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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 25 March 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-22, and 24-29 remain pending in the application (claims 4-5, 14, and 23 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims fails to overcome the 112(f) interpretations and additionally fail to overcome all rejections previously set forth in the Final Rejection dated 25 November 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, the Applicant disagrees with the 112(f) interpretation, however, the Applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the limitation “one or more processing modules” should not be interpreted under 112(f), merely stating that they disagree. 112(f) interpretation is used when a generic placeholder is coupled with functional language without any sufficient structure recited. For the above limitation, the generic placeholder is “module,” the functional language is “configured to receive an output” and “configured to generate a spectral response,” and no further structure is provided in the claim. For these reasons, “one or more processing modules” with be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
On pages 9-13, the Applicant argues that the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack fail to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15, however, the Examiner disagrees. Firstly, it is unclear what exactly the Applicant is arguing against as they state that the claims teach “sets” of filters and sensors while providing excerpts from Tack that prove Tack teaches this. Additionally, “sets” in this case is very broad; it could be referring to a sub-group of sensors/filters (any number greater than 1), or it could be referring to different sensor packages as a whole since the preamble merely states a sensor system. Regarding the differing wavelengths claimed, Tack clearly teaches these limitations as well in the paragraphs cited by the Applicant in their arguments.
To provide further clarification, a set is defined as a group of things, which is how this limitation is being interpreted for examination purposes. Akkaya teaches sets of sensors (106) and sets of filters (112), this is shown in figure 1 as well as ¶21 which states, [a]n example CFA may present a Bayer pattern—i.e., a repeated tiling of 2×2 subarrays having two green-transmissive elements, one blue-transmissive element, and one red-transmissive element in each subarray, for example. So in this case, one group of 4 sensor elements defines a “set,” therefore, Akkaya teaches a plurality of sets.
Tack clearly teaches a plurality of sets of both sensors and filters (see figure 2) as well as ¶7 which states, the image sensor is divided into sub-groups of light-detecting elements repeated over an array of light-detecting elements and wherein a filter is provided such that a plurality of unique wavelength bands is transmitted to the light-detecting elements in the sub-group. This clearly shows a plurality of sets. For the reasons set forth above, the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 15.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16: “the plurality of sets rejection filters” in line 4 should be “the plurality of sets of rejection filters” for further clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
"one or more processing modules" in claims 1, 10, and 15: this limitation will be interpreted as anyone or combination of a microprocessor, micro-controller, digital signal processor, microcomputer, central processing unit, field programmable gate array, programmable logic device, state machine, logic circuitry, analog circuitry, digital circuitry, any device that manipulates signals (analog and/or digital) based on hard coding of the circuitry and/or operational instructions, read-only memory, random access memory, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, static memory, dynamic memory, flash memory, cache memory, and/or any device that stores digital information in light of ¶229 of the specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1) and Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akkaya teaches a sensor system comprises: a plurality of sets of optical sensors (106) configured in a layer, the plurality of sets of optical sensors (106) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface (see figure 1, sensors 106; and ¶16, Sensor array 104 is schematically illustrated with only twenty-five sensors 106 for simplicity, although there is no theoretical limitation to the number of sensors 106); a plurality of sets of optical filters (110) configured in a layer having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of optical filters (110) is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of sets of optical sensors (106), wherein a set of optical filters (110) of the plurality of sets of optical filters (110) includes a plurality of optical filters (110) arranged in a pattern, wherein at least some optical filters (110) of the plurality of optical filters (110) are configured to pass light in a different wavelength range (see figure 1, color filter array 110; and ¶21, camera 100 optionally may include a color filter array (CFA) 110 of color filter elements 112. When included, the color filter elements are arranged in registry with sensor elements 106 of sensor array 104. An example CFA may present a Bayer pattern); a rejection filter (114) configured as a layer having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the rejection filter (114) is adapted to restrict light wavelengths outside a predetermined wavelength range (see figure 1, optical filter 114; ¶22, In the reflection state, optical filter 114 is configured to block spectral light in a spectral light sub-band (e.g., visible light sub-band) and transmit light outside the spectral light sub-band (e.g., NIR or IR sub-bands). Blocked spectral light may be absorbed, reflected, and/or scattered by optical filter 114, depending on the implementation; and ¶23, Optical filter 114 includes one or more layers of liquid crystals (LC) that are used to selectively block spectral light in the spectral light sub-band); a first set of optical elements (108) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface; wherein the rejection filter (114) and the first set of optical elements (108) are configured in a stack, wherein the stack is located above the top layer of the plurality of sets of optical filters (110) (see figure 1, microlens array 108); and one or more processors (¶59, electronic controller machine 120 may be configured to output the matrix of pixels 126 to another processing component for additional image processing (e.g., filtering, computer vision); and see ¶77-79 for further details). However, Akkaya fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical filters are interference filters; wherein each optical interference filter of the set of optical interference filters is configured to pass light in a different wavelength; wherein the rejection filter comprises a plurality of set of rejection filters; wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of rejection filters is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of sets of optical interference filters, wherein each rejection filter is associated with one or more optical interference filters of a set of optical interference filters; and wherein the one or more processing modules are configured to receive an output from each optical sensor of the plurality of sets of optical sensors, wherein the one or more processing modules are further configured to generate a spectral response based on the output.
However, Houck teaches wherein the optical filters (104) are interference filters (¶21, the optical filter 104 may include an optical interference filter); and wherein the one or more processing modules are configured to receive an output from each optical sensor of the plurality of sets of optical sensors, wherein the one or more processing modules are further configured to generate a spectral response based on the output (¶14, The one or more processors may determine, based on the angle of incidence of the light beam on the channel and angle shift information associated with the channel, a wavelength range associated with the light beam. In this way, the one or more processors may be able to identify multiple wavelength ranges associated with light beams that are passed by the channel of the optical filter and received by sensor elements of the optical sensor. Accordingly, the one or more processors increase the optical sensor device's ability to determine accurate spectral information associated with light that enters the optical sensor device, as compared to a conventional optical sensor device; and ¶46, Processor 420 is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akkaya to incorporate the teachings of Houck to include interference filters because of their high spectral control, durability, and heat resistance; providing a long-lasting device that provides precise measurements. Additionally, it would have been obvious for the processor to generate spectral output in order to determine accurate spectral information associated with light that enters the optical sensor device (Houck ¶14). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein each optical interference filter of the set of optical interference filters is configured to pass light in a different wavelength; wherein the rejection filter comprises a plurality of set of rejection filters; wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of rejection filters is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of sets of optical interference filters, and wherein each rejection filter is associated with one or more optical interference filters of a set of optical interference filters.
However, Tack teaches wherein each optical interference filter (108) of the set of optical interference filters (108a-108d) is configured to pass light in a different wavelength (¶121, A mosaic filter 108a may divide the light-detecting elements 104 of the mosaic block 106a into sub-groups, wherein the mosaic filter 108a is arranged to transmit a plurality of unique wavelengths to the light-detecting elements 104 within the sub-group); wherein the rejection filter (114) comprises a plurality of sets of rejection filters (114a-114d) (see figure 3, plurality of rejection filters 114; and ¶53, the image sensor further comprises a plurality of rejection filters associated with respective sensor blocks); wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of rejection filters (114a-114d) is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of sets of optical interference filters (108a-108d) (see figure 3, the bottom surface of rejection filters 114 located proximal to the top surface of interference filters 108), and wherein each rejection filter (114) is associated with one or more optical interference filters of a set of optical interference filters (108) (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya and Houck to further include a plurality of rejection filters because [t]he use of rejection filters may control intensity of light reaching the light-detecting elements. The rejection filters may e.g. ensure that a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and/or dynamic range is similar for the respective sensor blocks (Tack, ¶54). Additionally, it would have been obvious to have every interference filter pass light in a different wavelength in order to capture a fully color image. Lastly, it would have been obvious to have the rejection filters disposed above the interference filters because it is merely the rearrangement of parts already known in the art that would not modify the operation of the device as a whole (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 3, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the sensor system further comprises a second set of optical elements (Akkaya, not labeled) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface of the second set of optical elements is located atop the first set of optical elements (Akkaya, 108) (Akkaya, see figure 1, unlabeled lens disposed over elements 114, 108, 110, and 104).
Regarding claim 6, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the sensor system of claim 1, wherein an optical element of the first set of optical elements (Akkaya 108) is selected from a group comprising: an aperture stop, a lens, a dispersive element, a fiber optic plate, a pinhole, a microlens, a micro-grating, a nanoscale lens and a plurality of baffles, wherein each baffle of the plurality of baffles extends incident to the respective bottom surface of the first set of optical elements (Akkaya, see figure 1, microlens array 108).
Regarding claim 7, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the sensor system of claim 3, wherein at least one optical element of the second set of optical elements (Akkaya, unlabeled lens) is selected from a group comprising: a pinhole, a lens, an aperture stop, a diaphragm, a meta-lens, a planar lens, a dispersive element, and a lens stack (Akkaya, see figure 1, unlabeled lens disposed over elements 114, 108, 110, and 104).
Regarding claim 15, Akkaya teaches a method for manufacturing an optical sensor system, the method comprising: forming an array of optical sensors (106) on an integrated circuit, the array of optical sensors (106) having a respective top surface (see figure 1, sensors 106; ¶16, Sensor array 104 is schematically illustrated with only twenty-five sensors 106 for simplicity, although there is no theoretical limitation to the number of sensors 106; and ¶81, Aspects of logic machine 602 and storage machine 604 may be integrated together into one or more hardware-logic components. Such hardware-logic components may include field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), program- and application-specific integrated circuits (PASIC/ASICs), program- and application-specific standard products (PSSP/ASSPs), system-on-a-chip (SOC), and complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs), for example); forming a plurality of optical filters (110) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of optical filters (110) is located proximal to the top surface of the array of optical sensors (106) (see figure 1, color filter array 110; and ¶21, camera 100 optionally may include a color filter array (CFA) 110 of color filter elements 112. When included, the color filter elements are arranged in registry with sensor elements 106 of sensor array 104. An example CFA may present a Bayer pattern); forming a rejection filter (114) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the rejection filter is adapted to restrict light wavelengths outside a predetermined wavelength range (see figure 1, optical filter 114; and ¶22, In the reflection state, optical filter 114 is configured to block spectral light in a spectral light sub-band (e.g., visible light sub-band) and transmit light outside the spectral light sub-band (e.g., NIR or IR sub-bands). Blocked spectral light may be absorbed, reflected, and/or scattered by optical filter 114, depending on the implementation; ¶23, Optical filter 114 includes one or more layers of liquid crystals (LC) that are used to selectively block spectral light in the spectral light sub-band); forming a first set of optical elements (108) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface (see figure 1, microlens array 108); configuring the rejection filter (114) and the first set of optical elements (108) in a stack having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface (see figure 1, optical filter 114 and microlens array 108 arranged in a stack); configuring the bottom surface of the stack atop the top surface of the plurality of optical filters (110) (see figure 1, stack of 114 and 108 atop color filter array 110); and coupling the array of optical sensors (106) to one or more processors (¶59, electronic controller machine 120 may be configured to output the matrix of pixels 126 to another processing component for additional image processing (e.g., filtering, computer vision); and see ¶77-79 for further details). However, Akkaya fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical filters are interference filters; wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of rejection filters is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of optical interference filters, wherein the rejection filter comprises a plurality of rejection filters; wherein each rejection filter of a set of rejection filters is adapted to restrict light wavelengths outside a predetermined wavelength range for one or more associated interference filters of a set of interference filters; and wherein the one or more processing modules are configured on a substrate having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the substrate is configured to provide one or more electrical connections.
However, Houck teaches wherein the optical filters (104) are interference filters (¶21, the optical filter 104 may include an optical interference filter); and wherein the one or more processing modules are configured on a substrate having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the substrate is configured to provide one or more electrical connections (¶14, The one or more processors may determine, based on the angle of incidence of the light beam on the channel and angle shift information associated with the channel, a wavelength range associated with the light beam. In this way, the one or more processors may be able to identify multiple wavelength ranges associated with light beams that are passed by the channel of the optical filter and received by sensor elements of the optical sensor. Accordingly, the one or more processors increase the optical sensor device's ability to determine accurate spectral information associated with light that enters the optical sensor device, as compared to a conventional optical sensor device; and ¶46, Processor 420 is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akkaya to incorporate the teachings of Houck to include interference filters because of their high spectral control, durability, and heat resistance; providing a long-lasting device that provides precise measurements. Additionally, it would have been obvious for the processor to generate spectral output in order to determine accurate spectral information associated with light that enters the optical sensor device (Houck ¶14). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of rejection filters is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of optical interference filters, wherein the rejection filter comprises a plurality of rejection filters; and wherein each rejection filter of a set of rejection filters is adapted to restrict light wavelengths outside a predetermined wavelength range for one or more associated interference filters of a set of interference filters.
However, Tack teaches wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of rejection filters (114) is located proximal to the top surface of the plurality of optical interference filters (108) (see figure 3, the bottom surface of rejection filters 114 located proximal to the top surface of interference filters 108), wherein the rejection filter (114) comprises a plurality of rejection filters (114a-114d) (see figure 3, plurality of rejection filters 114; and ¶53, the image sensor further comprises a plurality of rejection filters associated with respective sensor blocks); and wherein each rejection filter (114) of a set of rejection filters (114a-114d) is adapted to restrict light wavelengths outside a predetermined wavelength range for one or more associated interference filters (108) of a set of interference filters (108a-108d) (¶121, A mosaic filter 108a may divide the light-detecting elements 104 of the mosaic block 106a into sub-groups, wherein the mosaic filter 108a is arranged to transmit a plurality of unique wavelengths to the light-detecting elements 104 within the sub-group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya and Houck to further include a plurality of rejection filters because [t]he use of rejection filters may control intensity of light reaching the light-detecting elements. The rejection filters may e.g. ensure that a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and/or dynamic range is similar for the respective sensor blocks (Tack, ¶54). Additionally, it would have been obvious to have every interference filter pass light in a different wavelength in order to capture a fully color image. Lastly, it would have been obvious to have the rejection filters disposed above the interference filters because it is merely the rearrangement of parts already known in the art that would not modify the operation of the device as a whole (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 17, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: forming a second set of optical elements (Akkaya, unlabeled lens) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface; and placing the bottom surface of the second set of optical elements atop the top surface of the stack (Akkaya, see figure 1, unlabeled lens disposed over elements 114, 108, 110, and 104).
Regarding claim 18, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the method of claim 15, wherein each set of rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Tack 114) comprises a plurality of rejection filter elements (Tack 114a-114d) (Akkaya, see figure 1, optical filter 114; and Tack, ¶53, the image sensor further comprises a plurality of rejection filters associated with respective sensor blocks).
Claims 2, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1) and Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of He et al. (CN 105806796 A).
Regarding claim 2, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches wherein the plurality of sets of rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Tack 114a-114d) and the first set of optical elements (Akkaya 108) are configured in a stack, wherein the stack is located above the top layer of the plurality of sets of optical interference filters (Akkaya 110 | Houck 104) (Akkaya, see figure 1; and Houck, ¶21, the optical filter 104 may include an optical interference filter). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach one or more diffusion elements having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface.
However, He teaches one or more diffusion elements (4) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface (see figure 1, primary lens 4; and ¶43, The primary lens array comprises a plurality of primary microlenses, and the primary microlenses are used to diffuse the incident light from the sample; ordinary parallel light (or partially parallel light) is irradiated onto the primary lens array, and the generated diffuse light is then irradiated onto the filter array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of He to further include a diffuser because it enables all filters to obtain consistent light distribution, and the emitted diffuse light has a uniform average energy distribution (He, ¶43).
Regarding claim 16, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches configuring the plurality of sets rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Tack 114) and the first set of optical elements (Akkaya 108) in a stack having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface; and placing the bottom surface of the stack atop the top surface of the plurality of sets of optical interference filters (Akkaya 110 | Houck 104) (Akkaya, see figure 1, stack of 114 and 108 atop color filter array 110; and Houck, ¶21, the optical filter 104 may include an optical interference filter). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach forming a diffusion element having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface.
However, He teaches forming a diffusion element (4) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface (see figure 1, primary lens 4; and ¶43, The primary lens array comprises a plurality of primary microlenses, and the primary microlenses are used to diffuse the incident light from the sample; ordinary parallel light (or partially parallel light) is irradiated onto the primary lens array, and the generated diffuse light is then irradiated onto the filter array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of He to further include a diffuser because it enables all filters to obtain consistent light distribution, and the emitted diffuse light has a uniform average energy distribution (He, ¶43).
Regarding claim 19, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and He teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the diffusion element (He 4) comprises a plurality of diffusion sub-elements (He, see figure 1, primary lens 4; and ¶43, The primary lens array comprises a plurality of primary microlenses, and the primary microlenses are used to diffuse the incident light from the sample; ordinary parallel light (or partially parallel light) is irradiated onto the primary lens array, and the generated diffuse light is then irradiated onto the filter array).
Claims 8-9, 11, 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1) and Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Powell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11092491 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the plurality of sets of optical sensors (Akkaya 106 | Tack 106), the plurality of sets of optical interference filters (Akkaya 110 | Houck 104), and the first set of optical elements (Akkaya 108) (Akkaya, see figure 1; and Houck, ¶21). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a container having a respective top surface, a respective bottom surface and a respective plurality of side surfaces with the top surface including a container opening, wherein the top surface, the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface form a cavity; wherein at least the plurality of sets of optical sensors, the plurality of sets of optical filters and the first set of optical elements are located within the cavity.
However, Powell teaches a container (101) having a respective top surface, a respective bottom surface and a respective plurality of side surfaces with the top surface including a container opening, wherein the top surface, the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface form a cavity; wherein at least the plurality of sets of optical sensors (102), the plurality of sets of optical filters (120/118) and the first set of optical elements (112/114) are located within the cavity (see figure 1A, housing 101 encompassing image sensor 102, optical filters 120 and 118, and optical elements 112 and 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of Powell to include a housing structure in order to provide protection to the optical elements within, providing a sturdier and longer lasting device.
Regarding claim 9, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the sensor system of claim 8; wherein the bottom surface of the plurality of sets of optical sensors (Akkaya 106 | Tack 106 | Powell 102) is located proximate to the bottom surface of the container (Powell 101) (Powell, see figure 1A, image sensor 102 being close to the bottom surface of housing 101).
Regarding claim 11, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the sensor system of claim 8, wherein a substantially transparent material (Powell 114) is at least partially located within the container opening (Powell, see figure 1A, lens 114 located partially within the opening to housing 101).
Regarding claim 20, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the integrated circuit and plurality of optical interference filters (Akkaya 110 | Houck 104) (Akkaya, ¶81, Aspects of logic machine 602 and storage machine 604 may be integrated together into one or more hardware-logic components. Such hardware-logic components may include field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), program- and application-specific integrated circuits (PASIC/ASICs), program- and application-specific standard products (PSSP/ASSPs), system-on-a-chip (SOC), and complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs), for example; and Houck, ¶21). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach forming a container having a respective top surface, a respective bottom surface and a respective plurality of side surfaces, wherein the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface of the container form a cavity, wherein the top surface includes an opening, to the cavity; and placing the optical components within the cavity.
However, Powell teaches forming a container (101) having a respective top surface, a respective bottom surface and a respective plurality of side surfaces, wherein the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface of the container form a cavity, wherein the top surface includes an opening, to the cavity; and placing the optical components within the cavity (see figure 1A, housing 101 encompassing image sensor 102, optical filters 120 and 118, and optical elements 112 and 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of Powell to include a housing structure in order to provide protection to the optical elements within, providing a sturdier and longer lasting device.
Regarding claim 21, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the method of claim 20, further comprising: placing the bottom surface of the substrate to the bottom surface of the container (Powell 101) (Powell, see figure 1A, image sensor 102 being close to the bottom surface of housing 101).
Regarding claim 24, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the optical interference filters (Akkaya 108 | Houck 104 | Powell 120/118) are Fabry-Perot filters (Houck, ¶21, the optical filter 104 may include, for example, a spectral filter, a multispectral filter, a bandpass filter, a blocking filter, a long-wave pass filter, a short-wave pass filter, a dichroic filter, a linear variable filter (LVF), a circular variable filter (CVF), a Fabry-Perot filter (e.g., a Fabry-Perot cavity filter), a Bayer filter, a plasmonic filter, a photonic crystal filter, a nanostructure and/or metamaterial filter, an absorbent filter (e.g., comprising organic dyes, polymers, and/or glasses, among other examples), and/or the like).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1), Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1), and Powell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11092491 B1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nunez et al. (USPGPub 20210096027 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the processing modules and the container (Powell 101) (Houck, ¶14, The one or more processors may determine, based on the angle of incidence of the light beam on the channel and angle shift information associated with the channel, a wavelength range associated with the light beam. In this way, the one or more processors may be able to identify multiple wavelength ranges associated with light beams that are passed by the channel of the optical filter and received by sensor elements of the optical sensor. Accordingly, the one or more processors increase the optical sensor device's ability to determine accurate spectral information associated with light that enters the optical sensor device, as compared to a conventional optical sensor device; and ¶46, Processor 420 is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the bottom surface of the one or more processing modules is located proximate to the bottom surface of the container.
However, Nunez teaches wherein the bottom surface of the one or more processing modules (140) is located proximate to the bottom surface of the container (100) (see figure 2, processing circuitry 140 located at the bottom of the optical stack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, Tack, and Powell to incorporate the teachings of Nunez to provide the processing elements at the bottom of the optical stack because the mere placement of an element is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1), Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1), and Powell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11092491 B1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of He et al. (CN 105806796 A) and Park (USPGPub 20160204155 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the plurality of sets of rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Houck 104 | Tack 114 | Powell 120/118) and one or more optical elements (Akkaya 108/unlabeled lens | Powell 112/114) of a second set of optical elements (Akkaya, see figure 1; and Powell, see figure 1A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach one or more diffusion elements; and wherein the optical elements are partially located within the container opening.
However, He teaches one or more diffusion elements (4) (see figure 1, primary lens 4; and ¶43, The primary lens array comprises a plurality of primary microlenses, and the primary microlenses are used to diffuse the incident light from the sample; ordinary parallel light (or partially parallel light) is irradiated onto the primary lens array, and the generated diffuse light is then irradiated onto the filter array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, Tack, and Powell to incorporate the teachings of He to further include a diffuser because it enables all filters to obtain consistent light distribution, and the emitted diffuse light has a uniform average energy distribution (He, ¶43). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical elements are partially located within the container opening.
However, Park teaches wherein the optical elements (710/730) are partially located within the container opening (720) (see figure 5, plurality of optical elements 710 and 730 located within opening 720).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, Tack, Powell, and He to incorporate the teachings of Park to include optical elements within the opening because the mere placement of an element is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1), Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1), and Powell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11092491 B1) as applied to claims 8 and 20 above, and further in view of Miller (USPGPub 20170153320 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the container (Powell 101) having the respective top surface, the plurality of side surfaces, and the bottom surface (Powell, see figure 1A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of the respective top surface, the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface of the container are adapted to reflect light entering the cavity.
However, Miller teaches wherein at least a portion of the respective top surface, the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface of the container are adapted to reflect light entering the cavity (see figure 1, reflective surface 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, Tack, and Powell to incorporate the teachings of Miller to further include reflective surfaces within the housing in order to direct more light towards the sensors, providing a stronger signal.
Regarding claim 22, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the container (Powell 101) having the respective top surface, the plurality of side surfaces, and the bottom surface (Powell, see figure 1A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach forming a reflective surface on at least a portion of the top surface, the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface, wherein the reflective surface is adapted to reflect light entering the cavity.
However, Miller teaches forming a reflective surface (8) on at least a portion of the top surface, the plurality of side surfaces and the bottom surface, wherein the reflective surface is adapted to reflect light entering the cavity (see figure 1, reflective surface 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, Tack, and Powell to incorporate the teachings of Miller to further include reflective surfaces within the housing in order to direct more light towards the sensors, providing a stronger signal.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1), Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1), and Powell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11092491 B1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Pacala et al. (USPGPub 20190011567 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Powell teaches the array of optical sensors (Akkaya 106 | Tack 106) on an integrated circuit (Houck, see ¶14 and ¶46 for details). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the array of optical sensors is formed on a backside of the substrate.
However, Pacala teaches wherein the array of optical sensors is formed on a backside of the substrate (see figure 25, photosensors 2508 formed on backside of silicon substrate; and see ¶211 for details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, Tack, and Powell to incorporate the teachings of Pacala to include the sensors on the backside of the substrate because the resolution of the sensor array can be increased and the size of the chip can be decreased, thereby saving cost (Pacala, ¶211).
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20190306386 A1) in view of Houck et al. (USPGPub 20210239528 A1) and Tack et al. (USPGPub 20180204863 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Goldring et al. (USPGPub 20180136042 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Akkaya as modified by Houck teaches the plurality of sets of rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Tack 114a-114d) having a top surface (Akkaya, see figure 1, optical filter 114; and ¶23, Optical filter 114 includes one or more layers of liquid crystals (LC) that are used to selectively block spectral light in the spectral light sub-band; and Tack, see figure 3, plurality of rejection filters 114; and ¶53, the image sensor further comprises a plurality of rejection filters associated with respective sensor blocks). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach one or more diffusers configured as a layer having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface of the one or more diffusers is located proximal to the top surface of the one or more filters.
However, Goldring teaches one or more diffusers (164/3240) configured as a layer having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface of the one or more diffusers (164/3240) is located proximal to the top surface of the one or more filters (170) (see figure 4, diffuser 164 having a top and bottom surface, the bottom surface of diffuser 164 proximal to the top surface of filters 170; and see ¶288-293 for details regarding and angle limiting layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of Goldring to further include a diffuser because it allows the filters to obtain consistent and uniform light distribution, despite the incident angle of the light.
Regarding claim 27, Akkaya as modified by Houck, Tack, and Goldring teaches the sensor system of claim 26, wherein the one or more diffusers (Goldring 164/3240) are adapted to redirect light beyond a predetermined angle of incidence (Goldring, see figure 32C; and ¶293, FIG. 32C schematically illustrates another exemplary angle limiting layer comprising a prism film 3240. The prims film may comprise an input surface 3242 configured to receive light from the diffuser 2805 and an output surface 3244 configured to output the light transmitted through prism film… The plurality of microstructures can be configured to guide the light entering the prism film at large angles to exit from the film at a smaller angle span. As light 3250 that has entered the prism film at a large angle exits through the microstructures, the angle of transmission of the output light can be modified by the microstructures, such that the output light selectively comprises light having an angle of incidence within a predetermined range of acceptable angles).
Regarding claim 28, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the plurality of sets of rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Tack 114a-114d) having a top surface (Akkaya, see figure 1, optical filter 114; and ¶23, Optical filter 114 includes one or more layers of liquid crystals (LC) that are used to selectively block spectral light in the spectral light sub-band; and Tack, see figure 3, plurality of rejection filters 114; and ¶53, the image sensor further comprises a plurality of rejection filters associated with respective sensor blocks). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach forming a diffuser having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the diffuser bottom surface is configured atop the top surface of the filter.
However, Goldring teaches forming a diffuser (164) having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the diffuser (164) bottom surface is configured atop the top surface of the filter (170) (see figure 4, diffuser 164 having a top and bottom surface, the bottom surface of diffuser 164 proximal to the top surface of filters 170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of Goldring to further include a diffuser because it allows the filters to obtain consistent and uniform light distribution, despite the incident angle of the light.
Regarding claim 29, Akkaya as modified by Houck and Tack teaches the plurality of sets of rejection filters (Akkaya 114 | Tack 114a-114d) having a top surface (Akkaya, see figure 1, optical filter 114; and ¶23, Optical filter 114 includes one or more layers of liquid crystals (LC) that are used to selectively block spectral light in the spectral light sub-band; and Tack, see figure 3, plurality of rejection filters 114; and ¶53, the image sensor further comprises a plurality of rejection filters associated with respective sensor blocks). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach forming a micro-grating having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the micro-grating bottom surface is configured atop the top surface of the filter.
However, Goldring teaches forming a micro-grating having a respective top surface and a respective bottom surface, wherein the micro-grating bottom surface is configured atop the top surface of the filter (170) (see figure 4, diffuser 164 having a top and bottom surface, the bottom surface of diffuser 164 proximal to the top surface of filters 170; and ¶76, Non-limiting examples of “dispersive” optical elements by this definition include diffraction gratings and prisms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akkaya, Houck, and Tack to incorporate the teachings of Goldring to further include micro-gratings because they allow the filters to obtain consistent and uniform light distribution, despite the incident angle of the light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878