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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-14, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,698,478. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are narrower than the instant claims. The following table provides the correspondence between the instant and patented claims.
App. 18/800,169
US 11,698,478
1
1
2
1
3
--
4
3
5
3
6
4
7
--
8
5
9
5
10
6,7
11
7
12
9
13
--
14
9
15
13
16
--
17
--
18
14
19
--
20
18
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inada et al. (US 2022/0239870, disclosed in IDS 12 August 2024), hereinafter Inada.
Claim 1: Inada discloses an optical filter (100, Fig. 2A) comprising:
a plurality of sets of optical channels (20), arranged in a two-dimensional pattern (evident from figure), including:
a first set of optical channels (20-R) associated with a first wavelength range (600-2500nm) [0043,0073]; and
a second set of optical channels (20-G) associated with a second wavelength range (400-600nm) [0073],
a first optical channel (such as the channel marked “R” in the dashed box at top left), of the first set of optical channels (20-R), being configured to pass light associated with the first wavelength range (600-2500nm) to a first sensor element (in 60) [0066], and
a second optical channel (such as the channel marked “G” in the dashed box at top left), of the second set of optical channels (20-G), being configured to pass light associated with the second wavelength range (400-600nm) to a second sensor element (in 60) [0066].
Claim 2: Inada further discloses wherein the first optical channel (such as the channel marked “R” in the dashed box at top left) is configured to pass light associated with a subrange (600-700nm) of the first wavelength range (600-2500nm) to the first sensor element (in 60) [0066].
Claim 3: Inada further discloses wherein the two-dimensional pattern is a uniform two-dimensional pattern (evident from figure).
Claim 4: Inada further discloses wherein:
the first optical channel (R) comprises a first set of layers [0052]; and
the second optical channel (G) comprises a second set of layers [0114].
Claim 5: Inada further discloses wherein the first set of layers is different from the second set of layers (inherently true since the first optical channel (R) and the second optical channel (G) are different).
Claim 8: Inada discloses an optical device (300, Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality sets of optical channels (20, Fig. 2A) [0066], arranged in a first two-dimensional pattern (evident from figure), including:
a first set of optical channels (20-R) associated with a first wavelength range (R) [0074], and
a second set of optical channels (20-G) associated with a second wavelength range (G) [0074]; and
a plurality of sets of sensor elements (in 60), arranged in a second two-dimensional pattern corresponding to the first two-dimensional pattern (“Each light detecting element is disposed facing one of the filters” [0065]), including:
a first set of sensor elements associated with the first wavelength range (600-2500nm) [0066], and
a second set of sensor elements associated with the second wavelength range (400-600nm) (the filters (optical channels) and light detecting elements have a one-to-one correspondence [0066], and the optical filter (100) comprises first and second optical filter sets of first and second wavelength ranges [0074]).
Claim 9: Inada further discloses:
wherein a first optical channel (such as the channel marked “R” in the dashed box at top left), of the first set of optical channels (20-R), is disposed over at least one first sensor element, of the first set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066], and
wherein a second optical channel (such as the channel marked “G” in the dashed box at top left), of the second set of optical channels (20-G), is disposed over at least one second sensor element, of the second set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066].
Claim 10: Inada further discloses wherein the first optical channel (R) is configured to pass light associated with a subrange (600-700nm) of the first wavelength range (600-2500nm) to the at least one first sensor element (in 60) [0043,0073]; and
Claim 11: Inada further discloses wherein the second optical channel (G) is configured to pass light associated with a subrange (500-600nm) of the second wavelength range (400-600nm) to the at least one second sensor element (in 60) [0043,0073].
Claim 12: Inada further discloses:
wherein a first row of optical channels (e.g. top row), of the first two-dimensional pattern (evident from figure), is directly disposed on a first row of sensor elements (in 60) of the second two-dimensional pattern (the overlay is evident: “Each light detecting element is disposed facing one of the filters” [0065]), and
wherein a second row of optical channels (e.g. second-from-top row), of the first two-dimensional pattern (evident from figure), is directly disposed on a second row of sensor elements (in 60) of the second two-dimensional pattern (the overlay is evident: “Each light detecting element is disposed facing one of the filters” [0065]).
Claim 13: Inada further discloses wherein the first two-dimensional pattern is a uniform two-dimensional pattern (evident from figure).
Claim 14: Inada further discloses:
wherein each of the first set of optical channels (20-R) is disposed over at least one corresponding sensor element of the first set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066], and
wherein each of the second set of optical channels (20-G) is disposed over at least one corresponding sensor element of the second set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066].
Claim 15: Inada discloses an optical system (300, Fig. 1) comprising:
an optical filter (100, Fig. 2A) comprising a plurality of optical channels (20) [0071] arranged in a first two-dimensional pattern (evident from Fig. 2A), wherein the plurality of optical channels (20) comprises:
a first set of optical channels (20-R) associated with a first wavelength range (600-2500nm) [0043,0066], and
a second set of optical channels (20-G) associated with a second wavelength range (400-600nm) [0066,0073]; and
an optical sensor (60) comprising a plurality of sets of sensor elements (in 60), arranged in a second two-dimensional pattern (“Each light detecting element is disposed facing one of the filters” [0065]), wherein the plurality of sensor elements comprises:
a first set of sensor elements associated with the first wavelength range (600-2500nm) [0066], and
a second set of sensor elements associated with the second wavelength range (400-600nm) (the filters (optical channels) and light detecting elements have a one-to-one correspondence [0066], and the optical filter (100) comprises first and second optical filter sets of first and second wavelength ranges [0074]).
Claim 16: Inada further discloses wherein the second two-dimensional pattern corresponds to the first two-dimensional pattern (“Each light detecting element is disposed facing one of the filters” [0065]).
Claim 17: Inada further discloses wherein the first two-dimensional pattern is non-uniform (evident from Fig. 2A since each of the H filters is different [0074]).
Claim 18: Inada further discloses:
wherein the first set of optical channels (20-R) is disposed over the first set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066], and
the second set of optical channels (20-G) is disposed over the second set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066].
Claim 19: Inada further discloses:
wherein the first set of optical channels (20-R) is configured to pass light associated with the first wavelength range (600-2500nm) to the first set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066], and
wherein the second set of optical channels (20-G) is configured to pass light associated with the second wavelength range (400-600nm) to the second set of sensor elements (in 60) [0066].
Claim 20: Inada further discloses wherein the optical filter (100) is disposed over the optical sensor (60) via a free space gap (“The filter array 100 may be disposed near, or directly on, the image sensor 60.” [0063]).
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 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vereecke et al. (EP 3112828, disclosed in IDS 12 August 2024), hereinafter Vereecke.
Claim 6: Inada is silent with respect to a composition of the first optical channel being different than a composition of the second optical channel.
However, Inada does disclose that “The refractive index and/or thickness of the intermediate layer 14 in the multiple types of hyperspectral filters 10 is different depending on the filter” [0114]. Furthermore, Vereecke, in the same field of endeavor of optical filters, discloses wherein different filters (optical channels) comprise different combinations of layer materials for the transmission of specific wavelength ranges (see, e.g. Fig. 3d, [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inada’s first and second optical channels to have different compositions for the purpose of allowing transmission of different wavelength ranges to the image sensor elements below.
Claim 7: Inada does not explicitly disclose wherein a composition of the first optical channel is different than a composition of another optical channel of the first set of optical channels.
However, Inada does disclose that “The refractive index and/or thickness of the intermediate layer 14 in the multiple types of hyperspectral filters 10 is different depending on the filter.” [0114]. Furthermore, Vereecke, in the same field of endeavor of optical filters, discloses wherein different filters comprise different combinations of layer materials for the transmission of specific wavelength ranges (see, e.g. Fig. 3d, [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inada’s first set of optical channels with different compositions for the individual optical filters, such as different numbers and thicknesses of layers, for the purpose of allowing transmission of only certain wavelength ranges to the image sensor elements below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877