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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 22-24, 27, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogger et al. (US 2023/0298044 A1; pub. Sep. 21, 2023) in view of Pinter et al. (US 2021/0299879 A1; pub. Sep. 30, 2021).
Regarding claim 22, Brogger et al. disclose: A luminescence imaging (para. [0101]) method, comprising:
generating a first light beam having a first excitation wavelength and directing the first light beam toward a sample gemstone to thereby expose the sample gemstone to the first excitation wavelength (para. [0088], [0093]);
terminating exposure of the sample gemstone to the first excitation wavelength;
generating a second light beam having a second excitation wavelength different from the first excitation wavelength and directing the second light beam toward the sample gemstone to thereby expose the sample gemstone to the second excitation wavelength (para. [0088], [0093]);
terminating exposure of the sample gemstone to the second excitation wavelength (para. [0088], [0093]);
Brogger et al. are silent about: via a camera, capturing a sequence of delayed digital images of the sample gemstone, the sequence of delayed digital images being captured at time delays after terminating exposure of the sample gemstone to both of the first and second excitation wavelengths.
In a similar field of endeavor Pinter et al. disclose: via a camera, capturing a sequence of delayed digital images of the sample gemstone, the sequence of delayed digital images being captured at time delays after terminating exposure of the sample gemstone to both of the first and second excitation wavelengths (para. [0132], [0493]) motivated by the benefits for differentiating different types of gemstones (Pinter et al. para. [0493]).
In light of the benefits for differentiating different types of gemstones as taught by Pinter et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brogger et al. with the teachings of Pinter et al.
Regarding claim 23, Brogger et al. disclose: the first excitation wavelength is between 365 nm and 400 nm (para. [0112]).
Regarding claim 24, Brogger et al. disclose: the second excitation wavelength is of about 227 nm or about 229 nm (para. [0112]).
Regarding claim 27, Pinter et al. disclose: sending, by the camera, the sequence of delayed captured images of the sample gemstone to a computer data storage (para. [0010], [0353]) motivated by the benefits for differentiating different types of gemstones (Pinter et al. para. [0493]).
Regarding claim 29, Brogger et al. disclose: analyzing the sequence of delayed digital images to determine whether the sample gemstone is a natural diamond, synthetic diamond, or not a diamond (para. [0005], [0038]).
Regarding claim 30, Pinter et al. disclose: the first light beam is a pulsed light beam (para. [0010], [0353]) motivated by the benefits for differentiating different types of gemstones (Pinter et al. para. [0493]).
Regarding claim 31, Pinter et al. disclose: the second light beam is a pulsed light beam (para. [0010], [0353]) motivated by the benefits for differentiating different types of gemstones (Pinter et al. para. [0493]).
Claims 25-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogger et al. (US 2023/0298044 A1; pub. Sep. 21, 2023) in view of Pinter et al. (US 2021/0299879 A1; pub. Sep. 30, 2021) and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0195970 A1; pub. Jul. 12, 2018).
Regarding claim 25, the combined references are silent about: the time delays are about 130 us each.
In a similar field of endeavor Smith et al. disclose: the time delays are about 80 us each (para. [0016]-[0020] teach luminescence detection, para. [0060], para. [0106] teaches “the delay in capture following the UV pulse (the time window start time relative to the excitation pulse start), the exposure time window (length of time window), and the excitation pulse repetition rate (number and frequency of pulses) are all controllable by the operator”, para. [0107]-[0109]) motivated the benefits for a scalable gemstone identification (Smith et al. para. [0106], [0112])
In light of the benefits for a scalable gemstone identification as taught by Smith et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brogger et al. and Pinter et al. with the teachings of Smith et al.
Smith et al. are silent about: the time delays are about 130 us each. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Brogger et al., Pinter et al. and Smith et al. disclose: the time delays are about 50 ms each (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 25).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Brogger et al., Pinter et al. and Smith et al. disclose: each of the delayed digital images in the sequence has an integration time of about 50 ms (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights