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
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on April 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the imaging lens of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A light filtering structure . . . configured to filter the optical signal . . .” in claims 2, 3, and 5-7.
“A light splitting structure . . . configured to split the optical signal . . .” in claims 2 and 5-7.
“A light filtering structure . . . configured to filter the received optical signal . . .” in claim 4.
“An image capturing device” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As for claim 4, the claim recites that both the first and second optical structures comprise a light filtering structure, and that the light filtering structure is configured to filter the received optical signal to obtain the optical signal of the hyperspectral band and the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band. However, it is unclear whether “wherein both the first optical structure and the second optical structure comprise a light filtering structure” in lines 1-2 of the claim means that each of the first optical structure and the second optical structure comprises a light filtering structure, or if the same, single light filtering structure is used for both the first optical structure and the second optical structure. Additionally, claim 1 states that the first optical structure obtains the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band and the second optical structure obtains the optical signal of the hyperspectral band. Therefore, if there is only a single, joint light filtering structure used for both the first and second optical structures, how can it both filter the light to obtain the hyperspectral band and the red-green-blue band? Clarification is required. For purposes of examination below, the examiner will interpret the claim as if there is a light filtering structure for the first optical structure to obtain light of the red-green-blue spectral band and another light filtering structure for the second optical structure to obtain light of the hyperspectral band.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazliach et al (2019/0289228).
Regarding claim 1, Mazliach (Figs. 2 and 10) discloses an image sensor comprising an optical signal obtaining module (image sensor 150; see paragraph 0028), configured to obtain an optical signal of a red-green-blue spectral band (see paragraph 0027 which discloses red green blue imaging) and an optical signal of a hyperspectral band from a received optical signal (see paragraph 0029 which discloses hyperspectral imaging as a result of the spectral bands of each of the pixels as a result of the filter applied to each pixel), and convert the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band and the optical signal of the hyperspectral band into an electrical signal (see paragraph 0071; camera 500 of the entire system provides combined line images and spectral measurement to processor 502, with the signal sent from the camera to the processor inherently being electrical), wherein the optical signal obtaining module comprises a first optical structure 1521, 1523, 1525 corresponding to the red-green-blue spectral band (see paragraph 0027, where one filter is for the red spectral band, one is for the green, and one is for the blue) and a second optical structure 1522, 1524, 1526 corresponding to the hyperspectral band (see paragraph 0028-0029, disclosing a filter that is a Fabry-Perot filter that exhibits a response in the desired spectral band is used), the first optical structure is configured to obtain the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band from the received optical signal (see paragraph 0027 as discussed above), and the second optical structure is configured to obtain the optical signal of the hyperspectral band from the received optical signal (see paragraphs 0028-0029 as discussed above); and a communication interface configured to output the electrical signal (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0071 which inherently discloses a communication interface to output the electrical signal from the camera 500 to the processor 502).
As for claim 2, Mazliach discloses that the first optical structure is a light filtering structure that is configured to filter the optical signal to obtain the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band (see paragraph 0027), and the second optical structure comprises a light splitting structure which is configured to split the optical signal to obtain the optical signal of the hyperspectral band (see paragraph 0029; the disclosed Fabry-Perot filter is a light splitting structure that generates the optical signal in the hyperspectral band).
As for claim 3, Mazliach discloses that the light splitting structure is a Fabry-Perot cavity (see paragraph 0029; the disclosed Fabry-Perot filter is a light splitting structure that generates the optical signal in the hyperspectral band).
As for claim 4, in the best understanding of the examiner, Mazliach discloses that both the first and second optical structure comprise a light filtering structure, where the light filtering structure of the first optical structure filters the received optical signal to obtain the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band (see elements 1521, 1523, 1525 and paragraph 0027) and the light filtering structure of the second optical structure filters the received optical signal to obtain the optical signal of the hyperspectral band (see elements 1522, 1524, 1526 and paragraphs 0028-0029; the Fabry-Perot filter is disclosed as a filter in paragraph 0029).
As for claim 6, Mazliach discloses that the red-green-blue spectral band comprises a plurality of spectral sub-bands (see paragraph 0027 - 1521 corresponds to the red band, 1523 to the green band, and 1525 to the blue band), each region of a plurality of regions that is in the light filtering structure and that corresponds to a respective spectral sub-band of the plurality of spectral sub-bands is strip-shaped (see the strip shaped bands in Fig. 2), and the respective regions corresponding to different spectral sub-bands are arranged in parallel in a scanning direction (see Fig. 2 for the sub-bands being arranged in parallel, and see Fig. 10 with the arrangement of line scan camera 500 in comparison to the arrangement in Fig. 2 to see that the sub-bands are arranged in parallel in the scanning direction which is from left to right in Fig. 10 as elements 506 and 510 leave printing press 504 on web 508).
As for claim 8, Mazliach discloses that the first and second optical structure are located in different planes (as seen in Fig. 2, first optical structure 1521, for example, is in a different plane than second optical structure 1522 as a result of metal strip 1621 located between 1521 and 1522).
As for claim 9, Mazliach discloses that the optical signal obtaining module further comprises a photosensitive element configured to sense the optical signals from the first and second optical structures to obtain electrical signal (see the pixel lines disclosed in paragraph 0019).
