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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pacala et al. US 2020/0116558.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pacala et al. US 2020/0116558
Regarding claim 1, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) discloses a multispectral sensor [[(70)]], comprising at least [0144]-[0146]:
one or two or more light channels 602 [[(71)]], wherein the light channel 602 [[(71)]] comprises a light entrance part 812 [[(72)]], an optical lens 830 [[(74)]], a filter part 840 [[(75)]], and a sensor array 852 [[(76)]], the light entrance part 812 [[(72)]] is configured to allow external light 860 to enter the light channel 602 [[(71)]], the optical lens 830 [[(74)]] is configured to change a transmission path of the light 860 to be incident on the filter part 840 [[(75)]], and the filter part 840 [[(75)]] is configured to allow light in a specific wavelength range to pass through and reach the sensor array 852, [0145] [[(76)]];
orthographic projection of the sensor array 852 [[(76)]] is located in orthographic projection of the optical lens 830 [[(74)]] in an axial direction of the light entrance part 812 [[(72)]], the sensor array 852 [[(76)]] comprises at least three rows of photoelectric sensors Fig. 8, the at least three rows of photoelectric sensors are divided into a middle sensor group [[(76b)]] and an edge sensor group [[(76c)]], the middle sensor group [[(76b)]] is located between the two edge sensor groups [[(76c)]] in a column direction [[(Y)]] of the sensor array 852 [[(76)]], the middle sensor group [[(76b)]] comprises a first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]], and the edge sensor group [[(76c)]] comprises a second photoelectric sensor [[(762)]]; and in a row direction [[(X)]] of the sensor array 852 [[(76)]], a row of first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]] comprises N first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]] and N-1 first gaps [[(701)]], and the first gap [[(701)]] is formed between two adjacent first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]], a quantity of second photoelectric sensors [[(762)]] in a row adjacent to the row of first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]] is N-1, and the second photoelectric sensor [[(762)]] is arranged corresponding to the first gap [[(701)]] in the column direction [[(Y)]].
Regarding claim 10, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, wherein the middle sensor group [[(76b)]] comprises two or more rows of first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]], and there is a fourth gap [[(704)]] between two adjacent first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]] in the column direction [[(Y)]].
Regarding claim 11, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, discloses wherein the first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] has the first center (761a), the first centers (761a) in each row of first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]] are located on a same straight line in the row direction [[(X)]].
Regarding claim 12, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, discloses wherein the second photoelectric sensor [[(762)]] has the second center (762a) the second centers (762a) in each row of second photoelectric sensors [[(762)]] are located on a same straight line in the row direction [[(X)]].
Regarding claim 19, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses electronic device [0107], comprising at least the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala et al. US 2020/0116558.
Regarding claim 5, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, wherein the quantity of second photoelectric sensors [[(762)]] in the row is three or more, and in the row direction [[(X)]], but does not expressly disclose a photosensitive area of at least one of two second photoelectric sensors [[(762)]] located at an outermost side is greater than a photosensitive area of the first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]].
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 6, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] teaches the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 5, but does not expressly teach wherein in the row direction [[(X)]], the photosensitive area of the at least one of the two second photoelectric sensors [[(762)]] located at the outermost side is greater than a photosensitive area of the second photoelectric sensor [[(762)]] located in a middle region.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 7, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] teaches the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 6, but does not expressly teach wherein a shape and a size of the second photoelectric sensor [[(762)]] located in the middle region are respectively the same as a shape and a size of the first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] in the row direction [[(X)]].
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein in the middle sensor group [[(76b)]], each first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] is in a shape of a rectangle.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein in the middle sensor group [[(76b)]], each first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] is in a shape of a rectangle” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the middle sensor group [[(76b)]], each first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] is in a shape of a rectangle).
Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein in the middle sensor group [[(76b)]], each first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] is in a shape of a rectangle” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. No rationale is given that the invention will not function without the middle sensor group [[(76b)]], each first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] is in a shape of a rectangle. Thus, the claimed wherein in the middle sensor group [[(76b)]], each first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] is in a shape of a rectangle is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-9 and 14-18 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, discloses wherein the first photoelectric sensor [[(761)]] has a first center (761a), the middle sensor group [[(76b)]] comprises two or more rows of first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]], but does not anticipate nor render obvious the first centers (761a) of each column of first photoelectric sensors [[(761)]] are located on a same straight line.
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 directly or indirectly depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Pacala et al. in Fig. 8 (annotated above) and [0144]-[0146] discloses the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] according to claim 1, wherein the multispectral sensor [[(70)]] comprises two or more rows of light channels [[(71)]], each light channel [[(71)]] has a channel center [[(71b)]], but does not anticipate nor render obvious there is a fifth gap [[(705)]] between two adjacent light channels [[(71)]] in each row of light channels [[(71)]], and in the two adjacent rows of light channels [[(71)]], one row of light channels [[(71)]] are arranged corresponding to the fifth gap [[(705)]] in the other row of light channels [[(71)]], and lines connecting the channel centers [[(71b)]] of the two adjacent light channels [[(71)]] in the one row and the channel center [[(71b)]] of a corresponding light channel [[(71)]] in the other row form a triangle.
Claims 15-18 directly or indirectly depend from claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898