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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/07/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 14 have been amended to overcome the previous claim objections, therefore, the claim objections of claims 1-2, 9-10, and 14 are withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 08/07/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Witzel (US 20040036889). Please see the detailed rejection of amended claim 1 below.
On page 7 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that Kanamori’s system contradicts the objective of the amended invention. However, amended claim 1 currently only claims that “a spatially resolved image of the light output distribution of the light source is generated based on the light output values of all matrix blocks”, which is taught by Kanamori’s polarization image sensor in Fig. 8 ([0115-0118] of Kanamori). Broadly interpreted, spatial resolution is defined as the ability of a system to record details of objects, specifically the size of the smallest distinguishable object in a sample (definition taken from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/spatial-resolution). Therefore, “a spatially resolved image” is taught by Kanamori’s polarization image sensor which has the ability to record polarization details of objects ([0118]: Polarization images are obtained, where the polarization images are the spatially resolved images.) Amended claim 1 does not recite “a high spatial resolution”, therefore, Kanamori is not required to teach that a high-resolution image is generated, only that a spatially resolved image is generated. Furthermore, “high spatial resolution” is a subjective term.
On page 8 of the remarks, the Applicant argues multiple points which is listed below:
Kanamori does not described or suggest a measurement system for active light sources such as LEDs or VCSELs. However, Ernst was used in the office action dated 05/07/2025 to modify Kanamori to teach that the measured light source is a VSCEL.
Kanamori does not enable polarization-independent measurement of local light power across a field. Witzel (US 20040036889) has been added to the rejection to modify Kanamori to reject amended claim 1. Please see the detailed rejection below.
Kanamori does not generation of light output values for radiometric analysis. However, Ashdown was used in the office action dated 05/07/2025 to modify Kanamori to teach generation of light output values for radiometric analysis.
Kanamori does not disclose a system specifically configured for measuring light sources, however, [0116] of Kanamori discloses that incoming light is transmitted through optical elements and then incident onto photodiodes 2105 and 2106. Therefore, Kanamori’s polarization imaging sensor of Fig. 8 is configured for measuring light sources.
Kanamori does not teach spatially resolved imaging of light output distribution, however, Kanamori does teach the above-mentioned limitation in Fig. 8 and described in [0115-0118].
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of the beam splitter” in claim 4. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that beam splitter has sufficient structure because it is a common optical element.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 of claim 2 recites “each polarizer”. “Each polarizer” appears to be referencing “the plurality of linear polarizers” in lines 2-3 of claim 2. To be consistent, “each polarizer” should instead recite “each linear polarizer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) and further in view of Witzel (US 20040036889 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kanamori teaches a measuring system for measuring a light source in a polarization-independent manner, comprising:
a camera (Device shown in Fig. 8) having a plurality of image sensors arranged in the form of a matrix (Fig. 8: cross section of photodiodes 2105, 2106, and other photodiodes depicted but not numbered; Fig. 9 is a top view),
a microscope optics (Fig. 8: combination of optical elements, including, objective lens 110, makes up microscope optics), and
a plurality of linear polarizers (Fig. 8: polarization optical elements 2701, 2702, and the other polarizers depicted but not numbered) arranged in the form of a matrix in front of the plurality of image sensors (Shown in Fig. 8) and associated with the plurality of image sensors (Shown in Fig. 8 where incoming light rays 106 are shown to be transmitted through each polarization optical element then incident onto photodiode elements),
wherein the two or more of the plurality of linear polarizers form a matrix block (Shown in Figs. 8 and 9),
wherein the transmission directions of adjacent linear polarizers within a matrix block are rotated relative to one another, by 45 or by 90 (Fig. 8 shows a cross-section of a matrix block and Fig. 9 shows a top view of a matrix block),
wherein the measuring system is configured such that the measurement signals of the plurality of image sensors associated with the plurality of linear polarizers of the same matrix block are converted into light output values ([0009]: Light is incident onto photodiodes where each photodiode converts light into an electrical signal.; Shown in Fig. 8) and a spatially resolved image of the light output distribution of the light source is generated based on the light output values of all matrix blocks obtained in this manner ([0115-0119]: Polarization images are obtained with device shown in Fig. 8 where a polarization image would show the polarization distribution of the light output (light output distribution of light source).). Broadly interpreted, spatial resolution is defined as the ability of a system to record details of objects, specifically the size of the smallest distinguishable object in a sample (definition taken from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/spatial-resolution). Therefore, “a spatially resolved image” is taught by Kanamori’s polarization image sensor which has the ability to record polarization details of objects ([0118]: Polarization images are obtained, where the polarization images are the spatially resolved images.).
Kanamori appears to be silent to polarization-dependent deviations are compensated by averaging.
Witzel (US 20040036889), related to measuring light, does teach that polarization-dependent deviations are compensated by averaging ([0007]: “By recording measurements for at least two different states of polarization, and by performing an averaging over said at least two states of polarization, it is possible to reduce or even eliminate the polarization dependent error.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanamori so that the polarization-dependent deviations are compensated by averaging, as disclosed by Witzel. By averaging the polarization states, it is possible to reduce or even eliminate a polarization dependent error ([0007] from Witzel).
Regarding Claim 7, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches that the microscope optics comprises at least one optical filter (Kanamori, Fig. 8: low-pass filter 4100 or color mosaic filter 109).
Regarding Claim 10, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches a method for measuring a light source in a polarization-independent manner using a measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches that the light source emits light which is focused (Kanamori, Fig. 8: light ray 106 is focused by objective lens 110) on the plurality of image sensors of the camera (Kanamori, Fig. 8: photodiodes 2105, 2106, and other photodiodes depicted but not numbered) by the microscope optics (Kanamori, Fig. 8: combination of optical elements makes up microscope optics which includes the objective lens 110),
- the light passes through the plurality of linear polarizers (Kanamori, Fig. 8: polarizers 2701, 2702, and other polarizers depicted but not numbered) associated with each of the plurality of image sensors (Kanamori, Shown in Fig. 8),
- and the light is captured by the plurality of image sensors, wherein each image sensor of the plurality of image sensors converts the light that is incident on the image sensor into a measurement signal (Kanamori, Shown in Fig. 8 where image sensors are photodiodes 2105, 2106, and other photodiodes depicted but not numbered),
- wherein the measurement signals of the plurality of image sensors that are associated with the plurality of linear polarizers of the same matrix block (Kanamori, Shown in Figs. 7 and 8) are then converted into light output measured values in which polarization-dependent deviations are compensated for, by averaging the light output measurement values (Witzel, [0007]: “By recording measurements for at least two different states of polarization, and by performing an averaging over said at least two states of polarization, it is possible to reduce or even eliminate the polarization dependent error.”) of the plurality of image sensors within the same matrix block, (Kanamori, Fig. 8),
- and a spatially resolved image of the distribution of the light output of the light source is produced from the light output measured values of the matrix blocks (Kanamori, [0115-0119]: Polarization images are obtained with device shown in Fig. 8 where a polarization image would show the polarization distribution of the light output (light output distribution of light source).). Broadly interpreted, spatial resolution is defined as the ability of a system to record details of objects, specifically the size of the smallest distinguishable object in a sample (definition taken from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/spatial-resolution). Therefore, “a spatially resolved image” is taught by Kanamori’s polarization image sensor which has the ability to record polarization details of objects ([0118]: Polarization images are obtained, where the polarization images are the spatially resolved images.).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 20040036889 A1) and further in view of Pang (US 20210175270 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches that the micro lenses (Kanamori, Fig. 8: micro lenses 2110) are arranged in the form of a matrix and one micro lens is associated with each linear polarizer (Kanamori, Shown in Fig. 8).
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the micro lenses are in front of the plurality of linear polarizers.
Pang, related to imaging sensors, does teach the micro lenses (Fig. 1C: microlenses 117) are in front of the linear polarizers (Figs. 1A and 1C: polarization filters P1-P4 and 117, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori with Witzel so that the micro lenses are in front of the polarizers, as disclosed by Pang. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of using the microlenses to converge, diverge, or direct incident light through the respective optical filters (including polarization filters) to the respective detectors ([0023] from Pang; shown in Figs. 1A-1C).
Regarding Claim 3, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the plurality of image sensors are in the form of CMOS sensors.
Pang, related to an imaging sensor, does teach that the plurality of image sensors are in the form of CMOS sensors ([0001]: Invention is related to image sensors, in particular CMOS.; Shown in annotated Fig. 1C below where optical elements coupled with a respective photodiode (e.g., 101-1, 101-3, etc.) make up CMOS sensors. An example is enclosed in the annotated box shown in Fig. 1C below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that the plurality of image sensors are in the form of CMOS sensors, as disclosed by Pang. CMOS imaging sensors are known in the field of endeavor for use as imaging sensors. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to substitute a known element (use of a CMOS sensor as an imaging sensor) for another to obtain predictable results (for imaging) (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 2004/0036889 A1), and further in view of Ashdown (US 2009/0185173 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel does not teach that a beam splitter is provided, wherein the light of the light source can be fed by means of the beam splitter to the camera and at the same time to a spectral measuring device.
Ashdown, related to an apparatus for measuring light characteristics, does teach a beam splitter (Fig. 2: beam splitter 130) is provided, wherein the light of the light source (Fig. 2: light source 160) can be fed by means of the beam splitter to the camera (Fig. 2: image sensor 140) and at the same time to a spectral measuring device (Fig. 2: spectroradiometer 150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that a beam splitter is provided, wherein the light of the light source can be fed by means of the beam splitter to the camera and at the same time to a spectral measuring device, as disclosed by Ashdown. The addition of a beam splitter to redirect light to both a camera and a spectral measuring device has the advantage of allowing imaging and spectral measurements to occur at the same time where the spectral measuring device (spectroradiometer) can provide a measurement for the absolute spectral power distribution which is advantageous determining characteristics of a light source ([0034] from Ashdown).
Regarding Claim 5, Kanamori modified by Witzel and Ashdown teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 4.
Kanamori modified by Witzel and Ashdown further teaches that the spectral measuring device is a spectroradiometer (Ashdown, Fig. 2: spectroradiometer 150; [0033]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the method as claimed in claim 10.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches that measurement signals of the plurality of image sensors are associated with the plurality of linear polarizers of matrix blocks (Kanamori, Shown in Fig. 8).
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the conversion of the measurement signals of the plurality of image sensors that are associated with the plurality of linear polarizers of the same matrix block into absolute light output measured values is carried out on the basis of a calibration performed beforehand.
Ashdown, related to an apparatus for measuring light characteristics, does teach the conversion of the measurement signals of the spectroradiometer into absolute light output measured values ([0034]: A spectroradiometer can be used to acquire the absolute spectral power distribution.) is carried out on the basis of a calibration performed beforehand ([0041]: Sensor data from properly calibrated multiple exposures can be combined and radiometric self-calibration can be used to compute a radiometric response function of an imaging system.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that the conversion of the measurement signals of the image sensors that are associated with the polarizers of the same matrix block into absolute light output measured values is carried out on the basis of a calibration performed beforehand, as disclosed by Ashdown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform calibrations before taking measurements which would ensure accuracy of the measurements results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 2004/0036889 A1), and further in view of Yamashita (US 2001/0053265 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches that an optical edge filter (Kanamori, Fig. 8: low-pass filter 4100 is provided between the light source and the camera (Kanamori, Shown in Fig. 8).
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to an optical edge filter which can be pivoted or moved.
Yamashita, related to an apparatus for detecting intensity and wavelength of light from a light source, does teach an optical edge filter (Figs. 15 and 16: movable filter 630 which selectively transmits a predetermined wavelength to a photodiode PD [0127]) which can be pivoted or moved between a light source (Figs. 15 and 16: laser diode LD) and a photodiode (Figs. 15 and 16: photodiode PD).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel to incorporate an optical edge filter which can be pivoted or moved, as disclosed by Yamashita. The advantage of having a pivotable/movable optical edge filter is so that two values of the intensity of light could be measured where the optical edge filter is in the beam path and where the optical edge filter is not in the beam path. These two values can be compared to calculate the wavelength of the output light which is advantageous in monitoring the optical performance of optical devices ([0128-0134] from Yamashita).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 2004/0036889 A1), and further in view of Pau (US 20200209602 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches the microscope optics (Kanamori, Fig. 8: combination of optical elements, including, objective lens 110, makes up microscope optics).
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the microscope optics comprises a tube lens.
Pau, related to polarization imaging, does teach the microscope optics comprises a tube lens (Fig. 1: tube lens 178, 183, or 187).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that the microscope optics comprises a tube lens, as disclosed by Pau. The advantage of using a tube lens is that a tube lens can be used in polarization imaging ([0034] from Pau) for directing light onto a detector (Shown in Fig. 1 of Pau).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 2004/0036889 A1), and further in view of Fraedrich (US 2020/0041339 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 1.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches the microscope optics (Kanamori, Fig. 8: combination of optical elements, including, objective lens 110, makes up microscope optics) and the matrix blocks (Kanamori, polarizers over the imaging sensors shown in Fig. 8)
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the magnification and the numerical aperture of the microscope optics are chosen so that the optical resolution is lower than the geometric resolution of the arrangement of the matrix blocks.
Fraedrich, related to an invention for measuring the properties of light, does teach that the magnification and the numerical aperture of the microscope optics are chosen so that the optical resolution is lower than the geometric resolution of the arrangement of the image sensor ([0028]: Objective arrangement 6 is adapted to the size of the image sensor 7 (shown in Fig. 1) so that the entire spectrum that is to be analyzed can be imaged over the complete extent of the image sensor 7 and to satisfy the Nyquist condition. The image sensor can be a photodiode line array or a CCD line array/sensor or a CMOS sensor ([0014]).).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that the magnification and the numerical aperture of the microscope optics are chosen so that the optical resolution is lower than the geometric resolution of the arrangement of the matrix blocks, as disclosed by Fraedrich. The advantage of the above-mentioned condition is to ensure that the Nyquist condition (a known criteria in imaging) is met so that there is no loss of information in the detected signal ([0028] of Fraedrich).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 2004/0036889 A1) and further in view of Ernst (US 2007/0131842 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the method as claimed in claim 10.
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the measured light source is an arrangement of VCSEL elements in the form of a matrix.
Ernst, related to light characterization, does teach the measured light source is an arrangement of VCSEL elements in the form of a matrix ([0017]: Invention is related to monitoring the output power of vertical cavity surfacing emitting laser (VCSEL) array; Fig. 1 shows a VCSEL array 40 with light sources 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that the measured light source is an arrangement of VCSEL elements in the form of a matrix, as disclosed by Ernst. Many systems now use VSCEL diode or an array of VCSEL diodes, therefore, it would be advantageous for a light characterization system to be able to characterize VCSELs ([0004] from Ernst).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (US 20130270421 A1) in view of Witzel (US 2004/0036889 A1), and further in view of McEldowney (US 20210084206 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the method as claimed in claim 10.
Kanamori modified by Witzel further teaches the light source emits light with a wavelength range of 400 nm to 800 nm (Kanamori, [0174]: wavelength used is in the visible radiation range of 400 nm to 800 nm; (Kanamori, [0230]: Light source is white light.).
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the light source emits light with a wavelength greater than 800 nm.
McEldowney, related to a polarization imaging sensor, does teach to the light source emits light with a wavelength greater than 800 nm ([0065]: Light source 180 may be an NIR light source which the NIR region typically includes wavelengths in the range of 780-2500 nm which wavelengths greater than 800 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori combined with Witzel so that the light source emits light with a wavelength greater than 800 nm, as disclosed by McEldowney. McEldowney discloses a NIR polarized image sensor, which can detect NIR wavelengths, to capture images that includes polarization information that can be used to identify features or characteristics of the object to be detected ([0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 12, Kanamori modified by Witzel teaches the method as claimed in claim 10.
Kanamori modified by Witzel appears to be silent to the measurement is performed with a spatial resolution of less than 1 µm.
Dudak (“High-resolution X-ray imaging applications of hybrid-pixel photon counting detectors Timepix”), related to imaging sensors, does teach that the measurement is performed with a spatial resolution of less than 1 micron (Page 3, paragraph 1 of Section 1.1: “Spatial resolution at the level of several microns used to be the domain of synchrotron facilities for a long time. Nowadays, such a resolution is routinely achievable using laboratory X-ray imaging systems. Using the state-of-the-art laboratory X-ray sources with suitable detector technology, it is possible to reach a resolution even deeply below 1 um.”). However, as the Applicant has persuasively argued (page 7-8 of the remarks dated 08/07/2025) that Kanamori’s invention decreases the spatial resolution rather than increases the spatial resolution as claimed in claim 12. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have found it obvious to modify Kanamori with Dudak so that the measurement is performed with a spatial resolution of less than 1 micron. The argument made in the remarks is cited below for ease of reference:
“Low-Pass Filter (LPF) Contradicts the Measurement Objective. A critical technical contradiction exists between Kanamori's system architecture and the claimed measuring system. Kanamori employs an optical LPF (Low-Pass Filter) that acts on the incoming light before it reaches the image sensor (see Kanamori [0118] and Figure 8, element 4100). As stated in Kanamori, this LPF is specifically designed to "eliminate moire and false colors by making split light rays incident on the color mosaic filter" (Kanamori, page 5, lines 97-98).
While this LPF is beneficial for visual imaging, it directly contradicts the objective of the amended invention, which requires high spatial resolution to accurately resolve the light emission across the measurement field. The use of such an LPF would blur or average the optical signal before the light reaches the polarization matrix and image sensors, thereby eliminating spatial detail that is essential for a quantitative, pixel-wise power measurement.
The amended claim explicitly allows for the definition of spatial resolution by selecting appropriate parameters of the microscope optics in combination with the matrix block geometry (cf. amended claims 9 and 12; e.g., < 1 pm resolution per claim
12). The spatial frequency reduction caused by Kanamori's LPF would directly defeat these precision measurement capabilities.”
Therefore, as to Claim 12, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring a light source in a polarization-independent manner using a measuring system as claimed in claim 1, where the measurement is performed with a spatial resolution of less than 1 μm, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 12.
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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877