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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 02/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In that remarks, applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argues: “However, Lefaudeux does not disclose a "liquid crystal tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object, and is to provide capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters," as recited in claim 1. Lefaudeux discloses a fixed polarizer, a first liquid crystal, and a second crystal, without mentioning specific viewing states. The liquid crystal tunable polarization filter of claim 1 addresses the problems highlighted at Paragraph [0011] of the present application, namely reducing both the number of moving parts and the size of the camera (e.g., miniaturising camera architecture), whilst reducing the "response time to switch between polarization viewing states" with a hundred or more linear polarization viewing states. Lefaudeux does not teach or suggest a tunable system as claimed. Indeed, the system of Lefaudeux lacks the capability to deliver precise control or rapid responsiveness.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Tunable” may be defined as “able to be adjusted or adapted”. Claim language does not limit what degree of adjustment is required to be considered “tunable”. Claim language does not require the “liquid crystal tunable polarization filter” to have “a hundred or more linear polarization viewing states”. Lefaudeux discloses a liquid crystal polarization filter that is capable of being adjusted between four degree states of polarization (90°, 0°, +45° and -45°) (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0020-0024). Therefore, the liquid crystal polarization filter of Lefaudeux may be considered to be a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, neither Sun nor Lefaudeau provides a reasoned motivation to modify Sun's semiconductor defect inspection system to include the liquid-crystal-based wavelength selection taught by Lefaudeau. Moreover, incorporating Lefaudeau's liquid crystal into Sun would alter the purpose and operating principles of Sun's system, rendering the proposed modification improper.
Sun is directed to semiconductor manufacturing defect inspection, where the design priorities commonly include high throughput, robust defect detection under controlled illumination, and repeatable inspection conditions suitable for production environments. Sun's system is configured to achieve its inspection objectives without requiring fast, electrically tuned, selective wavelength control. In other words, Sun solves its stated problem using its own illumination/detection architecture, and there is no disclosure or suggestion that Sun suffers from any deficiency that would be cured by adding a liquid-crystal tunable filter or liquid-crystal wavelength selector. Sun therefore does not present a recognized need, and the rejection does not identify any teaching in Sun indicating that its inspection performance requires, or would even meaningfully benefit from, the type of wavelength agility enabled by Lefaudeau. Without an identified problem in Sun that Lefaudeau uniquely addresses in Sun's environment, and without any suggestion in either reference to make the proposed modification, there is no motivation to combine.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant provides no reason or explanation as to why incorporating Lefaudeux’s liquid crystal into Sun would alter the purpose and operating principles of Sun's system, rendering the proposed modification improper”. MPEP § 2143 states that “[t]he key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.”
According to MPEP § 2143, rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
Sun discloses a tunable polarization filter for adjusting the polarization state of light. Lefaudeux discloses a tunable polarization filter may be a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter. These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Sun with the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter as seen in Lefaudeux since it is a known type of polarization filter that allows for changing of the polarization axis and would provide similar and expected results for adjusting the polarization state of light.
Applicant argues: “However, Sun does not teach uniquely processing each RGB pixel, and in addition, there is no motivation to modify Sun to uniquely process each RGB pixel. Sun teaches an inspection system for identifying defects such as pits, voids, chips, cracks, particles, and scratches in a semiconductor substrate. See Sun, 1 [0016]. The primary embodiment of Sun is described as being a monochrome optical sensor, which would not be suitable for use with a system that uniquely processes each RGB pixel. See Sun, T [0033]. Sun also briefly describes another embodiment in which the optical sensor may be a three-chip color sensor having separate optical sensors for red, green, and blue light. See Sun, 1 [0033]. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify even this embodiment of Sun to uniquely process individual RGB pixels. The purpose of Sun is to identify semiconductor defects, which would not require the processing power or resolution involved with uniquely processing each RGB pixel.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Sun with the teachings of Kanamorl. Kanamorl teaches an image processing technique that can collect information about the shape of an object using a polarized image. See Kanamorl, TT [0001] and [0022]. The method used in Kanamorl is completely passive using polarization information as long as the refractive index data of the object is known. See Kanamorl, 1 [0236]. As the Office has noted, Kanamorl includes only a single sentence that mentions making a decision for every pixel. Specifically, Kanamorl merely states: "And this decision is made on every other pixel in Step S707." Kanamorl, I [0122]. See Office Action, p. 5. There is no reason one of ordinary skill in the art would read a single sentence from Kanamorl and be motivated to modify the Sun semiconductor inspection system to uniquely process each RGB pixel. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Sun with Kanamori to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, there is no motivation taught by either Lefaudeux or Kanamorl to modify the system of Sun to uniquely process each RGB pixel.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sun states “In another embodiment, the optical sensor may be a color optical sensor of the Bayer type” in Paragraph 0033. A Bayer type optical sensor is a sensor with red, green and blue color filters on the optical sensor. Therefore, Sun discloses an RGB image sensor is contemplated.
Kanamorl teaches a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, camera 201, Paragraph 0097, Fig. 23, color polarized image capturing section 2001, Paragraph 0188);
a tunable polarization filter (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, polarizer 202) positioned between the camera device and an object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0097); and provide capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0191, The pixels are uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.).
Kanamorl discloses Red polarized image data 2011, Green polarized image data 2012 and Blue polarized image data 2013 which are the RGB pixel data are uniquely processed in respective color processing sections (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0191).
Sun teaches an inspection system for identifying defects such as pits, voids, chips, cracks, particles, and scratches in a semiconductor substrate (Sun , Paragraph 0016). Kanamorl , in the same field of endeavor, teaches an image processing technique that can collect information about the shape of the object (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun and Lefaudeux with the method of uniquely processing using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters as seen in Kanamorl to reconstruct the surface shape of an object based on a polarized image (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001) or provide further functionality to the device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lefaudeux (US 2009/0079982 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a color camera system (Sun, Fig. 1), comprising:
a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Sun, Fig. 1, optical sensor 16, Paragraph 0033, “the optical sensor may be a color optical sensor of the Bayer type or a three-chip color sensor having separate optical sensors, each dedicated to a separate color, e.g. one sensor for red light, one sensor of blue light, and one sensor for green light”, A Bayer type optical sensor is a sensor with red, green and blue color filters on the optical sensor.);
a polarized illumination source to illuminate the object during the capture of the images (Sun, Fig. 1, illuminator 10 and polarizer 12, Paragraph 0029); and
a tunable polarization filter (Sun, Fig. 1, analyzer 14, Paragraphs 0007, 0033 and 0045) positioned between the camera device and the object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046), and is to provide capability for each RGB pixel to be processed using distinct polarization filter parameters (Sun, Paragraphs 0013-0015, Pixels of the RGB sensor are processed when using distinct polarization filter parameters (rotation angle of the polarizer).).
However, Sun does not teach a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter, nor providing capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.
In reference to Lefaudeux, Lefaudeux teaches a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0020-0022).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Sun with the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter as seen in Lefaudeux since it is a known type of polarization filter that allows for changing of the polarization axis and would provide similar and expected results for adjusting the polarization state of light.
However, the combination of Sun and Lefaudeux does not teach providing capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.
In reference to Kanamorl et al. (Hereafter referred as Kanamorl), Kanamorl teaches a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, camera 201, Paragraph 0097, Fig. 23, color polarized image capturing section 2001, Paragraph 0188);
a tunable polarization filter (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, polarizer 202) positioned between the camera device and an object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0097); and provide capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0190, The pixels (Red polarized image data 2011, Green polarized image data 2012 and Blue polarized image data 2013 which are the RGB pixel data.) are uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun and Lefaudeux with the method of uniquely processing using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters as seen in Kanamorl to reconstruct the surface shape of an object based on a polarized image (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001) or provide further functionality to the device.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter includes an electrically controllable liquid crystal light phase retarding element (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, liquid crystal half-wave plate 18, Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter further includes a quarter-wave retarding element (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, quarter-wave plate 14 or liquid crystal quarter-wave plate 16, Paragraph 0020) positioned over the liquid crystal light phase retarding element (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, liquid crystal half-wave plate 18, Paragraph 0020 and 0022, “the respective position of the first and the second polarization rotation blocks 12, 18 may be switched”), and a linear polarizer element positioned over the quarter-wave retarding element (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, polarizer 20, Paragraph 0020), wherein the linear polarizer element is positioned closer to the camera device than the liquid crystal light phase retarding element (Lefaudeux, Figs. 1 and 2, Paragraph 0035, The polarizer 20 of the polarization modulator 10 is closer to sensor 30).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), and further comprising a compensation circuit to perform a self-calibration function to compensate the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter for each of three RGB pixel color channels from the camera device (Sun, Paragraphs 0047-0049, The part of the system used for calibration is considered to be the compensation circuit.).
Regarding claim 12, Sun teaches a method comprising:
illuminating an object to be imaged with polarized light (Sun, Fig. 1, illuminator 10 and polarizer 12, Paragraph 0029);
receiving, with a tunable polarization filter (Sun, Fig. 1, analyzer 14, Paragraphs 0007, 0033 and 0045), light reflected from the illuminated object (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046);
causing, with a processor, the tunable polarization filter to provide a plurality of different linear polarization viewing states to an imaging device (Sun, Fig. 1, optical sensor 16, Paragraph 0033) based on the received light (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046); and
for each of the linear polarization viewing states, capturing an image of the object with the imaging device and processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images (Sun, Paragraphs 0013-0015, Pixels of the RGB sensor are processed).
However, Sun does not teach a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter, nor separately processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images.
In reference to Lefaudeux, Lefaudeux teaches a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter (Lefaudeux, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0020-0022).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Sun with the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter as seen in Lefaudeux since it is a known type of polarization filter that allows for changing of the polarization axis and would provide similar and expected results for adjusting the polarization state of light.
However, the combination of Sun and Lefaudeux does not teach separately processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images.
In reference to Kanamorl, Kanamorl teaches separately processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0190, RGB color state polarization information are separately processed.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun and Lefaudeux with the method of uniquely processing using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters as seen in Kanamorl to reconstruct the surface shape of an object based on a polarized image (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001) or provide further functionality to the device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lefaudeux (US 2009/0079982 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1) in view of Zou et al. (US 2010/0201969 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl does not explicitly state further comprising a processor and a driver circuit, wherein the processor is to control the driver circuit to provide a control signal to the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter to select the linear polarization viewing states.
In reference to Zou et al. (hereafter referred as Zou, Zou teaches a processor (Zou, Fig. 1, computer 102, Paragraph 0030) and a driver circuit (Zou, Fig. 1, electronic driver 101, Paragraph 0030) wherein the processor is to control the driver circuit to provide a control signal to the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter to select the linear polarization viewing states (Zou, Paragraph 0030).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl with the processor and driving circuit as seen in Zou since it is a known method of controlling the viewing states of a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter and would provide similar and expected results for changing the polarization states.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lefaudeux (US 2009/0079982 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1) in view of Zou et al. (US 2010/0201969 A1) in view of Ide (US 2003/0189538 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux, Kanamorl and Zou teaches the color camera system of claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis). However, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux, Kanamorl and Zou does not teach wherein the control signal is an adjustable amplitude oscillating voltage signal, and wherein different ones of the linear polarization viewing states are selected by varying an amplitude of the control signal.
In reference to Ide, Ide teaches wherein a control signal is an adjustable amplitude oscillating voltage signal, and wherein different ones of the linear polarization states are selected by varying an amplitude of the control signal (Ide, Paragraphs 0157-0158).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux, Kanamorl and Zou with the explicit teaching of controlling a liquid crystal polarizer by varying the amplitude of the control signal as seen in Ide since it is a known method for controlling the liquid crystals in a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter and would provide similar and expected results for changing the polarization.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lefaudeux (US 2009/0079982 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1) in view of Kochi et al. (US 2004/0234122 A1) in view of Jensen et al. (US 2019/0381736 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the illumination source illuminates the object at a grazing angle (Sun, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0030)
However, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl does not teach wherein the camera system comprises a photometric stereo camera system, wherein the illumination source illuminates the object at a grazing angle from multiple positions around the object, and wherein each of the captured images is at least 50 Megapixels.
In reference to Kochi et al. (hereafter referred as Kochi), Kochi teaches wherein a camera system comprises a photometric stereo camera system (Kochi, Fig. 1, stereo-photographing unit 90, Paragraph 0022), wherein the camera system captures images from multiple positions around the object (Kochi, Fig. 1, relative position changing part 4, Paragraph 0023).
These arts are analogous since they are related imaging devices capturing shapes of surfaces of objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl with the stereo camera system and relative position changing part as seen in Kochi to allow the device to capture 3D images of the object surface from multiple positions. Further, by rotating the object, the illumination source would illuminate the object at a grazing angle from multiple positions around the object. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the illumination source illuminates the object at a grazing angle from multiple positions around the object” is met.
However, the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux, Kanamorl and Kochi does not teach wherein each of the captured images is at least 50 Megapixels.
In reference to Jensen et al. (hereafter referred as Jensen), Jensen teaches capturing images for surface measurements (Jensen, Paragraph 0002), wherein each of the captured images is at least 50 Megapixels (Jensen, Paragraph 00091).
These arts are analogous since they are related imaging devices capturing shapes of surfaces of objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux, Kanamorl and Kochi with the use of 50-megapixel cameras as seen in Jensen to allow the device to capture high-resolution images.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0208427 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a color camera system (Sun, Fig. 1), comprising:
a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Sun, Fig. 1, optical sensor 16, Paragraph 0033, “the optical sensor may be a color optical sensor of the Bayer type or a three-chip color sensor having separate optical sensors, each dedicated to a separate color, e.g. one sensor for red light, one sensor of blue light, and one sensor for green light”, A Bayer type optical sensor is a sensor with red, green and blue color filters on the optical sensor.);
a polarized illumination source to illuminate the object during the capture of the images (Sun, Fig. 1, illuminator 10 and polarizer 12, Paragraph 0029); and
a tunable polarization filter (Sun, Fig. 1, analyzer 14, Paragraphs 0007, 0033 and 0045) positioned between the camera device and the object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046), and is to provide capability for each RGB pixel to be processed using distinct polarization filter parameters (Sun, Paragraphs 0013-0015, Pixels of the RGB sensor are processed when using distinct polarization filter parameters (rotation angle of the polarizer).).
However, Sun does not teach a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter, nor providing capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.
In reference to Lee et al. (hereafter referred as Lee), Lee teaches a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter (Lee, Figs. 4-5 and 7, Paragraphs 0048-0051).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Sun with the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter as seen in Lee since it is a known type of polarization filter that allows for changing of the polarization axis and would provide similar and expected results for adjusting the polarization state of light and can be rotated ranging from 0 degree to 180 degree with microsecond to millisecond response time (Lee, Paragraph 0049).
However, the combination of Sun and Lee does not teach providing capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.
In reference to Kanamorl, Kanamorl teaches a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, camera 201, Paragraph 0097, Fig. 23, color polarized image capturing section 2001, Paragraph 0188);
a tunable polarization filter (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, polarizer 202) positioned between the camera device and an object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0097); and provide capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0190, The pixels (Red polarized image data 2011, Green polarized image data 2012 and Blue polarized image data 2013 which are the RGB pixel data.) are uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun and Lee with the method of uniquely processing using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters as seen in Kanamorl to reconstruct the surface shape of an object based on a polarized image (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001) or provide greater functionality to the device.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter includes an electrically controllable liquid crystal light phase retarding element (Lee, Figs. 4-5, Paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), and further comprising a compensation circuit to perform a self-calibration function to compensate the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter for each of three RGB pixel color channels from the camera device (Sun, Paragraphs 0047-0049, The part of the system used for calibration is considered to be the compensation circuit.).
Regarding claim 12, Sun teaches a method comprising:
illuminating an object to be imaged with polarized light (Sun, Fig. 1, illuminator 10 and polarizer 12, Paragraph 0029);
receiving, with a tunable polarization filter (Sun, Fig. 1, analyzer 14, Paragraphs 0007, 0033 and 0045), light reflected from the illuminated object (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046);
causing, with a processor, the tunable polarization filter to provide a plurality of different linear polarization viewing states to an imaging device (Sun, Fig. 1, optical sensor 16, Paragraph 0033) based on the received light (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046); and
for each of the linear polarization viewing states, capturing an image of the object with the imaging device and processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images (Sun, Paragraphs 0013-0015, Pixels of the RGB sensor are processed).
However, Sun does not teach a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter, nor separately processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images.
In reference to Lee, Lee teaches a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter (Lee, Figs. 4-5 and 7, Paragraphs 0048-0051).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Sun with the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter as seen in Lee since it is a known type of polarization filter that allows for changing of the polarization axis and would provide similar and expected results for adjusting the polarization state of light.
However, the combination of Sun and Lee does not teach separately processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images.
In reference to Kanamorl, Kanamorl teaches separately processing red, green, blue (RGB) color state polarization information from the images (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0190, RGB color state polarization information are separately processed.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun and Lefaudeux with the method of uniquely processing using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters as seen in Kanamorl to reconstruct the surface shape of an object based on a polarized image (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001) or provide further functionality to the device.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0208427 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1) in view of Zou et al. (US 2010/0201969 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), and further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is to provide a control signal to the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter to select the linear polarization viewing states (Lee, Fig. 3B, Controller 34, Paragraph 0054-0055).
However, the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl does not explicitly teach a driver circuit; nor wherein the processor is to control the driver circuit to provide the control signal.
In reference to Zou et al. (hereafter referred as Zou, Zou teaches a processor (Zou, Fig. 1, computer 102, Paragraph 0030) and a driver circuit (Zou, Fig. 1, electronic driver 101, Paragraph 0030) wherein the processor is to control the driver circuit to provide a control signal to the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter to select the linear polarization viewing states (Zou, Paragraph 0030).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lefaudeux and Kanamorl with the explicit teaching of a driving circuit as seen in Zou since it is a known method of controlling the viewing states of a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter and would provide similar and expected results for changing the polarization states.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sun, Lee, Kanamorl and Zou teaches the color camera system of claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis), wherein the control signal is an adjustable amplitude oscillating voltage signal, and wherein different ones of the linear polarization viewing states are selected by varying an amplitude of the control signal (Lee, Paragraph 0049 and 0054).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sun, Lee, Kanamorl and Zou teaches the color camera system of claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis), wherein the driver circuit is configured to provide a drive signal, wherein adjusting an amplitude of the drive signal results in a change in the amount of polarization rotation caused by the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter (Lee, Paragraph 0049 and 0054).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0208427 A1) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1) in view of Kochi et al. (US 2004/0234122 A1) in view of Jensen et al. (US 2019/0381736 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the illumination source illuminates the object at a grazing angle (Sun, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0030)
However, the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl does not teach wherein the camera system comprises a photometric stereo camera system, wherein the illumination source illuminates the object at a grazing angle from multiple positions around the object, and wherein each of the captured images is at least 50 Megapixels.
In reference to Kochi et al. (hereafter referred as Kochi), Kochi teaches wherein a camera system comprises a photometric stereo camera system (Kochi, Fig. 1, stereo-photographing unit 90, Paragraph 0022), wherein the camera system captures images from multiple positions around the object (Kochi, Fig. 1, relative position changing part 4, Paragraph 0023).
These arts are analogous since they are related imaging devices capturing shapes of surfaces of objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lee and Kanamorl with the stereo camera system and relative position changing part as seen in Kochi to allow the device to capture 3D images of the object surface from multiple positions. Further, by rotating the object, the illumination source would illuminate the object at a grazing angle from multiple positions around the object. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the illumination source illuminates the object at a grazing angle from multiple positions around the object” is met.
However, the combination of Sun, Lee, Kanamorl and Kochi does not teach wherein each of the captured images is at least 50 Megapixels.
In reference to Jensen et al. (hereafter referred as Jensen), Jensen teaches capturing images for surface measurements (Jensen, Paragraph 0002), wherein each of the captured images is at least 50 Megapixels (Jensen, Paragraph 00091).
These arts are analogous since they are related imaging devices capturing shapes of surfaces of objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun, Lee, Kanamorl and Kochi with the use of 50-megapixel cameras as seen in Jensen to allow the device to capture high-resolution images.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2007/0247622 A1) in view of Ishimatsu (JP 2021005002 A, Translation provided) in view of Kanamorl et al. (US 2009/0279807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a color camera system (Sun, Fig. 1), comprising:
a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Sun, Fig. 1, optical sensor 16, Paragraph 0033, “the optical sensor may be a color optical sensor of the Bayer type or a three-chip color sensor having separate optical sensors, each dedicated to a separate color, e.g. one sensor for red light, one sensor of blue light, and one sensor for green light”, A Bayer type optical sensor is a sensor with red, green and blue color filters on the optical sensor.);
a polarized illumination source to illuminate the object during the capture of the images (Sun, Fig. 1, illuminator 10 and polarizer 12, Paragraph 0029); and
a tunable polarization filter (Sun, Fig. 1, analyzer 14, Paragraphs 0007, 0033 and 0045) positioned between the camera device and the object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Sun, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0045-0046), and is to provide capability for each RGB pixel to be processed using distinct polarization filter parameters (Sun, Paragraphs 0013-0015, Pixels of the RGB sensor are processed when using distinct polarization filter parameters (rotation angle of the polarizer).).
However, Sun does not teach a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter, nor providing capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.
In reference to Ishimatsu, Ishimatsu teaches a liquid crystal tunable polarization filter (Ishimatsu, Fig. 1, Polarization acquiring means 20 (first λ/4 plate 1, first variable phase plate 2, λ/2 plate 3, second variable phase plate 4, second λ/4 plate 5, polarizing plate 6, Page 2, Lines 37-51, Page 4, Lines 26-29, Polarization direction is changed by changing the phase difference between the first variable phase plate and the second variable phase plate.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Sun with the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter as seen in Ishimatsu since it is a known type of polarization filter that allows for changing of the polarization axis and would provide similar and expected results for adjusting the polarization state of light.
However, the combination of Sun and Ishimatsu does not teach providing capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.
In reference to Kanamorl et al. (Hereafter referred as Kanamorl), Kanamorl teaches a red, green, blue (RGB) color camera device to capture images of an object (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, camera 201, Paragraph 0097, Fig. 23, color polarized image capturing section 2001, Paragraph 0188);
a tunable polarization filter (Kanamorl, Fig. 2, polarizer 202) positioned between the camera device and an object, wherein the tunable polarization filter is to provide the camera device with selectable linear polarization viewing states for capturing the images of the object (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0097); and provide capability for each RGB pixel to be uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters (Kanamorl, Fig. 23, Paragraphs 0185-0186 and 0189-0190, The pixels (Red polarized image data 2011, Green polarized image data 2012 and Blue polarized image data 2013 which are the RGB pixel data.) are uniquely processed using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices using polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Sun and Ishimatsu with the method of uniquely processing using RGB color distinct polarization filter parameters as seen in Kanamorl to reconstruct the surface shape of an object based on a polarized image (Kanamorl, Paragraph 0001) or provide further functionality to the device.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sun, Ishimatsu and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter includes an electrically controllable liquid crystal light phase retarding element (Ishimatsu, Fig. 1, Polarization acquiring means 20 (first λ/4 plate 1, first variable phase plate 2, λ/2 plate 3, second variable phase plate 4, second λ/4 plate 5, polarizing plate 6, Page 2, Lines 37-51,” the first variable phase plate and the second variable phase plate are composed of liquid crystal elements”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sun, Ishimatsu and Kanamorl teaches the color camera system of claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter further includes a quarter-wave retarding element positioned over the liquid crystal light phase retarding element, and a linear polarizer element positioned over the quarter-wave retarding element (Ishimatsu, Fig. 1, second variable phase plate 4, second λ/4 plate 5, polarizing plate 6), wherein the linear polarizer element is positioned closer to the camera device than the liquid crystal light phase retarding element (Ishimatsu, Fig. 1, image pickup device 30).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 7, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The color camera system of claim 6, wherein the compensation circuit comprises red, green, and blue light emitting diodes (LEDs) with linear polarization to successively project red, green, and blue light through the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter in any given order, and a photo sensor to sense the light that has been projected through the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter.”
Claims 8-10 depend of and further limit claim 7. Therefore, claims 8-10 are considered to be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
With regard to claim 17, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The color camera system of claim 6, wherein the self-calibration function is configured to record a value each time the self-calibration function is performed, wherein the value is at least one of a temperature value, a current date, or time, wherein the value is stored in the calibration LUT along with the polarization rotation information for red, green, and blue light.”
With regard to claim 18, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The color camera system of claim 9, wherein the temperature value exceeds a predetermined threshold temperature value, camera system may automatically perform another self-calibration function.”
With regard to claim 19, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image capture system of claim 14, wherein a photo sensor is used at the beginning of a self-calibration function of the liquid crystal tunable polarization filter to determine if the light source is on.”
Claim 20 depend of and further limit claim 19. Therefore, claim 20 is considered to be allowable for the same reasons as claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights