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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 11/14/2025 in which claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Currently claims 4-13 are pending for examination in this application.
Based on this reply:
The specification objections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the presented motivation to combine Van den Bossche and Tack have been fully considered and are persuasive. Further, while the examiner does not necessarily find the presented arguments regarding the incorporation of Banks to be persuasive, upon review of this reference, the examiner is of the opinion that the structural arrangement of the aperture in Banks is not reasonably applied to the full claim limitations presented in the instant application. The prior art rejections of claims 4-13 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 states the limitation, “wherein the lens for each micro-optic receiver channel is configured as a hemisphere positioned along a path of light from the bulk receiver optic”. In view of the specification and the surrounding context of the claim, this limitation is unclear. In view of the specification, the intended meaning of this limitation would likely be that the hemisphere is positioned such that light rays from the bulk receiver optic, which propagate through the corresponding aperture of the hemisphere, would be incident upon the hemisphere surface such that they are substantially normal to the surface. Such an interpretation aligns with the drawings as well as the stated motivations of the specification. However, claim 13, being dependent upon claim 4, carries with it other limitations that would appear to make the above interpretation of the claim language incompatible. Notably, that the aperture layer is “arranged along a focal plane of the bulk receiver optic”, and that each lens of the plurality of lenses is “configured to collimate lights rays received through its corresponding aperture”. These two limitations of claim 4 appear to constrain the position of the lens such that, if the lens were to be configured as a hemisphere, then the hemisphere could not be positioned in a way that is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the additional claim limitation brought in with claim 13. To see this, consider FIGS. 16A-B of the instant application, which outline the arrangement dictated by the noted limitations of claim 4. All but one of the light rays implied by the light ray cones presented in these figures would not intersect the surface of a hemispherical lens such that the light ray is substantially normal to the surface, and it is unclear how the arrangement could be adjusted such that all of the conditions of the limitations would be achieved.
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 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.
Claim(s) 4-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard et al. (US 6144406 A), hereinafter Girard, in view of Tack et al. (Tack, Nicolaas, et al. "A compact, high-speed, and low-cost hyperspectral imager." Silicon Photonics VII. Vol. 8266. SPIE, 2012.), hereinafter Tack, Van den Bossche et al. (US 20160200161 A1), hereinafter Van den Bossche, and Love et al. (US 20140240514 A1), hereinafter Love.
Regarding claim 4, Girard teaches:
An imaging system ([Col. 2, Line 65 - Col. 3 Line 8] “The panoramic camera 1 according to the invention”, FIG. 1), comprising:
a stationary housing ([Col. 2, Line 65 - Col. 3 Line 8] “The panoramic camera 1 according to the invention, as it is illustrated, includes a housing 10 having a longitudinal axis 2. The housing 10 includes a first section 3 coaxial with the longitudinal axis 2 and a second section 5 also coaxial with the axis 2. The second section 5 can be driven in rotation about the longitudinal axis 2 with respect to the first section 3 by way of means 100 for driving in rotation (not shown on FIG. 1).”) […];
an imaging device rotatably mounted within the housing ([Col. 3, Lines 38-42] “As shown on FIG. 1, a lens 7 is mounted on the second section 5 of the housing 10.”), the imaging device comprising:
a platform (FIG. 4; lens 7 is located on a platform which is part of second section 5.);
a bulk receiver optic mounted on the platform and configured to receive light rays originating from a field external to the optical imaging system ([Col. 3, Lines 38-42] “As shown on FIG. 1, a lens 7 is mounted on the second section 5 of the housing 10.”); and
an optical assembly mounted on the platform, the optical assembly having a plurality of micro-optic receiver channels defining a plurality of discrete, non- overlapping fields of view in the field ([Col. 3, Lines 43-50] “As better shown on FIGS. 4 and 8, a linear CCD array 21 is placed at the focal point of the lens 7 in order to receive the images transmitted by the lens 7.” Note that the contemplation of an imaging condition here means that each pixel of the CCD array would correspond to a different part of the field of view being imaged.), the optical assembly comprising:
[…]
an array of photosensors ([Col. 3, Lines 51-59] “The CCD array 21 is preferably a three color linear array”) […]; and
a non-uniform optical filter layer configured to allow different micro-optic receiver channels to measure different characteristics of incident light ([Col. 3, Lines 51-59] “The CCD array 21 is preferably a three color linear array” Note that while filters are not explicitly mentioned, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that such a tri-color linear array may be implemented using separate color filters for each of the three colors.);
[…]
a motor disposed within the housing and operatively coupled to rotate the platform in a scanning direction (FIG. 2; [Col. 3, Lines 23-29] “The second wheel 103 is driven by a motor 105 upon reception of a control signal. The second wheel 103 is mounted on an output axis 106 of the motor 105. The driving in rotation of the second wheel 103 by the motor 105 causes the second wheel 103 to turn relative to the first wheel 101. The motor 105 is fastened to the second section 5 of the housing 10.”); and
a system controller disposed within the housing, the system controller being configured to control the motor and to start and stop operations of the photosensors ([Col. 4, Lines 20-25] “A control system is incorporated to the camera 1 for controlling the rotation of the housing 10, for sending a control signal to the analog-to-digital converter 27 to digitize the image and for sending a control signal to the means 51 for storing the digital information sent by the converter 27.”) […].
Girard does not teach:
a stationary housing having an optically transparent window;
the optical assembly comprising:
an aperture layer having a plurality of discrete apertures arranged along a focal plane of the bulk receiver optic;
an array of photosensors disposed behind the aperture layer; and
wherein the optical assembly further comprises a plurality of lenses, each micro-optic receiver channel further including a lens from the plurality of lenses, and wherein the lens for each micro-optic receiver channel is axially aligned with and configured to collimate lights rays received through its corresponding aperture and pass the collimated light rays into its corresponding photosensor;
the system controller being configured to control the motor and to start and stop operations of the photosensors such that a same area in the field is measured by different micro-optic receiver channels at different times.
It would have been a simple matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to have additionally included an optically transparent protective housing around the rotational section of the panoramic camera, thus meeting the limitation:
a stationary housing having an optically transparent window;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panoramic camera of Girard to include an optically transparent protective housing around the rotational section of the camera, for example, to protect the rotation joints from environmental dirt and exposure.
Girard, as modified, still would not teach:
the optical assembly comprising:
an aperture layer having a plurality of discrete apertures arranged along a focal plane of the bulk receiver optic;
an array of photosensors disposed behind the aperture layer; and
wherein the optical assembly further comprises a plurality of lenses, each micro-optic receiver channel further including a lens from the plurality of lenses, and wherein the lens for each micro-optic receiver channel is axially aligned with and configured to collimate lights rays received through its corresponding aperture and pass the collimated light rays into its corresponding photosensor;
the system controller being configured to control the motor and to start and stop operations of the photosensors such that a same area in the field is measured by different micro-optic receiver channels at different times.
Tack, in the same field of spectral imaging, teaches a “hyper-spectral” imaging system which consists of a two-dimensional spectral filter, non-uniform in one dimension, (Fig. 2) and a scanning technique which synchronizes the frame rate and the scanner movement such that the field of view for a given color line during a given frame is the same field of view which an adjacent color line was directed to in the previous frame capture (Pg. 10 last paragraph – Pg. 11 first paragraph).
By incorporating the teachings of Tack in to the panoramic imager of Girard, to arrive at a panoramic imager with hyperspectral capabilities, and noting the azimuthal encoding of Girard ([Col. 4, Lines 12-19]) to enable the appropriate control and synchronization of the motor and frame capture, the modified panoramic imager would teach the limitation:
the system controller being configured to control the motor and to start and stop operations of the photosensors such that a same area in the field is measured by different micro-optic receiver channels at different times (Tack: Pg. 10 last paragraph – Pg. 11 first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panoramic camera of Girard with the hyperspectral detection of Tack to increase the spectral resolution.
The combination still does not teach:
the optical assembly comprising:
an aperture layer having a plurality of discrete apertures arranged along a focal plane of the bulk receiver optic;
an array of photosensors disposed behind the aperture layer; and
wherein the optical assembly further comprises a plurality of lenses, each micro-optic receiver channel further including a lens from the plurality of lenses, and wherein the lens for each micro-optic receiver channel is axially aligned with and configured to collimate lights rays received through its corresponding aperture and pass the collimated light rays into its corresponding photosensor;
Van den Bossche, in the related field of narrowband spectral filtering, teaches an optical arrangement of a detection system which enables improved alignment of light rays through spectral filters, which are known to be sensitive to angle of incidence.
By incorporating these teachings into the modified panoramic camera of Girard in view of Tack, the following claim limitations are taught:
wherein the optical assembly further comprises a plurality of lenses, each micro-optic receiver channel further including a lens from the plurality of lenses, and wherein the lens for each micro-optic receiver channel is axially aligned with and configured to collimate lights rays received through its corresponding aperture and pass the collimated light rays into its corresponding photosensor (Van den Bossche: [0178] “As illustrated in FIG. 11, the preferred design consists of a tandem of two lenses 1130, 1140 with approximately the same focal length f, in an image-space telecentric configuration (the configuration is optionally also object-space telecentric), a planar stack of mini-lens array 1150, a spectral filter 1160 and a CMOS detector 102… The other rays of the cone can also be bent in a bundle of rays parallel to the optical axis by using a small convex mini-lens 1150 behind the second lens 1140 in such a way that the point P is located in the focal point of the mini-lens 1150. In this way all the imaging rays of the spot S 1110 are bent in a direction nearly perpendicular to the spectral filter. This can now be done in front of every pixel of the CMOS detector separately by using an array of mini-lenses positioned in front of every pixel.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panoramic camera of Girard in view of Tack with the optical arrangement of Van den Bossche to improve alignment of light rays passing through the spectral filters.
While the lens 1140 of Van den Bossche performs some similar functionality to the claimed aperture arrays, the combination does not teach:
the optical assembly comprising:
an aperture layer having a plurality of discrete apertures arranged along a focal plane of the bulk receiver optic;
an array of photosensors disposed behind the aperture layer;
Love, in the related field of hyperspectral imaging, teaches an optical arrangement which, similar to Van den Bossche, “ensure[s] that light originating from every image point impinges on the [optical] element at substantially the same angle of incidence” (Love: [0020]). However, the optical arrangement of Love uses an array of apertures at the focal plane of the primary lens instead of the second lens as found in Van den Bossche. By substituting the aperture array of Love for the second lens of Van den Bossche, as a simple substitution of known equivalents, the modified panoramic camera of Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love further teaches:
the optical assembly comprising:
an aperture layer having a plurality of discrete apertures arranged along a focal plane of the bulk receiver optic (Love: [0025] “As shown in FIG. 3, a third preferred embodiment of the apparatus can include an aperture array 52, a microlens array 54 and a transmission grating 56. Preferably, the aperture array 52 and the microlens array 54 can function like the capillary array or micro-louvre array 24 in the previously discussed preferred embodiments. The microlens array 54 is preferably coupled with the matched aperture array 52 located at the micro-lens focal distance in front of the microlens array 54. Preferably, a direction-defining aperture and tiny lens can be placed at each pixel location at the initial image plane, thereby aiming the emerging light in the required direction, which as noted above is the same for all image points.” Note in FIG. 3, that the aperture array is located at the focal plane of the lens 50, as is apparent by the fact that the indicated incoming collimated light rays converge at the plane of the aperture array.);
an array of photosensors disposed behind the aperture layer (Van den Bossche: [0178] “This can now be done in front of every pixel of the CMOS detector separately by using an array of mini-lenses positioned in front of every pixel.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panoramic camera of Girard in view of Tack and Van den Bossche with the aperture array of Love as a simple substitution of one known element for another with a predictable outcome. See MPEP 2143, KSR rationale B.
Regarding claim 5, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 4, and further teaches:
wherein the non-uniform optical filter layer comprises a graduated optical filter (Tack: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 5, and further teaches:
wherein the graduated optical filter gradually increases in thickness in one dimension (Tack: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 5, and further teaches:
wherein the graduated optical filter increases in thickness in a step-wise fashion in one dimension such that each micro-optic receiver channel has a constant optical filter layer thickness, but wherein the thicknesses for different micro-optic receiver channels are different (Tack: Fig. 2. Top view shows that the steps are only in one dimension.).
Regarding claim 8, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 4, and further teaches:
wherein the non-uniform optical filter layer allows different micro-optic receiver channels to detect different ranges of wavelengths (Tack: Fig. 12 shows the wavelength dependence of the bands.).
Regarding claim 9, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 8, and further teaches:
wherein the range of allowed wavelengths changes in a step-wise fashion (Tack: Fig. 2.).
Regarding claim 10, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 4, and further teaches:
wherein the micro-optic receiver channels are arranged in two-dimensional array and wherein the non-uniform optical filter layer is non-uniform along the scanning direction (Tack: Fig. 15 shows the scanning direction being in the same direction as the non-uniformity of the filter.).
Regarding claim 12, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 4, and further teaches:
wherein each micro-optic receiver channel includes an aperture from the plurality of discrete apertures, and a photosensor in the array of photosensors (Van den Bossche: FIG. 11, [0178] “This can now be done in front of every pixel of the CMOS detector separately by using an array of mini-lenses positioned in front of every pixel.”; Love: [0025] “As shown in FIG. 3, a third preferred embodiment of the apparatus can include an aperture array 52, a microlens array 54 and a transmission grating 56. … The microlens array 54 is preferably coupled with the matched aperture array 52 located at the micro-lens focal distance in front of the microlens array 54. Preferably, a direction-defining aperture and tiny lens can be placed at each pixel location at the initial image plane...”).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood by the examiner in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teach the imaging system of claim 4, and further teaches:
wherein the lens for each micro-optic receiver channel is configured as a hemisphere positioned along a path of light from the bulk receiver optic, wherein the optical filter layer is coated on a curved surface of the lens (Van den Bossche: [0182] “FIG. 13 illustrates an alternative optical arrangement, comprising a dome 1310 (e.g., a bent glass plate) with the narrow bandpass filter 1320 disposed on its inside (as illustrated) or outside (not illustrated).”).
Given the uncertainty surrounding the specific structure intended by this claim, as outline in the 112(b) rejection above, the examiner notes the contemplation of the hemispherical arrangement of Van den Bossche without further dictating the full remaining optical structure. The examiner believes this reference to be a reasonable match to the broader concept presented by the applicant, as Van den Bossche outlines both the hemispherical structure as well as much of the same motivation presented in the instant application – an alternative arrangement for passing light rays through the optical filter such that they are substantially normal to the filter surface. The examiner is also of the opinion that this contemplation, in view of the other embodiments of Van den Bossche as well as the other references presented herein, could be reasonably applied to at least some configurations involving micro-lenses and non-uniform filter arrays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panoramic camera of Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love with the alternative embodiment presented by Van den Bossche of a hemispherically coated spectral filter, as a known and predictable alternative embodiment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love and further in view of Droz et al. (US 10605984 B2), hereinafter Droz.
Regarding claim 11, Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love teaches the imaging system of claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the array of photosensors comprises an array of photodetectors with each photodetector comprising an array of single-photon avalanche detectors (SPADs).
Droz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using arrays of SPADs for each detection channel ([Col. 3, Lines 29-32] “Further, for each waveguide, the system may also include an array of light detectors (e.g., SPADs) disposed along the output end of the waveguide.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the panoramic camera of Girard in view of Tack, Van den Bossche, and Love with the SPAD arrays of Droz as one of the known and predictable choices for light detectors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tack et al. (US 20120327248 A1) teaches similar hyperspectral imaging to the cited NPL also by Tack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. 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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645