yuDETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 08/22/2025.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4- 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
5- The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 18
6- Claims 1-11, 14-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nesic et al. (DE 102020204641, cited by Applicants)
As to amended claims 1, 14, Nesic teaches a device, and its method of use, for polarization dependent imaging (Figs. 1-23 and Abstract), the device comprising: a detector (Fig. 18-19 for ex.) comprising a plurality of light sensitive elements (50a-b/51), wherein each light sensitive element is configured to generate an electric signal dependent on an intensity of light incident onto the light sensitive element (¶ 86,92); a plurality of light propagating units (Figs. 1-23; elements 10 and equivalents), wherein each light propagating unit of the plurality of light propagating units comprises: a polarization splitter (¶ 53-56 for ex.; splitter 300 in sections 600/610) having a receiving end (starting at 210 level) configured to receive light incident onto the receiving end (from 110), and wherein the polarization splitter further comprises a first waveguide (330) and a second waveguide (340), wherein the first waveguide comprises a first portion of the receiving end and the second waveguide comprises a second portion of the receiving end (starting end of 330/340), wherein the first waveguide comprises a first distributing end (350) and the second waveguide comprises a second distributing end (360), the first distributing end and the second distributing end being separate from each other (Figs. 1-23), and wherein the polarization splitter is configured to propagate the light from the receiving end to the first and second distributing ends (Figs. 1-23), wherein each of the first portion and the second portion has an elongated shape such that propagation of light into the first waveguide and the second waveguide, respectively, is dependent on a linear polarization direction of the light, wherein the elongated shape of the first portion and the elongated shape of the second portion are angled with respect to each other, such that the first waveguide and the second waveguide are configured to propagate different linear polarization directions of the light (¶ 54-60 for ex.); wherein, for each light propagating unit, the light propagating unit is arranged with respect to the detector such that the light at the first distributing end and the second distributing end is output towards a first and a second light sensitive element, respectively, of the plurality of light sensitive elements (Figs. 18-19); wherein the plurality of light sensitive elements are arranged in a plane of the detector, and wherein, for each light propagating unit: the receiving end of the light propagating unit comprises a planar surface parallel to the plane of the detector, the first waveguide extends from the receiving end to the first distributing end along a direction of propagation of light of the first waveguide, the direction of propagation of light of the first waveguide being perpendicular to the plane of the planar surface of the receiving end, and the second waveguide extends from the receiving end to the second distributing end along a direction of propagation of light of the second waveguide, the direction of propagation of light of the second waveguide being perpendicular to the plane of the planar surface of the receiving end (see the annotated Fig. 18, showing the elements 50a/b disposed in a plane of the detector, to which the two propagations of light along the first/second waveguides are perpendicular. Also, the receiving end is shown with the planar surface, perpendicular to the plane of the figure, that is parallel to the surface of the detector).
(claim 2) wherein each of the first waveguide and the second waveguide has a tapered shape, respectively, such that a cross-section of the first portion and the second portion is larger than a cross-section of the first distributing end and the second distributing end, respectively (clear in Figs. 6-7; cross sections at 370/380 are smaller than those in 230/240).
(claims 3-5) wherein the elongated shape of the first portion and the elongated shape of the second portion are angled by 90o with respect to each other (Figs. 1-7 for ex.); (Claim 4) wherein a cross-section of the polarization splitter at the receiving end is in the shape of an L, such that the elongated shape of the first portion and the elongated shape of the second portion emanate from a common position and extend perpendicularly to each other (Figs. 4-8 for ex.; the L shape in the cross-shape and the L shape is clearly shown in Fig. 7 at 100 level); (Claim 5) wherein each of the first portion and the second portion has an elongated shape in the shape of a rectangle (Fig. 1, 3-8 for ex.)
(claim 6) wherein each light propagating unit further comprises a funnel element having a collecting end and a transmitting end, wherein a cross-section of the collecting end is larger than a cross-section of the transmitting end, and wherein the funnel element is configured to collect light incident at the collecting end, to propagate the light to the transmitting end, and to transmit the light from the transmitting end to the receiving end of the polarization splitter (Figs. 5, 9, 18-19 for ex.; funnel 170 or equivalents).
(claims 7-10) wherein the funnel element is further shaped so as to propagate the light in dependence of the linear polarization direction of the light, such that a spatial distribution of the light at different locations of the transmitting end is dependent on the linear polarization of the light (¶ 72-73 for ex.); (claim 8) wherein the funnel element is structured such that a shape of the cross-section of the collecting end is different from a shape of the cross-section of the transmitting end (Figs. 5, 9 for ex; 111 and 110); (claim 9) wherein the shape of the cross-section of the collecting end is in the shape of a square, and the shape of the cross-section of the transmitting end is in the shape of an L (Fig. 19 and ¶ 6, 62; a square cross section is considered with the L shaped at the transmitting side); (claim 10) wherein the shape and a size of the cross- section of the transmitting end of the funnel element matches a shape and a size of the cross-section of the receiving end of the polarization splitter, and wherein the funnel element is arranged such that the cross-section of the transmitting end coincides with the cross-section of the receiving end (Fig. 9 for ex; sections 410 and 110).
(amended claim 11) wherein at least some of the light propagating units are arranged with an orientation in an interval of 40o-50o in a plane parallel to the detector plane, with respect to an orientation of adjacent light propagating units (Figs. 3, 16 and ¶ 88-90; light units can be rotated by 45o).
(claim 15) further comprising: collecting, by the plurality of light propagating units, light incident at a collecting end of a respective funnel element of each light propagating unit of the plurality of light propagating units; propagating, for each light propagation unit, the light to a transmitting end of the funnel element; and transmitting the light from the transmitting end to the receiving end of the polarization splitter; wherein a cross-section of the collecting end is larger than a cross-section of the transmitting end (see rejection of claims 6 and 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7- 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.
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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8- Claim 12 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesic.
As to amended claim 12, Nesic teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device further comprises a plurality of half-wave plates (¶ 3, 83), HWP, wherein each HWP of the plurality of HWP is configured to shift a phase of two perpendicular polarization directions of the light (necessary function of a half wave plate)
Nesic does not teach expressly the HWPs arranged at the receiving ends of the light propagating units, and wherein at least some of the HWP are arranged with an orientation in an interval of 20o-25o in a plane parallel to the detector plane, with respect to an orientation of adjacent HWP.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use Nesic’s half wave plates for polarization controlling disposed at the receiving ends or the transmitting ends, equivalently, for optimizing the light measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D). Moreover, the choice of the orientation angle of a HWP with respect to an adjacent HWP, in a plane parallel to the detector plane, appears obvious as it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Nesic so that the HWPs arranged at the receiving ends of the light propagating units, and wherein at least some of the HWP are arranged with an orientation in an interval of 20o-25o in a plane parallel to the detector plane, with respect to an orientation of adjacent HWP, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the light measurements.
9- Claim 13 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesic in view of Genoe et al. (EP 3944323, cited by Applicants)
As to claim 13, Nesic teaches the device according to claim 1.
Nesic does not teach expressly wherein each light propagating unit further comprises at least one color splitter, wherein the at least one color splitter is arranged such that the light being propagated through the first waveguide and/or the second waveguide is also propagated through the at least one color splitter, and wherein each color splitter of the at least one color splitter is configured to propagate light through the color splitter in dependence of wavelength, such that a distribution of the light directed towards the light sensitive elements is dependent on polarization and wavelength of the light.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Genoe teaches a detector/sensor for detecting image information (Abstract and Figs. 1-10) wherein color splitting elements directly above the sensing element level (¶ 102-120; Figs. 1, 6-8) disclosing a twodimensional imaging array (110) with associated funneled waveguides (424 and 426), arranged to spectrally split the incoming light (¶ 26-29, 113 and Fig. 8, for ex.) for corresponding color photosensitive elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Nesic according to Genoe’s suggestions so that each light propagating unit further comprises at least one color splitter, wherein the at least one color splitter is arranged such that the light being propagated through the first waveguide and/or the second waveguide is also propagated through the at least one color splitter, and wherein each color splitter of the at least one color splitter is configured to propagate light through the color splitter in dependence of wavelength, such that a distribution of the light directed towards the light sensitive elements is dependent on polarization and wavelength of the light, with the advantage of effectively performing optical spectral and polarization detection
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877