CTNF 18/936,248 CTNF 82640 DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to application 18/936,248 filed on November 4, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application and have been examined by the examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/04/2024 and 12/31/2024 were received and have been considered by the Examiner. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on November 13, 2023 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2312380 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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) . Consider claim 1, Rubin et al. teaches: A polarimetric camera (figure 1), including an optical system (optics, 150, paragraphs 0038 and 0044) and an image sensor (image sensor, 160, paragraphs 0038 and 0045): the optical system (150), having a principal optical axis (see figure 1), being adapted 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), and including: a polarization separator (attachment, 140, paragraphs 0038 and 0040) adapted to divert the 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) then 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) including 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, and each intended 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 adapted 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 the other exit pupil or 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 adapted 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 the other exit pupil or 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 a 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 one and the same grid having openings sized to transmit, to a 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 includes a plurality of microlenses, adapted 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, adapted to transmit, to a 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) . 07-22-aia AIA 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 one and the 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schultz et al. (US 2008/0088842) teaches a polarimetric imaging device (figure 5) including an objective lens, polarization filters, and an image sensor (see figure 5). 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 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/936,248 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights