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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10 & 12-23 are pending and rejected.
Claim 11 is canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a lighting module configured to emit illumination lights” in Claim 1, as described in Para. [0003] of Applicant’s specification.
“an imaging module configured to capture an image” in Claim 1, as described in Para. [0003] of Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4, 15-16 & 18 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the spectral information of said sub field of views [emphasis added]” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the spectral information of said sub field of views” is being interpreted as “spectral information of sub field of views”.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites the limitation “the spectral information of said sub field of views [emphasis added]” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the spectral information of said sub field of views” is being interpreted as “spectral information of said sub field of views”.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “said microlens array” on Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination “said microlens array” is being interpreted as “a microlens array”.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
(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.
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).
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 the spectral information of said 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).
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 the 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 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 Claims 18 & 21-23, Safai discloses the multichannel sensor module of Claims 12 & 17. 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0088185; US 2023/0353890; US 2023/0317755; U.S. 11,051,680; US 2021/0172797; US 2020/0381103; US 2020/0267291; US 2019/0004305; U.S. 10,057,498; US 2017/0302839; US 2017/0187938; US 2014/0168622; US 2014/0168648; and U.S. 6,483,535.
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