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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2-3, it is believed “of a
medium” should read –of a medium—as it is unclear why an return/indentation would be used in the preamble.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because applicant states that typically 101, 102 and 103 are all orthogonal to one another (on page 7, ll. 27-31). However, in figures 1A and 1B 102 and 103 are shown as parallel to one another. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 and 12 recites the limitation "the optical holder" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrocal et al. (WO 20200180233, where the examiner is using the U.S. PGPub equivalent 2022/0136900 A1 for citations) in view of Guenot et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0364918 A1) further in view of Control (NPL: Dispersive Spectroscopy, provided hereinwith and referenced for citations).
As to claims 1 and 7, Berrocal discloses and shows in figures 1A-C an assembly for measurements of one or more optical parameters of a medium, the assembly comprising:
a light sheet generator (110) configured to provide a light sheet (192) extending in a first spatial dimension (101), wherein the light sheet (192) has a propagation path in a second spatial dimension (102), wherein the light sheet generator (110) comprises a polychromatic light source emitting polychromatic light and light sheet generating optics to reform the light from the polychromatic light source into the light sheet ([0052]);
a light intensity modulator (130) configured to provide an intensity modulated light sheet (193) by applying - to the light sheet (192) - an intensity modulation having a periodical, or substantially periodical, pattern in the first spatial dimension ([0069]);
a holder (145) for a sample (140) of the medium, configured to enable the intensity modulated light sheet (193) to illuminate the sample ([0076]);
an optical sensor (161/162) configured to record the separated light sheets (194/195) ([0082]).
Berrocal does not explicitly disclose a dispersive element (3) arranged to receive the light transmitted through the sample and arranged to split the light sheet into its spectral components so that each spectral component forms its own separated light sheet or where the sensor detects separated light sheets in two dimensions or where the camera is a 2D CCD camera.
However, Guenot does disclose and show in figures 1 and 2 and in ([0035]; [0041]; [0042]) the use of a dispersive element (2/11 and 3). To receive light from a sample (0) and split it into spectral components on a two-dimensional CCD detector (commonly known and used in the optical art) to form a two-dimensional image. Obviously if the input light from Berrocal is sheet light it will be split via the prism/grating as claimed. In doing so as explicitly noted by the configuration of Guenot one can spectrally analyze each spatial location on the sample under test. Further the examiner provides evidence that using a dispersive element in a spectrometer for measuring light for a sample is extremely well-known as noted by Control (page 3, ll. 1-15; page 4, ll. 7-16). This feature was implement in a successful manner in 1814 to analysis of a sample input light, further as noted when performed by a computer obviously one can rapidly measure spectra from varying samples under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berrocal with a dispersive element (3) arranged to receive the light transmitted through the sample and arranged to split the light sheet into its spectral components so that each spectral component forms its own separated light sheet or where the sensor detects separated light sheets in two dimensions in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy in using the dispersive element as disclosed by Guenot and Control one can obviously allow for a more detailed (i.e. spatially located spectral map) of the sample under test, further using a dispersion element in a spectrometer in a predictable manner to spectrally separate light has been known and used for over two hundred years.
As to claims 2 and 3, Berrocal does disclose where the dispersive element for the light dispersive element that is used in the LIM can be a grating or prism ([0057]).
Berrocal does not explicitly disclose an assembly, wherein the dispersive element (3) is a diffraction grating or wherein the dispersive element (3) is a prism.
However, Guenot does disclose in ([0040]) the use of both a grating and a prism. Further, Control discloses in (page 2, ll. 1-6) that the most common dispersive elements known are gratings or prisms.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berrocal with an assembly, wherein the dispersive element (3) is a diffraction grating or wherein the dispersive element (3) is a prism in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using two of the most common and well-known simple dispersive elements in the art (i.e. prisms and gratings) to predictably split light spectra apart. Again this is already evidenced as known in Berrocal.
As to claims 4 and 5, Berrocal in view of Guenot further in view of Control does not explicitly disclose an assembly wherein the light sheet generator (110) is arranged fastened and abutting to the light intensity modulator or wherein the light intensity modulator (130) is arranged fastened and abutting the sample holder (145).
However, the mere rearrangement of the optical components (i.e. the light shield generator fastened/abutted to the light intensity modulator; light intensity modulator fastened and abutted to the sample holder) so that they are fastened and abutted against each other, is a mere matter of rearrangement of parts In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The examiner further takes official notice that when you abut one object to another obviously you do so with some type of fastening (e.g. an adhesive) so that optical alignment is maintained in the system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berrocal in view of Guenot further in view of Control with an assembly wherein the light sheet generator (110) is arranged fastened and abutting to the light intensity modulator or wherein the light intensity modulator (130) is arranged fastened and abutting the sample holder (145) in order to provide the advantage of expected results in bring parts in an optical system closer together (i.e. abutted) and fastening them to one another obviously one can shrink the optical system size overall and make the system more portable.
As to claims 8 and 9, Berrocal does disclose an assembly wherein light intensity modulator (130) comprises: a grating (330) comprising a plurality of periodical pattern (331 and 332) or a grating comprising a periodical pattern (331 or 332) ([0071]).
Berrocal in view of Guenot further in view of Control does not explicitly disclose an assembly wherein light intensity modulator comprises: an optical holder for a grating, the optical holder being electronically controlled and movable in a third spatial dimension or first spatial dimension.
However, Berrocal does disclose and show in figure 1A and in ([0071]; [0072]; [0079]) that the grating is movable and specifically movable in both the first and third dimension for controlling modulation of the light pattern on the sample under test. Further Berrocal discloses the basic concept of a holder (145) in this case for the sample to move it. Obviously a holder could likewise be used to provide the movement in the same predictable manner as done for the sample as already disclosed for the grating. Lastly the examiner takes official notice that the holder would obviously be electronically controller, as electronic based movement is more rapid while simultaneously being more reliable/accurate vs human based movement of objects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berrocal in view of Guenot further in view of Control with an assembly wherein light intensity modulator comprises: an optical holder for a grating, the optical holder being electronically controlled and movable in a third spatial dimension or first spatial dimension in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy in providing a common holder to electronically move the grating obviously one can more rapidly and reliably move the grating to varying locations for varying modulation outputs while reducing any potential human error that could be caused during movement.
As to claim 10, Berrocal as modified by Guenot further in view of Control discloses and shows in figure 1A-CA method for measuring one or more optical parameters of a medium, the method comprising:
providing the holder (145) with a sample (140) of the medium ([0076]);
illuminating the sample by the intensity modulated light sheet provided by the light sheet generator and the light intensity modulator of the assembly ([0097]-[0098]);
recording, by the optical sensor of the assembly, a plurality of separated light sheets ([0103]-[0104]; where further as modified by Guenot in view of control the multiple light sheets are measured for the same motivation and modification as applied above); and
determining the one or more optical parameters based on the recorded plurality of separated light sheets ([0080]; [0109]-[0110], again where the plural light sheets are inherent based on the modification above as such for the same modification and motivation listed above they are likewise obvious here).
As to claims 11 and 12, Berrocal does not explicitly disclose a method using the assembly, the method further comprising:moving the optical holder of the light intensity modulator in the third spatial dimension so that light propagating in the assembly hits the next subsequent first periodic pattern of the grating or, if present, second periodic pattern; iterating the method from the illuminating step moving the optical holder of the light intensity modulator in the first spatial dimension a predetermined portion of a phase of the periodical pattern so that light propagating in the assembly is phase shifted the predetermined portion of a phase;iterating the method from the illuminating step.
However, Berrocal does disclose in ([0071]; [0096]; [0099]-[0100]) the use of moving the light intensity modulator (i.e. grating) in varying dimensions, through various periodic patterns (explicitly shown in figure 3). Obviously this movement for “proper movement” is a predefined amount of distance. Further iterating is also disclosed via three different measurements. As such obviously using an optical holder to achieve precise and repeatable movements with high precision is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berrocal with a method using the assembly, the method further comprising:moving the optical holder of the light intensity modulator in the third spatial dimension so that light propagating in the assembly hits the next subsequent first periodic pattern of the grating or, if present, second periodic pattern; iterating the method from the illuminating step moving the optical holder of the light intensity modulator in the first spatial dimension a predetermined portion of a phase of the periodical pattern so that light propagating in the assembly is phase shifted the predetermined portion of a phase;iterating the method from the illuminating step in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy is using a holder for the intensity modulation obviously one can repeatedly in a rapid and precise manner move the grating through various measurement positions (i.e. various phase modulation patterns) as opposed to using a human which can introduce error and lacks the precise movement requires of grating placement.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrocal et al. in view of Guenot et al. in view of Control further in view of Scheeline (U.S. Patent No. 10,324,023 B1).
As to claim 6, Berrocal in view of Guenot further in view of Control does not explicitly disclose an assembly wherein the light intensity modulator is an imprint on the sample holder (145) or container.
However, Scheeline does disclose and show in figure 2(a-h) and in (col. 3, ll. 9-15 and ll. 22-31; col. 7, ll. 35-38) the basic concept of imprinting a grating (i.e. light intensity modulator) on the surface of the sample holder/container (i.e. a cuvette).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berrocal in view of Guenot further in view of Control with an assembly wherein the light intensity modulator is an imprint on the sample holder or container in order to provide the advantage of increase efficiency as explicitly noted in Scheeline (col. 23, ll. 35-49) using grating imprinted directly on cuvettes/sample holders allows for single use measurements where one does not have the concerns of degraded gratings, further when plastic they can be economical to produce.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights