 is reflective (para. [0034]), element 308 of fig.3B is reflective (para. [0048]). These different elements of Houck et al. formed the interior walls of the sample cell; the interior walls of the cell of Houck et al. are reflective. Both Raczkowski et al. and Houck et al. use reflective interior walls. Modifying the apparatus of Raczkowski et al. with teachings of Houck et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding the Drennen, III reference, applicant argues in pg.7 of the remarks that Drennen, III does not teach the claimed arrangement. Drennen, III was not used to teach the claimed arranged, but using the claimed material is known. Drennen, III is directed to a spectrometer of analyzing a sample in a cell, wherein the interior walls of the cell are coated with gold or aluminum. The combination of Raczkowski et al., Houck et al. and Drennen, III are not deficient in the rejection of claim 1. In response to applicant's argument made in pg.8 of remarks that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Raczkowski et al., Houck et al. and Drennen, III, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made final.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raczkowski et al. (US 2022/0244104 A1; pub. Aug. 4, 2022) in view of Houck et al. (US 2021/0063241 A1; pub. Mar. 4, 2021) and further in view of Drennen, III (US 5,214,277; pub. May 25, 1993).
Regarding claim 1, Raczkowski et al. disclose: A spectrometer housing (para. [0005]) configured for at least partially enclosing at least one detector (fig.25B & 25C item 228) and at least one emitter (fig.25B & 25C item 254) of a spectrometer module, the spectrometer housing comprising:
- a frame element (fig.25B & 25C item 226, controllable mech, the two sides attached to 226);
- a lid element connected to the frame element (para. [0066], [0141]);
- a separation element arranged within the frame element (fig.25B & 25C item 318).
- a reflector element arranged on at least a part of one or both of the lid element and the frame element (para. [0157]), and
- an interface element (para. [0066]),
wherein an entrance opening is formed by at least the lid element and the frame element, wherein the frame element and the lid element are fully identical (para. [0066]), wherein on a side opposing the entrance opening at least two mounting openings are formed by at least the lid element (para. [0066]) and the frame element (fig.25B & 25C item 226, controllable mech, the two sides attached to 226), the at least two mounting openings being separated by the separation element (fig.25B & 25C item 318), wherein the interface element is configured for covering the entrance opening (para. [0066]).
Raczkowski et al. are silent about: the reflector element comprises a metal material selected from the group consisting of: gold, silver, aluminum and any other metal suitable for the generation of metallized surfaces,
the frame element and the separation element are integrally formed from the same material, wherein the interface element is configured for covering the entrance opening.
In a similar field of endeavor Houck et al. disclose: the frame element (fig.1 items 122) and the separation element (fig.1 barrier 122 separating the detectors 114 & light source 104) are integrally formed from the same material, motivated by the benefits for reducing noise that can introduced by different materials.
In light of the benefits for reducing noise that can introduced by different materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Houck et al. to modify the apparatus of Raczkowski et al.
Houck et al. are silent about: the reflector element comprises a metal material selected from the group consisting of: gold, silver, aluminum and any other metal suitable for the generation of metallized surfaces.
In a similar field of endeavor Drennen, III discloses: the reflector element comprises a metal material selected from the group consisting of: gold, silver, aluminum and any other metal suitable for the generation of metallized surfaces (col.4 L34 – 40) motivated by the benefits for increasing illumination.
In light of the benefits for increasing illumination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Drennen, III to modify the apparatus of Raczkowski et al. and Houck et al.
Regarding claim 2, Raczkowski et al., Houck et al. and Drennen, III disclose: the reflector element is secured to one or both of the lid element and the frame element (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Raczkowski et al., Houck et al. and Drennen, III disclose: a first of the at least two mounting openings is configured for forming part of a detector compartment for receiving the detector and a second of the at least two mounting openings is configured for forming part of an emitter compartment for receiving the emitter (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Raczkowski et al., Houck et al. and Drennen, III disclose: at least one detector, at least one emitter and at least one spectrometer housing according to claim 1 (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Raczkowski et al. disclose: the spectrometer module further comprises at least one substrate (fig.25B & 25C item 226) wherein the emitter (fig.25B & 25C item 254), the detector (fig.25B & 25C item 228) and the spectrometer housing are arranged on the substrate. Houck et al. disclose: the emitter (fig.1 item 102) is enclosed within a first of the at least two mounting openings of the spectrometer housing and wherein the detector (fig.1 item 114) is enclosed within a second of the at least two mounting openings of the spectrometer housing motivated by the benefits for preventing the detector from detecting the illumination light.
Claims 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raczkowski et al. (US 2022/0244104 A1; pub. Aug. 4, 2022) in view of Houck et al. (US 2021/0063241 A1; pub. Mar. 4, 2021) in view of Drennen, III (US 5,214,277; pub. May 25, 1993) and further in view Day (US 2014/0268127 A1; pub. Sep. 18, 2014).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the spectrometer housing is dimensioned to fit within a cuboid having a volume V ≤ 1.5 cm³.
In a similar field of endeavor Day discloses: the spectrometer housing is dimensioned to fit within a cuboid having a volume V ≤ 1.5 cm³ (para. [0031], [0033]) motivated by the benefits for a compact spectrometer.
In light of the benefits for increasing illumination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Day to modify the apparatus of Raczkowski et al., Houck et al. and Drennen, III.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Raczkowski et al., Houck et al., Drennen, III and Day disclose: the spectrometer module according to claim 5, referring to a spectrometer module, wherein the spectrometer module is dimensioned to fit within a cuboid having a volume V ≤ 1.5 cm³ (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claims 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raczkowski et al. (US 2022/0244104 A1; pub. Aug. 4, 2022) in view of Drennen, III (US 5,214,277; pub. May 25, 1993).
Regarding claim 8, Raczkowski et al. disclose: A method of manufacturing at least one spectrometer housing configured for at least partially enclosing a detector (fig.25B & 25C item 228) and an emitter (fig.25B & 25C item 254) of a spectrometer module, the method comprising:
a) integrally forming a frame element (fig.25B & 25C items 226, the parallel vertical sides attached to 226 & the controllable mech 316) and a separation element (fig.25B & 25C item 318);
b) providing a lid element (para. [0066]), wherein the lid element and the frame element form an entrance opening and at least two mounting openings (1st opening is formed by the left vertical wall & item 318) and wherein the mounting openings are separated by the separation element (2nd opening is formed by the right vertical wall & item 318), wherein the frame element and the lid element are fully identical (para. [0066]).
Raczkowski et al. are silent about:
c) depositing a reflector element on at least part of one or both of the lid element and the frame element, wherein the reflector element comprises a metal material selected from the group consisting of: gold, silver, aluminum and any other metal suitable for the generation of metallized surfaces.
In a similar field of endeavor Drennen, III discloses: c) depositing a reflector element on at least part of one or both of the lid element and the frame element, wherein the reflector element comprises a metal material selected from the group consisting of: gold, silver, aluminum and any other metal suitable for the generation of metallized surface (col.4 L34 – 40) motivated by the benefits for increasing illumination.
In light of the benefits for increasing illumination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Drennen, III to modify the method of Raczkowski et al.
Regarding claim 9, Raczkowski et al. and Drennen, III disclose: step c) further comprises securing the reflector element to an inner surface of one or both of the lid element and the frame element (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Raczkowski et al. disclose: the lid element and the frame element are formed integrally (para. [0066], [0141]).
Regarding claim 12, Raczkowski et al. disclose: d) providing an interface element and covering the entrance opening with the interface element (para. [0066], [0141]).
Regarding claim 13, Raczkowski et al. disclose:
i) performing the method of manufacturing at least one spectrometer housing according to claim 8;
ii) providing at least one emitter (fig.25B & 25C item 254) and at least one detector (fig.25B & 25C item 228) on at least one substrate (fig.25B & 25C item 226);
iii) arranging the spectrometer housing (fig.25B & 25C items 226, two vertical walls & item 316) on the at least one substrate (fig.25B & 25C item 226), such that the emitter (fig.25B & 25C item 254) is enclosed within a first (1st opening is formed by the left vertical wall & item 318) of the at least two mounting openings of the spectrometer housing and the detector is enclosed within a second of the at least two mounting openings (2nd opening is formed by the right vertical wall & item 318) of the spectrometer housing.
Claims 10 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raczkowski et al. (US 2022/0244104 A1; pub. Aug. 4, 2022) in view of Drennen, III (US 5,214,277; pub. May 25, 1993) and further in view of Busch (WO 2021058261 A1; pub. Apr. 01, 2021).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the method according to claim 8, wherein step c) comprises one or more of molding, mounting and gluing the reflector element to one or both of the lid element and the frame element.
In a similar field of endeavor Busch discloses: the method according to claim 8, wherein step c) comprises one or more of molding, mounting and gluing the reflector element to one or both of the lid element and the frame element (para. [0051]) motivated by the benefits for providing spectrometer arrangements in high quantities in a cost-effective, efficient and high-quality manner (Busch para. [0017]).
In light of the benefits for providing spectrometer arrangements in high quantities in a cost-effective, efficient and high-quality manner as taught by Busch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Busch to modify the method of Raczkowski et al. and Drennen, III.
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the method according to claim 13, wherein step iii) further comprises securing the spectrometer housing to the substrate by performing a bonding process selected from the group consisting of: gluing and soldering.
In a similar field of endeavor Busch discloses: the method according to claim 13, wherein step iii) further comprises securing the spectrometer housing to the substrate by performing a bonding process selected from the group consisting of: gluing and soldering (para. [0052]) motivated by the benefits for providing spectrometer arrangements in high quantities in a cost-effective, efficient and high-quality manner (Busch para. [0017]).
In light of the benefits for providing spectrometer arrangements in high quantities in a cost-effective, efficient and high-quality manner as taught by Busch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Busch to modify the method of Raczkowski et al. and Drennen, III.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
