Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/844,838

OPTICAL APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 06, 2024
Examiner
BILLAH, MASUM
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
335 granted / 419 resolved
+22.0% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
450
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
60.5%
+20.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 419 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the application 18/844,838 filed on 09/06/2024. Claims 1 – 12 have been examined and are pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "modulator", "synchronization controller", "calculator", “structuring unit” in claim 1 - 5, 9.. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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) 1 – 4 and 6 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Mizutani et al. (WO 2016027797 A1). Regarding claim 1, Mizutani discloses: “an optical apparatus comprising: a light source unit that structures light into a plurality of light and dark line patterns and emits the light structured [see page: 14; lines: 577; abstract: The light source 11 has a function for emitting a plurality of pattern lights having different intensity distributions]; a photodetector that detects, when an object is irradiated with the light emitted by the light source unit, light from the object [see page:7; lines: 279 - 282; (Photodetection Unit 21) The photodetection unit 21 includes a photodetector 21 a for detecting the transmitted light TL transmitted through the measurement target M, a lens 21 b for converging the transmitted light TL and supplying it to the photodetector 21 a]; a modulator that modulates a predetermined region of the object [see page:6; lines: 247 - 253; The modulator 13 modulates the polarization state of the polarized light converted by the polarizer 12 to form the irradiation light SL that irradiates the measurement target M. Specifically, linearly polarized light is periodically changed from linearly polarized light, and the polarization state of the irradiation light SL is changed in the order of linearly polarized light, elliptically polarized light, circularly polarized light, elliptically polarized light, and linearly polarized light]; a synchronization controller that synchronizes the irradiation of the light emitted by the light source unit with the modulator [see abstract: a polarization adjusting part 12 for periodically modulating the polarized state of light emitted by the light source 11 to form the irradiation light SL]; and a calculator that reconstructs a line image of the object by performing a cross-correlation operation between a signal outputted from the photodetector and a corresponding one of the plurality of light and dark line patterns [see page: 8 – 9; lines:340 - 360; (Polarization parameter calculation unit 31) First, the polarization parameter calculation unit 31 is based on the information on the pattern light emitted from the light source 11 and the information on the light (detection light) detected by the light detection unit 21 of the detection unit 20. It has a function of calculating the polarization parameter at each position. Specifically, the polarization parameter calculation unit 31 has a function of obtaining a cross-correlation between the pattern light and the detection light at each position and each time of the measurement target M. The cross correlation result is subjected to a Fourier transform such as FFT, and the result obtained by the Fourier transform is used to calculate the phase difference angle Δ and the amplitude ratio ψ, which are polarization parameters. First, the polarization parameter calculation unit 31 calculates a cross-correlation function between the pattern light and the detection light at each position and time of the measurement target M. The cross-correlation function at each position of the measurement target M can be obtained by the following equation. Note that n indicates the number of pattern light.G (x, y, t) = <I 1 (x, y, n) I 2 (t, n)>-<I 1 (x, y, n)><I 2 (t, n)>]. Regarding claim 2, Mizutani discloses: “wherein the light source unit includes: a light source [see page: 14; lines: 577; abstract: The light source 11 has a function for emitting a plurality of pattern lights having different intensity distributions]; and a structuring unit that structures light emitted by the light source into the plurality of light and dark line patterns [see page: 14; lines: 577; abstract: The light source 11 has a function for emitting a plurality of pattern lights having different intensity distributions]. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Mizutani discloses: “wherein the structuring unit is one of a digital mirror device, an active matrix liquid crystal device, or a spatial light modulator [see page: 6; lines: 219 – 221; As the light source 11, for example, a liquid crystal projector, a DLP type projector, or the like can be used, but it is not particularly limited as long as it has a function as described above]. Regarding claims 6, “wherein the light emitted by the light source unit contains a wavelength component of at least 2 pm and at most 10 pm” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of a desired different ranges of wavelengths to compare the result or intended use at a desired or targeted location. Regarding claim 7, Mizutani discloses: “wherein the light from the object is reflected light resulting from the object reflecting at least part of the light emitted by the light source unit [see page: 3 – 4; lines: 127 - 138; According to the first invention, since the polarization parameter of each part of the measured object can be obtained by the calculating means, it is possible to form the ghost image of the measured object based on the polarization parameter. If such a ghost image is formed, it is possible to spatially grasp the structure, defects, optical characteristics, etc. inside the object to be measured based on the ghost image. According to the second invention, it is possible to ascertain the fluctuation of the light transmitted through the measured object or the light reflected by the measured object in the case where the polarized light fluctuates by one cycle for each pattern. Then, since the direct current component in the signal detected by the detection means can be grasped appropriately, the polarization parameter can be appropriately calculated, and the ghost image can be formed with high accuracy]. Regarding claim 8, Mizutani discloses: “wherein the light from the object is transmitted light resulting from the object transmitting at least part of the light emitted by the light source unit [see page: 3 – 4; lines: 127 - 138; According to the first invention, since the polarization parameter of each part of the measured object can be obtained by the calculating means, it is possible to form the ghost image of the measured object based on the polarization parameter. If such a ghost image is formed, it is possible to spatially grasp the structure, defects, optical characteristics, etc. inside the object to be measured based on the ghost image. According to the second invention, it is possible to ascertain the fluctuation of the light transmitted through the measured object or the light reflected by the measured object in the case where the polarized light fluctuates by one cycle for each pattern. Then, since the direct current component in the signal detected by the detection means can be grasped appropriately, the polarization parameter can be appropriately calculated, and the ghost image can be formed with high accuracy]. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 6. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 7. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 8. 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. Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZUTANI et al. (WO 2016027797 A1) in view of TSUJITA (JP 2010017375 A). Regarding claim 5, Mizutani disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Mizutani does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the modulator is an ultrasonic generator that generates ultrasound”. However, TSUJITA, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the modulator is an ultrasonic generator that generates ultrasound [see para: 0004; Therefore, a method of combining with ultrasonic waves that can penetrate deeper into the living body has been attracting attention, and as one of them, an ultrasonic modulated optical tomographic imaging apparatus (UOT: Ultrasound modulated) using ultrasonic modulated light measurement. Optical Tomography) is known]. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measuring material by using ghost imaging system disclosed by Mizutani to add the teachings of TSUJITA as above, in order to combine with a optical tomographic imaging apparatus so that it can produce ultrasound and measuring the optical properties of a material two-dimensionally by the detector [TSUJITA see para: 0004]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Colosimo et al (US 20180143303 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET. 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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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. /MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603983
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING OBJECT-BASED STEREOSCOPIC IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597123
RAIL FEATURE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597258
ALERT DIRECTIVES AND FOCUSED ALERT DIRECTIVES IN A BEHAVIORAL RECOGNITION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591954
DEPTH INFORMATION DETECTOR, TIME-OF-FLIGHT CAMERA, AND DEPTH IMAGE ACQUISITION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581101
TEMPLATE MATCHING REFINEMENT FOR AFFINE MOTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 419 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month