DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application 19/103,035 filed on February 11, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application and have been examined by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on February 11, 2025 was received and has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 7 and 15 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.
Claim 7 recites “the at least one optical element comprises at least one mirror”. However, parent claim 1 recites that the optical element comprises “a first mirror” and “a second mirror”. It is unclear if the “at least one mirror” recited in claim 7 is referring to the first mirror, the second mirror, or a different mirror. As such, claim 7 is deemed indefinite by the Examiner.
Claim 15 recites “the at least one optical element comprises a flat mirror or an imaging mirror”. However, parent claim 1 recites that the optical element comprises “a first flat mirror” or “a second flat mirror” and “a first imaging mirror” or “a second imaging mirror”. It is unclear if the “flat mirror” or “imaging mirror” recited in claim 15 is referring to the “first flat mirror”, “second flat mirror”, “first imaging mirror”, or “second imaging mirror” of claim 1 or to a different flat mirror or imaging mirror. As such, claim 15 is deemed indefinite by the Examiner.
Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) recites “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”. If the “at least one mirror” of claim 7 was to be amended to clarify that this recitation is referring to the first mirror or second mirror of claim 1, then claim 7 would fail to specify a further limitation of the claimed subject matter and would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). If the “a flat mirror” or “an imaging mirror” of claim 15 was to be amended to clarify that this recitation is referring to the “first flat mirror”, “second flat mirror”, “first imaging mirror”, or “second imaging mirror” of claim 1, then claim 15 would fail to specify a further limitation of the claimed subject matter and would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
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 6-15 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).
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 or a first imaging 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 or a second imaging mirror (“Mirrors can be flat so as not to introduce aberrations, so the image quality is determined by the objective lens.” paragraph 0078).
However, Geelen et al. does not explicitly teach that the measurement window is at least one of: a contact surface or a lay-on-surface for the object to be investigated.
Namba et al. similarly teaches an imaging device (figure 13) 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 that the measurement window is at least one of: a contact surface 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).
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 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 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the optical element comprises at least one mirror (27, 28, see claim 1 rationale).
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 13, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. does not explicitly teach that the spectrometer device comprises at least one radiation emitting element, wherein the at least one radiation emitting element is configured for emitting optical radiation.
Namba et al. additionally teaches that the spectrometer device comprises at least one radiation emitting element (light irradiating unit, 20, figure 13, paragraph 0100), wherein the at least one radiation emitting element is configured for emitting optical radiation (“The light irradiating unit (light source) 20 irradiates light to the specimen 10. The light irradiating unit 20 is an incoherent light source that emits light having a wavelength of visible light region (visible light). Specifically, the light irradiating unit 20 is a halogen lamp, LED (Light Emitting Diode), tungsten lamp, mercury lamp, etc. A coherent light source such as laser may be used as the light irradiating unit 20.” paragraph 0092).
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 Spectrometer device taught by Geelen et al. comprise at least one radiation emitting element 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 15, and as applied to claim 1 above, Geelen et al. further teaches that the at least one optical element comprises a flat mirror or an imaging mirror (27, 28, see claim 1 rationale).
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.
Raczkowski et al. (US 2022/0244104) teaches pixelated sensors on curved surfaces (see figures 12E and 12F).
Russell (US 2003/0043373) teaches a microspectrometer (see Title) having a curved reflective surface optically coupled to a flat reflective surface (see figures 3, 5A and 5B).
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