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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0344430), hereinafter referenced as Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an optical sensing system, comprising: a first optical sensor (figure 1b exhibits sensor 10 as disclosed at paragraph 28), comprising: a first pixel array (figure 1a exhibits pixel array 11 as disclosed at paragraph 28); and a first light gating layer (figure 2a exhibits optical filter 23 as disclosed at paragraph 30), configured to receive first input light and to provide first receiving light to the first pixel array, to make the first optical sensor has at least two different light sensitivities (figure 2c shows that different pixels have differently angled polarizing layers which result in the pixels having different sensitivities as disclosed at paragraph 36); wherein the first light gating layer comprises: a first polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of first polarizer strips, wherein each of the first polarizer strips has a first width and a first length, and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance (figure 2b shows that layer P1 has a first set of polarizer strips with a first width, length and pitch as disclosed at paragraph 30); and a second polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of second polarizer strips, wherein each of the second polarizer strips has a second width and a second length, and a distance between different ones of the second polarizer strips is a second distance (figure 2b shows that layer P2 has a first set of polarizer strips with a first width, length and pitch as disclosed at paragraph 30); wherein the first polarizer strips are provided in a first plane and the second polarizer strips are provided in a second plane parallel with the first plane (figure 2a shows that the polarizers P1 and P2 are stacked in different parallel planes), wherein the light sensitivities correspond to an angle between the first polarizer strips and projection of the second polarizer strips, wherein the projection is projected to the first plane (paragraph 30 teaches that the sensitivity is based on the angle between the orientations of the polarizers).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, in addition, Wang discloses wherein the light sensitivities correspond to the first width, the first length, the first distance, the second width, the second length and the second distance (paragraph 33 teaches that transmittance and therefore pixel sensitivity can be controlled by changing the widths and spacings of the wires, furthermore, it is apparent that the length of the strip will also affect sensitivity since if the strips do not cover the full length of the pixel, then the uncovered areas will fully transmit light).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses an optical sensing system, comprising: a first optical sensor (figure 1b exhibits sensor 10 as disclosed at paragraph 28), comprising: a first pixel array (figure 1a exhibits pixel array 11 as disclosed at paragraph 28); and a first light gating layer (figure 2a exhibits optical filter 23 as disclosed at paragraph 30), configured to provide first receiving light to the first pixel array, comprising: a first polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of first polarizer strips, wherein each of the first polarizer strips has a first width and a first length, and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance (figure 2b shows that layer P1 has a first set of polarizer strips with a first width, length and pitch as disclosed at paragraph 30); and a second polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of second polarizer strips, wherein each of the second polarizer strips has a second width and a second length, and a distance between different ones of the second polarizer strips is a second distance (figure 2b shows that layer P2 has a first set of polarizer strips with a first width, length and pitch as disclosed at paragraph 30); wherein the first polarizer strips are provided in a first plane and the second polarizer strips are provided in a second plane parallel with the first plane (figure 2a shows that the polarizers P1 and P2 are stacked in different parallel planes), wherein the light sensitivities correspond to an angle between the first polarizer strips and projection of the second polarizer strips, wherein the projection is projected to the first plane (paragraph 30 teaches that the sensitivity is based on the angle between the orientations of the polarizers).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses the optical sensing system of claim 12, in addition, Wang discloses wherein the light sensitivities of the first optical sensor correspond to the first width, the first length, the first distance, the second width, the second length and the second distance (paragraph 33 teaches that transmittance and therefore pixel sensitivity can be controlled by changing the widths and spacings of the wires, furthermore, it is apparent that the length of the strip will also affect sensitivity since if the strips do not cover the full length of the pixel, then the uncovered areas will fully transmit light).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yamazaki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0130879), hereinafter referenced as Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, in addition, Wang discloses wherein the first optical sensor comprises a plurality of sensor regions respectively comprising a plurality of pixels, wherein each of the sensor regions has at least two different ones of the light sensitivities, and the light sensitivities of each one of the sensor regions distribute following identical rules.
Yamazaki is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yamazaki teaches an image sensor wherein the motivation of improving the dynamic range of the sensor would have prompted a predictable variation of Wang by applying Yamazaki’s known principal of providing a plurality of sensor regions respectively comprising a plurality of pixels, wherein each of the sensor regions has at least two different ones of the light sensitivities, and the light sensitivities of each one of the sensor regions distribute following identical rules (figure 16 exhibits an 8x8 sub-array of pixels which has a plurality of different sensitivities and the sensitivities are distributed following the same rule for each 8x8 section).
In view of the motivations such as improving the dynamic range of the sensor one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Wang.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0286908), hereinafter referenced as Yamazaki ‘908.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 6, however, Wang fails to disclose wherein each of the sensor regions comprises at least one R pixel, at least one G pixel and at least one B pixel, wherein the R pixel, the G pixel and the B pixel have different ones of the light sensitivities.
Yamazaki ‘908 is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yamazaki ‘908 teaches a polarized imaging device wherein the motivation of performing polarized color imaging would have prompted a predictable variation of Wang by applying Yamazaki ‘908’s known principal of providing sensor regions wherein each of the sensor regions comprises at least one R pixel, at least one G pixel and at least one B pixel, wherein the R pixel, the G pixel and the B pixel have different ones of the light sensitivities (figure 14 exhibits a 4x4 pixel region which includes R, G and B pixels with different polarizations and therefore different sensitivities as shown in annotated figure 14 below).
In view of the motivations such as performing polarized color imaging one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Wang.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, however, Wang fails to disclose wherein the first optical sensor comprises a plurality of sensor regions, wherein the sensor regions are located at different locations of the first optical sensor and comprises a plurality of pixels, wherein the light sensitivities of the pixels in each one of the sensor regions distribute following different rules.
Yamazaki ‘908 is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yamazaki ‘908 teaches a polarized imaging device wherein the motivation of performing polarized color imaging would have prompted a predictable variation of Wang by applying Yamazaki ‘908’s known principal of providing a plurality of sensor regions, wherein the sensor regions are located at different locations of the first optical sensor and comprises a plurality of pixels, wherein the light sensitivities of the pixels in each one of the sensor regions distribute following different rules (figure 22 as annotated below shows a first 2x2 sensor region and a second 2x2 sensor region wherein the polarities, and therefore the sensitivities of the pixels are distributed following different rules such that the top right pixel in the first region has vertical polarity, but the top right pixel in the second region has a diagonal polarity, the rest of the pixels in each region similarly follow different distribution rules).
In view of the motivations such as performing polarized color imaging one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Wang.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
553
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chao et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0008674).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, however, Wang fails to disclose wherein the first optical sensor comprises a plurality of sensor regions; wherein the light sensitivities of the sensor regions are inversely related with distance between the sensor regions and the light source.
Chao is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Chao teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of reducing lens shading effects would have prompted a predictable variation of Wang by applying Chao’s known principal providing plurality of sensor regions (figure 8A exhibits a pixel array including a first region near an edge which comprises pixels of type 851 and a second region in a central area which includes pixels of type 852); wherein the light sensitivities of the sensor regions are inversely related with distance between the sensor regions and the light source (figure 8A shows that the pixels 851 have a larger size and therefore a greater sensitivity compared to pixels 852 as disclosed at paragraph 56). When applying this known technique to Wang, the pixels on the edge of the sensor closest to the light source would have a greater sensitivity compared to the farther away pixels located in the central area such that the sensitivities would be inversely related to pixel distance from the light source (i.e. pixels of a smaller distance have a greater sensitivity and pixels of a greater distance have a smaller sensitivity).
In view of the motivations such as reducing lens shading effects one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Wang.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights