DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–18 and 21–22 are pending in the instant application.
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s argument filed on 04/24/2026.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Scott’712 fails to teach the claimed limitation, “a plurality of switching plates being configured to be selectively inserted into an optical path between the object plane and the sensor defining different optical path lengths to account for changes in a location of the object plane.”
Examiner respectfully dissents. Applicant does not specifically point out whether Scott’712 fails to suggest how the plates are selectively inserted into an optical path citing the abstract and col. 2 line 64 – col. 3 line 6, rather than the cited columns.1 By avoiding the specific paragraph cited, Applicant creates a logical gap. Examiner’s rejection is based on the technical disclosure in the body of specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Examiner interpreted that Scott’712’s plates 38 and 39 propose a differential optical path length—i.e., he does not imply that these planes are simultaneously spaced to alter the focal parameters; rather, his teaching is capable to discriminately insert the physical arrangement such that the focal lengths are shifted. See Office Action pp. 4–5.
Therefore, Applicant fails to provide evidence that the structures cited are physically incapable of performing the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1–2, 5–8, 10–12, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (U.S. 6,687,391 B1) in view of Scott et al. (U.S. 7,808,712 B2, hereinafter Scott’712)
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses an optical system comprising:
an object plane (an object plane construed as a platen) to receive an object to be imaged. (Per Fig. 1A, Scott discloses a scanner 110 where a fingerprint image is processed through a platen 102. Scott col. 3 lines 16–34. Tenprint scanner 110 includes a housing 106 enclosing scanning optics which capture a fingerprint image through platen 102.)
Scott fails to specifically disclose a lens to direct light beams from the object plane;
a sensor to convert the directed light beams into an image; and
a plurality of switching plates being configured to be selectively inserted into an optical path between the object plane and the sensor defining different optical path lengths to account for changes in a location of the object plane.
In related art, Scott’712 discloses a lens to direct light beams from the object plane; (Per Fig. 2, Scott’712 discloses a mirror—i.e., a lens—such that light goes through the plane. Scott’712 col. 5 lines 44–59. The mirror 10 is fixed and somewhat inclined to the optic axis so that light reflected thereby)
a sensor to convert the directed light beams into an image; and (Per Fig. 1, Scott’712 discloses that planes are oriented adjusting a prism 1whereabouts the sensor 7 such that the camera is poised to form an image. Id. col. 5 lines 26–35. The focused images of the two coaxial focused planes are laterally displaced on the CCD camera due to the action of the prism 1.)
a plurality of switching plates being configured to be selectively inserted into an optical path between the object plane (Per Fig. 4, Scott’712 discloses two plates 38 and 39 to introduce an optical path length. Id. col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 12. Quarter wave plates 38, 39 located in each of the two polarisations from splitter 36 then introduce a differential optical path length,) and the sensor defining different optical path lengths to account for changes in a location of the object plane. (Per Fig. 5, Scott’712 discloses that his camera 35 calibrates its sensor surface(s) 32 and 33 to change focal length, e.g., a first path 3 and a second path 4. Id. col. 6 line 66 – col. 7 line 15. Surfaces 32 and 33 have long focal lengths so as effectively to alter the focal length of the camera lens for providing respective focussed images on the sensor surface (not shown) of the camera 35,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Scott’712 into the teachings of Scott to provide different output beams in each optical path. Id. col. 3 lines 3–23.
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses a skin topology scanning system comprising:
a platen surface to receive at least one object having a skin topology. (Per Fig. 1A, Scott discloses a scanner 110 where a fingerprint image is processed through a platen 102. Scott col. 3 lines 16–34. Tenprint scanner 110 includes a housing 106 enclosing scanning optics which capture a fingerprint image through platen 102.)
Scott fails to specifically disclose a lens to direct light beams from the platen surface;
a sensor to convert the directed light beams into an image of the at least one object; and a plurality of switching plates being configured to be selectively inserted into an optical path between the platen surface and the sensor defining different optical path lengths to account for shifts in a location of the platen surface.
In related art, Scott’712 discloses a lens to direct light beams from the object plane; (Per Fig. 2, Scott’712 discloses a mirror—i.e., a lens—such that light goes through the plane. Scott’712 col. 5 lines 44–59. The mirror 10 is fixed and somewhat inclined to the optic axis so that light reflected thereby)
a sensor to convert the directed light beams into an image; and (Per Fig. 1, Scott’712 discloses that planes are oriented adjusting a prism 1whereabouts the sensor 7 such that the camera is poised to form an image. Id. col. 5 lines 26–35. The focused images of the two coaxial focused planes are laterally displaced on the CCD camera due to the action of the prism 1.)
a plurality of switching plates being configured to be selectively inserted into an optical path between the object plane (Per Fig. 4, Scott’712 discloses two plates 38 and 39 to introduce an optical path length. Id. col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 12. Quarter wave plates 38, 39 located in each of the two polarisations from splitter 36 then introduce a differential optical path length,) and the sensor defining different optical path lengths to account for changes in a location of the object plane. (Per Fig. 5, Scott’712 discloses that his camera 35 calibrates its sensor surface(s) 32 and 33 to change focal length, e.g., a first path 3 and a second path 4. Id. col. 6 line 66 – col. 7 line 15. Surfaces 32 and 33 have long focal lengths so as effectively to alter the focal length of the camera lens for providing respective focussed images on the sensor surface (not shown) of the camera 35,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Scott’712 into the teachings of Scott to provide different output beams in each optical path. Id. col. 3 lines 3–23.
Regarding claim 2, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the system, wherein the plurality of switching plates include flat optical elements having different optical properties (different optical properties construed as different coaxial spaced object planes). (Per Fig. 6, Scott’712 discloses different coaxial object planes on an optical path. Scott’712 col. 6 lines 48–65. As a result the laterally spaced focused images on the sensor surface are derived from different coaxial spaced object planes on path 2.)
Regarding claim 5, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the optical system, wherein the plurality of switching plates are positioned in an image space of the optical system between the lens and the sensor. (Per Fig. 6, Scott’712 discloses spaced focused images on a camera 7. Scott’712 col. 6 lines 48–65. [e]ventually emerging as laterally displaced parallel beams 22, 23 for providing laterally spaced focussed images on the sensor surface of a CCD camera 7.)
Regarding claim 6, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the optical system, wherein the plurality of switching plates include a first set of switching plates positioned in an image space of the optical system between the lens and the sensor and second set of switching plates positioned in an object space of the optical system between the object plane and the lens. (Per Fig. 2, Scott’712 discloses first and second object planes between a lens and a camera to capture first and second images. Scott’712 col. 5 lines 44–59. [s]o to enable images of axially spaced first and second object planes on path 2 to be brought into focus on surface 13.)
Regarding claim 8, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the optical system, wherein the object plane is defined by a platen surface of a prism to receive the object in a first configuration and is defined by a membrane on the platen surface of the prism to receive the object in a second configuration. (Per Fig. 2, Scott’712 discloses a first mirror by reflection and a second mirror by transmission. Scott’712 col. 5 lines 44–59. [e]mbodied as a cube beam splitter, along a first path 3 to a first mirror by reflection and along a second path 4 to a second mirror 11 by transmission.)
Regarding claim 11, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 7.
Claims 3–4, 9, 13–14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Scott’712 and further in view of He et al. (U.S. 11,320,693 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the claimed invention, but fails to specifically disclose the optical system, wherein the optical properties include thickness of the plurality of switching plates.
In related art, He discloses the optical system, wherein the optical properties include thickness of the plurality of switching plates. (Per Fig. 6B, He discloses a thickness of a glass 431. He col. 21 lines 19–30. Because H includes the thickness of the cover glass 431 and the display module 433,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of He into the teachings of Scott and Scott’712 to make mobile devices that sense robust and reliable fingerprint. Id. col. 4 lines 16–30.
Regarding claim 4, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the claimed invention, but fails to specifically disclose the optical system, wherein the optical system is included in a fingerprint scanner and the object is a finger.
In related art, He discloses the optical system, wherein the optical system is included in a fingerprint scanner and the object is a finger. (Per Fig. 2A, He discloses finger sensing areas in a device screen. He col. 10 line 51 – col. 11 line 3. [F]IG. 2A shows a fingerprint sensing zone in the device screen for a finger to touch which may be illuminated as a visibly identifiable zone or area for a user to place a finger for fingerprint sensing.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of He into the teachings of Scott and Scott’712 to make mobile devices that sense robust and reliable fingerprint. Id. col. 4 lines 16–30.
Regarding claim 9, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the claimed invention, but fails to specifically disclose the optical system, further comprising: a solenoid motor to move the plurality of switching plates.
In relate art, He discloses the optical system, further comprising: a solenoid motor to move the plurality of switching plates. (Per Fig. 1, He discloses a fingerprint sensing system 180. He col. 9 line 65 – col. 10 line 38. [t]he fingerprint sensing system 180 may be implemented at an ATM as the system 188 to determine the fingerprint of a customer requesting to access funds or other transactions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of He into the teachings of Scott and Scott’712 to make mobile devices that sense robust and reliable fingerprint. Id. col. 4 lines 16–30.
Regarding claim 13, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 9.
Claims 21–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Scott’712 and further in view of Hiromitsu (JP2003241121 A).
Regarding claim 21, Scott as modified by Scott’712, discloses the claimed invention, but fails to specifically disclose the optical system, wherein a selected one of the plurality of switching plates is positioned in the optical path while a remaining one or more switching plates of the plurality of switching plates are positioned outside the optical path.
In related art, Hiromitsu discloses the optical system, wherein a selected one of the plurality of switching plates is positioned in the optical path while a remaining one or more switching plates of the plurality of switching plates are positioned outside the optical path. (Hiromitsu discloses plurality optical systems where one reflector is perpendicular to the optical path, whereas the other reflector moves outside thereof. Hiromitsu ¶45. [a]nd the optical path is switched depending on whether the reflector moves outside or inside the intersection of the optical path.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hiromitsu into the teachings of Scott and Scott’712 to increase number of channels performing optical path switching such that the system is miniaturized. Ibid. ¶13.
Regarding claim 22, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENEDICT LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-0390. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-16:00 (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, Stephen R. Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BENEDICT E LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
1 See MPEP § 714.02. Under 37 CFR 1.111 (c), “the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objects made.” See also the Office Action pp. 4–5 where Examiner cited col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 12.
Prosecution Insights