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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The explanation provided in paragraph [0051] (paragraph [0059] as published) is confusing. Paragraph [0051] states: Angular filter 23 comprises, according to the described embodiments, an array 31 or layer of holes or openings 33 made of a first opaque material, filled with a second transparent material forming a network or an array of transparent pillars 33. In other words, the first material defines opaque walls 35 forming a grid around transparent pillars 33. In practice, the manufacturing of the angular filter is generally reverse, that is, it is started by forming a network of transparent pillars 33 and the interstices between pillars are filled with an opaque material forming a grid in each mesh of which is located a transparent pillar. However, elsewhere throughout the specification and claims, the pillars 33 are formed of a first transparent material, and the walls 35 are formed of a second opaque material. Further, it is unclear how, as described in paragraph [0051], the “openings 33 made of a first opaque material” are then “filled with a second transparent material” to form “transparent pillars 33.” It appears that openings are made in the second opaque material, and those openings are filled with the first transparent material, to form transparent pillars where the openings had been, and opaque walls formed of the second opaque material surrounding the transparent pillars. Appropriate clarification and correction are 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 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0380282 to Schwartz et al. in view of R. Paschotta, "Refractive Index", RP Photonics Encyclopedia (https://www.rp-photonics.com/refractive_index.html), retrieved 02 Sept. 2025. Regarding Claim 1 , Schwartz discloses (e.g., focusing on Fig. 14 and its corresponding description) a n optical angular filter 16 comprising: an array of pillars 64 made of a first transparent material (e.g., paragraph [0107], “ may be filled with air or filled with a material at least partially transparent to the radiation detected by photodetectors 28, for example polydimethylsiloxane ” ) ; an array of walls 62 made of a second opaque material separating the pillars from one another (e.g., paragraphs [0099] and [0109]; Figs. 11 and 14). Schwartz does not explicitly disclose that a ratio between refraction indexes of the first and second materials depend s on a wavelength. However, Paschotta teaches that, as a physical property, refractive index generally is inversely dependent on wavelength, with the refractive index generally decreasing as wavelength increases (e.g., Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that a ratio between refraction indexes of the first and second materials depends on a wavelength , because the first and second materials are different materials, which have refractive indices generally independently dependent on wavelength (taught by Paschotta, as a physical property). Regarding Claim 5 , Schwartz and Paschotta would have rendered obvious (citing to Schwartz) wherein the refraction index of the second material is smaller than that of the first material, for at least a portion of a spectrum (e.g., Fig. 17 and paragraph [0137] of Schwartz) . Regarding Claim 6 , Schwartz and Paschotta would have rendered obvious (citing to Schwartz) wherein the refraction index difference between the first and second materials is in the range from 0.001 to 0.5 (PDMS of the first material, paragraph [0107], n about 1.4 ; SU-8 of the second material, paragraph [0109], n about 1.6 , within the claimed difference range) . Regarding Claim 11 , Schwartz and Paschotta would have rendered obvious (citing to Schwartz) wherein a thickness of the filter is selected according to a selectivity desired for the optical angular filter (where adjusting known parameters to achieve a “desired” selectivity would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, including selecting a thickness in an angular filter, where the thickness would predictably affect the angular selectivity based on optical characteristics of the system) . Regarding Claim 1 2 , Schwartz and Paschotta would have rendered obvious (citing to Schwartz) wherein the first and second materials are organic resins (e.g., paragraphs [0107] and [0109]) . Regarding Claim 1 3 , Schwartz and Paschotta would have rendered obvious (citing to Schwartz) an array of microlenses (Fig. 14, microlenses 70) . Regarding Claim 1 4 , Schwartz and Paschotta would have rendered obvious (citing to Schwartz) a n image acquisition device comprising the optical angular filter according to claim 1 (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0002]) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 – 4 and 15 – 22 are 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 2, the prior art of record fails to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the combination of all features recited in Claim 2, including those features recited in claims from which Claim 2 depends, all taken together and as a whole, including but not limited to “ wherein a difference between the refraction indexes of the first and second materials changes sign at a given wavelength ”. Regarding Claim 3 , the prior art of record fails to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the combination of all features recited in Claim 3 , including those features recited in claims from which Claim 3 depends, all taken together and as a whole, including but not limited to “wherein the ratio between the refraction indexes of the first and second materials inverts for a given wavelength”. Regarding Claim 4 , the prior art of record fails to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the combination of all features recited in Claim 4 , including those features recited in claims from which Claim 4 depends, all taken together and as a whole, including but not limited to “wherein the refraction index of the first material is, for wavelengths in the infrared range, greater than the refraction index of the second material and, for wavelengths in a visible range, smaller than the refraction index of the second material”. Claims 15 – 22 depend variously from Claims 2 and 3. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3183 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am to 5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Caley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2286 . 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. /RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871