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 amendments filed on 11/26/2025 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are amended, and Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/21/2021 are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3 and 6- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (JPH08262516A, of record in the IDS dated 09/27/2023) in view of Asada (JPH03233433A, of record in the IDS dated 09/27/2023) further in view of Backlund (US 20060050391 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Baba discloses an optical computing device comprising:
a light diffraction element group (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]) including light diffraction elements (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]) each having an optical computing function ([0020]: elements 23 and 26 can alter image data); and
a light emitter (Fig. 3b-- element 28, two-dimensional input image data; [0012]) that generates signal light into the light diffraction element group (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]).
However, Baba does not explicitly disclose a light emitter that is indicative of images by different optical systems.
Baba and Asada are related as both pertaining to the field of indicative of optical imaging units. Asada discloses an optical computing device comprising:
a light emitter (Fig. 1—element 1, white light source; Page 4) that is indicative of images by different optical systems (Page 5: images A and B are color stereo image pairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba with the stereo imaging of Asada in order to perform local correlation calculation between two images spatially in parallel (Asada, Page 1).
However, Baba and Asada do not explicitly disclose wherein the light diffraction elements are each constituted by microcells that diffract beams of the signal light such that the beams interfere with each other. Baba, Asada, and Backlund are related as pertaining to the field of optical imaging units. Backlund discloses a device wherein the light diffraction elements (Fig. 5a—grating; 0082) are each constituted by microcells (Fig. 5b-- grating cells; [0085]) that diffract beams of the signal light such that the beams interfere with each other ([0085]: the phase of emitted light is different depending on the location of the cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba and Asada with the grating cells of Backlund in order to create a device which allows for one single grating profile to be efficiency-optimized at many wavelengths and diffraction orders simultaneously (Backlund, [0079]).
With respect to Claim 2, Baba, Asada, and Buckland disclose the optical computing device according to claim 1, and Baba further discloses a light emitter (Fig. 3b-- element 28, two-dimensional input image data; [0012]). However, Baba does not explicitly disclose two cameras that form the images.
Baba and Asada are related as both pertaining to the field of indicative of optical imaging units. Asada does disclose two cameras that form the images (Page 1: stereo images are obtained by imaging the same object from two different points; Page 5: images A and B are color stereo image pairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba with the stereo imaging of Asada in order to perform local correlation calculation between two images spatially in parallel (Asada, Page 1).
With respect to Claim 3, Baba, Asada, and Buckland disclose the optical computing device according to claim 2; however, Baba does not explicitly disclose wherein the images each contain, as a subject, an identical target object and that are captured in different directions.
Baba and Asada are related as both pertaining to the field of indicative of optical imaging units. Asada does disclose wherein the images each contain, as a subject, an identical target object and that are captured in different directions (Page 1: stereo images are obtained by imaging the same object from two different points; Page 5: images A and B are color stereo image pairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba with the stereo imaging of Asada in order to perform local correlation calculation between two images spatially in parallel (Asada, Page 1).
With respect to Claim 6, Baba and Asada disclose the optical computing device according to claim 1, Baba further discloses the light diffraction elements (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]). However, neither Baba or Asada disclose wherein each of the light diffraction elements is constituted by the microcells that have respective thicknesses or refractive indices set independently of each other.
Baba, Asada, and Backlund are related as pertaining to the field of optical imaging units. Backlund discloses a device wherein each of the light diffraction elements (Fig. 5a—grating; 0082) is constituted by the microcells (Fig. 5b-- grating cells; [0085]) that have respective thicknesses or refractive indices set independently of each other ([0079]: cells may have different depths from each other determined arbitrarily).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba and Asada with the grating cells of Backlund in order to create a device which allows for one single grating profile to be efficiency-optimized at many wavelengths and diffraction orders simultaneously (Backlund, [0079]).
With respect to Claim 7, Baba discloses an optical computing method comprising:
generating signal light (Fig. 3b-- element 28, two-dimensional input image data; [0012]) inputted into a light diffraction element group (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]), wherein
the optical computing method uses the light diffraction element group (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]) includes light diffraction elements (Fig. 3a-- elements 23 and 26, diffraction pattern arrays; [0012]) each having an optical computing function ([0020]: elements 23 and 26 can alter image data).
However, Baba does not explicitly disclose a light emitter that is indicative of images by different optical systems. Baba and Asada are related as both pertaining to the field of indicative of optical imaging units. Asada discloses an optical computing device comprising:
a light emitter (Fig. 1—element 1, white light source; Page 4) that is indicative of images by different optical systems (Page 5: images A and B are color stereo image pairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba with the stereo imaging of Asada in order to perform local correlation calculation between two images spatially in parallel (Asada, Page 1).
However, Baba and Asada do not explicitly disclose causing the signal light to enter the light diffraction element group constituted by microcells; and
causing beams of the signal light diffracted in the microcells to interfere with each other. Baba, Asada, and Backlund are related as pertaining to the field of optical imaging units. Backlund discloses a device causing the signal light to enter the light diffraction element group (Fig. 5a—grating; 0082) constituted by microcells (Fig. 5b-- grating cells; [0085]); and
causing beams of the signal light diffracted in the microcells (Fig. 5b-- grating cells; [0085]) to interfere with each other ([0085]: the phase of emitted light is different depending on the location of the cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba and Asada with the grating cells of Backlund in order to create a device which allows for one single grating profile to be efficiency-optimized at many wavelengths and diffraction orders simultaneously (Backlund, [0079]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (JPH08262516A, of record in the IDS dated 09/27/2023) in view of Asada (JPH03233433A, of record in the IDS dated 09/27/2023) in view of Backlund (US 20060050391 A1) further in view of Venkataraman (US2011069189A1, foreign equivalent JP2011-523538 of record in the IDS dated 09/27/2023).
With respect to Claim 4, Baba, Asada, and Buckland disclose the optical computing device according to claim 2; however, Baba and Asada do not explicitly disclose wherein the images each contain, as a subject, an identical target object and are captured at different magnifications.
Baba, Asada, and Venkataraman are related as pertaining to the field of optical imaging units. Venkataraman does disclose wherein the images each contain, as a subject, an identical target object ([0016]: the imagers may take several kinds of images of videos of an object) and that are captured at different magnifications ([0104]: the camera array includes two or more subsets of imagers equipped with lenses of more than two magnifications to provide differing zoom magnifications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba and Asada with the zoom capable imaging of Venkataraman in order to create a device which may obtain images at different fields of view (Venkataraman, [0015]).
With respect to Claim 5, Baba, Asada, and Buckland disclose the optical computing device according to claim 2; however, Baba and Asada do not explicitly disclose wherein the images each contain, as a subject, an identical target object and that are captured at different wavelengths.
Baba, Asada, and Venkataraman are related as pertaining to the field of optical imaging units. Venkataraman does disclose wherein the images each contain, as a subject, an identical target object ([0016]: the imagers may take several kinds of images of videos of an object) and that are captured at different wavelengths ([0079]: images obtained in the near IR-range and images obtained in the visible range may be synthesized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba and Asada with the IR-imager of Venkataraman in order to create a device which may capture high quality images in low lighting conditions (Venkataraman, [0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the other cited references fail to supply what Babas lacks. Buckland does disclose, in paragraph [0085], the phase of emitted light is different depending on the location of the cell. Therefore, the light is not coherent.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical computing device of Baba and Asada with the grating cells of Backlund in order to create a device which allows for one single grating profile to be efficiency-optimized at many wavelengths and diffraction orders simultaneously (Backlund, [0079]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art may have been motivated to combine the teachings of Babas with the teachings of Buckland despite any potential increase in imaging noise.
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 MACKENZI WADDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURUINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872