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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 7 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement on the ground(s) that examination of all of the identified inventions and all of the pending claims would not result in a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in the Restriction Requirement.
Additionally, Applicants traversed the restriction requirement on the basis that the Office misidentified claims 19 and 20 as a process of making, whereas they are drawn to a process of using. Accordingly, the Office revises the original restriction requirement, as follows:
I. Claims 1-13 are drawn to a product made, classified in G02B5/201.
II. Claims 14-18 are drawn to a process of making, classified in H10F39/011.
III. Claims 19 and 20 are drawn to a process of using, classified in H10F39/8027.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as a process of determining the existence of an object based on a distributed intensity of light received from the object, rather than by constructing an image frame based on the distributed intensity of light.
Inventions II and III are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are not capable of use together because the process of using cannot be performed until the process of making is complete. Moreover the inventions as claimed have materially different functions/effects in that the process of making has the function/effect of creating a device for use by the process of using and the process of using has a function/effect of creating an image frame. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The restriction requirement, as revised herein, is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicants are reminded to identify claims 14-20 as being withdrawn in the next submission of a claim listing.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 2, recites “a second pinhole array comprising a plurality of pinholes distributed, wherein …,” which should read “a second pinhole array comprising a plurality of pinholes distributed therein, wherein” for proper composition.
Claim 12, lines 4 and 5, recites “the second detector array positioned at a concave surface of the second pinhole array and configured,” which should read “the second detector array is positioned at a concave surface of the second pinhole array and configured” for proper composition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reininger (US7587109B1) in view of Fan et al. (US20210315685A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reininger teaches in Fig. 3 a pinhole compound eye (PHCE) system, comprising:
a pinhole array (58) comprising a plurality of pinholes (field stop apertures), wherein the pinhole array (58) is configured to receive light from varying incident angles {col. 6, ll. 43-65}; and
a detector array (20, 24, 48, 50, 52, 54, 62), wherein the detector array (20, 24, 48, 50, 52, 54, 62) is positioned at a concave surface of the pinhole array (58) and is configured to detect light passing through the pinhole array (58) {col. 6, ll. 28-31; col. 7, ll. 17-45}.
Reininger does not teach the detector array comprises a plurality of nanowires.
In an analogous art, Fan teaches in Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0004, 0043] a detector array (array of 314s) comprising a plurality of nanowires (NWs) and configured to detect light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system based on the teachings of Fan – such that Reininger’s detector array includes nanowires – to generate a plurality of currents based on a detected light intensity that may be used to generate an image corresponding to the detected light. Fan [0004].
Regarding claim 4, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 1, but Reininger does not teach wherein the plurality of nanowires are inside a plurality of pores within a hemispherical membrane template.
Fan teaches in Stages 802 and 806 of Fig. 8B and paragraph [0064] that a plurality of nanowires (NWs) are inside a plurality of pores within a membrane substrate (PAM). Fan further teaches in paragraph [0050] the membrane template (PAM) is hemispherical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the further teachings of Fan – such that the plurality of nanowires are inside a plurality of pores within a hemispherical membrane template – so as: (1) to generate a plurality of currents based on a detected light intensity that may be used to generate an image corresponding to the detected light {Fan [0004]}, (2) to achieve a wide field of view {Fan [0002]}, and (3) to achieve a high degree of similarity to that of a human eye {Fan [0071]}.
Regarding claim 5, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 4, but Reininger does not teach wherein the hemispherical membrane template is a hemispherical porous alumina membrane (PAM), and wherein each pore of the plurality of pores corresponds to a subset of nanowires of the plurality of nanowires.
Fan teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0041, 0050] a hemispherical membrane template (PAM, 206) is a hemispherical porous alumina membrane (PAM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the further teachings of Fan – such that the hemispherical membrane template is a hemispherical porous alumina membrane (PAM) – because all the claimed elements (e.g., hemispherical porous alumina membrane) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Fan) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Additionally, Fan teaches in Stages 802 and 806 of Fig. 8B and paragraph [0064] wherein each pore of the plurality of pores corresponds to a subset of nanowires (subset of NWs) of the plurality of nanowires (NWs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the further teachings of Fan – such that each pore of the plurality of pores corresponds to a subset of nanowires of the plurality of nanowires – to generate a plurality of currents based on a detected light intensity that may be used to generate an image corresponding to the detected light. Fan [0004]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., pores, nanowires) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Fan) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 1, but Reininger does not teach wherein each nanowire of the plurality of nanowires comprises a perovskite nanowire section and a residual nanowire section.
Fan teaches in Stages 802 and 806 of Fig. 8B and paragraph [0064] each nanowire (NW) of the plurality of nanowires (NW) comprises a perovskite nanowire section (section of NW within PAM) and a residual nanowire section (section of NW disposed outside PAM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the further teachings of Fan – such that each nanowire of the plurality of nanowires comprises a perovskite nanowire section and a residual nanowire section – to generate a plurality of currents based on a detected light intensity that may be used to generate an image corresponding to the detected light. Fan [0004]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., perovskite nanowire section, residual nanowire section) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Fan) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 6, but Reininger does not teach wherein the perovskite nanowire sections are positioned proximate to the pinhole array, and the residual nanowire sections are connected to a control circuit.
Fan teaches in Figs. 10A, 10B, and 12 and paragraphs [0043 and 0072] that residual nanowire sections (section of NW disposed outside PAM) are connected to a control circuit (1206). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the further teachings of Fan – such that the residual nanowire sections are connected to a control circuit – to perform image processing based on the information received from the nanowire sections. Fan [0072]. A consequence of the modifications of Reininger’s system discussed with respect to intermediate claim 6 and base claim 1 is that Fan’s perovskite nanowire sections are positioned proximately to Reininger’s pinhole array.
Regarding claim 8, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 1, but Reininger does not teach wherein each nanowire of the plurality of nanowires is aligned with a corresponding pinhole of the plurality of pinholes, and wherein each pinhole is associated with a pixel of the detector array.
Fan teaches in paragraph [0082] each nanowire is associated with a pixel {a subset of NWs may be associated with a particular pixel within an image}. A consequence of the modification of Reininger’s system identified with respect to base claim 1 is that each nanowire receives light from (e.g., is associated with) a corresponding pinhole. Accordingly, each pixel receives light information of (is associated with) light received through a particular (e.g., corresponding or associated) pinhole. The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 8, but Reininger does not teach wherein the detector array comprises a plurality of pixels corresponding to the plurality of pinholes in the pinhole array, wherein the plurality of pixels are connected to a control circuit through a plurality of contacts, and wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels corresponds to a contact of the plurality of contacts.
Fan teaches in Figs. 3A and 10A and paragraph [0044, 0060] that each pixel corresponds to one photodetector, which includes an LM nerve fiber contact (316) connected to a plurality of nanowires (NWs). Fan further teaches in Figs. 10A, 10B, and 12 and paragraphs [0043 and 0072] that the LM nerve fiber contact (316) connects the nanowires (NWs) to a control circuit (1206). A consequence of the modifications of Reininger’s system identified with respect to intermediate claim 8 and base claim 1 is that each nanowire receives light from (e.g., is associated with) a corresponding pinhole. Accordingly, Fan teaches a detector array (array of 314s) comprises a plurality of pixels (pixel groupings of 314), the plurality of pixels (pixel groupings of 314) are connected to a control circuit (1206) through a plurality of contacts (316), each pixel of the plurality of pixels (pixel groupings of 314) corresponds to a contact (316) of the plurality of contacts (316). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to intermediate claim 8 and/or base claim 1. A consequence of the modifications of Reininger’s system discussed with respect to intermediate claim 8 and base claim 1 is that Fan’s nanowire sections correspond to Reininger’s plurality of pinholes in Reininger’s pinhole array.
Regarding claim 11, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 8, but Reininger does not teach further comprising: a control circuit connected to the detector array and configured to obtain detection results from the detector array, wherein the control circuit comprises a readout circuit configured to read values from the plurality of nanowires in the detector array based on the light detected by the plurality of nanowires.
Fan teaches in Figs. 10A, 10B, and 12 and paragraphs [0043, 0072, 0079] a control circuit (1206) connected to a detector array (array of 314s) and configured to obtain detection results from the detector array (array of 314s), wherein the control circuit (1206) comprises a readout circuit (e.g., 1204 or implicit to achieve control circuit capabilities) configured to read values from a plurality of nanowires (NWs) in the detector array (array of 314s) based on light detected by the plurality of nanowires (NWs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the further teachings of Fan, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to generate a plurality of currents based on a detected light intensity that may be used to generate an image corresponding to the detected light. Fan [0004].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reininger in view of Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reininger (US20070237490A1).
Regarding claim 2, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 1, and Reininger further teaches wherein the pinhole array (58) is confined within a honeycombed structure (14, 42, 44) {Fig. 3; col. 6, ll. 14-27 and 43-65}.
Reininger does not teach the honeycombed structure is hemispherical.
However, Reininger teaches in Fig. 3 that the pinhole array (58) is confined within a honeycombed structure (14, 42, 44) that includes a peripheral lenslet array (12) for focusing discrete beams of light through corresponding pinholes of the pinhole array (58).
In an analogous art, Reininger ‘490 teaches in Figs. 3a and 4 and paragraph [0042] that an array (e.g., a plurality) of peripheral lenslets (13) may be bonded together to form a hemisphere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the teachings of Reininger ‘490 – such that Reininger’s honeycombed structure is modified to be hemispherical, as taught by Reininger ‘490 – to increase the field of view. Reininger ‘490 [0042].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reininger in view of Fan and Reininger ‘490 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US20200393313A1).
Regarding claim 3, Reininger as modified by Fan and Reininger ‘490 teaches the system according to claim 2, but Reininger does not teach expressly wherein the honeycombed hemispherical structure with the pinhole array is 3D-printed {see Examiner’s Note, below}.
However, Reininger teaches in lines 6-10 of column 9 that [t]he baffle structure [(14), which includes (58)] is made using an inkjet technology that jets black, light absorbing photopolymer material into layers approximately 15-20 microns thick. Each photopolymer layer is cured by ultra-violet light immediately after it is jetted, which seems to imply the honeycombed hemispherical structure with the pinhole array is 3D-printed.
In an analogous art, Yu teaches in paragraphs [0026, 0044] that a pinhole structure (110) having an array of pinholes (e.g., 302) may be 3D printed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan and Reininger ‘409 based on the teachings of Yu – such that Reininger’s modified honeycombed hemispherical structure with the pinhole array is 3D-printed, as taught by Yu – because applying a known technique (e.g., as taught by Yu) in the same way to enhance another known technique (e.g., as taught by Reininger, Fan, and Reininger ‘409) to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C).
Examiner’s Note: The recitation of “is 3D-printed” is a product-by-process features that does not limit the scope of the claimed invention. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP §2113(I).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reininger in view of Fan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US20220052212A1).
Regarding claim 10, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 8, but Reininger does not teach expressly wherein each nanowire is arranged to receive light from the corresponding pinhole and one or more adjacent pinholes of the plurality of pinholes.
In an analogous art, Liu teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0057 ] that each nanowire (5) is arranged to receive light from a corresponding pinhole (aperture) and one or more adjacent pinholes (aperture) of the plurality of pinholes (aperture). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the teachings of Liu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so the light intensity will be coherently enhanced. Liu [0057].
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reininger in view of Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20090314929A1).
Regarding claim 12, Reininger as modified by Fan teaches the system according to claim 1, but Reininger does not teach further comprising:
a second pinhole array comprising a plurality of pinholes distributed, wherein the second pinhole array is configured to receive light from varying incident angles;
a second detector array comprising a plurality of nanowires, wherein the second detector array positioned at a concave surface of the second pinhole array and configured to detect light passing through the second pinhole array; and
a frame, wherein the first pinhole array with the corresponding first detector array and the second pinhole array with the corresponding second detector array are mounted on the frame.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches in Fig. 20 and paragraph [0097] a frame (substrate to which two binocular compound eyes are attached), wherein a first array (e.g., left eye array) and a second array (e.g., right eye array) are mounted on the frame (substrate to which two binocular compound eyes are attached). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan based on the teachings of Lee, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to localize distinct moving objects as well as to construct a three-dimensional imaging of the world. Lee [0097].
Reininger as modified by Lee above does not expressly teach the second array is a pinhole array comprising a plurality of pinholes distributed [therein], wherein the second pinhole array is configured to receive light from varying incident angles; a second detector array [is] positioned at a concave surface of the second pinhole array and configured to detect light passing through the second pinhole array.
However, Reininger teaches a pinhole array (58) comprising a pinhole array (58) comprising a plurality of pinholes (field stop apertures) distributed therein, wherein the pinhole array (58) is configured to receive light from varying incident angles {col. 6, ll. 43-65}; a detector array (20, 24, 48, 50, 52, 54, 62) is positioned at a concave surface of the pinhole array (58) and configured to detect light passing through the pinhole array (58) {col. 6, ll. 28-31; col. 7, ll. 17-45}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan and Lee based on the further teachings of Reininger – such that Reininger’s system includes a second pinhole array comprising a plurality of pinholes distributed therein, wherein the second pinhole array is configured to receive light from varying incident angles; a second detector array positioned at a concave surface of the second pinhole array and configured to detect light passing through the second pinhole array – so light beams are channeled. Reininger col. 6, ll. 60-65. A consequence of this modification in view of Lee’s modification immediately above is that Reininger’s system includes a frame (e.g., Lee’s substrate), wherein a first pinhole array (58 corresponding, e.g., to a left compound eye) with a corresponding first detector array (20, 24, 48, 50, 52, 54, 62 corresponding, e.g., to a left compound eye) and a second pinhole array (58, e.g., corresponding to a right compound eye) with a corresponding second detector array (20, 24, 48, 50, 52, 54, 62, e.g., corresponding to a right compound eye) are mounted on the frame (e.g., Lee’s substrate) – so as to localize distinct moving objects as well as to construct a three-dimensional imaging of the world. Lee [0097].
Reininger as modified by Fan and Lee above does not teach the second detector array comprises a plurality of nanowires.
In an analogous art, Fan teaches in Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0004, 0043] a detector array (array of 314s) comprising a plurality of nanowires (NWs) and configured to detect light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan and Lee based on the further teachings of Fan – such that Reininger’s modified second detector array includes nanowires – to generate a plurality of currents based on a detected light intensity that may be used to generate an image corresponding to the detected light. Fan [0004].
Regarding claim 13, Reininger as modified by Fan and Lee teaches the system according to claim 12, but Reininger does not teach wherein the first pinhole array with the corresponding first detector array corresponds to a first field of view, the second pinhole array with the corresponding second detector array corresponds to a second field of view, and the first field of view and the second field of view have an overlapping region.
Lee teaches in Fig. 20 and paragraph [0097] a first array (left eye array) corresponds to a first field of view, a second array (right eye array) corresponds to a second field of view, and the first field of view and the second field of view have an overlapping region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reininger’s system as modified by Fan and Lee based on the further teachings of Lee, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to localize distinct moving objects as well as to construct a three-dimensional imaging of the world. Lee [0097].
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Namba et al. (US20090174765A1) teaches a camera device is provided which has a compound eye structure only by a liquid lens unit and a control unit without requiring a plurality of lenses to be mounted in advance and is capable of taking a three-dimensional stereoscopic video image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights