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 .
Remarks
In response to applicant’s amendment, dated 07/08/2025, the examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1, claims 1-11 are pending.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-11 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chipman, the applicant that:
“Chipman fails to disclose that an image is acquired including at least four sub-images corresponding to at least four different polarizations, whereas the sub-images are acquired simultaneously. In Chipman, an image is obtained only after scanning the micropolarizer array in front of a detector. Particularly, actuators 214, 216, and a scan generator 220 are arranged to displace the micropolarizer array 200. See Chipman, FIGS. 2-3; ¶¶ 0036-37. Thus, image portions 308 are acquired sequentially. A final image is obtained based on frequency domain reconstruction using the image portions acquired sequentially. Hence, the image of an object cannot be acquired simultaneously.” (emphasis added by examiner).
The examiner acknowledges that Chipman teaches an embodiment wherein the micropolarizer array is scanned as shown in Figures 3A-3D (i.e., sequential imaging). However, Chipman also teaches another embodiment with “four sub-images being acquired simultaneously”. In paragraph 0043, Chipman states:
“[0042] While a microelement polarizer can be scanned so that each portion of an image is sampled based on all microelement polarizations, images obtained without such scanning can be combined. Such images can be provided as a final image, or used to determine subsequent scan patterns to obtain images having a higher resolution or including more detailed polarization analysis.”
Thus, the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments and maintains the rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/01/2025.
Furthermore, Kadambi, et al. (US 11,525,906) and Mudge, et al. (US 8,305,578), which were previously made of record and not relied upon in the Office Action mailed 04/01/2025, also specifically teach acquiring sub-images simultaneously. Kadambi states in column 7, lines 14-17: “the polarization camera… is capable of concurrently or simultaneously capturing light at four different linear polarizations”. Mudge teaches an imaging polarimeter that claims priority to a provisional application titled “Optimal Simultaneous Stokes Imaging Polarimeter”. (emphasis added by examiner)
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongguo Li and Shiming Wang, "Underwater object detection technology based on polarization image fusion", Proc. SPIE 7658, 5th International Symposium on Advanced Optical Manufacturing and Testing Technologies: Optoelectronic Materials and Devices for Detector, Imager, Display, and Energy Conversion Technology, 76585J (22 October 2010); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.867624. (referred to as Li for this office action) in view of Chipman, et al. (US 2012/0075513).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses “the following steps: acquiring, by a polarimetric image sensor (Abstract: optical imaging systems), an image made up of pixels, the acquired image comprising a backscattered veil (Introduction, line 4: backscatter) for at least a portion of the pixels, the acquired image comprising at least four sub- images (Abstract:, lines 4-5),”…” , “.corresponding to at least four different polarizations (Abstract, lines 45), calculating Stokes parameters (Abstract, line 7) based on the luminous intensities of the pixels of the acquired image; determining, based on the Stokes parameters, an angle of polarization (Abstract, line 7) of the backscattered veil; determining, based on the Stokes parameters, a degree of polarization (Abstract, line 7) of the backscattered veil, calculating (page 4, lines 1-20) the luminous intensity of the backscattered veil based on the angle and the degree of polarization of the backscattered veil, and calculating, based on the acquired image and the luminous intensity of the backscattered veil, an improved image (page 4, lines 9-10: “The image with better contract and more detailed textures can be obtained.”), the method being implemented by means of a device for underwater imaging.”
Li does not teach that the four polarization images are “acquired simultaneously” as argued by the applicant.
Likewise, regarding claim 9, Li does not teach “at least one polarimetric image sensor comprising: a plurality of elementary sensors; a matrix
However, a polarimetric imaging system that utilizes a matrix of polarization analyzers with four different polarizations to simultaneously acquire four different polarization images simultaneously was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Chipman (See Fig.2; ref.# 202A, 202B, 202C, 202D; Fig. 10A, ref.# P1, P2, P3, P4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li such that the at least one polarimetric image sensor comprising: a plurality of elementary sensors; a matrixelementary sensor is equipped with an analyzer, each analyzer
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses “in that the polarizations are linear and correspond to 0⁰, 45⁰,90⁰ and 135⁰.” (page 3, line 11: 0⁰, 45⁰,90⁰ and 135⁰)
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses “characterized in that the ste
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses “characterized in that the ste
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses “in that it also comprises a ste
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses “in that the ste
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses “in that the step of calculating the luminous intensity of the backscattered veil comprises a step of calculating the average of the luminous intensities of all the sub-images.” (page 2, lines 19-22; page 3, lines 7-9: mapping)
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses “in that all the image processing steps are carried out independently for each colour channel R, G, and B.” (Abstract: RBG images; page 3, lines 4-6)
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the optical system to be used in oceanographic research (page 4). Li does not specifically teach “in that it is configured to be adaptable on a remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicle.” However, this limitations is considered an intended use recitation not given patentable weight. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses “A computer program associated with said image processing module, said program being fixed in a non-transitory medium of expression.” (Abstract: optical imaging system – inherently utilizes a computer to “calculate” (page 4, line 8 of translation).
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 RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
August 27, 2025