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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments on the Prior Art Rejections:
a) Applicant argued page 6 that Yokoi et al (Yokoi) does not teach the feature “a first excitation source applying a first excitation energy to a point on a sample stage; a second excitation source applying a second excitation energy to the point simultaneously to the first excitation energy” as recited in claim 1.
b) Applicant argued page 7 that the combination of Blouin et al (Blouin), Schwab et al (Schwab), Chavez et al (Chavez), Tilsch et al (Tilsch), Shinya et al (Shinya), and Williams et al (Williams) fail to cure the deficiencies of the primary references.
Examiner's answer:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action has shown clearly that the asserted Yokoi et al (Yokoi) teaches or suggests clearly "each and every element" of claimed invention (See OA, claim 1).
a) It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, as stated in the previous Office action, Yokoi discloses clearly the claimed language of the present invention recited as in claim 1 with feature “a first excitation source applying a first excitation energy to a point on a sample stage; a second excitation source applying a second excitation energy to the point simultaneously to the first excitation energy” (see below OA).
In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977).
In view of the above set forth by the Court, the Office respectfully pointed out to applicant that the argument “a first excitation source applying a first excitation energy to a point on a sample stage; a second excitation source applying a second excitation energy to the point simultaneously to the first excitation energy” is anticipated by the description in Yokoi as follow:
a first excitation source (YAG laser 2 @figure 3 and paragraph [0024]: e.g., a laser source emitting pulsed light having extremely high energy peak power is commercially available recently and thus a fluorescent microscopy (a multiphoton microscope) utilizing a multiphoton absorption process is available) applying a first excitation energy (erase light @ figure 3 and paragraph [0101]-[0102]: e.g., The erase light source 2 has, for example, a nanosecond Nd: YAG laser 2a and a titanium sapphire laser 2b which uses a second-harmonic wave of the laser light emitted from the nanosecond Nd: YAG laser 2a as excitation light. The erase light source 2 uses the pulsed laser light emitted from this titanium sapphire laser 2b and having a longer nanosecond pulse width than that of Raman process-inducing stimulation light) to a point (figure 3) on a sample stage (7, 8 @ figure 3); a second excitation source (YAG laser 1 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0024]: e.g., a laser source emitting pulsed light having extremely high energy peak power is commercially available recently and thus a fluorescent microscopy (a multiphoton microscope) utilizing a multiphoton absorption process is available) applying a second excitation energy (stimulation light @ figure 3 and paragraphs [0101]: e.g., a femtosecond Nd: YAG laser 1a of mode lock type, which outputs pulsed light having a pulse width of not more than 10 picoseconds and uses a fourth-harmonic wave (wavelength 266 nm) as Raman process-inducing stimulation light (Raman process-inducing stimulation light. The pulsed laser light emitted from this femtosecond Nd: YAG laser 1a has high peak power “excitation energy” so that a Raman signal can be sufficiently generated) to the point simultaneously to the first excitation energy (erase light @ figure 3 and paragraph [0036]: e.g., the erase light and the stimulation light are simultaneously irradiated on the sample). Therefore, Yokoi’s limitation is met with the claimed language as recited in claims.
b) In response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See /n re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both of Yokoi, Blouin, Schwab, Chavez, Tilsch, Shinya, and Williams teaches the same function/structure on the claimed invention of the Present Invention for the purpose of improving detecting a heterodyne signal resulting from an interference between the first and second optical frequency combs; reducing range improves the reliability of the measurement data; improving intense laser beam having a desired wavelength in the visible ("VIS"), near-infrared ("near-IR") or ultraviolet ("UV") region of the electromagnetic spectrum; improving accuracy of spectral measurements and/or operation parameters for coating system using non-spectral measurements and spectral measurements by sensor device; improving fluidity as the powder and improving the coatability as the active material; and/or improving alignment of the material removal beam and the imaging, easier system calibration, reduced system footprint. Therefore, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the (Yokoi, Blouin, Schwab, Chavez, Tilsch, Shinya, and Williams) references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, when the references are considered in combination, the recitation of the claims would have been obvious as suggested. Therefore, Yokoi, Blouin, Schwab, Chavez, Tilsch, Shinya, and Williams combination met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention.
For the reasons set forth above the arguments, it is believed that the rejection of the claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C 102 & 103 is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoi et al (US 2010/0067102 hereinafter "Yokoi).
Regarding claim 1; Yokoi discloses a system comprising:
a first excitation source (2 @figure 3) applying a first excitation energy (erase light @ figure 3) to a point (figure 3) on a sample stage (7, 8 @ figure 3);
a second excitation source (1 @ figure 3) applying a second excitation energy (stimulation light @ figure 3) to the point simultaneously to the first excitation energy (erase light @ figure 3 and paragraph [0036]: e.g., the erase light and the stimulation light are simultaneously irradiated on the sample); and
a single spectrometer (11, 12 @ figure 3) positioned to receive and independently process energy emitted from the point in response to both the first and second excitation energies (erase light and stimulation light @ figure 3). See figures 1-26
Regarding claim 2; Yokoi discloses the first source is a pulsed excitation source (2 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0050]: e.g., the stimulation light source and the erase light source are pulsed light sources respectively).
Regarding claim 6; Yokoi discloses the second source (1 @figure 3) is a continuous excitation source (paragraphs [0051] and [0119]: e.g., the CARS light source 31 and the erase light source 32 can use a super- continuum light source).
Regarding claim 7; Yokoi the second source is Raman source (resonance Raman laser source 1 @ figure 3).
Regarding claim 10; Yokoi discloses further comprising one or more mirrors (3, 5 @ figure 3) and one or more lenses (6 @ figure 3) to direct and focus the first excitation energy (erase light @ figure 3) and the second excitation energy (stimulation light @ figure 3) on the point on the sample stage (8, 7 @ figure 3).
Regarding claim 11; Yokoi discloses the one or more mirrors (3, 5 @ figure 3) comprise a dichroic mirror (3 @ figure 3) operable to reflect excitation energy from the second excitation source (1 @ figure 3) and allow excitation energy from the first excitation source (2 @ figure 3) to pass therethrough.
Regarding claim 12; Yokoi discloses the one or more lenses (36 @ figure 3) comprise a focusing lens (objective lens 36 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0159]).
Regarding claim 13; Yokoi discloses further comprising collection optics (9a, 9b @ figure 3) associated with the single spectrometer (11, 12 @ figure 3) and one or more collecting lenses (6 @ figure 3) positioned between the point (8 @ figure 3) and the collection optics (9a, 9b @ figure 3).
Regarding claim 14; Yokoi discloses further comprising a notch filter (9a, 9b @ figure 3) positioned between two collecting lenses (6 @ figure 3) or between the point (8 @ figure 3) and the collection optics (6 @ figure 3).
Regarding claim 15; Yokoi discloses the notch filter (9a @ figure 3) is tuned to filter out a wavelength of the second source (1 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0105]: e.g., a notch filter 9a for cutting Raman process-inducing stimulation light).
Regarding claim 16; Yokoi discloses the collection optics comprise an optical fiber (82 @ figure 13 and paragraph [0140]) coupled to the single spectrometer (83 @ figure 13).
Regarding claim 20; Yokoi discloses the first source (51 @ figure 14) is a pulsed excitation source and the second source is a continuous excitation source (52 @figure 14), the system further comprising a processor (88 @ figure 14) coupled to a tangible non-transient memory (87 @ figure 14) operable to acquire data from the single spectrometer (61 @ figure 14) for the second source (52 @ figure 14) in between pulsing of the first source (51 @ figure 14).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al (US 2010/0067102 hereinafter "Yokoi) in view of Blouin et al (US 2020/0182795 hereinafter "Blouin").
Regarding claim 3; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the first source is a laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) source. However, Blouin teaches that it is known in the art to provide the first source (48 @ figure 1) is a laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) source (paragraphs [0092] and [0069]: e.g., using the LIBS pulsed laser source). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Blouin for the purpose of improving detecting a heterodyne signal resulting from an interference between the first and second optical frequency combs.
Regarding claim 4; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the first source is a near-infrared region wavelength laser. However, Blouin teaches that it is known in the art to provide the first source (30 @ figure 1) is a near-infrared region wavelength laser (paragraph [0057]: e.g., the IR domain may be understood to encompass spectral ranges typically designated in the art as the ar-infrared (NIR) region between wavelengths of 0.7 µm and 2.5 µm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Blouin for the purpose of improving detecting a heterodyne signal resulting from an interference between the first and second optical frequency combs.
Regarding claim 8; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the second source is a visible laser. However, Blouin teaches that it is known in the art to provide the second source (30 @ figure 1) is a visible laser (paragraph [0017]: e.g., visible and NIR laser sources that can also generate photoluminescence emission within the sample). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Blouin for the purpose of improving detecting a heterodyne signal resulting from an interference between the first and second optical frequency combs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi in view of Blouin applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schwab et al (US 2021/0404875 hereinafter "Schwab").
Regarding claim 5; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the first source is a laser having a wavelength of about 1064 nm, energy of about 10 mJ, and applied in a pulse of about 6 ns. However, Blouin teaches that it is known in the art to provide the first source is a laser (46 @ figure 1) having a wavelength of about 1064 nm, energy of about 10 mJ, and applied in a pulse of about 6 ns (paragraph [0099]: e.g., The laser pulses used to remove the top layer were 9 ns long, carried approximatively 50 mJ, and have a center wavelength of 1064 nm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Blouin for the purpose of improving detecting a heterodyne signal resulting from an interference between the first and second optical frequency combs.
Yokoi in view of Blouin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for about a 0.2nm FWHM beam width of the laser. However, Schwab teaches that it is known in the art to provide about a 0.2nm FWHM beam width of the laser (paragraph [0158]: e.g., a radiation source which can be swept over a wide bandwidth and very narrow instantaneous wavelength capability (i.e., 1 nm FWHM)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Schwab for the purpose of reducing range improves the reliability of the measurement data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi in view of Blouin applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chavez et al (US 2016/0031767 hereinafter "Chavez").
Regarding claim 9; Yokoi in view of Blouin combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the second source is a laser having a wavelength of about 532 nm, energy of about 5mW, and about a 0.3 nm FWHM beam width. However, Chavez teaches that it is known in the art to provide the second source is a laser having a wavelength of about 532 nm, energy of about 5mW, and about a 0.3 nm FWHM beam width (paragraph [0084]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Chavez for the purpose of improving intense laser beam having a desired wavelength in the visible ("VIS"), near-infrared ("near-IR") or ultraviolet ("UV") region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al (US 2010/0067102 hereinafter "Yokoi) in view of Tilsch et al (US 2021/0002756 hereinafter "Tilsch").
Regarding claim 17; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the single spectrometer is a visible range spectrometer. However, Tilsch teaches that it is known in the art to provide the single spectrometer (125 @ figure 1) is a visible range spectrometer (paragraph [0020]: e.g., sensor device 125 may include a binary multispectral sensor device, a spectrometer (e.g., an infrared spectrometer, a near- infrared spectrometer, a visible-range spectrometer, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Tilsch for the purpose of improving accuracy of spectral measurements and/or operation parameters for coating system using non-spectral measurements and spectral measurements by sensor device.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al (US 2010/0067102 hereinafter "Yokoi) in view of Shinya et al (KR 20110063868 A hereinafter "Shinya").
Regarding claim 18; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the system is contained in a container having a total volume of about 750 cm3 or less. However, Shinya teaches that it is known in the art to provide the system is contained in a container having a total volume of about 750 cm3 or less (figure 1: e.g., The obtained granulated powder was put into a baking container (alumina crucible size = length * width * height = 10 * 10 * 5 (cm) = 500 cm³ total volume) of the ratio of the open area and the filling height (open area (cm2) / filling height (cm) ) was charged to 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Shinya for the purpose of improving fluidity as the powder and improving the coatability as the active material.
Regarding claim 19; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the system is contained in a container having a longest linear dimension of about 15cm. However, Shinya teaches that it is known in the art to provide the system is contained in a container having a longest linear dimension of about 15cm (figure 1: e.g., The obtained granulated powder was put into a baking container (alumina crucible size = length * width * height = 10 * 10 * 5 (cm) "length dimension is 10cm") of the ratio of the open area and the filling height (open area (cm 2) / filling height (cm) was charged to 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by Shinya for the purpose of improving fluidity as the powder and improving the coatability as the active material.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al (US 2010/0067102 hereinafter "Yokoi) in view of William et al (US 2021/0183632 hereinafter "William").
Regarding claim 21; Yokoi discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the sample stage is moveable in three axes. However, William teaches that it is known in the art to provide the sample stage (704, 705 @ figure 7) is moveable in three axes (paragraph [0125]: e.g., the stage assembly 704 may include three or more actuators such that the stage/sample holder 705 may be translated in any of the X-, y-, or z- directions. In other implementations, actuators of the stage assembly may further permit at least some rotation about at least one of the X-, V-, or z-axes). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system of Yokoi with limitation above as taught by William for the purpose of improving alignment of the material removal beam and the imaging, easier system calibration, reduced system footprint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Wu et al (US 2021/0255041) discloses systems for confocal Raman spectroscopy of points of interest or regions of interest with concurrent imaging are disclosed.
2) Roy (US 2007/0046934) discloses an optical spectrometer and a particle analysis spectrometer for simultaneous and/or sequential analysis of a sample placed in a sample chamber. A laser resonator generates a light beam on the sample in the sample chamber to produce a plasma formation and an aerosol formation. The optical spectrometer (spectrophotometer) analyzes a plasma formation generated from the sample surface of the sample, qualifies and/or quantifies and records chemical data of the sample.
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 SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 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 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.
/SN/
October 1, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights