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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 24, 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10 & 12-23 are pending and rejected.
Claim 11 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed September 24, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 of Claims 1-10 & 12-23 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the micro-lens array of Safai is not a light homogenizer as it does not perform the function of homogenization, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s light homogenizer as claimed (see Claims 5 & 17) and as disclosed (see, inter alia, Para. [0031] of Applicant’s specification) is a microlens array 405-2, through which light passes, disposed between a biconvex imaging lens 405-1 and an array sensor 405-3. This is structurally identical to the micro-lens array 136 of Safai which is disposed between a biconvex imaging lens 134 and a photodetector array 140 (see Figs. 4A-4B & Paras. [0045] – [0050]). Given the intrinsic nature of light, the micro-lens array 136 of Safai would function identically to that of Applicant’s claimed microlens array and thus would act as the light homogenizer as claimed (see MPEP § 2114(I)).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the micro-lens array 136 of Safai is not formed at the focal plane of the imaging lens 134, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the imaging lens has a focal plane FP1 on which the micro-lens array 136 is not formed, Safai does disclose that the micro-lens array 136 is formed on a focal plane of the imaging lens 134. A lens always has two focal planes, a frontal focal plane (FFP) and a back focal plane (BFP). The FFP is always formed on the object being imaged (i.e., feature 104 of Safai) which is always external to the sensing module and represents the location on the object that will appear in focus when viewing said object through the lens. The BFP, sometimes referred to as the imaging plane, is the plane internally in sensing module where the light exiting the imaging lens converges/focused and an image is formed. Given that Applicant’s disclosed focal plane (see Figs 7A-7B of Applicant’s application) is disposed internally within the sensing module 405, said focal plane must be the BFP. As detailed below, the micro-lens array 136 of Safai is formed on the imaging plane (not shown) of the imaging lens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 & 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safai et al. (hereinafter "Safai") (US 2019/0064079).
Regarding Claim 1, Safai discloses multichannel integrated endoscope system (Fig. 1, 100; [0035]), comprising:
a lighting module (Fig. 2, 132; [0041]) configured to emit illumination lights (Fig. 2, 180; [0042]) on an object (Fig. 1, 104; [0035]);
an image module (Fig. 4A, a first set of 142 corresponding to 154A; [0051]) configured to capture an image of said object ([0049]);
a multichannel sensor module (Fig. 4A, a sensing array comprising 134, 136, and a second set of 142 corresponding to 154B; [0041] & [0051]), configured to obtain a spectral information of said object ([0052]), including an imaging lens (Fig. 4A, 134; [0041]), a light homogenizer (Fig. 4A, 136; [0041]) and a multichannel array sensor (Fig. 4A, a second set of 142 corresponding to 154B; [0051]), wherein said light homogenizer is formed between said multichannel array sensor and said imaging lens (see Fig. 4A), said light homogenizer being formed at a focal plane of said imaging lens (Fig. 4A, 136 is located at an imaging/back-focal plane of 134 (i.e., a plane where 160 passing through 134 are focused/converged); [0045] & [0046]).
Regarding Claim 2, Safai discloses the multichannel integrated endoscope system of Claim 1. Safai further discloses wherein said multichannel array sensor includes a plurality of spectral sensing zones (Fig. 4A, 154B; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 3, Safai discloses the multichannel integrated endoscope system of Claim 2. Safai further discloses wherein each of said plurality of spectral sensing zones divides sensing field of view of said subject into sub field of views ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 4, Safai discloses the multichannel integrated endoscope system of Claim 2. Safai further discloses wherein each of said plurality of spectral sensing zones includes a plurality of spectral-filter channels (color channels; [0052]), and each of said plurality of spectral sensing zones generate a spectral information of sub field of views ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 5, Safai discloses the multichannel integrated endoscope system of Claim 1. Safai further discloses wherein said light homogenizer is a microlens array (Fig. 2, 136 is a micro-lens array; [0041]).
Regarding Claim 12, Safai discloses a multichannel sensor module (Fig. 2, a sensing array comprising 134, 136 and 140; [0041]), comprising:
an imaging lens (Fig. 2, 134; [0041]) configured to receive light reflected from an object ([0049]);
a light homogenizer (Fig. 2, 136; [0041]) configured to homogenize said light reflected from said object ([0041]); and
a multichannel array sensor (Fig. 2, 140; [0041]) configured to receive light reflected from said object for obtaining spectral information of said object ([0041]), wherein said light homogenizer is formed between said multichannel array sensor and said imaging lens (see Fig. 2), said light homogenizer being formed at a focal plane of said imaging lens (Fig. 4A, 136 is located at an imaging/back-focal plane of 134 (i.e., a plane where 160 passing through 134 are focused/converged); [0045] & [0046]).
Regarding Claim 13, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claim 12. Safai further discloses wherein said multichannel array sensor includes a plurality of spectral sensing zones (Fig. 2, 142; [0050]).
Regarding Claim 14, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claim 13. Safai further discloses wherein each of said plurality of spectral sensing zones divides sensing field of view of said object into sub field of views ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 15, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claim 14. Safai further discloses wherein each of said plurality of spectral sensing zones includes a plurality of multichannel filter array (Fig. 4A, 154; [0051]), and each of said plurality of spectral sensing zones generate a spectral information of said sub field of views ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 16, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claim 15. Safai further discloses wherein each of said plurality of multichannel filter array includes a plurality of spectra of channels (color channels; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 17, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claim 12. Safai further discloses wherein said light homogenizer is a microlens array (Fig. 2, 136 is a micro-lens array; [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 7-8 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safai et al. (hereinafter "Safai") (US 2019/0064079).
Regarding Claims 7-8 & 19-20, Safai discloses the multichannel integrated endoscope system of Claim 5 and the multichannel sensor module of Claim 17, respectively. Safai fails to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a microlens pitch to a zone pitch is between 0.45 and 1, and wherein a ratio of microlens focal length to the zone pitch is between 2 and 8.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ratio of the microlens pitch to a zone pitch and the ratio of microlens focal length to the zone pitch is between 2 and 8 between 0.45 and 1 and between 2 and 8, respectively, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the multichannel sensor module would not operate differently with the claimed ratios. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating that “according to embodiments of the present invention, a ratio of a microlens pitch d2 to a zone pitch d1… is between 0.45 and 1 [emphasis added]” and “according to embodiments of the present invention, a ratio of a microlens focal length to a zone pitch is between 2 and 8 [emphasis added]” (see Paras. [0042] & [0044] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 6, 9-10, 18 & 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safai et al. (hereinafter "Safai") (US 2019/0064079) in view of Castellon-Rivera et al. (hereinafter "Castellon") (US 2022/0075099).
Regarding Claims 6 & 9-10, Safai discloses the multichannel integrated endoscope system of Claim 5. Safai fails to explicitly disclose wherein said microlens array is formed by lenses which only one side has spherical shape; wherein said microlens array includes: a substrate; a first plurality of microlenses formed on one side of said substrate; and an aperture stop layer formed on same side or on other side of said substrate, wherein said aperture stop layer includes a plurality of transparent zones; and wherein said aperture stop layer is form by black photoresist and used to reduce the crosstalk and stray light between said plurality of transparent zones.
However, Castellon teaches a microlens array (Fig. 2, 50; [0027]), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, 3; [0027]);
a first plurality of microlenses (Fig. 2, 2a; [0027]) formed on one side of said substrate (see Fig. 2);
wherein said only one side of the first plurality of microlenses has spherical shape (Fig. 2, 21 of 2a are plano-convex lenses; [0027]);
an aperture stop layer (Fig. 2, 1; [0027]) formed on same side or on other side of said substrate (see Fig. 2);
wherein said aperture stop layer includes a plurality of transparent zones (Fig. 2, 14; [0026]); and
wherein said aperture stop layer is form by black photoresist and used to reduce the crosstalk and stray light between said plurality of transparent zones (Fig. 2, 13a and 13b of 1 are made of opaque chromium; [0026]).
The advantage of the aperture-stop-layered microlens array is to increase definition detail and light distribution (Castellon; [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the microlens array as disclosed by Safai, with the aperture-stop-layered microlens array taught by Castellon, to increase definition detail and light distribution (Castellon; [0026]).
Regarding Claim 18 & 21-23, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claims 12 & 17. Safai fails to explicitly disclose wherein a microlens array is formed by lenses which only one side has spherical shape; wherein said microlens array includes: a substrate; a first plurality of microlenses formed on one side of said substrate; and an aperture stop layer formed on other side of said substrate, wherein said aperture stop layer includes a plurality of transparent zones; wherein said aperture stop layer is form by black photoresist and used to reduce the crosstalk and stray light between said plurality of transparent zones; and wherein a second plurality of microlenses are formed on said aperture stop layer.
However, Castellon teaches a microlens array (Fig. 2, 50; [0027]), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2, 3; [0027]);
a first plurality of microlenses (Fig. 2, 2a; [0027]) formed on one side of said substrate (see Fig. 2);
wherein said only one side of the first plurality of microlenses has spherical shape (Fig. 2, 21 of 2a are plano-convex lenses; [0027]);
an aperture stop layer (Fig. 2, 1; [0027]) formed on other side of said substrate (see Fig. 2);
wherein said aperture stop layer includes a plurality of transparent zones (Fig. 2, 14; [0026]);
wherein said aperture stop layer is form by black photoresist and used to reduce the crosstalk and stray light between said plurality of transparent zones (Fig. 2, 13a and 13b of 1 are made of opaque chromium; [0026]); and
wherein a second plurality of microlenses are formed on said aperture stop layer (Fig. 2, 2b; [0027]).
The advantage of the aperture-stop-layered microlens array is to increase definition detail and light distribution (Castellon; [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the microlens array as disclosed by Safai, with the aperture-stop-layered microlens array taught by Castellon, to increase definition detail and light distribution (Castellon; [0026]).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
