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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/25 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 02/18/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections/Specification
4. Claim 1 are objected because the term “and/or” is unclear. "The term "and/or" may mean "and", it may mean "or", it may mean "exclusive-or", it may mean "one", it may mean "some, but not all", it may mean "neither", and/or it may mean "both", although the scope of claimed subject matter is not limited in this respect." Multiple terms "and/or" and “or” in a sentence create infinite loops and the loops are unclear and meaningless.
The examiner respectfully suggests revision as follow:
The term “and/or” should be changed to “or”.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully suggests revision for claims 1 as follow:
- wherein the main body of at least one mirror or all mirrors of the mirror arrangement is or respectively are made of a plastic material [and/]or of 3D printed metal, or the main body of at least one mirror or of all mirrors has or have plastic material [and/]or 3D printed metal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim(s) 1- 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0363469), in view of Burka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,141,100), further in view of Rajic et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,700). Hereafter “Sabry”, “Burka”, and “Rajic”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Sabry discloses an FTIR spectrometer (figure 2, element 200) comprising:
- an interferometer with at least one arm variable in length (figure 2, arm with moving mirror 240 is variable in length),
- a measuring cell with a sample interface, (figure 17, sample 1730 is not different from a measuring cell with a sample interface), preferably an ATR crystal which can be brought into contact with a sample, (the wording “preferably” has the meaning: by preference, if one had a choice. (www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/preferably). In the other words, this phrase could be ignored if one had no choice).
- an infrared detector ([0092], lines 7-11),
- a control system which is configured to change the length of the at least one arm of the interferometer, (Figure 1, actuator 160; Figure 2, actuator 250; [0048]. It is inherent that the actuator 160, 250, must have a controller to control the moveable mirror 150, 240), and
- a mirror arrangement outside the interferometer with at least two mirrors, each with a reflecting surface and a main body that comprises the reflecting surface, wherein the mirror arrangement is at least configured to direct a light beam from the interferometer onto the sample interface and to direct the light beam from the sample interface onto the infrared detector, (figures 4, 5, 17, 21, first mirror 350, second mirror 450, spectrometer 310. These mirrors direct a light beam from the interferometer310 onto the sample interface 1730 and to direct the light beam from the sample interface onto the infrared detector 370; [0056, 0089]),
- wherein the main body of at least one mirror or all mirrors of the mirror arrangement is or respectively are made of a plastic material [and/]or of 3D printed metal, or the main body of at least one mirror or of all mirrors has or have plastic material [and/]or 3D printed metal (figures 4, 5, 17, 21; [0055]. The second substrate 340 is not different from the main body of the mirror, and it could be a plastic molded component).
However, Sabry does not teach an infrared radiation source, a reference laser, an ATR crystal which can be brought into contact with a sample. Burka discloses an infrared radiation source (column 2, lines 48-49), a reference laser (column 5, lines 20-23), an ATR crystal which can be brought into contact with a sample (column 4, lines 64-67; Column 3, lines 1-3; Figure 2, ATR crystal 10, sample 18). Further, Rajic also discloses a reference light beam (column 1, lines 9-12; Column 3, lines 24-28; Figure 1, reference beam 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sabry by having an infrared radiation source, a reference laser, and an ATR crystal; in order to provide faster measurement speed and better spatial resolution (Burka, Abstract, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-3, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for at least one mirror or each mirror of the mirror arrangement outside the interferometer has a mirror shape or a combination of mirror shapes from the following list: an off-axis parabolic mirror, a parabolic mirror, a compound parabolic concentrator, a spherical concave mirror, a mirror that has at least in one axis the shape of at least one parabolic segment or a circular segment. Sabry further discloses at least one mirror or each mirror of the mirror arrangement outside the interferometer has a mirror shape or a combination of mirror shapes from the following list: an off-axis parabolic mirror, a parabolic mirror, a compound parabolic concentrator, a spherical concave mirror, a mirror that has at least in one axis the shape of at least one parabolic segment or a circular segment (figures 4, 17-21, first mirror 350 or second mirror 450 is a spherical concave mirror).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for at least one of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement whose main body is made of a plastic material or has a plastic material, is produced by an injection molding process or a 3D printing method, and the reflecting surface is at least partially formed by a metal coating. Sabry further discloses at least one of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement whose main body is made of a plastic material or has a plastic material, is produced by an injection molding process or a 3D printing method (figures 4, 5, 17, 21; [0055, 0079]. The second substrate 340 is not different from the main body of the mirror, and it may be a plastic molded component), and the reflecting surface is at least partially formed by a metal coating ([0047, 0069]). Although Sabry, Burka, Rajic does not teach producing by an injection molding process or a 3D printing method, it should be noted that the method/process of fabricating/making a component/apparatus/device, such as molding process is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, these limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for the plastic material is at least one material from the following list or has at least one material from the following list: Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), cycloolefin polymer, cycloolefin copolymer, styrene acrylonitrile, styrene acrylonitrile, polycarbonate high temperature, polysulfone (PS), polyamide (PA), polycarbonate high refractive, polyester high refractive, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene terephthalate with glycol (PETG), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (ABS), nylon, polylactic acid (PLA), polyurethane (PU), a light-curing plastic (photopolymer), for example acrylic, epoxy and/or vinyl ester resin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify method or device of Sabry, Burka, and Rajic reference with a specific plastic material as listed above since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. in re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim(s) 6-7, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for reflecting surface of the mirror arrangement at least regionally has a free-form optical system, wherein the free-form optical system has at least regionally a shape deviation from one of the following mirror shapes: an off-axis parabolic mirror, a parabolic mirror, a compound parabolic concentrator, a spherical concave mirror, a mirror that has at least in one axis the shape of at least one parabolic segment or a circular segment. Sabry further teaches the free-form optical system has at least regionally a shape deviation from one of the following mirror shapes: an off-axis parabolic mirror, a parabolic mirror, a compound parabolic concentrator, a spherical concave mirror, a mirror that has at least in one axis the shape of at least one parabolic segment or a circular segment (figures 1-2, mirrors, 150, 155, 230, 240; Figure 3-4, 6, mirrors 350, 450, are not different from mirrors having a shape deviation from one of the mirror listed above).
Regarding Claim(s) 8-9, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claims 1, 6-7, as stated above except for the free-form optical system has at least regionally a shape deviation in an edge region, wherein the shape deviation is a convex regular or irregular rounding or chamfer or a combination of a convex regular or irregular rounding and/or a chamfer. Although Sabry, Burka, and Rajic device does not teach the exact shape of the mirror as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the mirror is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, 11, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for at least one mirror of the mirror arrangement or each mirror of the mirror arrangement is designed and configured in such a way that upon the reflection of infrared light at the particular mirror of the mirror arrangement, the infrared light has a maximum wavefront error per mirror of 50 times the wavelength, preferably 25 times the wavelength of the infrared light, and a total maximum wavefront error from the infrared radiation source to the infrared detector of 300 times the wavelength of the infrared light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate a maximum wavefront error for the benefit of well operated spectrometer system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for the sample interface is an ATR crystal that is accommodated in a holder, wherein the holder is produced from metal in a 3D printing method. As disclosed in rejection of claim 1 above, Burka discloses an ATR crystal that is accommodated in a holder (column 4, lines 64-67; Column 3, lines 1-3; Figure 2, ATR crystal 10, sample 18). Although Sabry, Burka, Rajic does not teach the holder is produced from metal in a 3D printing method, it should be noted that the method/process of fabricating/making a component/apparatus/device, such as producing method is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, these limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, 15, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1 as stated above except for the holder is configured to hold the ATR crystal stationary at a contact pressure of the sample of up to 130 web on the ATR crystal, and ATR crystal has a maximum sample support surface of at most 3 mm by 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate contact pressure and sample support surface for the benefit of well operated spectrometer system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
8. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0363469), in view of Burka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,141,100), further in view of Rajic et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,700), and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,278,413). Hereafter “Sabry”, “Burka”, “Rajic”, “Yamaguchi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Sabry as modified by Burka, and Rajic, disclose the spectrometer according to claim 1, as stated above except for the mirror arrangement comprises at least two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a first focal length and at least two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a second focal length. Yamaguchi teaches the mirror arrangement comprises at least two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a first focal length and at least two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a second focal length (figure 1, mirror system 4 has two mirror two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a first focal length, and mirror system 2 has at least two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a second focal length). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sabry, Burka, and Rajic by having at least two off-axis parabolic mirrors having a first focal length and second focal length; in order to focus and receive light beam at different focal length efficiently (Yamaguchi, figure 1, mirror systems 4, 2).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
July 4, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights