DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application 17/694,425 is responsive to communications filed on 4/28/25, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 1/27/25. Currently, claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/25 regarding claims 1-10 and 12-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections of the claims, Applicant traverses the non-statutory double patenting rejections in view of the claim amendments on page .
In view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Non-Final Office Action dated 1/27/25, Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the Response that the examiner provided an incomplete Office Action as they did not respond to Applicant’s traversals of the rejection in the Response filed 8/15/24.
However, the examiner fully responded to Applicant’s traversals of the rejection on pages 2-3 of the Non-Final Office Action dated 1/27/25. In particular, please see section 5 of the Office Action which responds to all three of Applicant’s traversals. In addition, please see the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Response that Takashima and Neumann do not disclose “wherein the first wavelength band is a wide band” and argues that a dual band pass filter (as taught in Neumann) is fundamentally different from a single band pass filter.
However, as previous stated in the Non-Final Office action dated 1/27/25, Neumann teaches that the dual band pass filter is configured to allow visible light and visible light wavelengths that are between 400nm and 700nm (i.e., “a wide band”) (para[0224] of Neumann). Also, there is no recitation in the claim limitation for “a single pass filter” and claim 1 does not specify the type of filter nor does the claim explicitly recite a filter at all.
In addition, Applicant argues on page 10 of the Response that it would not have been obvious to modify Takashima with the dual band pass filter of Neumann.
However, as previously stated in the Non-Final Office Action dated 1/27/25, the dual band pass filter of Neumann includes a band pass filter (which may allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm) and a narrow band pass or notch filter (which is closely matching to that the IR/NIR illumination source) (para[0224]). Takashima teaches the filtering of light into red, green, and blue (i.e., the visible spectrum) and also IR signals (Fig. 1, 14; para[0128]-[0129]). The dual band pass filter of Neumann would function similarly with the band pass filter filtering for visible light (i.e., red, blue, and green of Takashima) and the notch filter filtering for IR signals. The visible light being the “first light signal” and the IR signal being the “second light signal…for a special purpose”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Takashima with the dual band pass filter of Neumann. Also, as mentioned above, claim 1 does not specify a type of filter or explicitly recite a filter at all in the claim limitations.
Applicant also argues on pages 11-12 of the Response that Takashima and Neumann do not teach “perform, with postprocessing, tunable wavelength extraction on the first electronic signal”, as amended in claim 1.
However, as previously stated in the Non-Final Office Action dated 1/27/25, Takashima teaches a spectroscope 31 that includes a plurality of optical filters that transmit a predetermined wavelength region of light (Fig. 1; para[0046]) and a signal processing block 24 in Fig. 1 (i.e., “postprocessing”). The signal processing block 24 performing processing on the detection signal (i.e., “first electronic signal”) (para[0051]).
Therefore, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (WO-2016208415-A1 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22).
In regard to claim 1, Takashima teaches a signal processing device (i.e., vegetation inspection apparatus 11, signal processing block 24) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first detection circuitry configured to (i.e., optical system 21, diaphragm 22) (Fig. 1) detect a first light signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses, collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (Fig. 1; para[0043]) of a 5first wavelength band (i.e., red light R, R1, R2, green light G, G1, G2, blue light B, B1, B2, infrared light IR, IR1, IR2) (Figs. 3, 8, 9),…, and
output a first electronic signal based on the first light signal (i.e., the spectral sensor 23 uses the spectroscope 31 to disperse inflected light into a plurality of different wavelength regions of light, uses the individual pixels of the sensing element 32 to detect the brightness of each of the different wavelength regions of light (spectroscopic components), and supplies the resulting detection signal to the signal processing block 24) (Fig. 1; para[0045]);
a second detection circuitry configured to detect a second light signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses, collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (Fig. 1; para[0043]) of a second wavelength band (i.e., red light R, R1, R2, green light G, G1, G2, blue light B, B1, B2, infrared light IR, IR1, IR2) (Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9) to be used for a special purpose (i.e., red light R, infrared IR used for determining a good/degraded vegetation state; normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1) by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]), and
output a second electronic signal based on the second light signal (i.e., the signal processing block 24 processes the detection signal outputted from the spectral sensor 23 to build an image; in order to calculate a proper normalized difference vegetation index NDVI, signal processing block 24 sets the sensitivity of pixels in the sensing element 32 for each spectroscopic component is those dispersed by the spectroscope 31) (Fig. 1; para[0051]); and
perform, with postprocessing (i.e., signal processing block 24) (Fig. 1; para[0051]), tunable wavelength extraction on the first electronic signal (i.e., spectroscope 31 includes a plurality of optical filters that transmit a predetermined wavelength region of light; signal processing block 24 processes the detection signal (i.e., “first electronic signal”) (Fig. 1; para[0046], [0051]),
wherein the first detection circuitry is distinct from the second detection circuitry (i.e., spectroscope 31 is configured so that, by assuming eight different optical filters as one set, n sets of optical filters are disposed on the whole detection plane of the sensing element 32; eight pixels 51-1 to 51-8 depicted in Fig. 14; the pixel 51-1 receives the first blue light B1, the pixel 51-2 receives the first green light G1, the pixel 51-3 receivers the first red light R1, and the pixel 51-4 receives the first infrared light IR1; additionally, the pixel 51-5 receives the second blue light B2, the pixel 51-6 receives the second green light G2, the pixel 51-7 receives the second red light R2, and the pixel 51-8 receives the second infrared light IR2) (Fig. 1, 14; para[0128]-[0129]).
