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 .
Detailed Action
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: an optical system in claim 1.
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 § 102
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 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, 4, 6-8, & 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ilchenko et al (PGPub 2021/0270669)(Ilchenko).
Regarding Claims 1 & 15, Ilchenko discloses a Raman or photoluminescence or fluorescence spectrometry apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a light source (11) adapted to generate an excitation light beam (13) incident on a sample (15);
an optical system (21, 23, 49) to collect and direct a light beam (25) emitted by the sample towards an input (51) of a spectrometer (31);
the spectrometer (31) comprising at least one diffraction grating (55) and a detection system (29);
wherein the apparatus comprises a polarization splitter and modifier optical device comprising a polarization splitter (45, 47) and a compensator (41, 43),
the optical device being located on a path of the emitted light beam (25, 35, 37) out of the path of the excitation light beam (13) (See fig. 1);
the optical device being configured and oriented to split the emitted light beam incident on the diffraction grating (55) into a first part (35a, 37a) of the emitted light beam polarized according to a first polarization state and a second part (35b, 37b) of the emitted light beam polarized according to a second polarization state;
the second polarization state being orthogonal to the first polarization state (Paragraph 61);
said first (37a) and second (37b) polarization states being chosen among polarization states having a component S1 of their Stokes vector less than or equal to 0.2 in absolute value; and
the detection system (29) being adapted to receive, on a first detection area (59);
a spectrum of the first part of the emitted light beam polarized according to the first polarization state and simultaneously, on a second detection area, a spectrum of the second part of the emitted light beam polarized according to the second polarization state, the first area and the second area being separated along a direction transverse to a direction of spectral diffraction on the detection system (Paragraph 64 & 65).
The method of claim 15 is also met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses wherein the polarization splitter (45, 47) is located on the path of the emitted light beam downstream from the compensator (41, 43, See fig. 1).
Regarding Claims 4, 6, & 16-19, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses wherein the polarization splitter (45, 47) is adapted to laterally split the emitted light beam (35a, 35b, 37a, 37b) to form the first part (35a, 37a) of the emitted light beam and, respectively, the second part (35b 37b) of the emitted light beam. Laterally splitting a beam is a function of the Wollaston prisms.
Regarding Claim 7, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses wherein the polarization splitter (45, 47) comprises a Wollaston prism, a Rochon prism or a Nomarski prism (Paragraph 61).
Regarding Claims 8 & 20, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses wherein the compensator comprises a half-wave plate oriented so that said first polarization state is linear inclined at -45 degrees relative to the diffraction grating lines and the second linear polarization state inclined at +45 degrees relative to the diffraction grating lines, or wherein the compensator comprises a quarter-wave plate oriented so that said first polarization state is right-hand circular and the second polarisation state is left-hand circular (Paragraph 34) or wherein the compensator comprises a Fresnel rhombohedron.
Regarding Claim 12, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses an optical retarder (69, Fig. 2) placed on a path that is common to the emitted light beam (61) and the excitation light beam, the optical retarder having an optical retardance and being oriented so as to adjust at least one polarization state of the excitation light beam incident on the sample (Paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 13, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses wherein the optical retarder (69) comprises a quarter-wave plate, a half-wave plate, a Fresnel rhombohedron, a birefringent plate having an adjustable retardance or a pixelated optical retarder having a spatially adjustable retardance (Paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 14, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko discloses a calculator adapted to calculate a degree of polarization as a function of the spectrum of the first part of the emitted light beam polarized according to the first polarization state and of the spectrum of the second part of the emitted light beam polarized according to the second polarization state (Paragraph 34). Recovering information about depolarization of vibrational peaks from measured spectra would meet this limitation.
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) 3, 5, 10, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilchenko.
Regarding Claim 3, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ilchenko disclose the compensator (43) has a Mueller matrix having an element M1,1 less than 0.2 in absolute value over a spectral range of detection. An ideal QWP meets this limitation;
Ilchenko fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polarization splitter is located on the path of the emitted light beam upstream from the compensator;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ilchenko with wherein the polarization splitter is located on the path of the emitted light beam upstream from the compensator because this is a trivial change, generally rearrangement of optics is commonplace where the rearrangement would not effect the functioning of the device, thus one would switch the order of the splitter and compensator because it’s obvious to try and would not significantly change the outcome of the optics.
Regarding Claim 5, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polarization splitter comprises a birefringent plate or a Savart plate;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ilchenko with wherein the polarization splitter comprises a birefringent plate or a Savart plate because these are functionally equivalent to the disclosed Wollaston prism and would be chosen based upon cost and availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 10, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polarization splitter and modifier optical device is located in the spectrometer between the spectrometer input and the at least one diffraction grating, or wherein the polarization splitter and modifier optical device is located in a converging part of the emitted light beam upstream from the spectrometer input wherein the polarization splitter is located in a collimated part of the emitted light beam upstream from the spectrometer input and wherein the compensator is located downstream from the polarization splitter, the compensator being located between the last optical component liable to modify the polarization of the emitted light beam on the collimated path and the diffraction grating;
However, the examiner takes official notice that any one of these combinations would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ilchenko with wherein the polarization splitter and modifier optical device is located in the spectrometer between the spectrometer input and the at least one diffraction grating, or wherein the polarization splitter and modifier optical device is located in a converging part of the emitted light beam upstream from the spectrometer input wherein the polarization splitter is located in a collimated part of the emitted light beam upstream from the spectrometer input and wherein the compensator is located downstream from the polarization splitter, the compensator being located between the last optical component liable to modify the polarization of the emitted light beam on the collimated path and the diffraction grating because this is a functionally equivalent change, generally rearrangement of optics and collimating or focusing of light to adjust for the changes is commonplace where the rearrangement would not affect the functioning of the device, thus one would chose any of these arrangements because it’s obvious to try and would not significantly change the outcome of the optics.
Regarding Claim 11, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation “wherein the polarization splitter and modifier optical device can be retracted out of the emitted light beam,” is inherent since those items can always be removed;
Further, Ilchenko fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises an optical component adapted to be inserted on the path of the emitted light beam to compensate for a defocusing of the emitted light beam at the input of the spectrometer or on the detection system of the spectrometer, when the polarization splitter and modifier optical device is retracted;
However, the examiner takes official notice that any one of these combinations would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ilchenko with because wherein the apparatus comprises an optical component adapted to be inserted on the path of the emitted light beam to compensate for a defocusing of the emitted light beam at the input of the spectrometer or on the detection system of the spectrometer, when the polarization splitter and modifier optical device is retracted one of ordinary skill in the art would know that removing optics from the optical train will cause the light going through the apparatus to be defocused and it would be common sense to put in an appropriate lens in order to fix that defocus.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilchenko in view of Acher et al (PGPub 20210010928) (Acher).
Regarding Claim 9, Ilchenko discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the compensator has an achromatic retardance on the spectrum of the first part of the emitted light beam, and respectively on the spectrum of the second part of the emitted light beam;
However, Acher discloses an achromatic compensator (Paragraph 26) thus meeting the limitation wherein the compensator has an achromatic retardance on the spectrum of the first part of the emitted light beam, and respectively on the spectrum of the second part of the emitted light beam;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ilchenko with wherein the compensator has an achromatic retardance on the spectrum of the first part of the emitted light beam, and respectively on the spectrum of the second part of the emitted light beam because one wouldn’t want optics in spectrometer to have a chromatic dispersion on the light because this would cause the different wavelengths to defocus and cause errors in the measurement thus an achromatic waveplate would be ideal for such an apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 10, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877