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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re claim 1, applicant argues that Yang fails to disclose “a pixel in which a number of sub-pixels is less than a number of spectral bands” (Remarks p9). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although, Yang discloses that the diffracted light is long/short spectral components, the actual spectral bands collected are varieties or R, G, and B, and the number of spectral bands nearly limitless (pars [0054]-[0055], figs 9A and 9B, and 10). Therefore, the spectral bands X is greater than M, number of subpixels, as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2007/0045685, hereinafter Yang).
Re claim 1, Yang discloses, A method, comprising: collecting light from a scene (Abstract); passing the collected light through a first set of diffraction elements (27, figs 1 and 2), wherein first diffracted light is produced, wherein the first diffracted light is incident on M number of sub-pixels (28 and 29) of a pixel of an image sensor (figs 1 and 2), and wherein an output signal is produced by each of the M sub-pixels of the first pixel (28 and 29); and processing the output signals from the M sub-pixels of the first pixel to determine which one of X number spectral bands a wavelength of the first diffracted light incident on the M sub-pixels of the first pixel belongs, wherein X is greater than M (pars [0031], [0035], and [0037]-[0044]).
Yang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first diffracted light is incident on M sub-pixels of a first pixel of an image sensor. However, the combination of pixels, 28 and 29, is viewed by examiner as a “first pixel” and amounts to combining the elements of Yang into an integrated structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing f the invention to combine elements into an integrated structure, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPO 177, 179.
Re claim 2, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the pixel includes M sub-pixels (28 and 29, figs 1 and 2).
Re claim 3, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 including further comprising: providing an output, wherein the output includes an indication of a wavelength of the first diffracted light (par [0047]).
Re claim 4, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 3 including wherein the indication of a wavelength of the first diffracted light is an identification of a first one of the X spectral bands (par [0054]).
Re claim 5, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 3 including wherein the output further includes an indication of an intensity of the first diffracted light (par [0054]).
Re claim 6, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein processing the M output signals from the M sub-pixels of the first pixel to determine which one of X spectral bands a wavelength of the first diffracted light belongs includes providing the M outputs of the M sub-pixels of the first pixel (par [0054]). Yang fails to explicitly disclose that the output is to a neural network.
Official Notice is taken to note that utilizing a neural network in conjunction with image processing is notoriously well known and used in the related art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine outputting to a neural network in order to rapidly filter elements of images to more quickly identify image information.
Claim 7-9 are rejected for the reasons stated for claim 6.
Re claim 10, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1 including passing the collected light through a second set of diffraction elements (other reference characters 27, to the right of the first pixel), wherein second diffracted light is produced, wherein the second diffracted light is incident on M sub-pixels of a second pixel of the image sensor, and wherein an output signal is produced by each of the M sub-pixels of the second pixel (28 and 29); and processing the output signals from the M sub-pixels of the second pixel to determine one of the X spectral bands a wavelength of the second diffracted light incident on the M sub-pixels of the second pixel belongs (pars [0031], [0035], and [0037]-[0044], see claim 1 explanation for combining pixels).
Claim 11-14 are rejected for the reasons stated for claim 6.
Re claim 15, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 14 including wherein an angle of incidence of the light collected from the scene on the first pixel is equal to an angle of incidence of the light collected from the scene on the second pixel (figs 1-8).
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected for the reasons stated in claims 1, 6, and (1/12), respectively. The image sensor and system as claimed would have been obvious and expected by the method of Yang.
Re claim 19, Yang discloses the limitations of claim 18 including wherein the sets of diffraction elements have an index of refraction that is different than an index of refraction of the substrate (par [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL W FOSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3728. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/JOEL W FOSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639