However, Takashima does not explicitly teach wherein the first wavelength band is a wide band.
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches wherein the first wavelength band is a wide band (i.e., dual band pass filter; visible light to pass in approximate filter wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm) (para[0224]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann because Neumann teaches the use of a dual band pass filter which may allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400 nm and 700 nm (See, for example, para[0224] of Neumann). This aspect of Neumann would be advantageous because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the dual band pass filter of Neumann would cover/transmit a wider passband than a single band pass filter and would be more efficient than using a single band pass filter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima with those of Neumann.
In regard to claim 2, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the first detection circuitry (i.e., individual pixels of the sensing element 32 to detect the brightness of each of the different wavelength regions of light (spectroscopic components), set of 8 pixels (i.e. 2x4) arrayed pixels, plurality of pixels in a matrix form) (Fig. 1; para[0045]-[0049]) and the second detection circuitry constitute pixels of an image sensor (i.e., individual pixels of the sensing element 32 to detect the brightness of each of the different wavelength regions of light (spectroscopic components), set of 8 pixels (i.e. 2x4) arrayed pixels, plurality of pixels in a matrix form) (Fig. 1; para[0045]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 3, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising: a plurality of (i.e., respective optical filters are disposed on the respective pixels of the sensing element 32) (Fig. 1; para[0046]), filters including two or more filter types (i.e., optical filters; optical filter for transmitting first blue light B1, optical filter for transmitting first green light G1, optical filter for transmitting first red light R1, optical filter for transmitting first infrared light IR1, etc.) (Fig. 1; para[0046]-[0047]) having different spectral characteristics (i.e., spectral sensor 23, spectral properties) (Figs. 1, 8; para[0085]), each filter of the plurality of filters has one-to-one-correspondence with one of the pixels (i.e., eight different optical filters for transmitting respective different wavelength regions of light are disposed corresponding to eight pixels forming one set of two vertical arrayed pixels by four horizontally arrayed pixels) (Fig. 1; para[0047]),
wherein the first filter type has a first spectral characteristic that allows the first light signal to pass through to one or more of the pixels of the first detection circuitry, the first light signal including more than one color of human visible light (i.e., optical filters; optical filter for transmitting first blue light B1, optical filter for transmitting first green light G1, optical filter for transmitting first red light R1; eight different optical filters for transmitting respective different wavelength regions of light are disposed corresponding to eight pixels forming one set of two vertical arrayed pixels by four horizontally arrayed pixels) (Fig. 1; para[0046]-[0047]).
In regard to claim 4, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein transmittances of the plurality of the filters (i.e., plurality of optical filters that transmit a predetermined wavelength region of light) (Fig. 1; para[0046]) provided in the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry are determined on a basis of output sensitivities of the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry, respectively (i.e., respective optical filters are disposed on the respective pixels of the sensing element 32 to disperse the light incident on the detection plan of the sensing element 32) (Fig. 1; para[0046]).
In regard to claim 5, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein a first number of the pixels (i.e., a set of eight pixels are, in order from the shortest wavelength to the longest) (Fig. 1; para[0047]-[0049]) with respect to the first detection circuitry and a second number of the pixels in the second detection circuitry are determined on a basis of output sensitivities of the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry, respectively (i.e., one set is formed of 8-pixel optical filters, and the n sets of such optical filters (where n is a natural number of 1 or greater) are successively disposed on the whole detection plan of the sensing element 32, and sensing element 32 detects the brightness of spectroscopic components dispersed by each optical filter of the spectroscope 31 on an individual pixel basis and outputs a detection signal based on the brightness of each spectroscopic component) (Fig. 1; para[0048]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 6, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising an exposure control circuitry configured to (i.e., control block 25) (Fig. 1) control exposure on a basis of output sensitivity of each of the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry (i.e., an exposure time based on the sensitivity setting) (para[0051]).
In regard to claim 8, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein one of the plurality of filters is (i.e., Fig. 1).
However, Takashima does not teach a dual bandpass filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches a dual bandpass filter. (i.e., dual band pass filter) (para[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 9, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry are provided in different cameras or image capture mechanisms (i.e., sensing elements 31a, 31b) (Fig. 18).
In regard to claim 10, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising a dichroic filter (i.e., beam splitter 71) (Fig. 18) that separates light entering the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry (i.e., beam splitter 71) (Fig. 18).
In regard to claim 12, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the second wavelength band is a wide band or a narrow band (i.e., a wavelength region of approximately 600-700nm) (Figs. 2, 3; para[0056]).
In regard to claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 15, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 13 and 14 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising a focusing circuitry configured to (i.e., optical system 21) (Fig. 1) perform focusing using the signal of the second wavelength band (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses and collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (para[0043]).
In regard to claims 16-20, the claims recite analogous limitations to claims 2-6 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (WO-2016208415-A1 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22), further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2019/0189696; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22).
In regard to claim 7, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. However, Takashima and Neumann do not explicitly teach wherein some of the plurality of filters are tunable filters, and wherein one of the tunable filters provided in the first detection circuitry is a plasmon resonance filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches wherein some of the plurality of filters are tunable filters (i.e., the multilayered filter 241, the plasmon filter 341, and the multilayered filter 541) (Fig. 19; para[0274]), and wherein one of the tunable filters provided in the first detection circuitry is a plasmon resonance filter (i.e., plasmon filter 341) (Fig. 19; para[0274]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Yamaguchi because Yamaguchi teaches the use of a plasmon resonance filter for the benefit of a solid-state imaging apparatus capable of generating a high-resolution infrared IR image while keeping high quality of a visible light image (See, for example, Yamaguchi, para[0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima, Neumann, and Yamaguchi.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (WO-2016208415-A1 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22), and further in view of Sugie et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0067296; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22).
In regard to claim 13, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising
a display control circuitry configured to (i.e., display section 14) (Fig. 1) display an image (i.e., display section) (Fig. 1)
generated on a basis of the signal of the first wavelength band (i.e., processes the detection signal outputted from the spectral sensor 23 to build an image) (Fig. 1; para[0051])…on an image generated on a basis of the signal of the second wavelength band (i.e., processes the detection signal outputted from the spectral sensor 23 to build and image) (Fig. 1; para[0051]).
However, Takashima and Neumann do not teach so as to be overlaid.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugie teaches so as to be overlaid (i.e., alignment of photographed images overlap each other) (para[0107]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Sugie because Sugie teaches overlapping images for the benefit of a medical observation system to obtain a deep focus image (See, for example, Sugie, para[0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Sugie.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (WO-2016208415-A1 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22), and further in view of Ohki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0153099; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22).
In regard to claim 21, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Takashima and Neumann do not explicitly teach wherein the first wavelength band includes 200 to 399 nanometers (nm).
In the same field of endeavor, Ohki teaches wherein the first wavelength band includes 200 to 399 nanometers (nm) (i.e., See Fig. 5: B, G, R, channel filters span 200-700nm; spectral characteristics of the four kinds of filters will be described by referring to Fig. 5; a filter corresponding to B channel is a filter having a high transmittance to a light signal of approximately 200 nm to 300 nm wavelengths corresponding to a blue color; a filter corresponding to G channel is a filter having a high transmittance to a light signal of approximately 450 nm to 550 nm wavelengths corresponding to a green color; and a filter corresponding to R channel is a filter having a high transmittance to a light signal of approximately 550 nm to 650 nm wavelengths corresponding to a red color; these filters corresponding to RGB colors have such a characteristic that does not allow passage of most of an infrared component having a wavelength approximately 700 nm or more; note: particularly, the B channel filter in Fig. 5 appears to span from 200nm (according to para[0063]) up to about 500nm in Fig. 5) (Fig. 5; para[0061]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Ohki because Ohki teaches an imager having four different kinds of filters corresponding to different channels (i.e., R, G, B, IR) to capture four different spectra covering a wide band of wavelengths (See, for example, para[0061]-[0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Ohki.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488