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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Regard to claims [1 and 16], applicant argues on pages [7-8] of his remark filed on 05/15/2026 on a substance that none of the prior arts on the record disclose or suggest, “the claimed features of the first transmission spectrum of the first filter differing from the second transmission spectrum of the second filter, the first transmission spectrum having first local maxima, and the second transmission spectrum having second local maxima”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Robles-Kelly, the reference applied against claims [1 and 16] in the office action, discloses: more than the three bands of red, green and blue that can be found in most cameras. In paragraph [0054]
Robles-Kelly further discloses each of the multiple lenses of the array 304 is associated with exactly one color filter of filter layer 306 such that the intensity signals generated by the more than one of the multiple imaging elements associated with that lens represent a spectral band of the hyperspectral image data. In paragraph [00059].
Thus given the above teaching, for example a red color filter selectively transmits wavelength corresponding to a red color while absorbing or reflecting other wavelengths. Therefore the intensity of the redlight will be a local maxima since the other colors are absorbed or reflected. And thereby creating a first local maxima in the region.
Similarly the blue color filter selectively transmits the blue wavelength, hence the intensity of the blue spectrum will be a local maxima in the regio; since the other color wavelength will be absorbed or reflected. therefore having a second local maxima of the blue wavelength.
Thus as discussed above Robert-Kelly reasonably disclose the limitation in question. Therefore the previous 102 rejection has been maintained. The limitation in question broadly requires a first local maxim and a second local maxima generated by a different transmission spectrum. Thus limitation reasonably addressed as discussed above.
With regard to claim [17] applicant further argues on page 8 of his remark on a substance that “While Oganesian discloses the color filters 11a, 11b, 11c, it does not disclose or suggest the claimed features of each of the first filters having a first transmission spectrum having first local maxima, each of the second filters having a second transmission spectrum having second local maxima, and the first transmission spectrum differing from the second transmission spectrum”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Oganesian, primary reference applied to claim [17], discloses pixels 16a, 16b, 16c together with their overlaying color filters 11a, 11b, 11c, in paragraphs [0029 -0030].
Thus given the above teaching, the red color filter selectively transmits red light wavelength, while absorbing or reflecting other wavelengths. therefore the intensity of the redlight will be a local maxima. Since the other colors are blocked and a first local maxima will be generated by the red intensity in the region.
Similarly the Blue color filter selectively transmits the blue wavelength, hence the intensity of the blue spectrum will be a local maxima since the other color wavelength will be absorbed by the blue color filter. therefore having a second local maxima.
Hence as discussed above Oganesian reasonably disclose the limitation in question. Hence the previous 103 rejection of claim [17] constituted by the combination of Oganesian and Robert-Kelly has been maintained. The limitation in question broadly requires a first local maxim and a second local maxima generated by a different transmission spectrum. Thus limitation reasonably addressed as discussed above.
However in order to advance the prosecution examiner suggests, further limiting the limitation in question by incorporating the newly added claims [21-23], into the corresponding independent claims. Which also substantially corresponds to a text disclosed in paragraph[01103] of the PGPB, “the transmission spectrum of each filter has local maxima in at least two wavelength bands”.
Examiner note: examiner called applicant’s representative on 06/16 to resolve the issue by examiner’s amendment. However no response has been received.
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) [1-3, 7-10 and 15-16] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipate by Robles-Kelly (US. 2019/0019829)hereinafter Robles.
Reclaim [1], Robles discloses a light detection device (see fig. 3, a hyperspectral imaging device) comprising: a filter array including filters (see 306 fig. 3); and an image sensor including pixels (see 302 fig. 3), the image sensor detecting light transmitted through the filter array (see ¶0057, FIG. 3 illustrates such a sensor 300 for acquiring hyperspectral image data using colour filters. Sensor 300 comprises multiple imaging elements in a detector layer 302), wherein the filters include a first filter and a second filter (see ¶0060, shows six spectral bands only, this pattern with corresponding lenses is repeated to cover the entire image sensor [ examiner is referring to the 310 and 306 as depicted in fig. 3]) , wherein a first transmission spectrum of the first filter differs from a second transmission spectrum of the second filter (see ¶0060, FIG. 3 shows six different spectral bands), wherein the first transmission spectrum has a first local maxima (see,¶0060, FIG. 3 shows six spectral bands ,[each color filter has its own local maximum, see also my response to applicant’s remark above]), wherein the second transmission spectrum has a second local maxima (see, ¶0060, FIG. 3 shows six spectral bands ,[each color filter has its own local maximum, see also above my response to applicant’s remark as discussed above]), wherein the filters are arranged in a matrix pattern along a first direction and a second direction crossing each other(see 300 fig. 3, horizontal being first and vertical being second as depicted in fig. 3), wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix pattern along a third direction and a fourth direction crossing each other (see 302 fig. 3, horizontal being third and vertical being fourth, since the claim language is broad, it doesn’t require a specific orientation or direction]), wherein Rp1 is a quotient obtained by dividing a pitch of the filters in the first direction by a pitch of the pixels in the third direction (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3) , wherein Rp2 is a quotient obtained by dividing a pitch of the filters in the second direction by a pitch of the pixels in the fourth direction (see fig. 3, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3), and wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 differs from 1, (Rp1 and Rp2 are 1/3, as depicted in fig. 3 and discussed above).
Reclaim[2], Robles further discloses , wherein the Rp1 and the Rp2 both differ from 1 (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3, in fig. 3 also, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3).
Reclaim[3], Robles further discloses wherein the Rp1 and the Rp2 are equal to each other (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3, in fig. 3 also, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3).
.
Reclaim[7], Robles further discloses, wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 is less than or equal to 0.998 or greater than or equal to 1.002 (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3, in fig. 3 also, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3, 1/3 is < 0.998).
Reclaim[8], Robles further discloses, wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 is less than or equal to 0.99 or greater than or equal to 1.01 (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3, in fig. 3 also, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3, 1/3 is < 0.99 ).
Reclaim[9], Robles further discloses, wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 is less than or equal to 1.5 (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3, in fig. 3 also, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3, 1/3 is < 1.5 ).
Reclaim[10], Robles further discloses, wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 is less than 1 (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3, in fig. 3 also, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3, 1/3 is < 1).
Reclaim[15], Robles further discloses A light detection system comprising: the light detection device according to claim 1 (see fig. 3); and a processing circuit, wherein the processing circuit reconstructs spectral images corresponding one-to-one to four or more wavelength bands from an image acquired by the image sensor (see ¶0060, FIG. 3 shows six spectral bands) .
Reclaim [16], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [1], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
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) [17] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganesian (US. 2015/0303231) in view of Robles-Kelly (US. 2019/0019829)herein after Robles.
Reclaim [17], Oganesian discloses a light detection device (see for example fig. 5 and ¶0029, exemplary pixels 16a, 16b, 16c together with their overlaying color filters 11a, 11b, 11c) comprising: a filter array including filters (see 11a-11c form the correctional view as depicted in fig. 5 and ¶0029, color filters 11a, 11b, 11c); and an image sensor including pixels see fig. 5 and ¶0029, Each pixel 16 includes a photo detector 20), the image sensor detecting light transmitted through the filter array (see fig.5 the light passing through the col9or filter array 11a-11c are detected by the photodiode 20aa-20c as depicted in fig. 5 and described in the text of paragraph [0029]), wherein the filters include first filters and second filters (see for example 11a and 11b as depicted in fig. 5), wherein each of the first filters has a first transmission spectrum having a first local maxima (see ¶¶0024, 0029,0030 and , color filters 11 arranged in an array, preferably but not necessarily formed contiguously together. Each color filter has a color transmission characteristic that dictates which color of light it will pass while, [by the virtue of transmitting different spectrum of light], for example red color has its own local maxima, see my response to applicant’s remark above as well), wherein each of the second filters has a second transmission spectrum having second local maxima (see ¶¶0024, 0029,0030, color filters 11 arranged in an array, preferably but not necessarily formed contiguously together. Each color filter has a color transmission characteristic that dictates which color of light it will pass while, [ by the virtue of transmitting different spectrum of light, for example blue color filter has its own local maxima, see also above my response to applicant’s remark above])) wherein the first transmission spectrum differs from the second transmission spectrum (see ¶0024, ach color filter has a color transmission characteristic that dictates which color of light it will pass while blocking other colors of light) , wherein the first filters are arranged irregularly in the filter array (see ¶0024, arranged in an array, preferably but not necessarily formed contiguously, [11b in fig. 5 is arranged irregularly in the pixel array, for example between larger size pixel arrays as depicted in fig. 5])), wherein the second filters are arranged irregularly in the filter array (see ¶0024, arranged in an array, preferably but not necessarily formed contiguously, [11a in fig. 5 is arranged irregularly in the pixel array, for example 11b is between 11a and 11c, as depicted in fig. 5]), wherein the filters are arranged in a matrix pattern along a first direction and a second direction crossing each other (see¶0024, color filters 11 arranged in an array, [the vertical and horizontal direction of the filter in the array are equated to the claimed first and second direction]), wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix pattern along a third direction and a fourth direction crossing each other (see fig. 5 and ¶0029, Each pixel 16 includes a photo detector 20, [ the portion of pixel array as depicted in fig. 5, the vertical and horizontal direction of the photodiodes in the array are equated to a third fourth direction crossing each other, sine the claim language is broader, it doesn’t require any specific layout]),
Oganesian doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses wherein Rp1 is a quotient obtained by dividing a pitch of the filters in the first direction by a pitch of the pixels in the third direction , wherein Rp2 is a quotient obtained by dividing a pitch of the filters in the second direction by a pitch of the pixels in the fourth direction, and wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 differs from 1.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Robles discloses an image processing system as Oganesian (see Robles fig. 3). Robles further discloses wherein Rp1 is a quotient obtained by dividing a pitch of the filters in the first direction by a pitch of the pixels in the third direction (see fig. 3, Rp1= 1/3, as a single filter is covering 3 pix in the horizontal direction as depicted in fig. 3) , wherein Rp2 is a quotient obtained by dividing a pitch of the filters in the second direction by a pitch of the pixels in the fourth direction (see fig. 3, Rp2= 1/3, as a single filter of other spectrum is covering 3 pix in the vertical direction as depicted in fig. 3), and wherein at least one of the Rp1 or the Rp2 differs from 1, (Rp1 and Rp2 are 1/3, as depicted in fig. 3).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify Oganesian before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, for example by configuring the imaging system of Oganesian, depicted in fig. 5, by the teaching of Robles, since this would allow to correctly reconstruct the multi spectral image of Oganesian (see ¶0086).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims [4-6, 11, 12-14 and 21-23 ] 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shioya (US. PAT. NO. 10,866,433) discloses: An optical element has a transmission spectrum characterized in that a local maximum falls within a wavelength region longer than 315 nm but shorter than or equal to 400 nm, a local minimum falls within a wavelength region longer than or equal to 380 nm but shorter than or equal to 500 nm, and a wavelength at the local maximum is shorter than a wavelength at the local minimum. In col. 1 lines 56-62.
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 AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights