DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the receipt of the Applicant’s Amendment dated October 17, 2025. Claims 30 and 32-50 are pending. Applicant amended claims 32, 43, and 46. Applicant canceled claim 31. Applicant added new claim 50.
As to Applicant's arguments regarding claim 30, Examiner initially notes that the claim does not clearly define the nature of “component vector” other than its recitation, and the Specification merely discloses that a pixel has N-element color component vector for each pixel in [0033]. Furthermore a “point in space” does not specifically define spatial constraints, and Examiner clarifies that under broadest reasonable interpretation, a point in space may be captured and “represented” in an image that comprises two or more pixels. In order to expedite prosecution as to “multi-color”, upon further search and consideration, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as discussed below in view of the new grounds of rejection over Unsai (U.S. Publication 2009/0259101).
As to Applicant's arguments regarding claim 45, Examiner clarifies that Imaizumi teaches in [0096]-[0097] and [0101] that dichroic mirror layers 29a and 29b selectively reflect incident blue light and red light respectively, which reads on claim language that a first plurality of light components is reflected and a second set of a plurality of light components by a beamsplitter wherein the second set of light components includes wavelengths of a color component other than wavelengths of the color component included in the first set of light components.
Applicant's arguments as to claims 48 and 49 have been considered and are not persuasive. A portion of a set can include zero, and subsequently a portion of each element of a set can include zero of one, multiple, or none of each set element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 30, 32, 33, 36-39, 42, 45, 46, and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krattiger (U.S. Publication 2009/0259098) and in further views of Imaizumi et al. (U.S. Publication 2004/0186351, hereinafter “Imaizumi”), Bennett et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0159055, hereinafter “Bennett”), Hart et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0027516, hereinafter “Hart”), and Unsai (U.S. Publication 2009/0259101).
As to Claim 30 in particular, Krattiger discloses an apparatus (1) in [0062] and Fig. 1 comprising:
a first image capture sensor (51) in [0066];
a second image capture sensor (52) in [0066];
a prism assembly (100) in [0073] and Fig. 2 taking the place of (41) of Fig.1 and corresponding image sensors (150, 151, 152), positioned to receive light, comprising:
a beam splitter (110) in [0074]; and
a surface (111) in [0074] configured to reflect the first set of light components onto the first image capture sensor as shown in Fig. 2; and
a reflective unit (121) in [0075] positioned to receive the second set of light components, the reflective unit configured to reflect the second set of light components onto the second image capture sensor, wherein where first image capture sensor is configured to capture a first image “image” in [0066] of one image sensor of a scene and the second image capture sensor is configured to capture a second image “image” in [0066] of another image sensor of the scene “same image field” in [0066], wherein each point in space is represented by two pixels with each of the two pixels having a different multi-color component vector as described in [0066]-[0069].
Although image sensors (150, 151, 152) in Fig. 2 are not in the same relative configuration as image sensors (50, 51, 52) in Fig. 1, Krattiger discloses the equivalence of these structures albeit in different embodiments. In order to expedite prosecution, it is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the spatial positions and angles of various optical elements as desired to achieve the desired imaging characteristics by manufacturing optical elements in different shapes and sizes as routine in the art as taught by different embodiments of Krattiger. It is additionally noted that it has been held that (1) rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art [In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70] and (2) A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)].
As to Claims 30-33, 36-39, 42, 45, 46, and 50, Krattiger discloses a variety of filters in [0067] and [0070] however does not specifically disclose notch filters. Imaizumi and Bennett teach in the analogous field of endoscopy and are applied as secondary references to evidence the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Imaizumi teaches that a prism assembly (24) in [0097] and (29) in [0101] as shown in Fig. 1 can comprise a plurality of filters (22, 23) in [0096]-[0097] and (29a, 29b) in [0101] as shown in Fig. 1, the plurality of filters configured to reflect a first set of a plurality of light components as described in [0096]-[0097] and [0101]. Bennett teaches using notch filters configured to reflect a first set of a plurality of light components of the received light, and the plurality of notch filters configured to pass a second set of a plurality of light components of the received light as described in [0018] are used to achieve desired optical characteristics in reflecting and filtering light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the apparatus of Krattiger with the filters and corresponding optical elements of Imaizumi and Bennett in order to fulfill the same function of in vivo imaging of desired wavelengths and optical characteristics with predictable results.
In order to expedite prosecution, Hart is additionally cited to show teachings of multiple notch filters specifically being used in combination in [0209] and [0225] in order to filter for desired wavelengths. Furthermore, Unsai teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein multiple image capture sensors (35, 37) in [0049]-[0061] with filters receive multi-color signals “(R, B signals)” in [0056] such that a point in space is represented by two pixels (corresponding pixels in each of the two image capture sensors) with each of the two pixels having different multi-color component vectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the apparatus of Krattiger in views of Imaizumi and Bennett above with a plurality of notch filters specifically as taught by Hart in order to fulfill the same function of in vivo imaging of desired wavelengths and optical characteristics with predictable results. This is further supported by Unsai wherein additional configurations of filters on multiple image sensors such that each point in space is represented by two pixels with each of the two pixels having different multi-color component vectors produce desired imaging outcomes.
As to Claim 32, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, further comprising: a source of illumination (10) in [0062] as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 configured to produce the first set of light components “sinus-shaped, modulated measuring beam” in [0062], wherein the source of illumination is further configured to produce the second set of light components “white light” in [0078].
As to Claim 33, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein each point in space in the scene is captured by respective pixels in the first and second images, each of the respective pixels in the first and second images having a different color component as described in [0066].
As to Claim 36, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, further comprising:
a fluorescence excitation illumination source “fluorescent light sources” in [0044].
As to Claim 37, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 36, wherein the first set of light components comprises light produced by the fluorescence excitation illumination source as described in [0036]-[0038], [0041], and [0044].
As to Claim 38, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 37, wherein the first image capture sensor is configured to capture a color image “white light images” in [0031] with the first set of light components, and the second image capture sensor is configured to capture a monochrome image “fluorescence images” in [0031] with the second set of light components.
As to Claim 39, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 37, wherein the second set of light components comprises fluorescence light “autofluorescence light” in [0029] produced as a result of the fluorescence excitation illumination source as described in [0029], [0033] and [0039].
As to Claim 42, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein the plurality of notch filters are part of a single multi-notch filter (tunable filters capable of having multiple spectra ranges as described in [0050]-[0051]).
As to Claim 45, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein one of the second set of light components includes wavelengths of a color component other than wavelengths of the color component included in the first set of light components as described in [0033] and in further views of [0096]-[0097] and [0101] of Imaizumi discussed above.
As to Claim 46, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 32, wherein illumination light is filtered depending on imaging mode in [0064], however does not specifically disclose multiple sources of illumination. Imaizumi teaches multiple light sources (3A, 7) in [0087] and Fig. 1 wherein the second set of light components includes light from a source other than the source of illumination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the light source of Krattiger with additional light sources as taught by Imaizumi in order to fulfill the same function with predictable results of multispectral illumination.
As to Claim 48, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein Imaizumi further teaches that the reflected first set includes a first portion of each of a plurality of color components and the passed second set includes a second portion of each of the plurality of color components in [0100]-[0101].
As to Claim 49, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein Imaizumi further teaches that the plurality of color components includes a red color component, a green color component, and a blue color component in [0100]-[0101].
As to Claim 50, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi and Bennett discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein Unsai further teaches that the first image of the scene is an image in a visible light spectrum and the second image is an image in the visible light spectrum in [0049]-[0061].
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krattiger, Imaizumi, Bennett, Hart, and Unsai and in further views of Nie et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0123205, hereinafter “Nie”).
As to Claim 47, Krattiger in view of Imaizumi, Bennett, and Hart discloses the apparatus of Claim 30, however does not specifically disclose color component vectors of a pixel an output image corresponding to first and second color component vectors of first and second images. Nie is cited to show in the related field of endoscopy, wherein a controller is configured to generate an output image “composite image” in [0214] and Fig. 19 in which a color component vector for a pixel in the output image is generated from a first color component vector from a corresponding pixel in the first image “NIR video frame” and a second color component vector from a corresponding pixel in the second image “laser video frame”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the controller of Krattiger with composite image generation as taught by Nie in order to fulfill the same function of multispectral imaging and display for a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM B CHOU whose telephone number is (571) 270-3367. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Michael Carey can be reached on (571) 270-7235. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795