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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 3/24/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 13 are amended and claim 14 is cancelled. Thus, claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 2/2/2026 and 3/13/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/24/2026 has been fully considered. The amendments to claims 1 and 13 have overcome the previous grounds of rejection. However, in view of this new amendment, a new ground for rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues, on page 6 of the remarks filed 3/24/2026, that the Keilaf reference teaches modulation of an optical signal instead of receiver sensitivity. The Keilaf reference was not relied upon to teach this modulation of receiver sensitivity. The Keilaf reference was only relied upon to teach the limitation regarding the order of image acquisition. Page 8 of the Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026 states: “…to modify the order of image acquisition disclosed by Moran, such that the image with constant detector sensitivity is acquired first and the image with increasing detector sensitivity is acquired second, as taught by Keilaf” (please see bold text specifically). Thus, this argument is not convincing.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8 and 15 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.
Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation “where the modulation function is achieved by a modulating element.” However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, already recite the limitation of “a modulating element” that achieves the modulation function. It is unclear whether this recitation of “a modulating element” is intended to refer to the same “modulating element” recited by claim 1, or if this is intended to introduce a new modulating element. For purposes of examination, this recitation of “a modulating element” in claim 3, will be interpreted as the same modulating element already recited by claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15: claim 15 recites the limitation “the scene is illuminated by a light source” but the limitation of “a light source” is already recited by claim 13. It is unclear whether this recitation of “light source” in claim 15 is intended to introduce a new light source or refer to the same light source recited by claim 13.
All other claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites the limitation of “where the modulation function is achieved by a modulating element.” However, amended claim 1 recites: “wherein the modulation function is achieved by a modulating element.” Because all of the limitations recited by claim 3 are already recited by claim 1, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (US 7787131 B1), in view of Keilaf (US 20200386872 A1), and further in view of Kugimiya (US 20200057149 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Moran discloses an imaging system (Fig. 2, sensitivity modulated 3D system 2, referred to as SM3D) comprising:
a light source (Fig. 2, transmitter 4),
a detector array which comprises pixels (Fig. 2, SM3D detector 18), wherein the pixels have a built-in modulation function changing sensitivity or responsivity of pixels during the acquisition of a frame according to a monotonic function (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “The imaging detector includes an array or plurality of picture elements (pixels), with each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current, voltage, or transimpedance amplification system consisting of a gain modulation control configured to temporally modulate the gain of an amplifier and to produce a gain modulated electronic signal”; Fig. 17, where each unit cell has a gain modulation control and amplifier; Fig. 5 where in each of the sections, the sensitivity has a monotonic function. In the first section sensitivity is linearly increasing and in the center section it remains constant), and
a synchronization circuit to synchronize the acquisition performed by the detector array with the light source (Fig. 2, timing system 8, which has timing delay generator 10 and system controller 12), wherein
the light source is operable to emit a light pulse to acquire a first image by the detector array having constant sensitivity (Fig. 5, the central section shows that the receiver sensitivity is high and constant through the acquisition of the high-sensitivity image 50), and
another light pulse to acquire a second image by the detector array having a sensitivity increasing with time (Fig. 5, the first section shows that the receiver sensitivity is linearly increasing with time and an increasing sensitivity image 52 is acquired), and
wherein the modulation function is achieved by a modulating element (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current”), and
wherein the modulating element comprises a leakage control element that is operable for rerouting a certain amount of charge per unit time to a position different from a floating diffusion (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “The imaging detector includes an array or plurality of picture elements (pixels), with each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current”).
However, Moran does not teach that the image with the constant sensitivity is acquired first and the image with the increasing sensitivity is acquired second. Moran also does not expressly teach wherein each pixel comprises a 4T pixel architecture having a transfer transistor with a transfer gate, a first reset transistor connected to a first floating diffusion and a source follower, and a column select transistor that provides an output terminal.
Keilaf teaches that a first pulse is emitted and received while the detector array has a constant sensitivity ([0244] amplification values may be kept at a suitable constant level; Fig. 15, step 1502, emit light emission and step 1504, receive data associated with first light emission, which could be acquired with amplifications at a suitable level as described in [0244]), and that a second pulse is emitted and received while the detector array has sensitivity increasing with time ([0244] a varying amplification can be according to a suitable function relative to time, such as linearly increasing or linearly decreasing; Fig. 15, step 1506, emit second pulse, step 1508, alter amplification setting of one or more sensors, step 1510, receive second pulse at the altered amplification setting).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the order of image acquisition disclosed by Moran, such that the image with constant detector sensitivity is acquired first and the image with increasing detector sensitivity is acquired second, as taught by Keilaf. The constant image with no range encoding provides an image where shading is dependent on spatial variations in the object, and by comparing it with the range-sensitive image acquired during increasing sensitivity, non-range-dependent intensity variations can be cancelled (Moran, Col. 8 lines 30-45). The system employed by Keilaf uses data obtained from the first pulse in order to adjust amplification settings for the second pulse (Keilaf, [0290]). By using the constant intensity image to adjust the amplification settings for the increasing sensitivity image enables the system to adjust amplification values based on reflectivity levels of objects in the environment (Keilaf, [0273]). This also enables the system to adjust the sensitivity of the sensors depending on ambient light levels as well, in order to obtain images that have sufficient SNR and do not saturate the detector (Keilaf, [0274-0275]).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach: wherein each pixel comprises a 4T pixel architecture having a transfer transistor with a transfer gate, a first reset transistor connected to a first floating diffusion and a source follower, and a column select transistor that provides an output terminal.
Kugimiya teaches wherein each pixel comprises a 4T pixel architecture having a transfer transistor with a transfer gate, a first reset transistor connected to a first floating diffusion and a source follower, and a column select transistor that provides an output terminal (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0066] and [0076] transistors 52, 54, 55, and 56 and FD 53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system taught by Moran and Keilaf, such that each pixel comprises the 4T architecture taught by Kugimiya. This modification would be applying the 4T pixel architecture taught by Kugimiya to the known device taught by Moran and Keilaf, whose detector also contains an array of pixels. This would yield predictable result of receiving optical signals. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding Claim 3: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. Moran further discloses where the modulation function is achieved by a modulating element (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current”).
Regarding Claim 10: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. While Moran teaches the use of an infrared light source (Col. 24 lines 51-56), this current combination of Moran, Keilaf, and Kugimiya, does not expressly teach: where the emission wavelength of the light source is larger than 800 nm and smaller than 1000 nm.
Kugimiya further teaches this limitation in [0042]: “The light emitting device 11 emits, for example, an infrared pulse having a wavelength of 850 nm.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Moran and Keilaf and Kugimiya, by replacing the infrared light source disclosed by Moran, with the infrared light source further taught by Kugimiya. This would be a simple substitution of one type of infrared light source for another type of infrared light source having a wavelength of 850 nm, obtaining the predictable result of emitting light to take distance measurements for use in a lidar system (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B).
Regarding Claim 11: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. While Moran teaches the use of an infrared light source (Col. 24 lines 51-56), this current combination of Moran, Keilaf, and Kugimiya, does not expressly teach: where the emission wavelength of the light source is in between 840 nm and 1610 nm.
Kugimiya further teaches this limitation in [0042]: “The light emitting device 11 emits, for example, an infrared pulse having a wavelength of 850 nm.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Moran and Keilaf and Kugimiya, by replacing the infrared light source disclosed by Moran, with the infrared light source further taught by Kugimiya. This would be a simple substitution of one type of infrared light source for another type of infrared light source having a wavelength of 850 nm, obtaining the predictable result of emitting light to take distance measurements for use in a lidar system (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B).
Regarding Claim 12: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. This combination of Moran, Keilafm and Kugimiya does not teach a vehicle that comprises this imaging system of claim 1, and board electronics embedded in the vehicle, wherein: the imaging system is arranged to provide an output signal to the board electronics.
However, Keilaf further teaches an imaging system that is part of a vehicle ([0295] lidar system 100 can be deployed in a host vehicle; Fig. 10, lidar 100 on vehicle 1002), and board electronics embedded in the vehicle (Fig. 16, lidar system 100 is connected via bus 2900, and the memory may be associated with the electronic control unit of a vehicle 2904), wherein: the imaging system is arranged to provide an output signal to the board electronics ([0295] memory 2902 can be stored in “electronic control unit 2904 of a host vehicle and may be accessible by processor 118 over data bus 2900”; and because lidar system 100 is able to store and access information in the memory 2902, the imaging system must output signals via the bus 2900).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the imaging system disclosed by Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, by implementing it into a vehicle such that it is capable of outputting signals to electronics embedded in the vehicle, as further taught by Keilaf. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 13: Moran discloses a detection method where a scene is illuminated with a light source (Fig. 2, transmitter 5) emitting:
a light pulse in order to acquire a first image by the detector array having a constant sensitivity (Fig. 5, the central section shows that the receiver sensitivity is high and constant through the acquisition of the high-sensitivity image 50), and
another light pulse in order to acquire a second image by the detector array having a sensitivity increasing with a time (Fig. 5, the first section shows that the receiver sensitivity is linearly increasing with time and an increasing sensitivity image 52 is acquired) and wherein the detector array, which comprises pixels with a built-in modulation function (Fig. 2, SM3D detector 18; Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “The imaging detector includes an array or plurality of picture elements (pixels), with each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current, voltage, or transimpedance amplification system consisting of a gain modulation control configured to temporally modulate the gain of an amplifier and to produce a gain modulated electronic signal”; Fig. 17, where each unit cell has a gain modulation control and amplifier) is operable to detect light and changing sensitivity or responsivity of pixels during the acquisition of a frame according to a monotonic function (Fig. 5 where in each of the sections, the sensitivity has a monotonic function. In the first section sensitivity is linearly increasing and in the center section it remains constant) and wherein acquisition performed by detector array is synchronized with the light source (Fig. 2, timing system 8, which has timing delay generator 10 and system controller 12; Col. 7 lines 5-25, the system controller uses the timing delay generator such that the detection of the laser pulse occurs during the time period where the receiver gain is being modulated), and
wherein the modulation function is achieved by a modulating element (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current”), and
wherein the modulating element comprises a leakage control element that is operable for rerouting a certain amount of charge per unit time to a position different from a floating diffusion (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “The imaging detector includes an array or plurality of picture elements (pixels), with each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current”).
Moran does not disclose that the image with the constant sensitivity is acquired first and the image with the increasing sensitivity is acquired second. Moran also does not expressly disclose wherein each pixel comprises a 4T pixel architecture having a transfer transistor with a transfer gate, a first reset transistor connected to a first floating diffusion and a source follower, and a column select transistor that provides an output terminal.
Keilaf teaches that a first pulse is emitted and received while the detector array has a constant sensitivity ([0244] amplification values may be kept at a suitable constant level; Fig. 15, step 1502, emit light emission and step 1504, receive data associated with first light emission, which could be acquired with amplifications at a suitable level as described in [0244]), and that a second pulse is emitted and received while the detector array has sensitivity increasing with time ([0244] a varying amplification can be according to a suitable function relative to time, such as linearly increasing or linearly decreasing; Fig. 15, step 1506, emit second pulse, step 1508, alter amplification setting of one or more sensors, step 1510, receive second pulse at the altered amplification setting).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the order of image acquisition disclosed by Moran, such that the image with constant detector sensitivity is acquired first and the image with increasing detector sensitivity is acquired second, as taught by Keilaf. The constant image with no range encoding provides an image where shading is dependent on spatial variations in the object, and by comparing it with the range-sensitive image acquired during increasing sensitivity, non-range-dependent intensity variations can be cancelled (Moran, Col. 8 lines 30-45). The system employed by Keilaf uses data obtained from the first pulse in order to adjust settings for the second pulse (Keilaf, [0290]). By using the constant intensity image to adjust the amplification settings for the increasing sensitivity image enables the system to adjust amplification values based on reflectivity levels of objects in the environment (Keilaf, [0273]). This also enables the system to adjust the sensitivity of the sensors depending on ambient light levels as well, in order to obtain images that have sufficient SNR and do not saturate the detector (Keilaf, [0274-0275]).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach: wherein each pixel comprises a 4T pixel architecture having a transfer transistor with a transfer gate, a first reset transistor connected to a first floating diffusion and a source follower, and a column select transistor that provides an output terminal.
Kugimiya teaches wherein each pixel comprises a 4T pixel architecture having a transfer transistor with a transfer gate, a first reset transistor connected to a first floating diffusion and a source follower, and a column select transistor that provides an output terminal (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0066] and [0076] transistors 52, 54, 55, and 56 and FD 53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system taught by Moran and Keilaf, such that each pixel comprises the 4T architecture taught by Kugimiya. This modification would be applying the 4T pixel architecture taught by Kugimiya to the known device taught by Moran and Keilaf, whose detector also contains an array of pixels. This would yield predictable result of receiving optical signals. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding Claim 15: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the detection method according to claim 13. Moran further discloses wherein the scene is illuminated by a light source (Fig. 2, transmitter 4) and the first and second light pulse have identical duration and pulse height (Fig. 11, the transmitted pulses, represented by laser trigger, are the same height and width for the increasing sensitivity portion and the constant sensitivity portion).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (US 7787131 B1), in view of Keilaf (US 20200386872 A1), further in view of Kugimiya (US 20200057149 A1), and further in view of Wang (US 20180059224 A1). Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. Moran, Keilaf, and Kugimiya do not expressly disclose wherein at least the detector array and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a same chip and/or the imaging comprises a sensor package, which encloses the detector array and the synchronization circuit integrated into the same chip as well as the light source.
However, Wang teaches a system where the detector array and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a same chip ([0030] “the entire system 15 may be encapsulated in a single Integrated Circuit (IC) or chip”; Fig. 1 shows that the entire system 15 contains memory 20 and processor 19, as well as the image sensor unit 17 and projector module 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the imaging system taught by Moran, Keilaf, and Kugimiya such that the detector array and the processor controlling timings of emissions and detections, are integrated into the same chip. Modifying the system architecture such that the system elements are integrated into the same chip is simply a different design option that is known in the art and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP Section 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (US 7787131 B1), in view of Keilaf (US 20200386872 A1), further in view of Kugimiya (US 20200057149 A1), and further in view of Irish (US 20170301716 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 3. Moran discloses that the sensitivity modulation is in the form of a current linear to an applied voltage (Col. 5 line 66 – Col. 6 line 5, “The imaging detector includes an array or plurality of picture elements (pixels), with each pixel having a sensitivity modulator in the form of a photo-current, voltage, or transimpedance amplification system”. The use of the word “or” means that it is either the photocurrent or the voltage that is modulated and not both. In the embodiment where the current is used, the voltage remains constant. Furthermore, because Ohms law states that voltage is linearly related to current, the applied current that causes the linear ramp in sensitivity, shown in Fig. 5 for example, must be linear to the applied voltage).
However, they do not expressly teach that: the modulating element introduces a leakage current linear to an applied voltage.
Irish teaches a modulating element, in the form of a transistor, that introduces a leakage current that is linear to an applied voltage ([0040] the transistor used to activate the detectors is a bipolar junction transistor. It is understood that a bipolar junction transistor is a type of transistor that modulates current, so in the embodiment that employs this type of transistor, it is the current that is being controlled, not an applied voltage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensitivity modulation of the pixels disclosed by Moran and Keilaf and Kugimiya, such that a bipolar junction transistor is used to control sensitivity via a current, as taught by Irish. Using a bipolar junction transistor to introduce and modulate a current for controlling detector sensitivity, would be using a known technique to improve a similar detector in the same way (MPEP Section 2141.III KSR Rationale C).
Regarding Claim 7: Moran, in view of Keilaf, Kugimiya, and Irish, teaches the imaging system according to claim 4. In this combination, Moran further discloses where the leakage current that flows through the modulating element has a first value at a start of a frame and a second value at the end of the frame, wherein the first value is higher than the second value (Moran: Fig. 5 shows that in the increasing sensitivity frame that the sensitivity of the detector increases over the course of the frame).
People of ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies would understand that leakage current, or dark current, can be used to modulate the sensitivity of the detector. A high leakage current results in lower detector sensitivity, while low leakage current lowers noise and results in higher detector sensitivity. Therefore, since a bipolar junction transistor is used as the modulating element in the system of claim 4, as taught by Irish, then in order to have an increasing sensitivity as disclosed by Moran in Fig. 5, the leakage current must decrease with time, starting at a high value and decreasing to a smaller, second value.
Regarding Claim 8: Moran, in view of Keilaf, Kugimiya, and Irish, teaches the imaging system according to claim 4. In this combination, Moran further discloses where the leakage current that flows through the modulating element monotonously decreases from a first value to a second value during a frame B ( Fig. 5 shows that in the increasing sensitivity frame, the sensitivity increases linearly, or in other words, monotonously, over the course of the frame).
People of ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies would understand that leakage current, or dark current, can be used to modulate the sensitivity of the detector. A high leakage current results in lower detector sensitivity, while low leakage current lowers noise and results in higher detector sensitivity. Therefore, since a bipolar junction transistor is used as the modulating element in the system of claim 4, as taught by Irish, then in order to have a linearly increasing sensitivity as disclosed by Moran in Fig. 5, the leakage current must decrease linearly with time also.
Regarding Claim 9: Moran, in view of Keilaf, Kugimiya, and Irish, teaches the imaging system according to claim 4. In this combination, Irish further teaches where the modulating element is a leakage control transistor ([0040] the transistor used to activate the detectors is a bipolar junction transistor). A bipolar junction transistor modulates current, so in the embodiment that employs this type of transistor, it is the current that is being controlled, not an applied voltage.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (US 7787131 B1), in view of Keilaf (US 20200386872 A1), further in view of Kugimiya (US 20200057149 A1), and further in view of Banks (US 20170248796 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Moran, in view of Keilaf and Kugimiya, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. However, combination does not expressly teach: the pixels have a polarizing function.
Banks teaches this limitation in Figs. 2A and 2B, where polarizer array 30 has vertical linear polarizers 32 and horizontal linear polarizers 34.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector array in the system taught by Moran, Keilaf, and Kugimiya, by implementing the polarizer array taught by Banks. This would be beneficial because “The polarizing element array may be used as an anti-aliasing filter” (Banks, [0065]).
Regarding Claim 6: Moran, in view of Keilaf, Kugimiya, and Banks, teaches the imaging system according to claim 5. In this combination, Banks further teaches where adjacent pixels have orthogonal polarization functions (Figs. 2A and 2B, polarizers 32 and 34 are orthogonal to each other).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights