DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication filed on June 11, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the '811 application relates to a fundamentally different architecture with respect to the '246 application, in which polarization separation is performed at the level of the image sensor.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Rubin et al. (i.e. the ‘246 application) and Fritz et al. (i.e. the ‘811 application) capture multiple polarized images offset in the image plane. Rubin et al. is relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 to teach that the polarization separation is performed at the level of the optical system, as is required by the claims. Whether Fritz et al. teaches this is inconsequential, as Fritz et al. is not relied upon to teach where the polarization is performed at. The polarization (figure 8, paragraph 0029) of Fritz et al. is only cited by the Examiner to show that Fritz et al. is similarly capturing multiple polarized images.
Applicant asserts, with respect to claim 1, that in the '811 application, the "crosstalk" that is addressed is the crosstalk between adjacent pixels, and in order to mitigate the inter-pixel crosstalk, the '811 application employs vertical walls for separating the pixels from one another. Thus, the '811 application discloses trenches or walls to optically isolate the pixels from one another. Thus, the '811 isolation walls do not transmit, to a subset of pixels, the incident light beams coming from the associated exit pupil, and at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from other of the exit pupils, as required by amended Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Fritz et al., the isolation walls (23, figure 3) transmit, to a subset of pixels (i.e. a subset of photodetectors (22), figure 3), the incident light beams coming from an associated exit pupil (i.e. of microlens 21, see figures 3 and 6, paragraphs 0026 and 0028), and at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from other of the exit pupils (i.e. so as to reduce crosstalk, see paragraph 0028). Fritz et al. makes clear that the crosstalk is “optical signal crosstalk” (paragraph 0028), and is thus crosstalk of optical images, and not simply crosstalk between pixels as asserted by Applicant.
Finally, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the '811 application does not address the issue of polarization crosstalk.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., addressing the issue of polarization crosstalk) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained by the Examiner.
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2024/0210246) in view of Fritz et al. (US 2006/0055811).
The Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments, as outlined above, is hereby incorporated into the rejection of claims 1-9 by reference.
Consider claim 1, Rubin et al. teaches:
A polarimetric camera (figure 1), comprising an optical system (optics, 150, paragraphs 0038 and 0044) and an image sensor (image sensor, 160, paragraphs 0038 and 0045), wherein
the optical system (150), having a principal optical axis (see figure 1), configured to form, on the image sensor (160), at least N spatially distinct images of a scene to be imaged (e.g. four images, see figures 3A-3C, paragraphs 0045, 0060 and 0063), at the rate of one image per polarization state (see figures 3A-3C, paragraphs 0040, 0045, 0046, 0060 and 0061), with N greater than or equal to 2 (i.e. 4), N being a predefined number of polarization states (i.e. four polarization states, see figures 3A-3C, paragraphs 0040, 0045, 0046, 0060 and 0061),
the optical system further includes a polarization separator (attachment, 140, paragraphs 0038 and 0040) adapted to divert incident light beams coming from the scene to be imaged according to the N polarization states (The attachment (140) separates the incident light according to polarization states, as detailed in paragraphs 0040-0043.), the optical system (150) having at least N exit pupils at least partly offset in pairs orthogonally to the principal optical axis (i.e. so as to form the four images on the four corners of the image sensor, as shown in figures 3B and 3C);
the image sensor (160) includes a plurality of detection pixels each comprising a photodetector (The image sensor (160) may be a CCD or CMOS imaging device which captures image frames, as detailed in paragraph 0045 and shown in figures 3B and 3C. Such an image sensor necessarily has a plurality of detection pixels each comprising a photodetector.);
the detection pixels being distributed in at least N subsets of pixels, each associated with an exit pupil of the exit pupils, and each configured to receive the incident light beams according to the polarization state of the associated exit pupil (i.e. so as to capture the four images on the four corners of the image sensor, as shown in figures 3B and 3C).
However, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach that the image sensor includes at least N angular filters located between the optical system and the photodetectors, each angular filter being configured to transmit, to a subset of pixels, the incident light beams coming from the associated exit pupil, and to at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from other of the exit pupils.
Fritz et al. similarly teaches a camera (figure 3) with an image sensor (photodetector array, 19) divided into units (24) of photodetectors (22) which each capture respective images (see figures 3 and 4, paragraphs 0026 and 0027), wherein polarizers (25, 26, figure 8) are respectively associated with each of the units (24, see paragraph 0029).
However, Fritz et al. additionally teaches that the image sensor includes at least N angular filters (walls, 23, see figures 3 and 6) located between the optical system (21) and the photodetectors (22, see figures 3 and 6, paragraphs 0026 and 0028), each angular filter (23) being configured to transmit, to a subset of pixels (22), the incident light beams coming from the associated exit pupil (i.e. of microlens 21, see figures 3 and 6, paragraphs 0026 and 0028), and to at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from other exit pupils (i.e. so as to reduce crosstalk, see paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include at least N angular filters as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of improving image quality by reducing crosstalk (Fritz et al., paragraph 0028).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. further teaches that the pixels of the subset of pixels are adjacent (see figures 3B and 3C).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach the angular filters.
Fritz et al. teaches that the N angular filters (23) are disposed so as to be coplanar (see figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include at least N angular filters configured as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of improving image quality by reducing crosstalk (Fritz et al., paragraph 0028).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach the angular filters.
Fritz et al. teaches the N angular filters (23) are formed in a same grid having openings sized to transmit, to the subset of pixels (22), the incident light beams coming from the associated exit pupil (see figures 3, 4 and 6), and to at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from the other exit pupil or pupils (see figure 6, paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include at least N angular filters configured as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of improving image quality by reducing crosstalk (Fritz et al., paragraph 0028).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach the angular filters.
Fritz et al. teaches that the grid is opaque (“an opaque wall 23” paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include at least N angular filters configured as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of improving image quality by reducing crosstalk (Fritz et al., paragraph 0028).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach that the image sensor further comprises a plurality of microlenses, configured to focus the incident light beams on the photodetectors of the detection pixels, and located between the optical system and the angular filters.
Fritz et al. further teaches a plurality of microlenses (21, paragraph 0026), adapted to focus the incident light beams on the photodetectors (22) of the detection pixels (see figures 3 and 6, paragraphs 0026 and 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include a plurality of microlenses as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of improving image quality by reducing crosstalk (Fritz et al., paragraph 0028).
The combination of Rubin et al. and Fritz et al. teaches that the plurality of microlenses is located between the optical system and the angular filters, as Fritz et al. teaches that the plurality of microlenses (21) is attached to the angular filters (23) which are attached to the image sensor (see figures 3 and 6), and Rubin et al. teaches that the optical system (150) is separated from the image sensor (160, see figures 1 and 3B).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. further teaches that the polarization separator (140) is a bidimensional metasurface (see figures 1, 3A and 3B, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0029, 0037 and 0040).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach that the image sensor includes at least N polarizing filters located between the optical system and the angular filters, configured to transmit, to the subset of pixels, the incident light beams coming from the associated exit pupil and having the associated polarization state, and to at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from the other exit pupils and therefore having other polarization states.
Fritz et al. further teaches that the image sensor includes at least N polarizing filters (polarizers, 25, 26, figure 8) located between the optical system and the angular filters (“The polarizers may be set at the microlens array 17 and at the photodetector array 19.” paragraph 0029), adapted to transmit, to a subset (unit, 24) of pixels (22), the incident light beams coming from the associated exit pupil and having the associated polarization state, and to at least partly filter the incident light beams coming from the other exit pupils and therefore having other polarization states (see paragraph 0029, figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include a least N polarizing filters as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of enabling polarization sensitive sensing (Fritz et al., paragraph 0029).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Rubin et al. does not explicitly teach that the image sensor includes at least N polarizing filters.
Fritz et al. teaches that the N polarizing filters (25, 26) are disposed so as to be coplanar (see figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Rubin et al. include a least N polarizing filters configured as taught by Fritz et al. for the benefit of enabling polarization sensitive sensing (Fritz et al., paragraph 0029).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2024/0210246) in view of Fritz et al. (US 2006/0055811) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kushida et al. (US 2024/0213282).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 8 above, the combination of Rubin et al. and Fritz et al. does not explicitly teach that the N polarizing filters are produced in a same metal structure.
Kushida et al. similarly teaches an imaging device (see figure 4) having a polarizer (60) including N polarizing filters (see figure 5A, paragraphs 0073-0076).
However, Kushida et al. additionally teaches that the N polarizing filters are produced in one and the same metal structure (The polarizing filters of Kushida et al. are formed as a wire grid polarizer (60) made of metal, paragraphs 0073-0077, figure 5A.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the N polarizing filters taught by the combination of Rubin et al. and Fritz et al. be produced in one and the same metal structure as taught by Kushida et al. for the benefit of compensating for sensitivity lowering (Kushida et al., paragraph 0005).
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 ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights