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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Para. [0013], the Examiner assumes that “the multi-slit and the second surface” should actually be –the multi-slit multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system and the second surface--.
In Para. [0018], the Examiner assumes that “a plurality of sensors at the seventh? surface” should actually be --a plurality of sensors at the seventh[[?]] surface--.
In Para. [0050], the Examiner assumes that “corresponding slit 121 which is reduced” should actually be --corresponding slit [[121]]-331 which is reduced--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1- In Lines 7-8, the Examiner assumes that “the second surface” should actually be --the third surface--.
Claim 1- In Line 14, the Examiner assumes that “the fourth surface” should actually be --the fifth surface--.
Claim 6- In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “the entrance surface” should actually be --an entrance surface--.
Claim 6- In Line 3, the Examiner assumes that “the exit surface” should actually be --an exit surface--.
Claim 7- In Line 3, the Examiner assumes that “the multi-slit and the second surface” should actually be –the multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system and the second surface--.
Claim 13- In Lines 10-11, the Examiner assumes that “the second surface” should actually be --the third surface--.
Claim 13- In Line 16, the Examiner assumes that “the fourth surface” should actually be --the fifth surface--.
Claim 17- In Lines 2-3, the Examiner assumes that “a same spectral windows and” should actually be –a same spectral window and--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 and 14-17 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 4 recites “wherein the first and second surfaces are a same surface”. However, claim 1 recites “a second curved transmissive surface receiving light from the first surface”. It is unclear to the Examiner how the second surface receives light from the first surface unless they are two distinct surfaces. Additionally, it is unclear to the Examiner how the curvature of this “same surface” is infinite (i.e. planar) since claim 1 recites that the second surfaces is a “curved transmissive surface”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the sixth and seventh surfaces are a same surface”. However, claim 1 recites “a seventh surface… receiving light from the sixth surface”. It is unclear to the Examiner how the seventh surface receives light from the sixth surface unless they are two distinct surfaces. Additionally, it is unclear to the Examiner how they are both at the focal plane of the spectrograph and the Offner spectrometer.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the spectrograph" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the spectrograph” should actually be --the Offner spectrometer--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each Offner spectrograph" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “each Offner spectrograph” should actually be --each Offner spectrometer--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of spectrographs" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the plurality of spectrographs” should actually be --the plurality of Offner spectrometers--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the plurality of spectrographs" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the plurality of spectrographs” should actually be --the plurality of Offner spectrometers--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the plurality of spectrographs" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the plurality of spectrographs” should actually be --the plurality of Offner spectrometers--.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (CN 113108906), hereinafter Ji, in view of Comstock, II et al. (US 2014/0118738), hereinafter Comstock.
Claim 1: Ji discloses an Offner spectrometer (Fig. 1) for use in a multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system for imaging a remote object [0012], the Offner spectrometer comprising:
a first surface (“entrance slit 1”) that is a transmissive surface having a narrow slit [0032] receiving light from a multi-spectral light source (standard for a remote sensing spectral imaging system [0012]);
a second curved transmissive surface (“inner surface 21 of the meniscus lens”) receiving light from the first surface (1) [0032];
a third curved reflective surface (“spherical mirror 3”) receiving light from the second surface (21) [0032];
a fourth reflective surface (“holographic diffraction grating 4”) that is a curved surface with a grating receiving light from the third surface (3) and diffracting and reflecting light [0032];
a fifth surface (“freeform mirror 5”) that is curved reflective surface receiving light from the fourth surface (4) [0032];
a sixth curved transmissive surface (“outer surface 22 of the meniscus lens”) receiving light from the fifth surface (5) [0032]; and
a seventh surface (“image plane 6”) that is a focal plane of the Offner spectrometer receiving light from the sixth surface (22) [0032].
Ji does not explicitly disclose wherein the third, fourth, and fifth surfaces have X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled.
Comstock, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometry, discloses an Offner spectrometer (102, Fig. 1) for use in a multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system for imaging a remote object [0013], the Offner spectrometer comprising:
a first surface (112) that is a transmissive surface having a narrow slit (108) [0033] receiving light from a multi-spectral light source (standard for a remote sensing spectral imaging system [0013]);
a third curved reflective surface (118) receiving light from the first surface (112) [0033], the third surface (118) having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled (“torroidal[sic, including all further instances] mirror 114, torroidal aspheric mirror 114, freeform mirror 114” [0034]);
a fourth reflective surface (122) that is a curved surface with a grating (120) receiving light from the third surface (118) and diffracting and reflecting light [0033], the fourth surface (122) having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled (“torroidal diffraction grating 120, torroidal aspheric diffraction grating 120” [0034]);
a fifth surface (128) that is curved reflective surface receiving light from the fourth surface (122), the fifth surface (128) having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled (“torroidal mirror 124, torroidal aspheric mirror 124, freeform mirror 124” [0034]); and
a seventh surface (130) that is a focal plane of the Offner spectrometer (100) receiving light from the fifth surface (128) [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ji’s spectrometer with third, fourth, and fifth surfaces that have X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled for the purpose of preventing astigmatism.
Ji also does not explicitly disclose wherein the second and sixth surfaces have X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled.
However, Ji does disclose that “[t]he converged light rays after aberration balance pass
sequentially through the outer surface 22 and inner surface 21 on the other side of the optical
axis of the meniscus lens 2. The refracted light rays are imaged on the image plane 6, resulting
in an image with low astigmatism” [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Ji’s spectrometer by making the second and sixth surfaces part of a toroidal lens (and thus having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled) for the purpose of ensuring low astigmatism.
Claim 2: Ji does not explicitly disclose wherein the Offner spectrometer has a demagnification ratio between the first surface and the seventh surface.
However, Ji discloses the same structure as the claimed Offner spectrometer, comprising the first surface and the seventh surface. Furthermore, a demagnification value between these two surfaces is inherent (since negative values are also possible).
Therefore, Ji implicitly teaches a demagnification ratio between the first surface and the seventh surface.
Claim 3: Ji, in view of Comstock, further discloses wherein at least one of the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth surface is a curved biconic surface that is aspheric in both an x-axis and a y-axis (“torroidal aspheric mirror 114… torroidal aspheric diffraction grating 120… torroidal aspheric mirror 124” [0034]).
Claim 6: Ji discloses wherein the second surface (21) is an entrance surface and wherein the sixth surface (22) in an exit surface [0032], but is silent with respect to an all-immersive spectrometer comprising a monolithic transparent optical material.
Comstock, however, discloses an all-immersive spectrometer (100) comprising a monolithic transparent optical material (101) (“The monolithic Offner spectrometer 102 is an one-one optical relay made from a single piece of transmissive material 101 including: (1) a slit 108 (e.g., formed when an opaque material 110 is applied to an exposed portion 112/entrance surface 112 of the transmissive material 101” [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ji’s spectrometer to comprise a monolithic transparent optical material for the purpose of eliminating any issues of misalignment, which would result in blurred images.
Claim 7: Ji further discloses an eighth surface (22) that is a curved transparent surface between the second (21) and the third surface (3) receiving light from the one slit (1) of the multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system and the second surface (21) (“outer surface 22 of the meniscus lens” [0032]), wherein the second surface (21) is the entrance surface of a transparent optical material and the eighth surface (22) is the exit surface of the transparent optical material, forming an entrance corrector lens of the Offner spectrometer (evident from Fig. 1).
Claim 8: Ji further discloses wherein the eighth surface (22) is a curved biconic surface that is aspheric in both an x-axis and a y-axis (evident from the modification of the sixth surface in the claim 1 rejection).
Claims 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comstock, in view of Ji.
Claim 13: Comstock discloses a multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system (100, Fig. 1) for imaging a remote object, comprising:
a slit (108) receiving light from the remote object [0033];
a field distribution system (110) to receive light output from the slit (108) [0033];
an Offner spectrometer (102) to receive light from the field distribution system (110) [0033], the Offner spectrometer (102) including
a first surface (112) that is a transmissive surface having a narrow slit (108) [0033] receiving light from a multi-spectral light source (standard for a remote sensing spectral imaging system [0013]);
a third curved reflective surface (118) receiving light from the first surface (112) [0033], the third surface (118) having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled (“torroidal[sic, including all further instances] mirror 114, torroidal aspheric mirror 114, freeform mirror 114” [0034]);
a fourth reflective surface (122) that is a curved surface with a grating (120) receiving light from the third surface (118) and diffracting and reflecting light [0033], the fourth surface (122) having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled (“torroidal diffraction grating 120, torroidal aspheric diffraction grating 120” [0034]);
a fifth surface (128) that is curved reflective surface receiving light from the fourth surface (122), the fifth surface (128) having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled (“torroidal mirror 124, torroidal aspheric mirror 124, freeform mirror 124” [0034]); and
a seventh surface (130) that is a focal plane of the Offner spectrometer (100) receiving light from the fifth surface (128) [0033]; and
a sensor (106) at the seventh surface (130) of the Offner spectrometer (102) (“directs the beam 132 to the monolithic Offner spectrometer 102… to the detector 106” [0034]).
Comstock is silent with respect to a second curved transmissive surface and a sixth curved transmissive surface.
Ji, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometry, discloses an Offner spectrometer (Fig. 1) for use in a multi-slit hyperspectral imaging system for imaging a remote object [0012], the Offner spectrometer comprising:
a first surface (“entrance slit 1”) that is a transmissive surface having a narrow slit [0032] receiving light from a multi-spectral light source (standard for a remote sensing spectral imaging system [0012]);
a second curved transmissive surface (“inner surface 21 of the meniscus lens”) receiving light from the first surface (1) [0032];
a third curved reflective surface (“spherical mirror 3”) receiving light from the second surface (21) [0032];
a fourth reflective surface (“holographic diffraction grating 4”) that is a curved surface with a grating receiving light from the third surface (3) and diffracting and reflecting light [0032];
a fifth surface (“freeform mirror 5”) that is curved reflective surface receiving light from the fourth surface (4) [0032];
a sixth curved transmissive surface (“outer surface 22 of the meniscus lens”) receiving light from the fifth surface (5) [0032]; and
a seventh surface (“image plane 6”) that is a focal plane of the Offner spectrometer receiving light from the sixth surface (22) [0032].
Ji does not explicitly disclose wherein the second and sixth surfaces have X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled.
However, Ji does disclose that “[t]he converged light rays after aberration balance pass
sequentially through the outer surface 22 and inner surface 21 on the other side of the optical
axis of the meniscus lens 2. The refracted light rays are imaged on the image plane 6, resulting
in an image with low astigmatism” [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ji’s spectrometer by making the second and sixth surfaces part of a toroidal lens (and thus having X and Y prescriptions that are decoupled) for the purpose of ensuring low astigmatism.
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Comstock’s spectrometer with second and sixth curved transmissive surfaces for the purpose of ensuring low astigmatism.
Comstock is silent with respect to a plurality of slits, a plurality of field distribution systems, a plurality of Offner spectrometers, and a plurality of sensors.
However, each slit, field distribution system, Offner spectrometer, and sensor work as a system in parallel with the other slits, field distribution systems, Offner spectrometers, and sensors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Comstock’s hyperspectral imaging system with a plurality of slits, a plurality of field distribution systems, a plurality of Offner spectrometers, and a plurality of sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Adding the plurality of slits, the plurality of field distribution systems, the plurality of Offner spectrometers, and the plurality of sensors would be done in order to allow for more information about the remote object to be processed simultaneously.
Claim 15: Comstock further discloses wherein the plurality of Offner spectrometers (102) and their corresponding sensors (106) are for different spectral windows of a same spatial field sequentially (inherent to hyperspectral imaging (Abstract) to form a data cube of a spatial field in several adjacent spectral snapshots).
Claim 16: Comstock discloses wherein the plurality of Offner spectrometers (102) and their corresponding sensors (106) are for different spectral windows of a same spatial field sequentially (inherent to hyperspectral imaging (Abstract) to form a data cube of a spatial field in several adjacent spectral snapshots), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of Offner spectrometers and their corresponding sensors are for a same spectral window and a same spatial field sequentially.
However, configuring the spectrometers and their sensors to obtain the desired spectral and spatial information constitutes a mere duplication of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Comstock’s plurality of Offner spectrometers and their corresponding sensors to sequentially image a same spectral window and a same spatial field since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Building in this redundancy allows for a better determination of imaging accuracy.
Claim 17: Comstock discloses wherein the plurality of Offner spectrometers (102) and their corresponding sensors (106) are for different spectral windows of a same spatial field sequentially (inherent to hyperspectral imaging (Abstract) to form a data cube of a spatial field in several adjacent spectral snapshots), but, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of Offner spectrometers and their corresponding sensors are for a same spectral window and for different spatial fields.
However, configuring the spectrometers and their sensors to obtain the desired spectral and spatial information constitutes a simple manipulation of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Comstock’s plurality of Offner spectrometers and their corresponding sensors to image a same spectral window and different spatial fields for the purpose of quickly gathering a large amount of information about the remote object.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comstock, in view of Ji as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chrisp (US 2010/0053609), hereinafter Chrisp.
Claim 14: Comstock is silent with respect to a wide field telescope.
Chrisp, however, in the same field of endeavor of imaging spectrometry, discloses a hyperspectral imaging system (Fig. 1) for imaging a remote object [0026], comprising:
a plurality of slits (104) receiving light from the remote object [0027];
a plurality of spectrometers (105) to receive light from a corresponding slit (104) [0027]; and
a wide field telescope having a first numerical aperture (inherent) that directs light from the remote object onto the plurality of slits (104) (“Each of the spectrometer modules has entrance slits and the spectrometer module assembly is optionally movable providing spectrometer angular scan motion. A wide field telescope is operatively connected to the imaging spectrometer modules” [0029]) and each spectrometer (105) is demagnifying and has a second numerical aperture, higher than the first numerical aperture (inherent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Comstock’s hyperspectral imaging system with a wide field telescope for the purpose of “providing contiguous spatial coverage” of a remotely-sensed scene (Chrisp [0029]).
Claim 18: Comstock does not explicitly disclose at least one mirror for each field distribution system.
Chrisp, however, in the same field of endeavor of imaging spectrometry, discloses a hyperspectral imaging system (Fig. 1) for imaging a remote object [0026], comprising:
a plurality of slits (104) receiving light from the remote object [0027];
a plurality of field distribution systems (105) to receive light output from a corresponding slit (104) [0027],
wherein each field distribution system (105) includes at least one mirror (“scanning mirror”) for each slit (104) to distribute beams from the plurality of slits (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify each of Comstock’s field distribution systems with at least one mirror for the purpose of “providing contiguous spatial coverage” of a remotely-sensed scene (Chrisp [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 9-12: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the Offner spectrometer as claimed in claim 8, further comprising a ninth and a tenth curved transparent surfaces between the eighth and the third surfaces receiving light from the eighth surface, wherein the ninth surface is the entrance surface of a transparent optical material and the tenth surface is the exit surface of the transparent optical material, forming a second element of a doublet entrance corrector lens of the Offner spectrometer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 on 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 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights