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The 112(b) rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 7/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the existing Sato (US 20170135616) and Cucinelli (US 20230277063) references.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that SCC does not teach multiple sets of sensors extending from the laser source in a plurality of radial directions.
Examiner’s position is that Sato Figure 6 shows a detector (element 113) comprising an array of detector elements (paragraph 0112 “The detection unit 113 provided in the measurement device 10 according to the present embodiment has a plurality of sensors regularly arranged in a predetermined arrangement therein”) and this is interpreted to read on the claimed “set of sensors”. Figure 7A shows two elements 113 (reading on the claimed “plurality of sets of sensors”) arranged around the light source 111 (reading on the claimed ‘plurality of sets disposed around the laser source’), on opposite sides (reading on the claimed ‘each set is in a different radial direction’).
Regarding Cucinelli Figure 4 that shows single detectors in radial positions, the teachings that were brought from Cucinelli and applied to claim 11 were directed to the positions of the detectors around the light source (Office Action dated 4/30/2026 paragraph 13), not the number of detectors in each set. Sato Figures 9 & 10 show the radial scattering pattern of the light, which supports the usefulness of multiple sets of sensors surrounding the light source.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it depends on cancelled claim 15. For purposes of examination, examiner reads claim 18 as depending on claim 1, similar to the dependency change of claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 is improper as it depends on cancelled claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8, 11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (United States Patent Application Publication 20170135616) in view of Cucinelli et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230277063), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “SC”.
As to claim 1, Sato teaches an optical module for spatially offset Raman spectroscopy (paragraph 0074 “measuring an absorption spectrum of the in-vivo component of interest” and paragraph 0003 “such as light absorption or Raman spectroscopy”, see Figure 2B), the optical module comprising:
a laser source mounted on a substrate and configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a target (Figure 7A, paragraph 0109 “light source 111 may use a light emitting diode (LED), a small-sized laser”, Figure 6, paragraph 0113 “predetermined frame F”, and Figure 8 shows the light being delivered into a living body, see paragraph 0135);
a plurality of sensors mounted on the substrate (Figure 6, paragraph 0112 “The detection unit 113 provided in the measurement device 10 according to the present embodiment has a plurality of sensors regularly arranged in a predetermined arrangement therein”, see also paragraph 0155) and configured to detect electromagnetic radiation scattered from a plurality of depths in the target (Figure 9 shows light from three layers, see also paragraph 0136),
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a plurality of sets of sensors disposed around the laser source (Figure 7A shows two detector sets 113 around light source 111), each set of sensors extending from the laser source in a different radial direction of a plurality of radial directions (Figure 7A, elements 113 are on opposite sides of element 111); and
a plurality of filters, each disposed over one or more of the plurality of sensors (paragraph 0130 “an optical filter with different band restrictions for each pixel or all the pixels of the sensor 131”),
wherein sensors of each set of sensors are arranged on the substrate at spatially offset positions from the laser source (Figure 7A shows the light source at the center and the detectors arranged in a line on each side); and
wherein the one or more filters corresponding to a respective set of sensors are substantially transparent to a respective wavelength band and substantially opaque to wavelengths outside the respective wavelength band (paragraph 0130 “By arranging an optical filter with different band restrictions for each pixel or all the pixels of the sensor 131, for example, it is also possible to select a detection result of a singular wavelength such as 660 nm, 800 nm, 890 nm, or 940 nm.”).
While Sato teaches detecting light scattered from living tissue (paragraph 0008 “analyze scattering characteristics of an in-vivo component present in the living body using a detection result of the reflected light detected by the detection unit”) and gives Raman spectroscopy as an example (paragraph 0003 “such as light absorption or Raman spectroscopy”), Sato does not explicitly teach detecting Raman scattering wavelengths. However, it is known in the art as taught by Cucinelli. Cucinelli teaches detecting Raman scattered light (Abstract “A method and apparatus for non-invasively diagnosing a condition of subcutaneous biological tissue using biomolecular Raman spectroscopy.”, paragraph 0012 “Each photodetector comprises a discrete channel configured to detect photons of Raman scattered light”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to detect Raman scattering wavelengths, in order to better identify subdermal components, e.g. glucose.
While Sato teaches a set of sensors is filtered to a specific wavelength (paragraph 0130 “By arranging an optical filter with different band restrictions for each pixel or all the pixels of the sensor 131, for example, it is also possible to select a detection result of a singular wavelength”), Sato does not explicitly teach each set of sensors corresponds to a respective molecule of the target, wherein the one or more filters corresponding to a respective set of sensors are substantially transparent to a respective wavelength band corresponding to a Raman scattering wavelength of the respective molecule of the target and substantially opaque to wavelengths outside the respective wavelength band. However, it is known in the art as taught by Cucinelli. Cucinelli teaches
where each set of sensors corresponds to a respective molecule of the target, wherein the one or more filters corresponding to a respective set of sensors are substantially transparent to a respective wavelength band corresponding to a Raman scattering wavelength of the respective molecule of the target and substantially opaque to wavelengths outside the respective wavelength band (paragraph 0012 “A light source is configured to emit photons of light through the port that will probe physiological biomarkers in molecules of interest in subcutaneous tissue”, “Each photodetector comprises a discrete channel configured to detect photons of Raman scattered light” and “Each optical filter limits the transit of light reaching the associated the photodetector to a specific wavelength”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have each set of sensors correspond to a respective molecule of the target, wherein the one or more filters corresponding to a respective set of sensors are substantially transparent to a respective wavelength band corresponding to a Raman scattering wavelength of the respective molecule of the target and substantially opaque to wavelengths outside the respective wavelength band, in order to better identify e.g. glucose in the presence of other physiological tissue responses.
As to claim 8, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Cucinelli teaches said laser source, said plurality of sensors, and said plurality of filters are integrated with said integrated circuit (Figure 2A shows a wristwatch device that integrates the claimed elements into a compact device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said laser source, said plurality of sensors, and said plurality of filters be integrated with said integrated circuit, in order to produce an easily portable monitor.
As to claim 11, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Cucinelli teaches the plurality of sensors are arranged in the plurality of radial directions around the laser source in concentric, center symmetric patterns, wherein each set of sensors comprises a respective sector or radial division (Figure 4, paragraph 0040 “six photodetectors 36 (λ.sub.1-λ.sub.6) are strategically stationed in the internal cavity in a circular or annular pattern around the light source 34”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of sensors be arranged in the plurality of radial directions around the laser source in concentric, center symmetric patterns, wherein each set of sensors comprises a respective sector or radial division, in order to more reliably take data regardless of the position of the invention on the wrist.
As to claim 16, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Sato teaches the integrated circuit is configured to: estimate a ratio of signal strength between a detected signal of the respective molecule and of one or more of said other respective molecules of the target at each of said spatially offset positions (paragraph 0075 “Therefore, the degrees of photoabsorption are measured at a plurality of wavelengths thereby to find a ratio between reduction hemoglobin (Hb) not bound with oxygen and oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2).”, and as the filters are different for each detector, the detection of the plurality of wavelengths is in different locations).
While Sato teaches detecting light scattered from living tissue (paragraph 0008 “analyze scattering characteristics of an in-vivo component present in the living body using a detection result of the reflected light detected by the detection unit”) and gives Raman spectroscopy as an example (paragraph 0003 “such as light absorption or Raman spectroscopy”), Sato does not explicitly teach detecting Raman scattering wavelengths. However, it is known in the art as taught by Cucinelli. Cucinelli teaches detecting Raman scattered light (Abstract “A method and apparatus for non-invasively diagnosing a condition of subcutaneous biological tissue using biomolecular Raman spectroscopy.”, paragraph 0012 “Each photodetector comprises a discrete channel configured to detect photons of Raman scattered light”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to detect Raman scattering wavelengths, in order to better identify subdermal components, e.g. glucose.
While Sato does not explicitly teach to compare the estimated ratios with previously determined ratios associated with one or more samples of known physical parameters to estimate one or more physical parameters of the target, Sao teaches the use of previously determined data and the use of it in analysis (paragraph 0173 “The storage unit 107 stores therein data on photoabsorption spectra or light scattering spectra used for the analysis processing in the analysis unit 105, a look-up table of various databases, and the like.”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to compare a number calculated from measurements to a database, in order to have more confidence in a measurement.
As to claim 17, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 16, in addition Sato teaches the physical parameter comprises a thickness of one or more layers of the target (paragraph 0160 “By using the light with the wavelength of 660 nm as the measurement light, it is also possible to calculate the thickness of the dermic layer.”).
Claims 2-4, 14, 18, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC, and in further view of Khalil et al (United States Patent 6353226).
As to claim 2, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Sato teaches the substrate comprises an integrated circuit (paragraph 0010 “computer”) configured to: determine a photon count at each of the plurality of sensors from the detected electromagnetic radiation at each of the plurality of sensors (paragraph 0074 “measuring the detection intensity of the measurement light with each wavelength” and as photon energy is a function of wavelength, it is an obvious mathematical procedure to determine a photon count from an intensity measurement).
Sato as modified by Cucinelli above does not teach to use the determined photon counts to estimate an absorption coefficient and a reduced scattering coefficient of the target at each spatially offset position. However, it is known in the art as taught by Khalil. Khalil teaches measuring light scattered from tissue (Abstract “Apparatus and method for non-invasively measuring at least one optical parameter of a sample, particularly a sample of tissue that comprises a plurality of layers.”) and to use the determined photon counts to estimate an absorption coefficient and a reduced scattering coefficient of the target at each spatially offset position (col 7:15-17 “determining the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient of the sample at a given depth of the sample”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the determined photon counts to estimate an absorption coefficient and a reduced scattering coefficient of the target at each spatially offset position, in order to better account for the effect of skin layers on the measurement.
As to claim 3, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Khalil teaches the integrated circuit is further configured to: compare the estimated absorption coefficients and/or reduced scattering coefficients of the target with previously determined absorption coefficients and/or reduced scattering coefficients associated with one or more known samples to estimate physical information about the target (col 8:1-7 “One possible calibration procedure involves construction of a calibration diagram by plotting the measured values of a function of reflectance at one light collection site distance, e. g., f(1/R.sub.1), versus the measured values of another function of reflectance, e. g., f(R.sub.1 /R.sub.2), at that light collection site distance for a series of materials of known measured absorption and scattering coefficients”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the integrated circuit be further configured to: compare the estimated absorption coefficients and/or reduced scattering coefficients of the target with previously determined absorption coefficients and/or reduced scattering coefficients associated with one or more known samples to estimate physical information about the target, in order to have a better calibration and more reliable measurements.
As to claim 4, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 3, in addition Khalil teaches said comparing by said integrated circuit comprises applying a trained model to said determined photon counts (col 18:34-36 “Absorption and scattering coefficients can be determined from the output of the apparatus of this invention, Monte Carlo modeling, and a calibration procedure.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said comparing by said integrated circuit comprises applying a trained model to said determined photon counts, in order to have more reliable measurements.
As to claim 14, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of each set of sensors is a line of sensors comprising at least three sensors disposed along a respective radial direction of the plurality of radial directions. However, it is known in the art as taught by Khalil. Khalil teaches a set of sensors that is a line of sensors comprising at least three sensors disposed along a respective radial direction of the plurality of radial directions (Figure 1A with source 104 and detectors 108, column 17:14-18 “The light thus collected can be imaged into a charge coupled device (CCD) camera, a series of photodiodes in contact with the skin or a one-dimensional or a two-dimensional photodiode array, or any other suitable type of detector.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have each set of sensors is a line of sensors comprising at least three sensors disposed along a respective radial direction of the plurality of radial directions, in order to reduce the number of detectors needed while maintaining sufficient coverage for accurate measurements.
As to claim 18, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Sato teaches the laser source is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in a plurality of wavelengths (paragraph 0050 “Here, as the measurement light, light with a wavelength belonging to a band from red light to near infrared light”); and determine photon counts for each of said plurality of wavelengths (paragraph 0074 “measuring the detection intensity of the measurement light with each wavelength” and as photon energy is a function of wavelength it is an obvious mathematical procedure to determine a photon count from an intensity measurement).
SC does not teach the integrated circuit is further configured to: estimate said absorption coefficient and a reduced scattering coefficient of the target from determined photon counts for each of said plurality of wavelengths. However, it is known in the art as taught by Khalil. Khalil teaches to estimate said absorption coefficient and a reduced scattering coefficient of the target from determined photon counts for each of said plurality of wavelengths (col 7:15-17 “determining the absorption coefficient and the scattering coefficient of the sample at a given depth of the sample”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to estimate said absorption coefficient and a reduced scattering coefficient of the target from determined photon counts for each of said plurality of wavelengths, in order to better account for the effect of skin layers on the measurement.
As to claim 24, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 14, in addition Khalil teaches the sensors in each line of sensors are disposed at unequal offset distances from each other (Figure 1A, the sensors 108 are at different distances from source 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the sensors in each line of sensors are disposed at unequal offset distances from each other, in order to place the detectors where you expect the most light to come up (i.e. the curved arrows in Figures 1A & 1B).
As to claim 25, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 24, with the exception of the offset distances from each other correspond to 1-multiples of wavelengths of one or more of the Raman spectrum wavelengths that are intended to be measured. However, it is known that distance that are integer multiples of a wavelength from a wave source have constructive interference and uniform phase conditions. As the location of the detectors is a results effective variable and there are a finite number of possible locations with known points of phase-locked constructive interference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed distances, in order to increase the system detection ability. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC in view of Khalil, and in further view of Madsen et al (United States Patent 5827942).
As to claim 5, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition Cucinelli teaches detected Raman scattering signals associated with the respective molecule (paragraph 0012 “A light source is configured to emit photons of light through the port that will probe physiological biomarkers in molecules of interest in subcutaneous tissue”, “Each photodetector comprises a discrete channel configured to detect photons of Raman scattered light” and “Each optical filter limits the transit of light reaching the associated the photodetector to a specific wavelength”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be detected Raman scattering signals associated with the respective molecule, in order to better identify e.g. glucose in the presence of other physiological tissue responses.
SC in view of Khalil does not teach the integrated circuit is further configured to: identify which sensor of the respective set of sensors has a highest signal to noise ratio. However, it is known in the art as taught by Madsen. Madsen teaches image analysis (Abstract “Automated testing of the resolution capability of medical imagers”) that takes an array of pixels (“FIG. 3 is a schematic view showing a rectangular format for an ultrasound scan image.” and col 16:26-29 indicates each pixel has a value “The subtraction is performed by taking the absolute value of the difference of each target pixel minus the corresponding pixel on the background image.”), where the integrated circuit (Figure 1, “computer”) is further configured to: identify which sensor of the respective set of sensors has a highest signal to noise ratio (Figure 28, col 26:15-17 “the lesion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).sub.L values for all pixels within the diagnostic component are calculated at 140, and the maximum (SNR).sub.L is determined at 141”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the integrated circuit is further configured to: identify which sensor of the respective set of sensors has a highest signal to noise ratio, in order to scale and compare the data.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC in view of Khalil, and in further view of Lundsgaard (United States Patent 4997769).
As to claim 6, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the integrated circuit is further configured to estimate a turbidity of the target and correct an output signal of one or more of said plurality of sensors to compensate for said estimated turbidity. However, it is known in the art as taught by Lundsgaard. Lundsgaard teaches the analysis of optical measurements of blood () using an integrated circuit (Figure 6, col 10:60-61 “central microcomputer 38”) that is configured to estimate a turbidity of the target (column 2:49-51 “predetermined coefficients representing an absorption characteristic of turbidity at each of the wavelengths”) and correct an output signal of one or more of said plurality of sensors to compensate for said estimated turbidity (col 2:47-51 “any error on the determination values due to turbidity being substantially compensated for by utilizing predetermined coefficients representing an absorption characteristic of turbidity at each of the wavelengths”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the integrated circuit be further configured to estimate a turbidity of the target and correct an output signal of one or more of said plurality of sensors to compensate for said estimated turbidity, in order to make more accurate measurements.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC in view of Khalil, and in further view of Qi et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20180279892).
As to claim 7, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the integrated circuit is further configured to identify a modulating component in an output signal of one or more of said plurality of sensors associated with a periodic change in dimensions and/or composition of the target. However, it is known in the art as taught by Qi. Qi teaches the analysis of light scattered from tissue (Figure 10, paragraph 0006 “the reflected light may include motion information, and may sequentially enter epidermis and dermis of skin tissue after being refracted by the skin surface and may be scattered and absorbed by the skin tissue to emit scattered light”) using an integrated circuit (Figure 1, paragraph 0056 “a terminal device 102, a network 103, an external data source 104, and a server 105”) where the integrated circuit is further configured to identify a modulating component in an output signal of one or more of said plurality of sensors associated with a periodic change in dimensions and/or composition of the target (paragraph 0140 “the I.sub.s may only include the multiple backscattered light, and the I.sub.r may include the superficially reflected light and a very small amount of multiple backscattered light. The I.sub.s may include a motion disturbance signal and a heartbeat signal, and the I.sub.r may basically include only a motion disturbance signal. The I.sub.s and I.sub.r are used as input signals S.sub.1 and S.sub.2 separately, and motion artifacts are removed by the adaptive noise removal algorithm in FIG. 8 or a similar algorithm.” and to remove a motion artifact it must first be identified). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to identify a modulating component in an output signal of one or more of said plurality of sensors associated with a periodic change in dimensions and/or composition of the target, in order to obtain more accurate data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC in view of Khalil, and in further view of Roessler et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20070049808).
As to claim 9, SC in view of Khalil teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the integrated circuit comprises an ASIC. However, it is known in the art as taught by Roessler. Roessler teaches tissue analysis via Raman scattered light (Figure 1, paragraph 0013 “a light source, and a Raman probe to receive light scattered from a portion of ocular tissue”) using an integrated circuit (Figure 1, paragraph 0086 “computing device 144 may comprise … a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet PC”) where the integrated circuit comprises an ASIC (paragraph 0190 “at least some method blocks and system blocks described herein may be implemented in … an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the integrated circuit comprise an ASIC, in order to take advantage of the better performance of custom-designed computers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC, and in further view of Bechtel et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20120203114).
As to claim 21, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the plurality of filters comprise angular filters defining a field of view for each sensor of less than 28 degrees. However, it is known in the art as taught by Bechtel. Bechtel teaches a Raman spectroscopy apparatus (Abstract “an apparatus for Raman spectroscopy of human tissue”) that uses interference bandpass filters at an angle from one another (paragraph 0083 “As the response from interference filters can depend on angles of incidence, the bandwidth created by filtering can be reduced by using two such filters and angle-tuning with respect to one another.”, the angle of incidence is interpreted as the claimed field of view, and paragraph 0083 “Tilt angles can range from zero to eighty degrees and can be any integer or non-integer value between zero to eighty degrees.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said first and/or further plurality of filters comprise angular filters defining a field of view for each sensor of less than 28 degrees, in order to more easily adjust the bandpass to a desired wavelength range.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC in view of Khalil, and in further view of Bechtel.
As to claim 22, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the integrated circuit is further configured to: control the laser source to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation at the target and to demodulate the detected electromagnetic radiation scattered from the target. However, it is known in the art as taught by Bechtel. Bechtel teaches an integrated circuit (paragraph 0042 “calculations are carried out in a processor”) configured to control the laser source to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation at the target and to demodulate the detected electromagnetic radiation scattered from the target (paragraph 0107 “the excitation sources may be amplitude-modulated using various codes such as Golay, Galois, Gold, Kasami, or pseudo-random binary sequences (PRBS) and the detector signal demodulated, e.g. cross-correlated with the excitation source modulation sequence, to recover the information for the Raman frequencies of interest.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to control the laser source to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation at the target and to demodulate the detected electromagnetic radiation scattered from the target, in order to better recover information for the Raman frequencies of interest.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SC, and in further view of Chiu (United States Patent Application Publication 20070145253).
As to claim 26, SC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, with the exception of each set of sensors comprises sensors each having a partial annulus shape. However, it is known in the art as taught by Chiu. Chiu teaches a light detecting system with multiple detectors (Figure 1 with light source 1 and detector elements 31, 32, …) where the detectors can be formed into sets (e.g. the left half and the right half) with each set of sensors comprises sensors each having a partial annulus shape (Figure 1, each sensor element 31, 32, … N is a partial annulus shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have each set of sensors comprises sensors each having a partial annulus shape, in order to maximize the coverage while keeping the total number of detectors low.
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
