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 .
Election/Restrictions
As noted in the previous officat action, claims 8-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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 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 1-3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansel et al. (US Pub 2018/0232899 A1 )(hereinafter, “Lansel ”) in view of Sowa et al. ( WO 2019051591 A1) (hereinafter, “Sowa”).
Regarding claim 1, Lansel teaches a computing device (an imaging system 100. Imaging system 100 includes an illumination unit 110 and an image sensing unit 120, a processing unit 130,[0029] and [0045]) comprising:
a light source (illumination unit 110, [0031]) that includes a plurality of illuminants having different spectral emission profiles (discloses a plurality of light sources 112 and 114 within illumination unit 110, each with different spectral characteristics, [0031-0032]),
wherein the plurality of illuminants includes a first illuminant (first light source 112, a first light source 112 located at the first position, [0039]) having a first spectral emission profile (first light source 112, discloses 112 has optimized spectral output, [0032] and [0048] );
a second illuminant (light source 114, a second light source 114 located at the second position, [0039]) having a second spectral emission profile that is separated from the light source by a spacing(teaches light source 114 is spatially separated from light source 112, “the first and second positions are separated by a distance Δ along an illumination or displacement axis 123”, [0036]),
wherein the second spectral emission profile of the second illuminant is different than the first spectral emission profile of the first illuminant (discloses different light sources can be spectrally optimized, light source 112 can be optimized to emit visible light and light source 114 can be optimized to emit IR or UV light, [0032] and [0047]); and
an image sensor(image sensing unit 120, [0034]) that includes a pattern of subpixels associated with varied spectral responses(discloses image sensing unit 120 includes color filters inherently produces subpixels with varied spectral responses, [0034]);
wherein the first and second spectral emission profiles of the first and second illuminants are selected so as to reduce spectral overlap on different subpixels (“the spectral characteristics of illumination unit 110 are optimized based on the sensitivity of image sensing unit 120”, implies the emission bands (wavelengths) of the illumination unit are selected to match the spectral response characteristics of the image sensor, which includes subpixels with different color filters[0034]. This design inherently serves to minimize spectral overlap between the illumination sources and the sensor’s subpixels. Additionally, “… and/or any ambient illumination” suggests that the optimization process also considers the influence of external light sources, to reduce interference from both ambient illumination and internal spectral overlap, [0032] and [0047]).
However, Lansel fails to disclose a multi-channel light source and a single-channel light source.
Sowa teaches a multi-channel light source (teaches multiple LEDs/light sources, m illuminants, 4-LED systems (RGB +NIR), figures 4 and 5a)) and a single-channel light source(any individual LED (R, G, B, NIR), “In Figure 1 c a series of illuminants with different spectral emission characteristic sequentially illuminate the target sample”, figures 1c and 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate multi-channel light source and single-channel light source of Sowa to Lansel to improve spectral coverage, image quality, and robustness.
Regarding claim 2, Lansel teaches wherein the varied spectral responses of the subpixels correspond to different colors in the visible spectrum (discloses image sensing unit 120 includes color filters inherently produces subpixels with varied spectral responses in the visible spectrum, [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Lansel teaches wherein the spacing (“the value of Δ may be adjustable to optimize the accuracy and/or noise sensitivity of the depth estimate”, [0051], teaches the displacement between illumination positions, the spacing between first and second light sources maybe adjustable to optimize performance, [0049-0052]).
However, Lansel fails to disclose the spacing is at least 5 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a spacing of at least 5 millimeters to improve the accuracy of measurements and reduce the device’s sensitivity to noise and interference, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Lansel teaches wherein the plurality of illuminants includes at least one illuminant that is able to emit ultraviolet light or infrared light (“illumination unit 110 may be a source of electromagnetic radiation, which may include visible light, ultraviolet radiation, infrared radiation, and/or any combination thereof”, [0032]).
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansel et al. (US Pub 2018/0232899 A1 )(hereinafter, “Lansel ”) in view of Sowa et al. ( WO 2019051591 A1) (hereinafter, “Sowa”), further in view of Sharp (US Pub 2020/0041818 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lansel teaches polarization (discloses polarized light emission from illumination unit 110, [0032]).
However, Lansel in view of Sowa fail to disclose a polarizer that allows light of a specific polarization while blocking light of other polarizations.
Sharp teaches a polarizer ([0069]) that allows light of a specific polarization while blocking light of other polarizations (discloses a polarizer that transmits light with a specific polarization orientation while selectively blocking other polarizations, [0069-0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a polarizer of Sharp to Lansel in view of Sowa to enhance object detection and spectral filtering, thereby improving the quality and reliability of image or sensor data captured from scattered light ([0046], [0056-0058] and [0088]).
Regarding claim 5, Lansel teaches the first and second illuminants (discloses a plurality of light sources 112 and 114 within illumination unit 110, [0039]) sequentially emit light (teaches that light sources 112 and 114 are activated one after the other, [0036], [0039] and [0046]).
However, Lansel in view of Sowa fail to disclose wherein the specific polarization corresponds to scattered light reflected by an object.
Sharp teaches wherein the specific polarization corresponds to scattered light (discloses a polarizer that transmits light with a specific polarization orientation while selectively blocking other polarizations, [0069], used to filter scattered/reflected light from an object, [0088]) reflected by an object (teaches that the light being filtered is scattered light reflected from an object, and its polarization carries information about object properties, [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate polarization filtering of scattered light of Sharp to Lansel in view of Sowa to enhance object detection and spectral filtering, thereby improving the quality and reliability of image or sensor data captured from scattered light ([0046], [0056-0058] and [0088]).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansel et al. (US Pub 2018/0232899 A1 )(hereinafter, “Lansel ”) in view of Sowa et al. ( WO 2019051591 A1) (hereinafter, “Sowa”).
Regarding claim 22, Lansel fails to disclose wherein the image sensor includes a Bayer filter mosaic.
Sowa teaches wherein the image sensor includes a Bayer filter mosaic (discloses CFA… in a Bayer pattern, figure 3, page 4, lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a Bayer-pattern CFA of Sowa to Lansel to improve image quality, and measurement robustness.
Regarding claim 23, Lansel fails to disclose wherein the image sensor includes a colored filter array (CFA).
Sowa teaches wherein the image sensor includes a colored filter array (CFA) (discloses a CFA sensor, figures 3a and 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a Bayer-pattern CFA of Sowa to Lansel to improve image quality, and measurement robustness.
Regarding claim 24, Lansel fails to disclose wherein the plurality of illuminants includes a third illuminant having a third spectral emission profile and a fourth illuminant having a fourth spectral emission profile.
Sowa teaches wherein the plurality of illuminants includes a third illuminant having a third spectral emission profile and a fourth illuminant having a fourth spectral emission profile (discloses a system using four distinct illuminants (e.g., blue, green, red, and near-infrared LEDs), each having a different spectral emission profile, figures 4 and 5a, page 6, lines 32-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a CFA-RGB sensor of Sowa to Lansel to improve image quality, and measurement robustness.
Regarding claim 25, Lansel fails to disclose a linear sensor configured to track an intensity or a color of ambient light.
Sowa teaches a linear sensor configured to track an intensity (discloses RGB CFA CMOS/CCD sensor, R,G,G,B outputs, pages 6, lines 13-16) or a color of ambient light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a CFA-RGB CMOS/CCD sensor of Sowa to Lansel to improve image quality, and measurement robustness.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansel et al. (US Pub 2018/0232899 A1 )(hereinafter, “Lansel ”) in view of Sowa et al. ( WO 2019051591 A1) (hereinafter, “Sowa”), further in view of Cheng et al. (CN 110082781 A)(hereinafter, “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 26, Lansel in view of Sowa fail to disclose further comprising a temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of the image sensor for relative scaling of color channels.
Cheng teaches further comprising a temperature sensor (page 4, line 1) configured to monitor a temperature of the image sensor for relative scaling of color channels (page 4, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a temperature sensor of Cheng to Lansel in view of Sowa to improve detection reliability.
Regarding claim 27, Lansel teaches the second illuminant (light source 114, a second light source 114 located at the second position, [0039]) and at least some of the plurality of illuminants (discloses a plurality of light sources 112 and 114 within illumination unit 110, each with different spectral characteristics, [0031-0032]).
However, Lansel in view of Sowa fail to disclose a plurality of temperature sensors configured to monitor a temperature (page 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a temperature sensor of Cheng to Lansel in view of Sowa to improve detection reliability.
Regarding claim 28, Lansel teaches wherein the second illuminant has one of the plurality of positioned proximate thereto (light source 114, a second light source 114 located at the second position, [0039]).
Sowa teaches wherein each of the plurality of illuminants has one of the plurality of positioned proximate thereto (discloses a system using four distinct illuminants (e.g., blue, green, red, and near-infrared LEDs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a CFA-RGB sensor of Sowa to Lansel to improve image quality, and measurement robustness.
However, Lansel in view of Sowa fail to disclose a plurality of temperature sensors (page 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a temperature sensor of Cheng to Lansel in view of Sowa to improve detection reliability.
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights