Spectrometer

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. Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain the benefit of priority based on priority papers filed in parent Application No. (FR) 24 04039 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), a claim for such foreign priority must be timely made in this application. To satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55(a)(2) for a certified copy of the foreign application, applicant may simply identify the application containing the certified copy. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/25 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 04/11/25 are objected because some elements in the specification are not described clearly in drawings. a) Current claim 1 and specification disclose “a collimating lens capable of sending the light beam from said slit onto said diffraction grating”. However, according to figure 2 of current application, lens 18 does not send collimated light beams toward grating 16. In other words, lens 18 is not collimating lens. b) Claim 11 discloses “a double-pass lens capable, on the one hand, of sending the light beam from the slit onto the diffraction grating so as to obtain a plurality of diffracted beams and, on the other hand, of focusing the plurality of diffracted beams onto the detector”. However, no drawing discloses a double-pass lens. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (Pat. No. 6,597,451) in view of Bouchard et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0148756). Hereafter “Araki” and “Bouchard”. Regarding Claim(s) 1, Araki teaches a spectrometer (abstract, line 1; Column 1, lines 5-6) comprising: a slit suitable for receiving a light beam (figures 1, 2, 5-7, slit 1); a detector (Column 2, lines 15-19, 56-59; Column 3, lines 14-16; Figures A-B); a diffraction grating with at least one curvature (figures 1-7, Concave Diffraction Grating 3; Figures 8-9, Concave Diffraction Grating 23); a deflecting mirror capable of reflecting the plurality of diffracted beams (figures 5, 6, mirror 16); and a focusing lens designed to receive the plurality of diffracted beams reflected by said deflecting mirror and to focus the plurality of diffracted beams on said detector (figures 1-4, 6, Telecentric Correction lens 8 is not different from a focusing lens), wherein at least one optic, referred to as an optimized optic, from among said collimating lens, said deflecting mirror, and said focusing lens, improves the image quality of the image generated by said detector from the plurality of diffracted beams (figures 1-7, deflecting mirror 16, focusing lens 8. It is inherent that the optical element just as collimating lens, or deflecting mirror, or focusing lens can improve the image quality of the image generated by detector disposed on the surface of Spectrum Focal Plane 9. In other words, the limitation “improving the image quality” is a characteristic of optical element. Further the limitation “improving the image quality” is also an Intended use in an apparatus claim. The limitation has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). Moreover, Araki does not teach a collimating lens capable of sending the light beam from said slit onto said diffraction grating so as to obtain a plurality of diffracted beams. Bouchard teaches a collimating lens capable of sending the light beam from said slit onto said diffraction grating so as to obtain a plurality of diffracted beams (figure 1, input slit 26, collimating lens 28, diffraction grating 30; [0013]). 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 Araki by having a collimating lens in front of diffraction grating in order to send a plurality collimated light beams onto diffraction grating for detection. Regarding Claim(s) 2, Araki in view of Bouchard teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for collimating lens, said diffraction grating, said deflecting mirror and said focusing lens are the only optics of the spectrometer, said diffraction grating being comprising a reflection diffraction grating. Araki further teaches diffraction grating, deflecting mirror and focusing lens are the only optics of the spectrometer, said diffraction grating being comprising a reflection diffraction grating (figure 6, reflection diffraction grating 3, Telecentric Correction lens 8 is not different from a focusing lens, deflecting mirror 16). However, Araki does not teach a collimating lens. Bouchard teaches a collimating lens (figure 1, collimating lens 28). 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 Araki by having a collimating lens in order to send a plurality collimated light beams onto diffraction grating for detection. Regarding Claim(s) 4-6, Araki in view of Bouchard teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for two optimized optics, one optimized optic is said deflecting mirror, one optimized optic is said focusing lens. Araki further teaches two optimized optics, one optimized optic is said deflecting mirror, one optimized optic is said focusing lens, (figure 6, deflecting mirror 16, focusing lens 8 are not different from two optimized optics). Regarding Claim(s) 7, Araki in view of Bouchard teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for collimating lens comprising a spherical lens. Bouchard further teaches collimating lens comprising a spherical lens ([0026], lines 10-15). 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 Araki by having collimating lens comprising a spherical lens in order to have a best-form or aspheric lens ([0026], lines 10-15). Regarding Claim(s) 8, Araki in view of Bouchard teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for diffraction grating is spherical. Araki further teaches diffraction grating is spherical (figures 8, 9, concave diffracting grating 23 is not different from a spherical grating). Regarding Claim(s) 9, 10, Araki in view of Bouchard teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for collimating lens and said focusing lens have different powers so that the magnification of the spectrometer is different from 1, and the powers of both said collimating lens and said focusing lens are chosen so that the magnification of the spectrometer is between 0.2 and 5. The selection of power range for lens to have magnification of the spectrometer different from 1, and powers of both said collimating lens and said focusing lens to have magnification of the spectrometer is between 0.2 and 5, or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate power range for the lens of well operated inspection 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. 7. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (Pat. No. 6,597,451) in view of Bouchard et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0148756), further in view of Kruizing et al. (U.S Pub. No. 2019/0017869). Hereafter “Araki”, “Bouchard”, “Kruizing”. Regarding Claim(s) 3, Araki in view of Bouchard teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for each optimized optic is a freeform optic. Kruizing teaches an optimized optic is a freeform optic ([0033], lines 6-9; [0047], lines 11-15). 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 Araki and Bouchard by having a freeform optic in order to correspond to different optical function ([0033], lines 6-9; [0047], lines 11-15). Allowable Subject Matter 8. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the Drawings Objection were overcome. 9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claim 11. 10. As claim 11, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for optically designing a spectrometer comprising a Dyson spectrometer comprising a slit, a detector, a diffraction grating with at least one curvature, and a double-pass lens capable, splitting the double-pass lens to obtain a collimating lens sending the light beam from the slit onto the diffraction grating a focusing lens focusing the plurality of diffracted beams onto the detector; adding a deflecting mirror; rearranging the collimating lens, focusing lens, and deflecting mirror so as to spatially separate the slit and the detector to reflect the plurality of diffracted beams towards the focusing lens; optimizing at least one optic, referred to as an optimized optic, from among the collimating lens, the deflecting mirror, and the focusing lens, so as to improve the image quality of the image generated by the detector from the plurality of diffracted beams; and rearranging the slit, the detector, the diffraction grating, the collimating lens, the focusing lens and the deflecting mirror to obtain a mechanically adjustable spectrometer; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. 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. September 30, 2026 /Tri T Ton/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877