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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that elements 331 and 332 of Tsai are limited to being single pixels. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Tsai is not relied upon alone for teaching the features of claim 1, Tsai is used to modify Honda which does teach an array of pixels as discussed in the prior Office Action. When rejecting claim 9 (where the second array was originally claimed) the Examiner wrote “When applying this known technique to Honda, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the optical configuration of the sensing system disclosed by Honda in order to accurately detect temperature variations such that the second sensor would include a second pixel array; and a second light gating layer, configured to receive second input light and to provide second receiving light to the second pixel array, to make the second optical sensor has at least two different light sensitivities that have the same structure as the first pixel array; and the first light gating layer, 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 as disclosed with respect to claim 1.” This was not addressed by the Applicant. Second, Tsai does in fact teach that elements 331 and 332 can be an array of pixels. Paragraph 40 of Tsai states “when the first pixel 331 includes multiple pixels, the first reference output signal S.sub.O1_nd and the second reference output signal S.sub.O1_d are respectively a summation or an average of output signals of the multiple pixels, wherein the summation and the average are implemented by the circuit of the first pixel 331” and paragraph 50 states “Similarly, the second pixel 332 is a single pixel or includes multiple pixels”. Therefore, it is clear that the combination teaches two separate arrays of pixels.
Applicant further argues that Tsai fails to disclose “at least one light sensitivity of the second optical sensor is determined by scenarios of the optical sensing system” because Tsai doesn’t teach a pixel with adjustable light sensitivity. However, this is a new limitation and is taught by Yamazaki as further detailed in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that claims 2-8, 11, 13 and 14 are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 and 10. However, as claims 1 and 10 stand rejected for the reasons discussed above and further detailed below, claims 2-8, 11, 13 and 14 also stand rejected as further detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reflected light" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 and 11 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the reflected light" in line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0026545), hereinafter referenced as Tsai, in view of Yamazaki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0130879), hereinafter referenced as Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses an optical sensing system, comprising: a first optical sensor, comprising: a first pixel array (figure 3 exhibits a first sensor 331 comprising multiple pixels as disclosed at paragraph 44); and a second optical sensor, comprising: a second pixel array (figure 3 exhibits a second sensor 332 which comprises multiple pixels as disclosed at paragraph 50); and wherein the optical sensing system further comprises: a light source (figure 3 exhibits light source 31); a housing (figure 3 exhibits housing 39 as disclosed at paragraph 28); wherein the housing blocks light from the light source, such that the first optical sensor receives the light from the light source (figure 3 shows that sensor 331 receives light reflected by the housing as disclosed at paragraph 31), but the second optical sensor does not receive the light and the reflected light (figure 3 shows that sensor 332 does not receive the light directly emitted by the light source or the reflected light because sensor 332 is optically isolated by wall 395 as disclosed at paragraph 33). However, Tsai fails to disclose a first light gating layer, 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; a second light gating layer, configured to receive second input light and to provide second receiving light to the second pixel array, to make the second optical sensor has at least two different light sensitivities; wherein at least one light sensitivity of the second optical sensor is determined by scenarios of the optical sensing system.
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 Tsai by applying Yamazaki’s known principal of providing a light gating layer configured to receive first input light and to provide first receiving light to the pixel array, to make the first optical sensor has at least two different light sensitivities (figure 12 exhibits wherein pixels 102 and 202 have different grating layers 310 and 350 which cause the pixels to have different sensitivities as disclosed at paragraph 122); wherein at least one light sensitivity of the optical sensor is determined by scenarios of the optical sensing system (paragraph 126 teaches that the sensitivity can be adjusted by adjusting the widths and intervals of the strip conductors; paragraphs 5 and 6 teach that the dynamic range is controlled by adjusting sensitivities in order to capture a scene with a wide range of luminance values). When applying this known technique to Tsai, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify both the pixels 331 and 332 to have the light gating layer taught by Yamazaki.
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 Tsai.
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.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, in addition, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first light gating layer comprises: a first polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of first polarizer strips (figure 5 exhibits a first polarizer layer comprising polarizers 310, 320, 330, 350, 360 and 370 as disclosed at paragraph 57), wherein each of the first polarizer strips has a first width and a first length (figure 13B shows that the polarizing strips has a first width w1 and a length as shown in the top view of figure 12), and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance (figure 13B shows that different polarizers have different distances s1 and s2 between them as disclosed at paragraph 126); wherein the light sensitivities correspond to the first width, the first length and the first distance (paragraph 126 teaches that by controlling the size and spacing of the strips, the sensitivity is adjusted).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, in addition, Yamazaki 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 (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).
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Honda et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0162890), hereinafter referenced as Honda.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, in addition, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first light gating layer comprises: a first polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of first polarizer strips (figure 5 exhibits a polarizing layer comprising a plurality of strips as disclosed at paragraph 57), 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 13B shows that the polarizing strips has a first width w1 and a length as shown in the top view of figure 12). However, Tsai fails to disclose 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.
Honda is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Honda teaches an image sensor wherein the motivation of improving light blocking would have prompted a predictable variation of Tsai by applying Honda’s known principal of a second polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of second polarizer strips (figure 3 exhibits wherein the polarizer includes a first layer 120b including lattice strips 12 as disclosed at paragraph 52), 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 3 shows that the strips have a first width w, a spacing between them of s and each strip has a length).
In view of the motivations such as improving light blocking one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Tsai.
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.
Regarding claim 4, Tsai in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Honda discloses the optical sensing system of claim 3, in addition, Honda 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 (figure 6 shows that the width and spacing direct affects transmittance such that the smaller width and spacing, 50nm has a greater transmittance for light in the same direction and greater blocking for light in the orthogonal direction; furthermore, it is apparent that the length of the strips 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 regardless of the light’s direction).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Honda discloses the optical sensing system of claim 3, in addition, Honda discloses 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 3 shows that the first and second polarizer strips are in 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 (figure 3 shows that the first and second polarizer strips are parallel to each other; it is apparent that angle between the strips has an effect on the sensitivity of the sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Tsai discloses an optical sensing system, comprising: a first optical sensor, comprising: a first pixel array (figure 3 exhibits a first sensor 331 comprising multiple pixels as disclosed at paragraph 44); and a second optical sensor, comprising: a second pixel array (figure 3 exhibits a second sensor 332 which comprises multiple pixels as disclosed at paragraph 50); and wherein the optical sensing system further comprises: a light source (figure 3 exhibits light source 31); a housing (figure 3 exhibits housing 39 as disclosed at paragraph 28); wherein the housing blocks light from the light source, such that the first optical sensor receives the light from the light source (figure 3 shows that sensor 331 receives light reflected by the housing as disclosed at paragraph 31), but the second optical sensor does not receive the light and the reflected light (figure 3 shows that sensor 332 does not receive the light directly emitted by the light source or the reflected light because sensor 332 is optically isolated by wall 395 as disclosed at paragraph 33). However, Tsai fails to disclose a first light gating layer, 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, a first length, and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance; and a second polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of second polarizer strips, wherein each of the second polarizer strips has a second width, a second length, and a distance between different ones of the second polarizer strips is a second distance; a second light gating layer, comprising: a third polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of third polarizer strips, wherein each of the third polarizer strips has a third width, a third length, and a distance between different ones of the third polarizer strips is a third distance; and a fourth polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of fourth polarizer strips, wherein each of the fourth polarizer strips has a fourth width, a fourth length and a distance between different ones of the fourth polarizer strips is a fourth distance; and wherein at least one light sensitivity of the second optical sensor is determined by scenarios of the optical sensing system.
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 Tsai by applying Yamazaki’s known principal of providing a first light gating layer, 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, a first length, and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance (figures 12 and 13B shows that the polarizing strips has a first width w1, a length, and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance s1); wherein at least one light sensitivity of the optical sensor is determined by scenarios of the optical sensing system (paragraph 126 teaches that the sensitivity can be adjusted by adjusting the widths and intervals of the strip conductors; paragraphs 5 and 6 teach that the dynamic range is controlled by adjusting sensitivities in order to capture a scene with a wide range of luminance values). When applying this known technique to Tsai, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify both the pixels 331 and 332 to have the light gating layer taught by Yamazaki so that the combination teaches a first light gating layer, 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, a first length, and a distance between different ones of the first polarizer strips is a first distance and a second light gating layer, comprising: a third polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of third polarizer strips, wherein each of the third polarizer strips has a third width, a third length, and a distance between different ones of the third polarizer strips is a third distance.
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 Tsai.
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.
However, Tsai in view of Yamazaki fails to disclose 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 and a fourth polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of fourth polarizer strips, wherein each of the fourth polarizer strips has a fourth width, a fourth length and a distance between different ones of the fourth polarizer strips is a fourth distance.
Honda is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Honda teaches an image sensor wherein the motivation of improving light blocking would have prompted a predictable variation of Tsai by applying Honda’s known principal of a second polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of second polarizer strips (figure 3 exhibits wherein the polarizer includes a first layer 120b including lattice strips 12 as disclosed at paragraph 52), 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 3 shows that the strips have a first width w, a spacing between them of s and each strip has a length). When applying this known technique to Tsai, it would have been obvious to modify both sensor to have a second polarizer layer, such that the combination teaches 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 and a fourth polarizer layer, comprising a plurality of fourth polarizer strips, wherein each of the fourth polarizer strips has a fourth width, a fourth length and a distance between different ones of the fourth polarizer strips is a fourth distance.
In view of the motivations such as improving light blocking one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Tsai.
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.
Regarding claim 13, Tsai in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Honda discloses the optical sensing system of claim 12, in addition, Honda discloses wherein 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 (figure 6 shows that the width and spacing direct affects transmittance such that the smaller width and spacing, 50nm has a greater transmittance for light in the same direction and greater blocking for light in the orthogonal direction; furthermore, it is apparent that the length of the strips 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 regardless of the light’s direction).
Regarding claim 14, Tsai in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Honda discloses the optical sensing system of claim 12, in addition, Honda discloses 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 3 shows that the first and second polarizer strips are in 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 (figure 3 shows that the first and second polarizer strips are parallel to each other; it is apparent that angle between the strips has an effect on the sensitivity of the sensor).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai 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, Tsai in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 6, however, Tsai 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 Tsai 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 Tsai.
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, Tsai in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, however, Tsai 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 Tsai 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 Tsai.
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 Tsai in view of Yamazaki and further in view of Chao et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0008674).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai in view of Yamazaki discloses the optical sensing system of claim 1, however, Tsai 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 Tsai 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 Tsai, 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 Tsai.
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
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 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