DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 and 21-23 are pending in the application. Claims 12-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record (Nakamura US 2021/0021741 A1, Siddique et al US 2021/0311240 A1, and Pau et al US 2016/0170110 A1), separately or as a whole, fails to teach a “patterned liquid crystal polarizer”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the liquid crystal polarizer(s) as taught by Pau et al, are structurally different than the patterned liquid crystal polarizer layer as taught in the “instant application”. The claims as currently constructed, do not provide any structural details that would render the patterned liquid crystal polarizer layer as taught in the “instant application” different from the liquid crystal polarizer(s) as taught by Pau et al (emphasis added). Attention is directed towards Pau et al, specifically fig. 11, polarizer layer 12, and para 0090-0092, which discloses that the LCP layers are comprised of “liquid crystal”, furthermore, are consisted of polarizer(s) as illustrated in fig. 11, polarizer 12. Lastly, Applicant argues that the prior art of record of Jamalie et al (US 2020/0081252 A1), fails to read on the limitations as recited in claim 6 of the instant application because the instant application is directed towards an image sensor and Jamalie is directed towards near-eye display. Examiner respectfully disagrees because both teachings are directed towards image capturing as well as directing incoming light, which are in the same field of endeavor, therefore the prior art of Jamalie et al applies. Based on this reasoning/rationale, the prior art of rejection will remain. It is highly suggested to amend the claims further to highlight the inventive concept, for example, possible structural details of the patterned liquid crystal polarizer layer differing from the prior art applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0021741 A1) and Siddique et al (US 2021/0311240 A1) in further view of Pau et al (US 2016/0170110 A1).
As per claim 1, Nakamura discloses an image sensor (fig. 2, polarizing image sensor 12, pixel array 121, polarizing filter 122) comprising:
a first subpixel configured to sense a portion of imaging light (fig. 2, pixel array 121);
a second subpixel configured to sense a 45 degree polarized portion of the imaging light (fig. 2, pixel array 121);
a third subpixel configured to sense a portion of the imaging light (fig. 2, pixel array 121);
a fourth subpixel configured to sense a 135 degree polarized portion of the imaging light (fig. 2, pixel array 121); and
(2) a 45 degree polarizing region disposed over the second subpixel (fig. 2, polarizing array 122, para 0058); and (4) a 135 degree polarizing region disposed over the fourth subpixel (fig. 2, polarizing array 122, para 0058).
Nakamura fails to teach a vertical and horizontal polarizing region over a first subpixel and third subpixel respectfully. However, Siddique discloses an imager sensor comprising of polarizing filters 201-204 having a horizontal and vertical filter disposed over pixels (Siddique, fig. 2, polarizing filters 201(H) and 202(V), para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura in view of Siddique, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to filter horizontal and vertical through a polarizing filter as taught by Siddique, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of filtering light through the polarizer(s), thus enhancing the sensitivity of the image sensor.
Nakamura in view of Siddique, as a whole, fails to teach a patterned liquid crystal polarizer (LCP) layer. However, Pau discloses thin-film devices having multilayer structures wherein the layer(s) are liquid crystal polarizers (Pau, fig. 11, polarizer layer 12, para 0090-0092, also see arguments above regarding polarizer layer 12 being of liquid crystal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to have liquid crystal polarizers disposed over an image sensor, as taught by Pau, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura and Siddique, because doing so would provide a more efficient way filtering light through the polarizer(s), thus enhancing the sensitivity of the image sensor.
As per claim 2, the combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the patterned LCP layer is contiguous across the first subpixel, the second subpixel, the third subpixel, and the fourth subpixel (Pau, fig. 11, polarizer layer 12, para 0092).
As per claim 3, the combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 1 further comprising:
a fifth subpixel (Nakamura, fig. 2, pixel array 121) configured to sense a right hand circularly polarized (RHCP) portion of the imaging light (Siddique, para 0038); and
a sixth subpixel (Nakamura, fig. 2, pixel array 121) configured to sense a left hand circularly polarized (LHCP) portion of the imaging light (Siddique, para 0038).
As per claim 4, the combined teachings of Nakamura in view of Siddique, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 3, wherein the fifth subpixel (Nakamura, fig. 2, pixel array 121) includes a right-hand circular polarizer region and a horizontal polarizer (Siddique, fig. 2, polarizing filters 201(H), para 0035 and 0038), and wherein the sixth subpixel (Nakamura, fig. 2, pixel array 121) includes a left-hand circular polarizer region including and a vertical polarizer (Siddique, fig. 2, polarizing filters, 202(V), para 0035 and 0038).
The combined teachings of Nakamura in view of Siddique, as a whole, fail to teach having a quarter-waveplate (QWP) disposed above a pixel(s). However, Pau discloses thin-film devices having multilayer structures wherein the layer(s) include quarter wave retarder 18 (i.e. plate) (Pau, fig. 11, quarter wave retarder 18, para 0092 and 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to have quarter wave retarder (i.e. plate) disposed over an image sensor, as taught by Pau, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura and Siddique, because doing so would provide a more efficient way filtering light, thus enhancing the sensitivity of the image sensor.
As per claim 5, the combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 4, wherein the patterned LCP layer (Pau, fig. 11, polarizer layer 12, para 0092) includes the horizontal polarizer and the vertical polarizer (Siddique, fig. 2, polarizing filters 201(H) and 202(V), para 0035).
As per claim 7, the combined teachings of Nakamura in view of Siddique, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 3 further comprising:
processing logic configured to receive;
a first signal from the first subpixel;
a second signal from the second subpixel;
a third signal from the third subpixel;
a fourth signal from the fourth subpixel;
a fifth signal from the fifth subpixel; and
a sixth signal from the sixth subpixel (Nakamura, fig. 1, imaging pickup apparatus 1, polarizing image sensor 12, interpolation processor 13, polarization information calculator 14, recorder 15 and Siddique, fig. 2, polarizing filters 201(H) and 202(V), para 0035, also see claim 3 above), wherein the processing logic is configured to generate an image in response to the first signal, the second signal, the third signal, the fourth signal, the fifth signal, and the sixth signal (Nakamura, para 0053)
The combined teachings of Nakamura in view of Siddique, as a whole, fails to teach a full-Stokes image. However, Pau discloses an imaging device capable of generating a full-Stokes image (Pau, para 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to generate a full-Stokes image, as taught by Pau, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura and Siddique, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of generating a full-Stokes image, based on the different polarizers within the image sensor.
As per claim 9, the combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the patterned LCP layer includes twisted liquid crystals and untwisted liquid crystals (Pau, para 0090).
4. Claims 6, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0021741 A1), Siddique et al (US 2021/0311240 A1), and Pau et al (US 2016/0170110 A1) in further view of Jamalie et al (US 2020/0081252 A1).
As per claim 6, the image sensor of claim 3 further comprising:
a liquid crystal Pancharatnam-Berry Phase (LC-PBP) lens disposed over the fifth subpixel and the sixth subpixel, wherein the LC-PBP lens is configured to direct the RHCP portion of the imaging light to the fifth subpixel and configured to direct the LHCP portion of the imaging light to the sixth subpixel.
The combined teachings off Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, fails to teach a liquid crystal Pancharatnam-Berry Phase lens disposed over the image sensor. However, Jamalie discloses an imaging device comprised of polarization-sensitive optical elements constructed of liquid crystal Pancharatnam-Berry Phase PBP optics/lens (Jamalie, para 0047 and 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, in further view of Jamalie, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to use PBP optics/lens in an imaging system as taught by Jamalie, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, because doing so would provide a more efficient way focusing light on the image sensor, thus enhancing the sensitivity of the image sensor.
As per claim 21, the combined teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, in further view of Jamalie, as a whole, further discloses an image sensor comprising:
a first subpixel configured to sense a vertically polarized portion of imaging light;
a second subpixel configured to sense a 45 degree polarized portion of the imaging light;
a third subpixel configured to sense a horizontally polarized portion of the imaging light;
a fourth subpixel configured to sense a 135 degree polarized portion of the imaging light;
a fifth subpixel configured to sense a right hand circularly polarized (RHCP) portion of the imaging light;
a sixth subpixel configured to sense a left hand circularly polarized (LHCP) portion of the imaging light; and
a liquid crystal Pancharatnam-Berry Phase (LC-PBP) lens disposed over the fifth subpixel and the sixth subpixel, wherein the LC-PBP lens is configured to direct the RHCP portion of the imaging light to the fifth subpixel and configured to direct the LHCP portion of the imaging light to the sixth subpixel (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claims 1, 3, and 6 above).
As per claim 22, the combined teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, in further view of Jamalie, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 21 further comprising:
a patterned liquid crystal polarizer (LCP) layer having: (1) a vertical polarizing region disposed over the first subpixel; (2) a 45 degree polarizing region disposed over the second subpixel; (3) a horizontal polarizing region disposed over the third subpixel; and (4) a 135 degree polarizing region disposed over the fourth subpixel (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 1 and 21 above).
5. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0021741 A1), Siddique et al (US 2021/0311240 A1), and Pau et al (US 2016/0170110 A1) in further view of Pau (US 2020/0182988 A1).
As per claim 8, the image sensor of claim 3 further comprising:
a first microlens configured to focus the imaging light to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, the third subpixel, and the fourth subpixel; and
a second microlens configured to focus the imaging light to the fifth subpixel and the sixth subpixel.
The combined teachings off Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 8. However, Pau discloses an imaging device, wherein a microlens array can be used to improve light collection efficiency in any arrangement (Pau, microlens array 432, para 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, in further view of Pau, as a whole, by incorporating the microlens as taught by Pau, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, because doing so would provide a more efficient way focusing light on the image sensor, thus enhancing the sensitivity of the image sensor.
As per claim 11, the combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, further discloses the image sensor of claim 1 further comprising:
processing logic configured to receive;
a first signal from the first subpixel;
a second signal from the second subpixel;
a third signal from the third subpixel; and
a fourth signal from the fourth subpixel, wherein the processing logic is configured to generate image in response to the first signal, the second signal, the third signal, and the fourth signal (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 7 above).
The combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, fails to teach a partial-Stokes image as recited above in claim 11. However, Pau discloses an imaging device, having the ability to generate a partial-Stokes image from polarized light (Pau, para 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, in further view of Pau, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to generate a partial-Stokes image as taught by Pau, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of generating a partial-Stokes image using polarized light captured.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0021741 A1), Siddique et al (US 2021/0311240 A1), and Pau et al (US 2016/0170110 A1) in further view of Banks et al (US 2017/0248796 A1).
As per claim 10, the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the patterned LCP layer includes photoaligned absorbing materials dimensioned at less than 10 microns.
The combined teachings of Nakamura and Siddique, in further view of Pau, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 10. However, Banks discloses an imaging system, wherein the polarizer may be less than 10 microns (Banks, para 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, in further view of Banks, as a whole, by incorporating the size of polarizers as taught by Banks, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura, Siddique, and Pau, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of focusing light on the image sensor, thus enhancing the sensitivity while decreasing the size of the image sensor.
7. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2021/0021741 A1), Siddique et al (US 2021/0311240 A1), Pau et al (US 2016/0170110 A1) and Jamalie et al (US 2020/0081252 A1), in further view of Pau (US 2020/0182988 A1).
The image sensor of claim 22 further comprising:
a first microlens configured to focus the imaging light to the first subpixel, the second subpixel, the third subpixel, and the fourth subpixel; and
a second microlens configured to focus the imaging light to the fifth subpixel and the sixth subpixel.
The combined teachings off Nakamura, Siddique, Pau, in further view of Jamalie, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 8. However, Pau discloses an imaging device, wherein a microlens array can be used to improve light collection efficiency in any arrangement (Pau, microlens array 432, para 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Siddique, Pau, and Jamalie, in further view of Pau, as a whole, by incorporating the microlens as taught by Pau, into the image sensor as taught by Nakamura, Siddique, Pau, and Jamalie, because doing so would provide a more efficient way focusing light on the image sensor, thus enhancing the sensitivity of the image sensor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639