As for claim 10, Mazliach discloses that the hyperspectral band comprises a visible spectral band (see wavelengths of 400 – 710 nm in paragraph 0028).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazliach et al (2019/0289228) in view of Bayer (3,971,065).
As for claim 5, Mazliach discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 2. Mazliach also discloses that the red-green-blue spectral band comprises a plurality of spectral sub-bands (see paragraph 0027 and the description of the red, green, and blue sub-bands therein), with regions that are in the light filtering structure and correspond to those spectral sub-bands (see paragraph 0027 - 1521 corresponds to the red band, 1523 to the green band, and 1525 to the blue band).
Mazliach fails to disclose that the filter is arranged in a Bayer pattern.
Bayer discloses a sensing array for color imaging that discloses the claimed Bayer pattern (see the abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the filtering structure of Mazliach with the Bayer pattern filter disclosed by Bayer, the motivation being, as taught by Bayer, “luminance elements occur at every other element position to provide a relatively high frequency sampling pattern which is uniform in two perpendicular directions (e.g., horizontal and vertical). The chrominance patterns are interlaid therewith and fill the remaining element positions to provide relatively lower frequencies of sampling” (see abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazliach et al (2019/0289228) in view of Wang et al (CN 111386549).
As for claim 7, Mazliach discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 2, but fails to disclose that the light filtering structure is prepared by using a chemical dye.
Wang, in a system for reconstructing a mixed hyperspectral image (see abstract) discloses that the RGB filter used for imaging is an RGB dye filter (see the first full paragraph of page 8 of the English translation).
As shown by Wang, dye filters are known in the art for their use as RGB filters in spectral imaging. Substituting the generic filter of Mazliach with the RGB filter of Wang would have therefore yielded predictable results of accurate light filtering by wavelength for imaging. As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light filtering structure of Mazliach be a dye filter as per Wang, the motivation being that one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a well known RGB filter such as the dye filter taught by Wang for accurate filtering of incoming light over the wavelength bands of an RGB filter. See also MPEP 2143 I. B.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazliach et al (2019/0289228) in view of Yoon et al (2021/0176412).
Regarding claim 11, Mazliach (Figs. 2 and 10) discloses an imaging module comprising an image sensor comprising an optical signal obtaining module (image sensor 150; see paragraph 0028), configured to obtain an optical signal of a red-green-blue spectral band (see paragraph 0027 which discloses red green blue imaging) and an optical signal of a hyperspectral band from a received optical signal (see paragraph 0029 which discloses hyperspectral imaging as a result of the spectral bands of each of the pixels as a result of the filter applied to each pixel), and convert the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band and the optical signal of the hyperspectral band into an electrical signal (see paragraph 0071; camera 500 of the entire system provides combined line images and spectral measurement to processor 502, with the signal sent from the camera to the processor inherently being electrical), wherein the optical signal obtaining module comprises a first optical structure 1521, 1523, 1525 corresponding to the red-green-blue spectral band (see paragraph 0027, where one filter is for the red spectral band, one is for the green, and one is for the blue) and a second optical structure 1522, 1524, 1526 corresponding to the hyperspectral band (see paragraph 0028-0029, disclosing a filter that is a Fabry-Perot filter that exhibits a response in the desired spectral band is used), the first optical structure is configured to obtain the optical signal of the red-green-blue spectral band from the received optical signal (see paragraph 0027 as discussed above), and the second optical structure is configured to obtain the optical signal of the hyperspectral band from the received optical signal (see paragraphs 0028-0029 as discussed above); and a communication interface configured to output the electrical signal (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0071 which inherently discloses a communication interface to output the electrical signal from the camera 500 to the processor 502).
Mazliach fails to disclose that the imaging module also comprise an imaging lens.
Yoon, in a dual camera module that includes RGB and hyperspectral imaging (see paragraph 0076) discloses (see Fig. 1) the use of a lens that is part of optical guide module 110A that is part of image sensor 110B (see paragraph 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an imaging lens to the imaging module of Mazliach as per Yoon, the motivation being that lenses are well known optical elements that are used to ensure that light passes from the object being measured to the image sensor for proper imaging of the object.
As for claim 12, Mazliach discloses that the imaging module is included in an image capturing device (see Fig. 10, sensor 501 as part of line scan camera 500).
As for claim 13, Mazliach discloses that the image capturing device further comprises a controller (processor 502) configured to control the optical signal obtaining module to perform line scanning on a target object (image 506 on a web 508; see paragraph 0069) in a preset scanning direction to obtain images of a plurality of scanning regions of the target object (for the line scanning in a preset scanning direction to obtain images of a plurality of scanning regions, see paragraph 0071).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 5,072,109 to Aguilera, Jr et al. discloses a photocell array with a multi-spectral filter that can be a dye filter (see Col. 12, line 61 – Col. 13, line 7); US 2015/0015692 to Smart discloses a hyperspectral imaging system with an imaging sensor array 615 and a filter array mask 613 for imaging a target scene 609 along with a lens 611 (see Fig. 6); and US 2016/0006954 to Robertson discloses a multispectral detection device on a moving platform 102 (see Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights