DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication filed on July 27, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that Geelen et al. teaches away from incorporating a radiation element as part of the spectrometer device in a housing of the spectrometer device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Geelen et al. explicitly teaches in paragraph 0081, “The effect of the intensity fall-off can be compensated for by the illumination, as is known to those skilled in the art.” Based on this recitation, Geelen et al. clearly contemplates the use of a radiation element as part of the spectrometer device, and provides a motivation for incorporating a radiation element (i.e. intensity fall-off compensation). Geelen et al. at no point discourages the use of a radiation element, and thus does not teach away from incorporating a radiation element as part of the spectrometer device. Additionally, the Examiner notes that claim 1 is rejected based upon the combination of Geelen et al. and Namba et al. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the combination of Geelen et al. with Namba et al. would not lead one skilled in the art to the recitations of amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. How the combination of Geelen et al. and Namba et al. teaches the newly amended limitations of claim 1 is fully discussed in the rejection of claim 1 found herein.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained by the Examiner.
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
All previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are hereby removed in view of Applicant’s response.
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 1-4 and 6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen et al. (US 2015/0288894) in view of Namba et al. (US 2009/0086314).
The Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments, as outlined above, is hereby incorporated into the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-15 by reference.
Consider claim 1, Geelen et al. teaches:
A spectrometer device for detecting incident radiation generated by an object (see figures 1-4) comprising:
a measurement window (objective lens, 10, figures 1-3) configured for accepting incident radiation generated by an object to enter the spectrometer device (see figures 1-3, paragraphs 0072 and 0075),
a detector array (sensor array, 40, paragraphs 0072 and 0075) comprising at least two pixelated sensors each having a field of view designed for accepting at least a portion of the incident radiation (For instance, the sensor array (40) comprises nine pixelated sensors as shown in figure 4, paragraphs 0079 and 0075), wherein each pixelated sensor (1-9, figure 4) is configured for generating at least one detector signal related to the accepted incident radiation (i.e. for generating an image copy, figure 4, paragraphs 0079 and 0075);
an optical filter (array of filters, 30, figures 1-3), wherein the optical filter (30) is arranged within the field of views of the at least two pixelated sensors (see paragraphs 0072 and 0075), wherein the optical filter (30) is configured for generating a spectrum of at least two separated wavelength signals from the incident radiation and transmitting the at least two separated wavelength signals onto the respective at least one pixelated sensor (For instance, in figure 4, nine different bands of separated wavelength signals are generated by the optical filter (30), paragraph 0079.);
at least one optical element (first set of NB mirrors, 27, figure 3, second set of NB mirrors, 28, figure 3) configured for modifying the field of view of at least one pixelated sensor by increasing at least one overlap between the field of views of the at least two pixelated sensors (The field of views are overlapped by the optical element (27, 28) in order to produce the nine image copies shown if figure 4, paragraphs 0078 and 0079.), wherein the at least one optical element (27, 28) comprises a first mirror (27) selected from at least one of:
a first flat mirror (“Mirrors can be flat so as not to introduce aberrations, so the image quality is determined by the objective lens.” paragraph 0078), and
wherein the at least one optical element (27, 28) comprises a second mirror (28) selected from at least one of:
a second flat mirror (“Mirrors can be flat so as not to introduce aberrations, so the image quality is determined by the objective lens.” paragraph 0078).
Geelen et al. teaches in paragraph 0081, “The effect of the intensity fall-off can be compensated for by the illumination, as is known to those skilled in the art.” Based on this recitation, Geelen et al. clearly contemplates the use of a radiation element as part of the spectrometer device, and provides a motivation for incorporating a radiation element (i.e. intensity fall-off compensation).
However, Geelen et al. does not explicitly teach at least one radiation emitting element that is part of the spectrometer device in a housing of the spectrometer device, or that the measurement window is at least one of: a contact surface for the object to be investigated or a lay-on-surface for the object to be investigated.
Namba et al. similarly teaches an imaging device (figures 13 and 21) having an objective lens (30, paragraph 0091) set in a measurement window (see figure 13), multiple mirrors (deflection mirror, 32, paragraph 0111, switching mirror, 44, paragraph 0115) and a detector array (specimen imaging unit, 60, paragraph 0096).
However, Namba et al. further teaches at least one radiation emitting element (light irradiating unit, 20, optical fiber, 26, figure 21), wherein the at least one radiation emitting element (20, 26) is configured for emitting optical radiation (i.e. emitting light, paragraph 0169), wherein the at least one radiation emitting element (20, 26) is part of the device (see figure 21) in a housing (light-shielding box, 101) of the device (The optical fiber (26) of the at least one radiation emitting element (20, 26) extends into the housing (101) of the device and emits light into the housing (101) of the device, as shown in figure 21, paragraphs 0167-0169.), and that the measurement window is at least one of: a contact surface for the object to be investigated or a lay-on-surface for the object to be investigated (For instance, the measurement window includes a specimen container (11) such as a “petri dish” for the specimen (i.e. object, 10) to be investigated, paragraphs 0101 and 0102.). The objective lens (30) is positioned to form an image of the specimen (10) in the measurement window (11) of Namba et al. (figure 13, paragraph 0093), and the radiation emitting element (20, 26) emits light to the specimen container (11, figure 21, paragraph 0169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have spectrometer device taught by Geelen et al. comprise a housing and at least one radiation emitting element as taught by Namba et al. and to have the measurement window taught by Geelen et al. be a contact surface or lay-on-surface positioned in front of the objective lens along the optical axis as taught by Namba et al. for the benefit of enabling an observed target region of a biological specimen to be analyzed (Namba et al., paragraph 0003).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that increasing the at least one overlap between the field of views of the at least two pixelated sensors results in an increased at least one overlap area comprising measurement spots of each field of view of the at least two pixelated sensors on the measurement window (The field of views are overlapped by the optical element (27, 28) in order to produce the nine image copies shown if figure 4, paragraphs 0078 and 0079.).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the optical filter (30) is a length variable filter, wherein the length variable filter is comprising comprises at least two bandpass filters, wherein each bandpass filter is assigned to a respective pixelated sensor by being arranged within the field of view of the respective pixelated sensor, wherein each bandpass filter is configured for selecting at least one wavelength of the accepted incident radiation (For instance, in figure 4, nine different bands of separated wavelength signals are generated by the optical filter (30), paragraph 0079.).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 2 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that a ratio between the at least one overlap area generated by the measurement spots of each field of view of the at least two pixelated sensors and a combined area generated by the measurement spots of each field of view of the at least two pixelated sensors on the measurement window is at least 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% The field of views are overlapped by the optical element (27, 28) in order to produce the nine image copies shown if figure 4, paragraphs 0078 and 0079. Because the nine images are “copies” (paragraph 0079, figure 4), the overlap is at least 90%.).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the at least one optical element comprises at least one aperture for trimming the field of view of at least one pixelated sensor (The optical element includes a “field stop”, paragraphs 0073 and 0075.).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor is folded by increasing the optical path length between the detector array (30) and the measurement window due to the modification of the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor by the at least one optical element (See the increasing optical path lengths of the light rays in figure 3.).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 8 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor is folded by modifying the direction of a chief ray of the field of view to have a directional component that is parallel to the detector array (30, see figure 3), wherein an angle between the detector array (30) and the direction of the chief ray is smaller than 0 degree, 20 degrees, 60 degrees or 80 degrees (See the component of the chief ray in figure 3 that is parallel or near parallel to the imaging surface of the detector array (30).).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor is focused due to the modification of the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor by the at least one optical element (“These optical channels need not have the same area nor have the same magnification. The magnification can be set by selection of suitable lenses, or by curvature of the mirrors or both.” paragraph 0075).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that a chief ray of the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor is redirected due to the modification of the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor by the at least one optical element (27, 28, see figure 3, paragraphs 0075 and 0078).
Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the at least one optical element comprises a further mirror selected from at least one of a further flat mirror or a further imaging mirror (“The first set of NB mirrors 27 are positioned as close to the objective aperture as possible (to reduce vignetting) and orient the NB sets of light away from the objective.” Paragraph 0078).
Consider claim 14, Geelen et al. teaches:
A spectrometer system (figures 1-4 and 6), comprising:
a spectrometer device for detecting incident radiation generated by an object according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rationale); and
an evaluation device (processor, 200, paragraph 0088) configured for determining information related to a spectrum of the object by evaluating at least one detector signal provided by the spectrometer device (“a processor 200 for restitching” paragraph 0088, “Certain objects leave unique “fingerprints” across this portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. These “fingerprints” are known as spectral signatures and enable identification of the materials that make up a scanned object. The hyperspectral capabilities of such an imaging system enable to recognize different types of objects, all of which may appear as the same color to the human eye.” paragraph 0007, “Fast computers, sensitive detectors, and large data storage capacities are needed for analyzing hyperspectral data.”, paragraph 0068).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen et al. (US 2015/0288894) in view of Namba et al. (US 2009/0086314), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motokubota (US 2024/0094447).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, the combination of Geelen et al. and Namba et al. does not explicitly teach that a field of view of a first pixelated sensor of the at least two pixelated sensors is tilted in respect to a field of view of a second pixelated sensor of the at least two pixelated sensors due to the modification of the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor by the at least one optical element.
Motokubota similarly teaches an imaging device (figure 1) including pixelated sensors (i.e. including pixels, 9, paragraph 0036).
However, Motokubota additionally teaches that a field of view of a first pixelated sensor of the at least two pixelated sensors is tilted in respect to a field of view of a second pixelated sensor of the at least two pixelated sensors due to the modification of the field of view of the at least one pixelated sensor by the at least one optical element (“As depicted in FIG. 12, the solid-state imaging device 1 according to the fourth embodiment is different from the solid-state imaging device 1 according to the first embodiment in that the central portion of the substrate 2 serves as a curved sensor that is curved toward the wiring layer 18 (that is, toward a side remote from the color filter 24). As the shape of the curve at the central portion of the substrate 2, in a case of a configuration where a camera module includes the solid-state imaging device 1 and an imaging lens arranged on the solid-state imaging device 1, for example, a curved surface shape that matches the curvature of a surface where an image of a subject is formed by the imaging lens may be employed.” paragraph 0082. Figure 12 shows that the pixels have different fields of view, and paragraph 0082 details that the curvature is to account for the curvature of the image produced by the lens.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fields of view of the pixelated sensors taught by the combination of Geelen et al. and Namba et al. be tilted with respect to one another as taught by Motokubota for the benefit of improving image quality by preventing out of focus image data at high image height sides (Motokubota, paragraph 0082).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valouch et al. (US 2021/0140878) teaches a spectrometer device (110, figure 1) with an illumination source (128), wherein “the illumination source 128 can be for example part of the spectrometer device 110 in a housing 130” (paragraph 0133).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights