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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hoose does not teach the following limitation, “one or more cuts extending into an interior of the single, monolithic, prism from an exterior surface of the single, monolithic, prism”, because “The claim language, (cuts extending into an interior of the single, monolithic, prism from an exterior surface) describes channels or slots that penetrate into the prism body for the purpose of receiving a masking material. Hoose's sub-micron grating grooves (e.g., di = 0.047 pm wide, h = 0.61 pm deep in the Si immersion grating of Fig. 4) are periodic grating structures optimized for diffraction efficiency, not aperture-defining cuts.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that “aperture defining cuts” in a material is part of the descriptive definition of a diffraction grating and the grooves 35 described in Fig. 3 of Hoose is read on by these elements of this limitation, as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 and 10 below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10, in relation to the limitation, “ dark masking material [applied] within the cuts be configured to block or absorb stray light to mitigate flare,” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically the newly cited reference Cho (CN-104754191-A, See Attached Epsacenet Machine Translation), does teach a dark masking material [applied] within the cuts be configured to block or absorb stray light to mitigate flare”, as shown in the rejection of Claims 1 and 10 below.
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 t he invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arns (US 20050243421 A1) in view Hoose (US 20030142405 A1) and Cho (CN-104754191-A, See Attached Epsacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Arns discloses, on Fig. 2-3, a prism (unlabeled prism in Fig. 3, annotated by examiner as prism P in the Figure below), comprising: a single, prism (prism P is a single prism) comprising: at least four surfaces (Surfaces of prism P annotated by examiner as surfaces S1-S4); and one or more interior aperture masks configured to mitigate flare caused by stray light in the prism (diffraction grating 302); wherein a first surface (S1) of the at least four surfaces is parallel to a third surface (S1 is parallel to S3) of the at least four surfaces; wherein a second surface (S2) of the at least four surfaces is parallel to a fourth surface (S2 is parallel to S4); and wherein an angle where the first surface meets the second surface is less than 90 degrees (angle between S1 and S2 is less than 90º).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Arns Figure 2
The teaching of Arns would inherently comprise, “…configured to mitigate flare caused by stray light in the prism…” this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of Arns, of “…volume-phase holographic transmission diffraction grating [Par 20], since diffraction gratings inherently combine selective reflection and selective transmittance to control output light, reflected would also mean stray light is blocked by the diffraction grating, and further diffraction gratings intrinsically have imperfections, which include absorption loss wherein the grating absorbs at least a small percentage of incident light, which reduces overall stray light.
But Arns does not explicitly disclose, wherein the prism is a single monolithic prism, and one or more cuts extending into an interior of the single, monolithic, prism from an exterior surface of the single, monolithic, prism; and a dark masking material applied within the one or more cuts the dark masking material within the one or more cuts configured to block or absorb stray light
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hoose teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in prisms to include, wherein the prism is a single monolithic prism (prism 32 ), and one or more cuts extending into an interior of the single, monolithic, prism from an exterior surface of the single, monolithic, prism (prism 32 can have grating 34 with grooves 35 fabricated into it)[Par 26], and material applied within the one or more cuts to block or absorb stray light (grooves 35 can be filled with a dielectric coating or metal in a monolithic prim 32 wherein a composite prims is only presented as an alternate embodiment, “The grating profile of the rectangular volume grating 34 can be fabricated directly on one of the prism faces, for example, by reactive ion etching. Alternatively, the grating structure can be fabricated on a separate semiconductor wafer, for example, a Si wafer, that is subsequently bonded to the prism face 31”, and dielectric material or metal would both inherently absorb or block stray light, because diffraction gratings inherently have some absorption loss and a function of diffraction gratings is reflecting light away from the direction of transmittance) [Par 26].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns with Hoose in order to reduce polarization dependence, as taught by Hoose [Par 26].
But Arns in view of Hoose does not explicitly disclose wherein, a dark masking material applied within the one or more cuts.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Cho teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable in optical shielding to include, a dark masking material (absorbent such as ink 150) applied within the one or more cuts (ink 150 is in grooves of shielding parts 160 and 170) [Par 43-48].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose with Cho in order to provide removal of unwanted light and glare, as taught by Cho [Par 46].
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arns in view of Hoose and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (US 20140071400 A1).
Re Claim 5, Arns in view of Hoose and Cho discloses, the prism of claim 1.
But Arns in view of Hoose and Cho, does not disclose, further comprising a highly reflective coating covering, at least partially, the second surface or the fourth surface.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Gao teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in prisms to include a highly reflective coating covering, at least partially, the second surface or the fourth surface (Second surface 217 has a highly reflective coating) [Par 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose and Cho with Gao in order obtain high reflection at the illumination wavelength, as taught by Gao [Par 55].
Re Claim 8, Arns in view of Hoose and Cho discloses, the prism of claim 1, and Arns further discloses on Fig. 2, further comprising: wherein the prism comprises a parallelogram shape (prism P is a parallelogram).
But Arns in view of Hoose and Cho does not disclose, wherein the angle between the first surface and the second surface is between 25 and 35 degrees.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Gao teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in prisms to include wherein the angle between the first surface and the second surface is between 25 and 35 degrees (the angle between first surface 216 and second surface 217 is 27.5 º) [Par 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose and Cho with Gao in order to fold light from a wide angle of field positions as taught by Gao [Par 28].
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arns in view of Hoose and Cho as applied to Claim 1, above and further in view of Deok (KR 20200113459 A).
Re claim 6, Arns in view of Hoose and Cho discloses, the prism of claim 1.
But Arns in view of Hoose does not explicitly disclose, further comprising an anti-reflective coating covering, at least partially, the first surface or the third surface.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Deok teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in prisms to include an anti-reflective coating (uneven structure covering the inside of prism 30) covering, at least partially, the first surface or the third surface (uneven structure covers a first and second surface in prism 30) [Page 3, Par 11-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose and Cho with Deok in order to reduce noise as taught by Deok [Page 3, Par 11-12].
Re claim 7, Arns in view of Hoose and Cho discloses, the prism of claim 1.
But Arns in view of Hoose and Cho does not explicitly disclose, it further comprising a dark masking covering, at least partially, the first surface or the third surface.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Deok teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in prisms to include a dark masking covering (uneven structure covering the inside of prism 30 can include a material that absorbs light well) covering, at least partially, the first surface or the third surface (uneven structure covers a first and second surface in prism 30) [Page 3, Par 11-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose and Cho with Deok in order to reduce noise as taught by Deok [Page 3, Par 11-12].
Re Claim 10, Arns discloses, on Fig. 2-3, a prism (unlabeled prism in Fig. 3, annotated by examiner as prism P in the Figure below), comprising: a single, prism (prism P is a single prism) comprising: at least four surfaces (Surfaces of prism P annotated by examiner as surfaces S1-S4); and one or more interior aperture masks configured to mitigate flare caused by stray light in the prism (diffraction grating 302; wherein a first surface (S1) of the at least four surfaces is parallel to a third surface (S1 is parallel to S3) of the at least four surfaces; wherein a second surface (S2) of the at least four surfaces is parallel to a fourth surface (S2 is parallel to S4); and wherein an angle where the first surface meets the second surface is less than 90 degrees (angle between S1 and S2 is less than 90º).
The teaching of Arns would inherently comprise, “…configured to mitigate flare caused by stray light in the prism…” this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of Arns, of “…volume-phase holographic transmission diffraction grating [Par 20], since diffraction gratings inherently combine selective reflection and selective transmittance to control output light, reflected would also mean stray light is blocked by the diffraction grating, and further diffraction gratings intrinsically have imperfections, which include absorption loss wherein the grating absorbs at least a small percentage of incident light, which reduces overall stray light.
But Arns does not explicitly disclose; A camera, comprising: one or more lenses; an image sensor; and a prism between the one or more lenses and the image sensor, wherein the prism is a single monolithic prism, and one or more cuts extending into an interior of the single, monolithic, prism from an exterior surface of the single, monolithic, prism; and a dark masking material applied within the one or more cuts, the dark masking material within the one or more cuts configured to block or absorb stray light.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hoose teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in prisms to include, wherein the prism is a single monolithic prism (prism 32 ), and one or more cuts extending into an interior of the single, monolithic, prism from an exterior surface of the single, monolithic, prism (prism 32 can have grating 34 with grooves 35 fabricated into it)[Par 26], and material applied within the one or more cuts to block or absorb stray light (grooves 35 can be filled with a dielectric coating or metal in a monolithic prim 32 wherein a composite prims is only presented as an alternate embodiment, “The grating profile of the rectangular volume grating 34 can be fabricated directly on one of the prism faces, for example, by reactive ion etching. Alternatively, the grating structure can be fabricated on a separate semiconductor wafer, for example, a Si wafer, that is subsequently bonded to the prism face 31”, and dielectric material or metal would both inherently absorb or block stray light, because diffraction gratings inherently have some absorption loss and a function of diffraction gratings is reflecting light away from the direction of transmittance) [Par 26].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns with Hoose in order to reduce polarization dependence, as taught by Hoose [Par 26].
But Arns in view of Hoose does not explicitly disclose, A camera, comprising: one or more lenses; an image sensor; and a prism between the one or more lenses and the image sensor, and a dark masking material applied within the one or more cuts.
Within the same field of endeavor, Deok teaches on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in prism systems to include a camera (Fig. 3) is comprising: one or more lenses (lens 20); an image sensor (detection unit 14); and a prism between the one or more lenses and the image sensor (prism 30 is between lens 20 and detection unit 14),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose with Deok in order to increase incident light, which is then imaged as taught by Deok [Page 3, Par 6].
But Arns in view of Hoose and Deok does not explicitly teach, a dark masking material applied within the one or more cuts.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Cho teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable in optical shielding to include, a dark masking material (absorbent such as ink 150) applied within the one or more cuts (ink 150 is in grooves of shielding parts 160 and 170) [Par 43-48].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose and Deok with Cho in order to provide removal of unwanted light and glare, as taught by Cho [Par 46].
Re claim 14, Arns in view of Hoose, Deok, and Cho discloses, the prism of claim 10, and Deok further comprises on Fig. 3, an anti-reflective coating (uneven structure covering the inside of prism 30) covering, at least partially, the first surface or the third surface (uneven structure covers a first and second surface in prism 30) [Page 3, Par 11-12].
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arns in view of Hoose, Deok, and Cho as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gao.
Re Claim 13, Arns in view of Hoose, Deok, and Cho discloses, the camera of claim 10.
But Arns in view of Deok does not disclose, the prism further comprising a highly reflective coating covering, at least partially, the second surface or the fourth surface.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Gao teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in prisms to include a highly reflective coating covering, at least partially, the second surface or the fourth surface (Second surface 217 has a highly reflective coating) [Par 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Arns in view of Hoose with Gao in order obtain high reflection at the illumination wavelength, as taught by Gao [Par 55].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9, and 11-12 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.
Re Claim 2, and 11 the closest prior art of record is Arns, but the prior art neither teaches nor suggests interior aperture masks comprising: a first channel in a left side surface between the first surface and the third surfaces; a second channel in a right side surface opposite the channel in the left side surface; and a third channel in the first surface connecting the first and second channels to a depth less than a thickness of the prism between the first surface and the third surface.
Claims 3-4, and 12 depend from claims 2 and 11 respectively and thus are also objected to as being dependent on a rejected based claim, but are otherwise allowable as dependent claims from Claims 2 and 11.
Re Claim 9, Arns is the closest prior art of record but, but the prior art neither teaches nor suggests wherein, the prism is configured to: transmit light passing through a first surface into the prism; reflect, at a second surface of the prism, at least some of the light passing through the first surface of the prism; reflect, at the first surface of the prism, at least some of the light reflected from the second surface of the prism; reflect, at a third surface of the prism, at least some of the light reflected from the first surface of the prism; and reflect, at a fourth surface of the prism, at least some of the light reflected from the third surface of the prism to pass through the third surface out of the prism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parichehreh (US 20200096873 A1) and Hirai (US 5969869 A) teach prisms that include apertures or gratings. Owen (US 5530565 A) teaches a prism that includes a grating and an external aperture mask. Gutin (US 8243353 B1) teaches coded aperture imaging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights