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 .
2. This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed 09/30/2025. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(l) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (JP 2003098426A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses an optical element assembly comprising: a wavelength selection portion (11, Fig. 1B) comprising a plurality of wavelength selection regions (11A, 11B), the wavelength selection portion (11) being configured to emit wavelengths (page 4, “ the central portion 11A of the optical member 11 transmits only infrared rays and the outer portion 11B transmits only visible light”) in a predetermined range (each region 11A, 11B is limited to a specific wavelength such as “only infrared rays”, “only visible light”. This indicates as the predetermined range), the wavelengths (infrared, visible) being different among the plurality of wavelength selection regions (“the central portion 11A of the optical member 11 transmits only infrared rays and the outer portion 11B transmits only visible light”, see page 4)
an imaging optical element (lens 12, Fig. 1C) comprising a plurality of different regions (central portion 10B and outer portion 10A, see page 4 and Figs. 1C, 1D), the plurality of regions of the imaging optical element (12) having focal lengths different from each other (page 4, “ the lens 12 is a bifocal lens, and the vicinity of the central portion of the lens 12 is focused on the near point, and the outer portion of the lens 12 is concentric with the far point. The near point and far point have focal length difference as shown in Figs. 1c and 1d), and
each of the regions (the central portion 10B /outer portion 10A) of the imaging optical element (12) optically faces corresponding one of the wavelength selection regions (11A, 11B) of the wavelength selection portion (11)(see Figs. 1C and 1D, and page 4, light passing through 11A goes to the central portion 10B of the lens 12 for focusing the near point, and light passing through 11B goes to the outer portion 10A of the lens 12 for focusing the far point).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Fukuda discloses the imaging optical element comprises at least one lens (“lens 12”, page 4), the lens (12, Fig. 1c) includes the plurality of different regions in one surface of the lens (see Fig.1, the central region with a short focal length, and the outer region with a long focal length) and when the plurality of different regions includes a first region and a second region, a normal of a boundary between the first region and the second region discontinuously changes (see Fig1, the central region with a short focal length is a steeper curvature; and the outer regions with a long focal length are a fatter curvature. The direction of the surface of the lens 12 at the boundary between regions does not smooth).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda, as discussed in claim 1, discloses the imaging optical element (12) has rotational symmetry and the wavelength selection portion (11) has symmetry similar to the rotational symmetry of the imaging optical element (see Fig.1, when the imaging optical element 12 and the wavelength selection portion 11 are rotated around a central axis, they look and function the same).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., (US 2013/0215231 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fukuda, as discussed in claim 1, discloses wherein when light beams from two object points on an object ( page 4, “state (I) shown in FIG. 1C …in the normal far-point imaging state”. This is a first object point. “state (II)…a near-point imaging state objective lens system for barcode imaging”. This is a second object point. These are two distinct object points thus two corresponding light beams). Fukuda does not disclose the first light beam and second light beam as claimed. Hiramoto et al., disclose when light beams from two object points on an object that pass through the imaging optical element and the wavelength selection portion (see Fig.7, the two beams come from two different object points, pass through the imaging optical element 3 and a wavelength selection portion 1, and form two distinct points in the focal plane) and are transferred to respective image points are defined as a first light beam and a second light beam (see Fig.7), the first light beam is configured to pass through a first region of the imaging optical element (3) and further passes through a first wavelength selection region (1a) of the wavelength selection portion (1), and the second light beam is configured to pass through a second region of the imaging optical element (3) and further passes through a second wavelength selection region (1b) of the wavelength selection portion (1, see Fig.7). Also, selecting an arrangement for optical elements, such as placing the imaging optical element before the wavelength selection portion, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, absence of any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuda by utilizing the teaching of Hiramoto et al., to allow the lens gather maximum available light before filtering, improving the image quality.
Regarding claim 5, Fukuda, as discussed in claim 1, an image sensor (13, Fig. 1C) configured to capture light emitted from the optical element assembly (page 4, “only the is transmitted therethrough…forms an image on the light receiving surface 13A of the area sensor 13”). Fukuda does not disclose the image sensor including at least two different pixels, and each of the pixels having at least two color channels as claimed. Hiramoto et al., disclose image sensor (2) including at least two different pixels, and each of the pixels having at least two color channels (R, B, see Fig. 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuda by utilizing the teaching of Hiramoto et al., so that the image sensor can capture both wavelength ranges simultaneously in a single exposure.
Claims 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., in view of Usui et al., (US 2021/0293723 A1), and further in view of Ohno et al., (US 2019/0364267 A1, hereafter Ohno’267).
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 9, Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., as discussed in claim 5, do not disclose an image processor connected to the optical apparatus as claimed. Usui et al., disclose an image processor (50, Fig.9) connected to the optical apparatus (see Fig.9), the image processor (50) including a processor (52, Fig.3) configured to: acquire images of the at least two color channels by the image sensor (Figs7-9, and paragraphs [0067]- [0068], The processing unit 52 includes an acquisition unit 52A and the acquisition unit 52A acquires a captured image from the detection element 40 having at least two color channels). Usui et al., also disclose a non-transitory storage medium storing an estimation program of farness/nearness and/or a distance of an object using the optical apparatus defined in claim 5 (paragraph [0065] and Fig.3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., by utilizing the teaching of Usui et al., to improve analysis of distance data, and therefore provide more accurate measurement information.
Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., and Usui et al., do not disclose the calculating a contrast of a common region of an object for each of the images of the at least two color channels as claimed. Ohno’267 discloses an image processor (70) connected to an optical apparatus (see Fig.1). The image processor including a processor configured to acquire images of the at least two color channels by the image sensor (Fig.1 an paragraph [0045], “the processing circuitry 70 receives and processes the acquired data from the image sensor 60 which has two channels), calculate a contrast of a common region of an object (paragraph [0066], analyzing color intensities of a point on an object) for each of the images of the at least two color channels (paragraph [0066], “for each of the image data for respective colors”), and estimate, based on the contrast of the common region for each of the at least two color channels, a farness/nearness and/or a distance of the object with respect one of the imaging optical element and the image sensor (paragraph [0066], calculating a three-dimensional position of the point on the object as the information pertaining to the object based on the plurality of imaging positions). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., Usui et al., by utilizing the teaching of Ohno’267, to provide more accurate measurement information about the subject (Ohno’267, [0152]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., Usui et al., Ohno’267, and further in view of Kashiwagi (US 2020/0294260 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., Usui et al., Ohno et al., as discussed in claim 6, do not disclose the processor being configured to estimate, based on a point spread function as claimed. Kashiwagi discloses the processor being configured to estimate, based on a point spread function (“PSF”, [0075]), distances of an object with respect to one of the imaging optical element and the image sensor independently of images corresponding to at least two different color channels (paragraph [0075]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuda, in view of Hiramoto et al., Usui et al., Ohno’267, by utilizing the teaching of Kashiwagi, in order to provide better performance for the system such as getting better estimation of the relative distance of subject.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)-272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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 EPPS can be reached on (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. Visithttps://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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878