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 Amendment
The amendment filed on July 1, 2026, in response to the previous Office Action (04/01/2026) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 15 and 17 – 20 are currently pending.
Claims 3, 8, and 16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 – 14, 19 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosier (US 2002/0153471) in view of Rice (US 2003/0002028).
Regarding claim 1, Hosier discloses a pixel array for generating color-accurate images of biological tissue, wherein each pixel of the pixel array comprises: a plurality of subpixels (16), wherein each subpixel has at least one photodiode (fig. 9; ¶34: photosensors); and a plurality of color filters comprising: a red wavelength high-pass color filter (RHP); an orange wavelength high-pass color filter (OHP); a green wavelength band-pass color filter (G); and a blue wavelength band-pass color filter (B) (fig. 9; ¶34). Hosier fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the red wavelength high-pass color filter has an edge at 610 nm ± 10 nm; the orange wavelength high-pass color filter has an edge at 540 nm ± 10 nm; the green wavelength band-pass color filter has a low edge at 478 nm ± 10 nm and a high edge at 565 nm ± 10 nm; and the blue wavelength band-pass color filter has a low edge at 390 nm ± 10 nm and a high edge at 510 nm ± 10 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Rice teaches an image sensor and method for measuring tissue optical properties in a non-invasive in vivo measurement (¶96), that includes a wavelength filter wheel 30 containing a number of optical bandpass filters designed to block light transmission in all but a selected range of visible-light wavelengths. One standard installation includes 3 filters; a shortpass filter 30a, for wavelengths less than 510 nm (blue light filter), a midpass filter 30b having a bandpass in the 500-570 nm range (green light filter), and a longpass filter for wavelengths greater than 590 nm (red light filter); and in some applications, filters can provide more precise bandpass, e.g., every 20 nm (¶64). In light of the teaching of Rice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Rice’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a device with capable of non-invasive imaging of animal tissue. Rice fails to explicitly disclose the specific wavelengths for the filters, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose filter edges having an optimal range for each of the filters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Hosier discloses a system for generating color-accurate images of biological tissue comprising: an image sensor configured to capture and transmit an image of biological tissue, comprising: a pixel array, wherein each pixel of the pixel array comprises: a plurality of subpixels (16), wherein each subpixel has at least one photodiode (fig. 9; ¶34: photosensors); and a plurality of color filters comprising: a red wavelength high-pass color filter (RHP); an orange wavelength high-pass color filter (OHP); a green wavelength band-pass color filter (G); and a blue wavelength band-pass color filter (B) (fig. 9; ¶34). Hosier fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the red wavelength high-pass color filter has an edge at 610 nm ± 10 nm; the orange wavelength high-pass color filter has an edge at 540 nm ± 10 nm; the green wavelength band-pass color filter has a low edge at 478 nm ± 10 nm and a high edge at 565 nm ± 10 nm; and the blue wavelength band-pass color filter has a low edge at 390 nm ± 10 nm and a high edge at 510 nm ± 10 nm; a light source; and a control unit, wherein the control unit is electrically coupled to the pixel array and the light source; and a processor configured to receive the image of biological tissue.
In a similar field of endeavor, Rice teaches an image sensor and method for measuring tissue optical properties in a non-invasive in vivo measurement (¶96), that includes a wavelength filter wheel 30 containing a number of optical bandpass filters designed to block light transmission in all but a selected range of visible-light wavelengths. One standard installation includes 3 filters; a shortpass filter 30a, for wavelengths less than 510 nm (blue light filter), a midpass filter 30b having a bandpass in the 500-570 nm range (green light filter), and a longpass filter for wavelengths greater than 590 nm (red light filter); and in some applications, filters can provide more precise bandpass, e.g., every 20 nm (¶64). Rice also teaches a light source (¶89, 91, 99, 116), a control unit (¶65-66: 34), and a processor (¶66: 40). In light of the teaching of Rice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Rice’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a device with capable of non-invasive imaging of animal tissue. Rice fails to explicitly disclose the specific wavelengths for the filters, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose filter edges having an optimal range for each of the filters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 6. Rice also teaches wherein the control unit is configured to apply the plurality of color filters to the image of biological tissue (¶64-65).
Regarding claim 12, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 6. Hosier also teaches wherein the plurality of color filters further comprises an infrared cut-off filter (¶29).
Regarding claim 13, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 6. Rice also teaches wherein the image sensor is electrically coupled to the processor; and wherein the image sensor is configured to transmit the image of biological tissue to the processor through a physical connection (fig. 1; ¶64-66).
Claim 14, 19 – 20 rejected as applied to claim 6 and 12 – 13 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Hosier in view of Rice.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 10, 15 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosier in view of Rice in view of Adler (US 2006/0221218).
Regarding claim 2, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosier also teaches wherein the plurality of color filters are arranged in a two-dimensional grid having a plurality of rows and columns (fig. 9). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein individual filters of the plurality of color filters alternate colors by their respective rows and columns.
In a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches an image sensor with improved color filter and endoscopic imaging applications wherein the RGBO color filter is arranged such that the color filters alternate (fig. 5; ¶93). In light of the teaching of Adler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Adler’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved sensitivity of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of color filters is comprised of an equal number of red wavelength high-pass color filters, orange wavelength high-pass filters, green wavelength band-pass color filters, and blue wavelength band-pass color filters.
In a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches an image sensor with improved color filter and endoscopic imaging applications wherein the RGBO color filter is arranged such that the color filters alternate and there are an equal number of each color filter (fig. 5; ¶93). In light of the teaching of Adler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Adler’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved sensitivity of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 7, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 6. Hosier also teaches wherein the plurality of color filters are arranged in a two-dimensional grid having a plurality of rows and columns (fig. 9). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein individual filters of the plurality of color filters alternate colors by their respective rows and columns.
In a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches an image sensor with improved color filter and endoscopic imaging applications wherein the RGBO color filter is arranged such that the color filters alternate (fig. 5; ¶93). In light of the teaching of Adler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Adler’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved sensitivity of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 10, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 6. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of color filters is comprised of an equal number of red wavelength high-pass color filters, orange wavelength high-pass filters, green wavelength band-pass color filters, and blue wavelength band-pass color filters.
In a similar field of endeavor, Adler teaches an image sensor with improved color filter and endoscopic imaging applications wherein the RGBO color filter is arranged such that the color filters alternate and there are an equal number of each color filter (fig. 5; ¶93). In light of the teaching of Adler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Adler’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved sensitivity of the image sensor.
Claim 15 and 18 rejected as applied to claim 7 and 10 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Hosier in view of Rice.
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosier in view of Rice in view of Ogino (US 2022/0095891).
Regarding claim 4, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pixel array is configured to generate color-accurate images of biological tissue within a Rec. 2020 color gamut.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ogino teaches converting data to a color that covers a wide color gamut of a specification specified in international specification BT.2020 for ultra-high-definition (¶21). In light of the teaching of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Adler’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved display able to highlight specific biotissue, such as a blood vessel.
Regarding claim 9, Hosier in view of Rice discloses the limitations of claim 6. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pixel array is configured to generate color-accurate images of biological tissue within a Rec. 2020 color gamut.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ogino teaches converting data to a color that covers a wide color gamut of a specification specified in international specification BT.2020 for ultra-high-definition (¶21). In light of the teaching of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Adler’s teaching in Hosier’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved display able to highlight specific biotissue, such as a blood vessel.
Claim 17 rejected as applied to claim 9 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Hosier in view of Rice in view of Ogino.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
