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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 21-27 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, recite the term “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths” in claim 1, line 8 and the term “a second wavelength different from the first wavelength while being spectroscopically equivalent”, in claim 21 lines 7-8, that renders the claim indefinite. Such as, it is unclear what are the metes and bounds for the wavelengths to be spectroscopically equivalent since this terms are not defined by the claims. Even though the specification recite the term “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths” in paragraphs [0041-0043], none of the cited paragraphs [0041-0043] provided a clear meets and bounds for the term “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths” and/or how these different wavelengths are “spectroscopically equivalent”. Therefore, the term “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths” render the claims 1 and 21 indefinite.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the
deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths” as any range of wavelength for each light.
Regarding Claims 2-9, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 1, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim.
Regarding Claims 22-27, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 21, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 21-24 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a method for performing a spectroscopic measurement of a sample. The method comprises performing measurements, generating spectroscopic information, emitting light to the sample, measuring light returned from the sample.
As can be seen from the above description, the thrust of the claim invention is to gather/collecting data about a sample, performing mathematical calculations/algorithms as generating spectroscopic information. In claim 1, the abstract idea is a mathematical/algorithmic concept of collecting multiple data points and combining them to generate information.
As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations drawn to “gather/collecting data about a sample” is data gathering/collection, it’s collecting data from an interface which is considered obtaining data necessary for the abstract mental steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “generating spectroscopic information” is analyzing information through mathematical algorithms. Such process is considered an abstract idea. Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Additionally, the abstract idea in claim 1 is a mathematical/algorithmic concept of collecting multiple data points and combining them to generate information. This is fundamentally a data collection and processing routine—measure signals, aggregate results, and derive output information. The concept of using multiple measurements to improve data quality is a well-known abstract principle. The claim recites some technological components like: Light emission to a sample; Light measurement from returned signals; and Reference to “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths”. However, the claim is highly generic in its recitation of these elements. It does not specify: What type of light source or measurement apparatus; How the wavelengths are generated or controlled; What “spectroscopically equivalent” means technically (this limitation is also rejected as indefinite as explained above in Section 112(b)); How the spectroscopic information is generated from the signals; Any specific technical parameters or constraints. Further, the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more because it is not tied to a particular machine, specifically: No particular apparatus: The claim recites generic “emitting light” and “measuring light” without specifying particular machines, apparatus, or technical structure; No technological constraints: There are no specific wavelength parameters, frequency ranges, or technical specifications that would tie the method to particular hardware; Generic functional language: “Performing measurements,” “generating information,” and “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths” are functional descriptors without technical specificity; No non-conventional combination: The claim does not describe how the measurements are combined or processed in a non-conventional way; Missing structural limitations: The claim does not describe the type of light sources, wavelength separations, or noise reduction techniques, this claim lacks concrete technical details. The claim reads as applying an abstract data collection and processing concept to any measurement scenario without technological specificity. Summary: Under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus, this claim fails the two-step test. While it recites measurement steps, it is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and combining multiple data points to generate information. The claim lacks sufficient integration with a particular technological solution or apparatus. The recitation of “light” and “sample” is too generic to constitute a particular machine or transformation.
Claim 1 recites additional element as “sample”. This element do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As the “sample” is not claimed with sufficient specificity, and no limitations are provided as to how is related “gather/collect data”, performing mathematical calculations/algorithmic, generating spectroscopic information. There are not steps as to how the measurements of collecting data is provided; instead, the claim only states the “performing a set of measurement”. Therefore, without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is collected, it is not possible for the claim abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception. Thus, it is not seen that the claims as a whole integrates the metal process or mathematic formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There do not appear to be any additional limitations in the claim other than the abstract idea of providing data and determining information about the first ingredient from that data. As there are no additional limitations, it is not possible for the claim to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites a method for performing a spectroscopic measurement of a sample. The method comprises performing measurements, generating spectroscopic information, emitting first and second light to the sample, measuring third and fourth light returned from the sample.
As can be seen from the above description, the thrust of the claim invention is to gather/collecting data about a sample by emitting light, performing mathematical calculations/algorithms as generating spectroscopic information. In claim 21, the abstract idea is a mathematical/algorithmic concept of collecting multiple data points and combining them to generate information.
As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations drawn to “gather/collecting data about a sample” is data gathering/collection, it’s collecting data from an interface which is considered obtaining data necessary for the abstract mental steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “generating spectroscopic information” is analyzing information through mathematical algorithms. Such process is considered an abstract idea. Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Additionally, the abstract idea in claim 21 is a mathematical/algorithmic concept of collecting multiple data points and combining them to generate information. This is fundamentally a data collection and processing routine—measure signals, aggregate results, and derive output information. The concept of using multiple measurements to improve data quality is a well-known abstract principle. The claim recites some technological components like: Light emission to a sample; Light measurement from returned signals; and Reference to “spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths”. However, the claim is highly generic in its recitation of these elements. Even though the claim recite “first light source” and “second light source,” it provides no technical details about these sources—no specifications regarding wavelength generation, control mechanisms, or hardware configuration It does not specify: What type of light source or measurement apparatus; How the wavelengths are generated or controlled; What “spectroscopically equivalent” means technically (this limitation is also rejected as indefinite as explained above in Section 112(b)); How the spectroscopic information is generated from the signals; Any specific technical parameters or constraints. Further, the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more because it is not tied to a particular machine, specifically: No particular apparatus: The claim recites generic “emitting light” and “measuring light” without specifying particular machines, apparatus, or technical structure; No technological constraints: There are no specific wavelength parameters, frequency ranges, or technical specifications that would tie the method to particular hardware; Generic functional language: “Causing light to be emitted,” “measuring light returned,” and “generating spectroscopic information” are functional descriptors without structural or technical specificity. The claim does not specify how the measurements are combined, what algorithm is used, or what technical result is achieved. Generic functional language: “Causing light to be emitted,” “measuring light returned,” and “generating spectroscopic information” are functional descriptors without structural or technical specificity. No non-conventional combination: The claim does not describe how the measurements are combined or processed in a non-conventional way. The claim reads as applying an abstract data collection and processing concept to any measurement scenario without technological specificity. Summary: Under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus, this claim fails the two-step test. While it recites measurement steps, it is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and combining multiple data points to generate information. The claim lacks sufficient integration with a particular technological solution or apparatus. The recitation of “light” and “sample” is too generic to constitute a particular machine or transformation.
Claim 21 recites additional element as “first light source”, “second light source” and “sample”. This element do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As the “first light source”, “second light source” and “sample” are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and no limitations are provided as to how is related “gather/collect data”, performing mathematical calculations/algorithmic, generating spectroscopic information. There are not steps as to how the measurements of collecting data is provided; instead, the claim only states the “performing a set of measurement”. Therefore, without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is collected, it is not possible for the claim abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception. Thus, it is not seen that the claims as a whole integrates the metal process or mathematic formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There do not appear to be any additional limitations in the claim other than the abstract idea of providing data and determining information about the first ingredient from that data. As there are no additional limitations, it is not possible for the claim to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As a result, claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim recites a method for performing a spectroscopic measurement of a sample. The method comprises orienting optical measurement toward the sample, generating spectroscopic information, emitting first and second light to the sample, receiving light from the sample.
As can be seen from the above description, the thrust of the claim invention is to gather/collecting data about a sample by emitting and receiving light, orienting the optical measurement, performing mathematical calculations/algorithms as generating spectroscopic information. In claim 28, the abstract idea is a mathematical/algorithmic concept of collecting multiple data points and combining them to generate information.
As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations drawn to “gather/collecting data about a sample” is data gathering/collection, it’s collecting data from an interface which is considered obtaining data necessary for the abstract mental steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “generating spectroscopic information” is analyzing information through mathematical algorithms. Such process is considered an abstract idea. Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Additionally, the abstract idea in claim 28 is a mathematical/algorithmic concept of collecting multiple data points and combining them to generate information. This is fundamentally a data collection and processing routine—measure signals, aggregate results, and derive output information. The concept of using multiple measurements to improve data quality is a well-known abstract principle. The claim recites some technological components like: Light emission to a sample; Light measurement from returned signals; and Reference to “spectroscopically information bandwidth”. However, the claim is highly generic in its recitation of these elements. It does not specify: What type of light source or measurement apparatus; How the wavelengths are generated or controlled; What “spectroscopically information bandwidth” means technically; How the spectroscopic information is generated from the signals; Any specific technical parameters or constraints. Further, the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more because it is not tied to a particular machine, specifically: No particular apparatus: The claim recites generic “emitting light” and “receiving light” without specifying particular machines, apparatus, or technical structure; No technological constraints: There are no specific wavelength parameters, frequency ranges, or technical specifications that would tie the method to particular hardware; Generic functional language: “emitting light,”, “orienting” “receiving light,” and “generating spectroscopic information” are functional descriptors without structural or technical specificity. The claim does not specify how the measurements are combined, what algorithm is used, or what technical result is achieved and well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. No non-conventional combination: The claim does not describe how the measurements are combined or processed in a non-conventional way. The claim reads as applying an abstract data collection and processing concept to any measurement scenario without technological specificity. Summary: Under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus, this claim fails the two-step test. While it recites measurement steps, it is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and combining multiple data points to generate information. The claim lacks sufficient integration with a particular technological solution or apparatus. The recitation of “light” and “sample” is too generic to constitute a particular machine or transformation.
Claim 28 recites additional element as “optical measurement system” and “sample”. This element do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As the “optical measurement system” and “sample” are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and no limitations are provided as to how is related “gather/collect data”, performing mathematical calculations/algorithmic, generating spectroscopic information. There are not steps as to how the measurements of collecting data is provided; instead, the claim only states the “performing a set of measurement”. Therefore, without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is collected, it is not possible for the claim abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception. Thus, it is not seen that the claims as a whole integrates the metal process or mathematic formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There do not appear to be any additional limitations in the claim other than the abstract idea of providing data and determining information about the first ingredient from that data. As there are no additional limitations, it is not possible for the claim to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As a result, claim 28 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim only set for gathering/collecting data such as generating light. The claim recites an additional element as “first light source” and “second light source”. These element do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and only set forth a further limitation of the abstract idea of claim 1. Merely reciting “generating light” using a first and second light source, does not integrate the mental process or mathematical formula into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 3-8, the claims further limits gathering/collecting data, details about the data, performing mathematical calculations/algorithms as determining operating criteria. However, the claims are highly generic in its recitation of these elements and algorithms. It does not specify: how the operation criteria is determined and/or metes and bounds of operation criteria. Also MPEP 2106.05(g) states that insignificant extra-solution activity is not considered an inventive concept, especially when it is well-understood or conventional.
Regarding Claims 22-24, the claims further limits details about the data. However, the claims are highly generic in its recitation of these elements and details.
Regarding Claims 26-27 and 32, the claims further limits gathering/collecting data, performing mathematical calculations/algorithms. However, the claims are highly generic in its recitation of these elements and algorithms and these process are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. Also MPEP 2106.05(g) states that insignificant extra-solution activity is not considered an inventive concept, especially when it is well-understood or conventional.
Regarding Claim 29-31, these claims only set for gathering/collecting data such as generating light, performing mathematical calculations/algorithms. The claim recites an additional element as “first light emitter” and “second light emitter”. These element do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and only set forth a further limitation of the abstract idea of claim 28. Merely reciting “generating light” using a first and second light emitter, does not integrate the mental process or mathematical formula into a practical application and these process are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. Also MPEP 2106.05(g) states that insignificant extra-solution activity is not considered an inventive concept, especially when it is well-understood or conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/((a)(2) as being anticipated by Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1, included in IDS on 10/07/2024), hereafter Zilkie.
Regarding claim 1, Zilkie teaches a method for performing a spectroscopic measurement of a sample, [0144-0145], comprising:
performing a set of measurements to generate multiple sets of measured signals, (these lasers may be driven one at a time to generate a wavelength output spanning a broad range of near-infrared and short-wave infrared wavelengths from 1150 nm to 2500 nm, also the output of a device may have more than one beam, which could enable analysis of more than one analyte or sets of analytes. Each beam may include light at more than one wavelength. [0153]); and
generating spectroscopic information using the multiple sets of measured signals, (the overall layout of an optical transceiver chip, in some embodiments, for use in spectroscopy, is shown in Figs 4 to 9, [0153], also using a focal plane array allows the individual pixel readout adds spatial information to the detected signal which can be used to calculate the angle of incidence, [0145]), wherein:
the set of measurements includes a first series of measurements (The PIC includes a plurality of lasers of different wavelengths, and these may be combined and connected to a shared waveguide by a suitable multiplexer (MUX), also the laser may be chirped (e.g., by changing the laser drive current) or phase or amplitude modulated so that a radio frequency beat signal is formed at the coherent detector, [0153]; and
each measurement of the first series of measurements has a corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths, (the chip may emit multiple wavelengths and in order to achieve high spectral discrimination, the lasers may be tunable over a relatively narrow range, a laser line width can be narrow in order to reduce coherent noise (multi-path interference noise), therefore this linewidth will contain a corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths since the tunable lasers are tunable over a relatively narrow range, that provide overlap tuning ranges, therefore is interpreted as equivalent wavelengths [0149]) and comprises:
emitting light at the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths to the sample, (spectroscopy chip is capable of varying the specification of the interrogating light to adapt to the analytical chemistry of the material being analyzed, [0145]), [0150-0151]; and
measuring light returned from the sample to generate a set of measured signals of the multiple sets of measured signals, (as shown in Fig. 2A by the reflected light beams from the sampled tissue, [0145], also as shown in Fig. 18, [0163, 0166]).
Regarding claim 3, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the set of measurements includes a second series of measurements; and each measurement of the second series of measurements has a corresponding wavelength and comprises: emitting light at the corresponding wavelength to the sample; (The PIC includes a plurality of lasers of different wavelengths, and these may be combined and connected to a shared waveguide by a suitable multiplexer (MUX) and directed to the sample. These lasers may be driven one at a time to generate a wavelength output spanning a broad range of near-infrared and short-wave infrared wavelengths, also the output of a device may have more than one beam, which could enable analysis of more than one analyte or sets of analytes. Each beam may include light at more than one wavelength, [0153-0154]) and measuring light (Fig. 2A element “reflected light beams”) returned from the sample (Fig. 2A element sampled tissue) to generate a set of measured signals of the multiple sets of measured signals, (individual pixel readout adds spatial information to the detected signal which can be used to calculate the angle of incidence, the system may operate one wavelength at a time, in which case, the wavelength may be identified temporally. If more than one wavelength is transmitted the detector circuit may distinguish wavelengths or combinations of wavelengths, [0143, 0145, 0165])
Regarding claim 4, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 3, wherein: at least one measurement in the first series of measurements is performed simultaneously with at least one measurement in the second series of measurements, [0165].
Regarding claim 8, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths for each measurement of the first series of measurement provides different coherent noise views, [0149, 0168].
Regarding claim 21, Zilkie teaches a method for performing a spectroscopic measurement of a sample, [0044-0045], the method comprising:
performing a set of measurements to generate multiple sets of measured signals, (these lasers may be driven one at a time to generate a wavelength output spanning a broad range of near-infrared and short-wave infrared wavelengths from 1150 nm to 2500 nm, also the output of a device may have more than one beam, which could enable analysis of more than one analyte or sets of analytes. Each beam may include light at more than one wavelength. [0153]); by:
causing first light to be emitted from a first light source (Fig. 2B element 5A), the first light having a first wavelength, [0145];
causing second light to be emitted from a second light source (Fig. 2B element 5B) the second light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength while being spectroscopically equivalent in respect of the spectroscopic measurement of the sample, (Fig. 2B comprise light sources 5A and 5b than generate different wavelengths, [0145]. Also in Fig. 2B 5A and 5B include LEDs of different types e.g. one or more Blue/Green LEDs in 5a and one or more Red/IR LEDs in 5b, wherein each Blue and Green LEDs in 5a can be interpreted as a first and second light source that have a small direct wavelength overlap. The same interpretation can be applied to element “Red IR LEDs 5b”. Moreover, the spectroscopy chip is capable of varying the specification of the interrogating light to adapt to the analytical chemistry of the material being analyzed therefore being spectroscopically equivalent in respect of the spectroscopic measurement of the sample, [0145, 0150]). Furthermore the chip may emit multiple wavelengths and in order to achieve high spectral discrimination, the lasers may be tunable over a relatively narrow range, a laser line width can be narrow in order to reduce coherent noise (multi-path interference noise), Consequently, this linewidth will contain a corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths since the tunable lasers are tunable over a relatively narrow range, that provide overlap tuning ranges, [0149])
measuring third light returned from the sample in response to illumination by the first light, (as shown in Fig. 2A by the reflected light beams from the sampled tissue, [0145], also as shown in Fig. 18, [0163, 0166]); and
measuring fourth light returned from the sample in response to illumination by the second light, (the output of a device may have more than one beam, which could enable analysis of more than one analyte or sets of analytes. Each beam may include light at more than one wavelength. [0153, 0154]);; and
generating spectroscopic information using the measured third light and measured fourth light, (the overall layout of an optical transceiver chip, in some embodiments, for use in spectroscopy, is shown in Figs 4 to 9, [0153]; Using a focal plane array allows the individual pixel readout adds spatial information to the detected signal which can be used to calculate the angle of incidence, [0145], also as shown in Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 25, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the sample (Fig. 2a element “sample tissue”) comprises living tissue, [0008, 0163].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1, included in IDS on 10/07/2024),), hereafter Zilkie, in view of Ji et al. (US 2019/0013870 A1), hereafter Ji.
Regarding claim 2, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein emitting light at the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths comprises: generating light of a first wavelength of the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths using a first light source and generating light of a second wavelength of the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths, (one laser source with a broad linewidth to emit simultaneously the pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths and also Fig. 2A comprises light sources that include LEDs of different types e.g. one or more Blue/Green LEDs 5a and one or more Red/IR LEDs 5b. [0145, 0150]).
Zilkie do not clearly teaches about simultaneously generating light of a first wavelength using a first light source and generating light of a second wavelength using a second light source.
However, Ji related to light sources modules and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches simultaneously generating light of a first wavelength using a first light source and generating light of a second wavelength using a second light source, (Fig. 11 shows the first light source RLD1 and the third light source RLD3 generating different wavelengths that is simultaneously provided to the waveguide RWG1, [0092]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including simultaneously generating light of a first wavelength using a first light source and generating light of a second wavelength using a second light source, (as taught by Ji) for several advantages such as: result of routine optimization in order to improve the efficiency of delivering a light beam and allowing to examine different, complex, or multiple molecular targets simultaneously, thus increase the device versability.
Claims 5-7, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1), hereafter Zilkie, in view of Keating et al. (US 2018/0214062 A1), hereafter Keating.
Regarding claim 5-7, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 3.
Zilkie fail to teach:
(claim 5) determining whether a first light source configured to generate a first wavelength meets a first set of operating criteria; and determining whether a second light source configured to generate a second wavelength meets a second set of operating criteria.
(claim 6) performing, in response to determining that both the first light source meets the first set of operating criteria, and the second light source meets the second set of operating criteria, a measurement of the first series of measurements using the first wavelength and the second wavelength as the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths.
(claim 7) performing, in response to determining that the first light source meets the first set of operating criteria and the second light source does not meet the second set of operating criteria, a measurement of the second series of measurement using the first wavelength as the corresponding wavelength.
Keating related to optical measurement devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 5) determining whether a first light source (Fig. 9 element 218, [0081, 0085]) to generate a first wavelength meets a first set of operating criteria, [0128]; and determining whether a second light source (Fig. 9 element 220, [0088]) configured to generate a second wavelength meets a second set of operating criteria, (temperature sensors, element 228 determine the temperature of light sources 218/220) , [0122-0123] and/or monitor photodiodes 904/906 analyze light intensity of light sources 218/220, [0133-0135]).
(claim 6) performing, in response to determining that both the first light source (Fig. 9 element 218), meets the first set of operating criteria, and the second light source (Fig. 9 element 220), meets the second set of operating criteria, [0128], a measurement of the first series of measurements using the first wavelength and the second wavelength as the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths, (after the light sources 218/220 are in acceptably stable a measurement is perform by the light detectors 22/224 from light generated by 218/220, [0137, 0143]).
(claim 7) performing, in response to determining that the first light source meets the first set of operating criteria and the second light source does not meet the second set of operating criteria, [0128], a measurement of the second series of measurement using the first wavelength as the corresponding wavelength, (the system based on feedback measurements from elements 904/906 and 228 of each light sources 218/220 is configured to: active or deactivate elements 218/220, control the light intensity produced by elements 218/220 within a range of normalized output intensities from 0 (off) to 1 (maximum power), [0135]. Additionally, the system comprises a light detectors 222/224 that are configured to switch the detector gain selecting a high gain setting for the detector 224 when the light source 220 is inactive to enhance the sensitivity of the detector 224 during the phase of the detection cycle when light at the emission wavelength produced by the exogenous fluorescent agent within the tissues of the patient 202 is detected, [0144]. Therefore a measurement of the second series of measurement using the first wavelength (Light generated by element 218) is used as the corresponding wavelength.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including determining whether a first light source configured to generate a first wavelength meets a first set of operating criteria; and determining whether a second light source configured to generate a second wavelength meets a second set of operating criteria, performing, in response to determining that both the first light source meets the first set of operating criteria, and the second light source meets the second set of operating criteria, a measurement of the first series of measurements using the first wavelength and the second wavelength as the corresponding pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths, performing, in response to determining that the first light source meets the first set of operating criteria and the second light source does not meet the second set of operating criteria, a measurement of the second series of measurement using the first wavelength as the corresponding wavelength, (as taught by Keating) for several advantages such as: allowing that the expected dark current from the detector occupies less than ¼ of the total ADC output range, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0144], Keating).
Regarding claim 27, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 21.
Zilkie fail to teach wherein generating the spectroscopic information comprises combining the measured third light and measured fourth light to reduce effects of first and second coherent noise associated with measuring the third light and measuring the fourth light, respectively.
Keating related to optical measurement devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein generating the spectroscopic information comprises combining the measured third light and measured fourth light to reduce effects of first and second coherent noise associated with measuring the third light and measuring the fourth light, respectively, [0147-0148].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including wherein generating the spectroscopic information comprises combining the measured third light and measured fourth light to reduce effects of first and second coherent noise associated with measuring the third light and measuring the fourth light, respectively, (as taught by Keating) for several advantages such as: allowing to distinguish the detector signals from noise associated with the detection of ambient light or other sources of interference., thus increase the device accuracy, ([0148], Keating).
Claims 22-24, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1, included in IDS on 10/07/2024), hereafter Zilkie, in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2005/0151094 A1, included in IDS on 12/17/2024), hereafter Kitagawa.
Regarding claims 22-23, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 21,
Zilkie fail to teach:
(claim 22) wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are separated by less than 5 nanometers.
(claim 23) wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are separated by one nanometer.
Kitagawa related to optical measurement device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches
(claim 22) wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are separated by less than 5 nanometers, (the wavelength of the laser light have a different wavelengths by 5 nm step that are emitted from the LD light sources 2a to 2d, Fig. 1, [0017]),
(claim 23) wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are separated by one nanometer, (a wavelength difference between the LD light sources 2a to 2d is set to 5 nm, but may be set to 1nm or more in a wavelength region range of 50 nm or less, [0038]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are separated by less than 5 nanometers, wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are separated by one nanometer (as taught by Kitagawa) for several advantages such as: allow to acquired brighter fluorescence with good SN that allow to perform spectroscopy detection with high precision. ([0033 and 0050], Kitagawa). It allow to increase the precision of switching the wavelength of the excitation light source ([0038], Kitagawa).
Regarding claim 24, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 21, wherein: the spectroscopic measurement of the sample is defined at least in part by a spectroscopic information bandwidth, [0145-0146], and the spectroscopic information bandwidth is wider than a difference in wavelength between the first wavelength and the second wavelength, [0148-0149, 0173].
In the arguendo that Zilkie do not clearly teach the spectroscopic information bandwidth is wider than a difference in wavelength between the first wavelength and the second wavelength.
Kitagawa further teaches the spectroscopic information bandwidth (Fig. 2 elements 18 and 19, [0031-0032]) is wider than a difference in wavelength between the first wavelength and the second wavelength, (as shown in Fig. 2 the spectroscopic information bandwidth elements 18-19 are wider than the difference of 5 nm of the multiple irradiation wavelengths from the light sources 2a-2d, [0027, 0029]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including the spectroscopic information bandwidth is wider than a difference in wavelength between the first wavelength and the second wavelength, (as taught by Kitagawa) for several advantages such as: allow to acquired brighter fluorescence with good SN that allow to perform spectroscopy detection with high precision. ([0033 and 0050], Kitagawa). It allow to increase the precision of switching the wavelength of the excitation light source ([0038], Kitagawa).
Regarding claim 28, Zilkie teaches a method for performing a spectroscopic measurement of a sample [0044-0045], the spectroscopic measurement defined at least in part by a spectroscopic information bandwidth [0145-0146],, the method comprising:
orienting an optical measurement system (Fig. 2A element 1101) toward a surface of the sample (Fig. 2A element sampled tissue”), (as shown in Fig. 2A, [0045]);
emitting first light at a first wavelength from the optical measurement system toward the surface, (Fig. 2B element 5A, [0145]); emitting second light at a second wavelength, (Fig. 2B element 5B, [0145]), from the optical measurement system toward the surface, (Fig. 2B comprise light sources 5A and 5b than generate different wavelengths, [0145]. Also in Fig. 2B 5A and 5B include LEDs of different types e.g. one or more Blue/Green LEDs in 5a and one or more Red/IR LEDs in 5b, wherein each Blue and Green LEDs in 5a can be interpreted as a first and second light source that have a small direct wavelength overlap. The same interpretation can be applied to element “Red IR LEDs 5b”, [0145, 0150])
receiving light from the sample (as shown in Fig. 2A elements 1106 received reflected light from the sampled tissue, [0145]); and
generating spectroscopic information using the received light, (the overall layout of an optical transceiver chip, in some embodiments, for use in spectroscopy, is shown in FIGs. 4 to 9, [0153]; Using a focal plane array allows the individual pixel readout adds spatial information to the detected signal which can be used to calculate the angle of incidence, [0145], (also as shown in Fig. 18).
Even though Zilkie teaches the second wavelength different from the first wavelength by an amount less than the spectroscopic information bandwidth, [0148-0149, 0173]. However, in the arguendo that Zilkie do not clearly teach the spectroscopic information bandwidth is wider than a difference in wavelength between the first wavelength and the second wavelength.
Kitagawa related to optical measurement device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the second wavelength different from the first wavelength, by an amount less than the spectroscopic information bandwidth(Fig. 2 elements 18 and 19, [0031-0032]), (as shown in Fig. 2 the spectroscopic information bandwidth elements 18-19 are wider than the difference of 5 nm of the multiple irradiation wavelengths from the light sources 2a-2d, [0027, 0029]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including the second wavelength different from the first wavelength, by an amount less than the spectroscopic information bandwidth (as taught by Kitagawa) for several advantages such as: allow to acquired brighter fluorescence with good SN that allow to perform spectroscopy detection with high precision. ([0033 and 0050], Kitagawa). It allow to increase the precision of switching the wavelength of the excitation light source ([0038], Kitagawa).
Regarding claim 29, Zilkie in the combination outlined above teaches the method of claim 28.
Zilkie further teaches comprising emitting the first light and the second light from a first light emitter (Fig. 2B element 5A), of the optical measurement system (Fig. 2B element 5A), and a second light emitter (Fig. 2B element 5B), of the optical measurement system (Fig. 2A element 1101),, respectively, (Fig. 2B comprise light sources 5A and 5b than generate different wavelengths, [0145]. Also in Fig. 2B 5A and 5B include LEDs of different types e.g. one or more Blue/Green LEDs in 5a and one or more Red/IR LEDs in 5b, wherein each Blue and Green LEDs in 5a can be interpreted as a first and second light source that have a small direct wavelength overlap. The same interpretation can be applied to element “Red IR LEDs 5b”, [0145, 0150]).
Regarding claim 31, Zilkie in the combination outlined above teaches the method of claim 28.
Zilkie further teaches wherein the spectroscopic information is generated at least in part by measuring a third wavelength of the received light, [0164-0166].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1, included in IDS on 10/07/2024), hereafter Zilkie, in view of Colbourne et al. (US 2008/0247429 A1), hereafter Colbourne.
Regarding claim 26, Zilkie teaches the method of claim 21.
Even though Zilkie teaches wherein measuring the third light comprises determining wavelength value, [0160, 0165], Zilkie do not clearly teach wherein measuring the light comprises determining a time-averaged wavelength value or an instantaneous wavelength value.
However, Colbourne related to illuminating devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein measuring the light comprises determining a time-averaged wavelength value or an instantaneous wavelength value, [0100].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zilkie by including wherein measuring the light comprises determining a time-averaged wavelength value or an instantaneous wavelength value, (as taught by Colbourne) for several advantages such as: reducing coherence of laser diode radiation, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0005, 0028], Colbourne). Also allow to stable characteristics of a signal or material by reducing noise and transient fluctuations. It provides a stabilized 2D representation of average power/intensity across wavelengths, thus increase classification and identification of a spectral profile.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1, included in IDS on 10/07/2024), hereafter Zilkie, in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2005/0151094 A1, included in IDS on 12/17/2024), hereafter Kitagawa and further in view of Ji et al. (US 2019/0013870 A1), hereafter Ji.
Regarding claim 30, Zilkie in the combination outlined above teaches the method of claim 29.
Zilkie further teaches wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are caused by the optical measurement system to emit light simultaneously, (one laser source with a broad linewidth to emit simultaneously the pair of spectroscopically equivalent wavelengths and also Fig. 2A comprises light sources that include LEDs of different types e.g. one or more Blue/Green LEDs 5a and one or more Red/IR LEDs 5b. [0145, 0150]).
In the arguendo that Zilkie do not clearly teaches wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are caused by the optical measurement system to emit light simultaneously
Ji related to light sources modules and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches simultaneously generating light of a first wavelength using a first light source and generating light of a second wavelength using a second light source, (Fig. 11 shows the first light source RLD1 and the third light source RLD3 generating different wavelengths that is simultaneously provided to the waveguide RWG1, [0092]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Zilkie by including simultaneously generating light of a first wavelength using a first light source and generating light of a second wavelength using a second light source, (as taught by Ji) for several advantages such as: result of routine optimization in order to improve the efficiency of delivering a light beam and allowing to examine different, complex, or multiple molecular targets simultaneously, thus increase the device versability.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (WO 2021116766 A1), hereafter Zilkie, in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2005/0151094 A1), hereafter Kitagawa and further in view of Colbourne et al. (US 2008/0247429 A1), hereafter Colbourne.
Regarding claim 32, Zilkie in the combination outlined above teaches the method of claim 31.
Even though Zilkie teaches wherein measuring the third wavelength value, [0160, 0165], Zilkie do not clearly teach wherein measuring the wavelength comprises performing a time-averaged measurement of wavelength of the received light.
However, Colbourne related to illuminating devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein measuring the wavelength comprises performing a time-averaged measurement of wavelength of the received light. [0100].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Zilkie by including wherein measuring the wavelength comprises performing a time-averaged measurement of wavelength of the received light., (as taught by Colbourne) for several advantages such as: reducing coherence of laser diode radiation, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0005, 0028], Colbourne). Also allow to stable characteristics of a signal or material by reducing noise and transient fluctuations. It provides a stabilized 2D representation of average power/intensity across wavelengths, thus increase classification and identification of a spectral profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights