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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 9-11, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11, 13 and 17 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and claims 1-10, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action concedes that Kudenov does not teach or suggest “wherein the image processing unit generates a profile according to an amount of light for each of the plurality of pixels based on the image”, though it is noted that the Office Action asserts that Hegyi discloses this feature. Applicant further argues that Hegyi does not teach or suggest (1) wherein the fixed retarder causes a phase delay that changes in space with respect to the light, and (2) wherein the image is a single self-interference image.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner notes that Hegyi was cited, specifically, to address the limitation reciting that a profile is generated according to an amount of light for each pixel of a plurality of pixels, i.e., teaches an image processing unit which has a higher spatial resolution compared to Kudenov, and relied upon Kudenov to teach the fixed retarder (see previous Office Action: Pg. 5, lines 7-17 and Pg 6, lines 9-10, respectively, which cite Hegyi: Fig 7; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 19; Col. 8, lines 14-22; Col. 9, lines 44-53 and Kudenov: Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kudenov’s spatial modulator/fixed retarder with a processing unit which has a higher spatial resolution where the motivation would be to improve the imaging quality of the measurement system. Regarding limitations (1) and (2) listed above, Kudenov further discloses (1) wherein the fixed retarder causes a phase delay that changes in space with respect to the light (See Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39), and (2) wherein the image is a single self-interference image (interferogram) (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25). Amendments to the claims necessitated a new rejection below in view of Kudenov et al. (US 9046422 B2) and Hegyi et al. (US 11490037 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudenov et al. (US 9046422 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Kudenov discloses an image measurement device comprising:
an optical system (200) that transmits light to an image detection unit (204) (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12);
the image detection unit configured to detect the light and generate an image (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25); and
an image processing unit (221) that extracts spectral data from the image (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 6, lines 13-25), wherein the optical system comprises a relay lens (304 or 320) including at least one lens and a self- interference structure (206, 211, 212, 216 in Fig. 2A-B; 314, 315, 318 in Fig. 3) configured to self-interfere the light (Fig. 2A-B, 3; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12; Col. 6, lines 29-43),
wherein the self-interference structure comprises a first polarizer (206), a retarder (211, 212), and a second polarizer (216) (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
wherein the retarder is between the first polarizer and the second polarizer (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12), and
wherein the image is a single self-interference image (interferogram) generated over an exposure time (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25).
Regarding claim 13, Kudenov discloses the image measurement device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the second polarizer (216) is between the retarder (211, 212) and the image detection unit (204) (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
the first polarizer polarizes the light into S-polarized light and P-polarized light (106 – where 45-degree polarization results from the linear combination of parallel and perpendicular polarization components or S-polarized and P-polarized light) (Fig. 1A-C; Col. 5, lines 46-62), and the retarder delays phases of the S-polarized light and the P-polarized light, respectively, (Fig. 1A-C; Col. 5, lines 46-55; Col. 5, lines 46-62 – Fig. 1C shows parallel and perpendicular components passing through prism 211 or 212, interpreted as the retarder, being delayed), and
the image detection unit detects self-interfered light passing through the second polarizer, as the image (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25).
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) 1-9, 12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudenov et al. (US 9046422 B2) in view of Hegyi et al. (US 11490037 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kudenov discloses an image measurement device comprising:
an optical system (200) that transmits light to an image detection unit (204) (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12);
the image detection unit configured to detect the light and generate an image based on the single beam of light incident on the image detection unit (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25); and
an image processing unit (221) configured to extract spectral data from the image (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 6, lines 13-25),
wherein the image processing unit is configured to generate a profile according to an amount of light for a plurality of pixels based on the image (Fig. 6A; Col. 3, lines 27-28; Col. 6, lines 13-25; Col. 8, lines 19-23),
wherein the optical system comprises a self-interference structure (206, 211, 212, 216 in Fig. 2A-B; 314, 315, 318 in Fig. 3) and a relay lens (304 or 320) (Fig. 2A-B, 3; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12; Col. 6, lines 29-43),
wherein the self-interference structure comprises a first polarizer (206), a fixed retarder (211, 212), and a second polarizer (216) (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
wherein the fixed retarder is between the first polarizer and the second polarizer (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
wherein the fixed retarder causes a phase delay that changes in space with respect to the light (Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39).
Kudenov does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit is configured to generate a profile according to an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on the image.
However, Hegyi, in the same field of endeavor of hyperspectral imaging, discloses an imaging device wherein an image processing unit (24) is configured to generate a profile according to an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on an image (Fig. 7; Col. 5, line 66 - Col. 6, line 19; Col. 8, lines 14-22; Col. 9, lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov’s device with an image processing unit is configured to generate a profile according to an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on the image, providing the advantage of higher spatial resolution and improved calibration across the image sensor resulting in a more resolved and uniform image.
Regarding claim 2, Kudenov in view Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the relay lens comprises two or more sequentially arranged lenses (304 or 320) and wherein the optical system transmits a single beam of light from a light source to the image detection unit (204) (Kudenov: Fig. 2A-B, 3; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12; Col. 6, lines 29-43).
Regarding claim 3, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the image is a single self-interference image (interferogram) generated over an exposure time (Kudenov: Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25).
Regarding claim 4, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the second polarizer (216) is disposed between the fixed retarder (211, 212) and the image detection unit (204) (Kudenov: Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
the first polarizer polarizes the light into S-polarized light and P-polarized light (106 – where 45-degree polarization results from the linear combination of parallel and perpendicular polarization components or S-polarized light and P-polarized light) (Kudenov: Fig. 1A-C; Col. 5, lines 46-62), and
the fixed retarder delays respective phases of the S-polarized light and the P-polarized light (Kudenov: Fig. 1A-C; Col. 5, lines 46-62 – Fig. 1C shows parallel and perpendicular components passing through prism 211 or 212, interpreted as the retarder, being delayed).
Regarding claim 5, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 2, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the self-interference structure (where the self-interference structure comprises a plurality of polarizers 206, 216 and a retarder 211, 212) is between the relay lens (304) and the image detection unit (204) (Kudenov: Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12; Col. 6, lines 29-43).
Regarding claim 6, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the fixed retarder spatially generates a phase delay gradient based on an incident position of the light (Kudenov: Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 7, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the profile is a spatial light intensity profile representing interference fringes (interferogram) induced by the phase delay varying with spatial position (Kudenov: Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 8, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein
the fixed retarder comprises any one of a Nomarski prism, a Wollaston prism, and a beam displacer (Kudenov: Fig. 5A-B; Col. 2, lines 14-25; Col. 7, lines 40-51).
Regarding claim 9, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the image detection unit comprises any one of a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) and a charged coupled device (CCD).
However, Hegyi discloses wherein an image detection unit comprises any one of a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) and a charged coupled device (CCD) (Fig. 3, lines 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a charged coupled device (CCD) as the image detection unit which is a common focal plane array providing the known advantages of high sensitivity and improved dynamic range.
Regarding claim 12, Kudenov discloses the image measurement device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the image processing unit generates a profile based on an amount of light for a plurality of pixels based on the image (Kudenov: Fig. 6A; Col. 3, lines 27-28; Col. 6, lines 13-25; Col. 8, lines 19-23), and the retarder causes a phase delay that changes in space with respect to the light (Kudenov: Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39).
Kudenov does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit generates a profile based on an amount of light for each pixel of a plurality of pixels based on the image.
However, Hegyi, in the same field of endeavor of hyperspectral imaging, discloses an imaging device wherein an image processing unit (24) generates a profile based on an amount of light for each pixel of a plurality of pixels based on an image (Fig. 7; Col. 5, line 66 - Col. 6, line 19; Col. 8, lines 14-22; Col. 9, lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov’s device with an image processing unit is configured to generate a profile based on an amount of light for each pixel of a plurality of pixels based on the image, providing the advantage of higher spatial resolution and improved calibration across the image sensor resulting in a more resolved and uniform image.
Regarding claim 16, Kudenov discloses the image measurement device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the image detection unit comprises
the retarder (504, 506, 508) comprises any one of a Nomarski prism, a Wollaston prism, and a beam displacer (Kudenov: Fig. 5A-B; Col. 2, lines 14-25; Col. 7, lines 40-51).
Kudenov discloses an image detection unit (204) (Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the image detection unit comprises any one of a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) and a charged coupled device (CCD).
However, Hegyi, in the same field of endeavor of hyperspectral imaging, discloses wherein an image detection unit comprises any one of a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) and a charged coupled device (CCD) (Fig. 3, lines 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a charged coupled device (CCD) as the image detection unit which is a common focal plane array providing the known advantages of high sensitivity and improved dynamic range.
Regarding claim 17, Kudenov discloses the image measurement device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the image processing unit generates a spatial light intensity profile according to an amount of light for a plurality of pixels based on the image (Kudenov: Fig. 6A; Col. 3, lines 27-28; Col. 6, lines 13-25; Col. 8, lines 19-23),
wherein the spatial light intensity profile represents interference fringes induced by a phase delay of the self-interference structure varying according to spatial positions of the plurality of pixels (Kudenov: Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39), and
wherein the image processing unit extracts spectral data from the spatial light intensity profile by using a zoom Fast Fourier transform (Kudenov: Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706 and 720, 8; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65).
Kudenov does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit generates a spatial light intensity profile according to an amount of light for each pixel of a plurality of pixels based on the image.
However, Hegyi, in the same field of endeavor of hyperspectral imaging, discloses an imaging device wherein an image processing unit (24) generates a profile based on an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on an image (Fig. 7; Col. 5, line 66 - Col. 6, line 19; Col. 8, lines 14-22; Col. 9, lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov’s device with an image processing unit which generates a spatial light intensity profile based on an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on the image, providing the advantage of higher spatial resolution and improved calibration across the image sensor resulting in a more resolved and uniform image.
Claim(s) 10, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudenov et al. (US 9046422 B2) in view of Hegyi et al. (US 11490037 B2) further in view of Ho et al. (US 10271821 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 7, as outlined above, and further discloses an imaging processing unit (221) Fourier transforming an interference map captured by the image detection unit (204) to extract a spectral image (Kudenov: Fig. 2B; Col. 6, lines 13-25) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit separates the spatial light intensity profile into a high-frequency region and a low-frequency region by performing Fourier transform on the spatial light intensity profile, and
divides the high-frequency region into a plurality of sections through windowing, and extracts frequency components by applying preset weights to the plurality of sections, and
extracts spectral data from the frequency components by using a zoom Fast Fourier transform.
However, Ho, in the field of endeavor of ultrasound imaging using signal processing including Fourier transform methods for extracting spectral images, discloses a signal processing method based on Zoom Fast Fourier transforms which
separates the spatial light intensity profile into a high-frequency region and a low-frequency region by performing Fourier transform on the spatial light intensity profile (Fig. 4, 5A-B, 7 – step 702 and 704, 9, 13; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65 – interpreted as downsampling and frequency shifting), and
divides the high-frequency region into a plurality of sections through windowing, and extracts frequency components by applying preset weights to the plurality of sections (Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706, Col. 5, lines 4 – 65 – interpreted as an inherent part of the resampling process), and
extracts spectral data from the frequency components by using a zoom Fast Fourier transform (Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706 and 720, 8; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov in view of Hegyi with a signal processing method utilizing a zoom Fast Fourier transform algorithm for extracting spectral information from interference data, providing a computationally efficient method for extracting spectral information (Ho: Col. 5, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 15, Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses the image measurement device of claim 12, as outlined above, and further discloses an imaging processing unit (221) Fourier transforming an interference map captures by the image detection unit (204) to extract a spectral image (Kudenov: Fig. 2B; Col. 6, lines 13-25) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit separates the profile into a high-frequency region and a low-frequency region by performing Fourier transform on the profile,
divides the high-frequency region into a plurality of sections through windowing, and extracts frequency components by applying preset weights to the plurality of sections, and
extracts spectral data from the frequency components by using zoom Fast Fourier transform.
However, Ho, in the field of endeavor of ultrasound imaging using signal processing including Fourier transform methods for extracting spectral images, discloses an imaging method based on Zoom Fast Fourier transforms which
separates the profile into a high-frequency region and a low-frequency region by performing Fourier transform on the profile (Fig. 4, 5A-B, 7 – step 702 and 704, 9, 13; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65 – interpreted as downsampling and frequency shifting), and
divides the high-frequency region into a plurality of sections through windowing, and extracts frequency components by applying preset weights to the plurality of sections (Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706, Col. 5, lines 4 – 65 – interpreted as an inherent part of the resampling process), and
extracts spectral data from the frequency components by using a zoom Fast Fourier transform (Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706 and 720, 8; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov in view of Hegyi with a signal processing method utilizing a zoom Fast Fourier transform algorithm for extracting spectral information from interference data, providing a computationally efficient method for extracting spectral information (Ho: Col. 5, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 18, Kudenov discloses an image measurement device comprising:
an optical system (200) that transmits light to an image detection unit (204), wherein the optical system transmits a single beam of light from a light source to the image detection unit (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12);
the image detection unit configured to detect the light and generate an image based on the single beam of light incident on the image detection unit (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25); and
an image processing unit (221) that extracts spectral data from the image (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 6, lines 13-25),
wherein the optical system comprises a relay lens (304 or 320) comprising two or more sequentially arranged lenes and configured to relay the light to the image detection unit (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 29-43), and a self-interference structure (206, 211, 212, 216 in Fig. 2A-B; 314, 315, 318 in Fig. 3) disposed between the relay lens and the image detection unit (Fig. 2A-B, 3; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12; Col. 6, lines 29-43),
wherein the self-interference structure comprises a first polarizer (206), a fixed retarder (211, 212), and a second polarizer (216) (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
wherein the fixed retarder is disposed between the first polarizer and the second polarizer (Fig. 2A-B; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 12),
wherein the image is a single self-interference image generated over an exposure time (Col. 6, lines 1-3 and lines 13-25),
wherein the fixed retarder spatially generates a phase delay gradient according to an incident position of the light (Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39),
wherein the image processing unit generates a spatial light intensity profile according to an amount of light for a plurality of pixels based on the image,
wherein the spatial light intensity profile represents interference fringes induced by the phase delay gradient varying with spatial position (Fig. 1B-C, 6B; which clearly shows a spatially-dependent optical path difference, OPD; Col. 8, lines 35-39).
Kudenov does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit generates a spatial light intensity profile according to an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on the image.
However, Hegyi, in the same field of endeavor of hyperspectral imaging, discloses an imaging device wherein an image processing unit (24) generates a profile according to an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on an image (Fig. 7; Col. 5, line 66 - Col. 6, line 19; Col. 8, lines 14-22; Col. 9, lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov’s device with an image processing unit generates a spatial light intensity profile according to an amount of light for each of a plurality of pixels based on the image, providing the advantage of higher spatial resolution and improved calibration across the image sensor resulting in a more resolved and uniform image.
Kudenov in view of Hegyi discloses further discloses an imaging processing unit (221) Fourier transforming an interference map captures by the image detection unit (204) to extract a spectral image (Kudenov: Fig. 2B; Col. 6, lines 13-25) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit separates the spatial light intensity profile into a high-frequency region and a low-frequency region by performing Fourier transform on the spatial light intensity profile,
divides the high-frequency region into a plurality of sections through windowing, and extracts frequency components by applying preset weights to the plurality of sections, and
extracts spectral data from the frequency components by using zoom Fast Fourier transform.
However, Ho, in the field of endeavor of ultrasound imaging using signal processing including Fourier transform methods for extracting spectral images, discloses an imaging method based on Zoom Fast Fourier transforms which
separates the profile into a high-frequency region and a low-frequency region by performing Fourier transform on the profile (Fig. 4, 5A-B, 7 – step 702 and 704, 9, 13; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65 – interpreted as downsampling and frequency shifting), and
divides the high-frequency region into a plurality of sections through windowing, and extracts frequency components by applying preset weights to the plurality of sections (Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706, Col. 5, lines 4 – 65 – interpreted as an inherent part of the resampling process), and
extracts spectral data from the frequency components by using a zoom Fast Fourier transform (Fig. 6A-C, 7 – step 706 and 720, 8; Col. 5, lines 4 – 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov in view of Hegyi with a signal processing method utilizing a zoom Fast Fourier transform algorithm for extracting spectral information from interference data, providing a computationally efficient method for extracting spectral information (Ho: Col. 5, lines 63-65).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudenov et al. (US 9046422 B2) in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0252799 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kudenov disclose the image measurement device of claim 13, as outlined above, but does not disclose a light diffusion plate,
wherein the light diffusion plate diffuses the light and changes the light to an unpolarized state.
However, Lee, which relates to the field of polarizing optical systems, discloses a system (110) wherein a light diffusion plate (not shown) diffuses light and changes the light to an unpolarized state (Fig. 12; [0054]; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov with a light diffusion plate in order direct uniformly distributed incident light on the self-interference system, improving the signal to noise of the imaging system by reducing noise due to non-uniform optical artifacts.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudenov et al. (US 9046422 B2) in view of Hegyi et al. (US 11490037 B2) in view of Ho et al. (US 10271821 B2) further in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0252799 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kudenov in view of Hegyi and Ho discloses the image measurement device of claim 18, as outlined above, but does not disclose
a light diffusion plate,
wherein the light diffusion plate diffuses the light and changes the light to an unpolarized state.
a light diffusion plate,
wherein the light diffusion plate diffuses the light and changes the light to an unpolarized state.
However, Lee, which relates to the field of polarizing optical systems, discloses
a light diffusion plate (not shown) (Fig. 12; [0054]; [0055]),
wherein the light diffusion plate diffuses light and changes the light to an unpolarized state (Fig. 12; [0054]; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kudenov in view of Hegyi and Ho with a light diffusion plate in order direct uniformly distribute incident light on the self-interference system, improving the signal to noise of the imaging system by reducing noise due to non-uniform optical artifacts.
Regarding claim 20, Kudenov in view of Hegyi, Ho and Lee discloses the image measurement device of claim 18, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the fixed retarder comprises a first retarder (314) and a second retarder (315) that contact each other (Kudenov: Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 29-43), and wherein
the first retarder and the second retarder have a same central axis (where the central axis is interpreted as the z-axis using the coordinate system defined in Fig. 12) and are disposed in different directions (the directions are interpreted as referring to orthogonal orientations of the birefringent crystal prisms) (Kudenov: Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 29-43).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571)270-5789. 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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights