Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). On pages 5-8, Applicant argued that Shinohara does not teach at least the feature of “a diffraction grating disposed between the aperture stop and the FPA, wherein the grating is configured to transmit input light passing through the aperture stop towards the FPA and is further configured to deviate reflections arising from the FPA in response to the input light outside the aperture stop.” However, as explained in the rejection, Stein teaches a diffraction grating disposed between the aperture stop and the FPA (Fig. 3, diffraction grating 30), wherein the grating is configured to transmit input light passing through the aperture stop towards the FPA (see Fig. 3). On the other hand, Shinohara is used to show that a diffraction grating can be configured to deviate reflections arising from an FPA (paragraph 0029, Light traveling from the semiconductor layer 101 to the aperture portion 110 is diffracted (deflected) by the diffraction grating 212, thereby reducing the ratio of light exiting from the aperture portion 110) in response to input light outside the aperture stop (as shown in FIG. 3 of Stein). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein (US 2009/0182690) in view of Shinohara (US 2019/0198541).
As per claim 1, Stein discloses an imaging system comprising:
a housing (Fig. 3, hood enclosure 20) defining an aperture stop (Fig. 3; paragraph 0049, Hood enclosure 20 (or baffle) restricts the FOV to around 18 degrees);
a focal plane array (FPA) (Fig. 3, image sensor 50; paragraph 0044, A lens 40 focuses light from light sources onto images on image sensor 50 in the focal plane of lens 40); and
a diffraction grating disposed between the aperture stop and the FPA (Fig. 3, diffraction grating 30), wherein the grating is configured to transmit input light passing through the aperture stop towards the FPA (see Fig. 3)
However, Stein does not explicitly disclose a diffraction grating configured to deviate reflections arising from the FPA in response to the input light outside the aperture stop.
In an analogous art, Shinohara discloses a diffraction grating configured to deviate reflections arising from the FPA in response to the input light outside the aperture stop (paragraph 0029, Light traveling from the semiconductor layer 101 to the aperture portion 110 is diffracted (deflected) by the diffraction grating 212, thereby reducing the ratio of light exiting from the aperture portion 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stein in view of Shinohara, by having a diffraction grating that is configured to deviate reflections arising from the focal plane, thus reducing the ratio of light exiting from the aperture portion (Shinohara, paragraph 0029).
As per claim 2, Stein discloses wherein the grating is blazed (paragraph 0072, diffraction grating 30 is a blazed diffraction grating).
As per claim 4, Stein discloses wherein at least 75% of energy of light diffracted by the blazed grating is focused on one diffraction order other than a zeroth diffraction order (paragraph 0072, diffraction grating 30 is blazed at or near spectral peaks of known light sources, e.g. headlights, taillights, expected to be found in the vicinity of motor vehicles).
As per claim 5, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claim 5.
As per claim 6, Shinohara discloses wherein the imaging system lacks optical components between the grating and the FPA (see Fig. 3).
As per claim 7, Stein discloses wherein the grating has a spatial periodicity between 20 l/mm and 2000 l/mm (paragraph 0058, Diffraction grating 30 has a groove density n=500 lines per mm).
As per claim 8, Stein disclose wherein the FPA comprises a sensor array (Fig. 3, image sensor 50); however, although a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor array was not disclosed, it would have been obvious to use a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor array since it is well-known in the art (Official Notice).
As per claim 9, Stein and Shinohara disclose the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the FPA is sensitive to infrared light (Stein; paragraphs 0043 and 0070; Fig. 6. Shinohara, paragraph 0004).
As per claim 10, Stein discloses wherein the grating and the FPA are distinct components (see Fig. 3).
As per claim 11, Shinohara discloses wherein the grating and the FPA are co-integrated monolithically (see Figs. 3-4).
As per claim 12, Stein discloses one or more lenses between the aperture stop and the grating (see Fig. 3).
As per claim 14, Stein discloses an imaging system comprising:
a housing (Fig. 3, hood enclosure 20) defining an aperture stop configured for passage of input light (Fig. 3; paragraph 0049, Hood enclosure 20 (or baffle) restricts the FOV to around 18 degrees);
a focal plane array (FPA) (Fig. 3, image sensor 50; paragraph 0044, A lens 40 focuses light from light sources onto images on image sensor 50 in the focal plane of lens 40) patterned with a diffraction grating (see Fig. 3, diffraction grating 30).
However, Stein does not explicitly disclose wherein the grating is configured to direct the reflected input light outside the aperture stop.
In an analogous art, Shinohara discloses wherein the grating is configured to direct the reflected input light outside the aperture stop (paragraph 0029, Light traveling from the semiconductor layer 101 to the aperture portion 110 is diffracted (deflected) by the diffraction grating 212, thereby reducing the ratio of light exiting from the aperture portion 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stein in view of Shinohara, by having a diffraction grating that is configured to deviate reflections arising from the focal plane, thus reducing the ratio of light exiting from the aperture portion (Shinohara, paragraph 0029).
As per claims 15 and 17-18, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 2 and 4-5 are applicable for claims 15 and 17-18.
As per claim 19, Shinohara discloses wherein the diffraction grating is formed as part of an absorption region of the FPA (see Fig. 3).
As per claim 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 12 are applicable for claims 20.
6. Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein (US 2009/0182690) in view of Shinohara (US 2019/0198541) in further view of Ushigome (US 2012/0176622).
As per claim 3, Stein and Shinora disclose the imaging system of claim 2; however, Stein or Shinora do not explicitly disclose wherein the grating is a multi-layer blazed grating.
In an analogous art, Kudenov discloses wherein the grating comprises an antireflection structure (Abstract, Multi-blazed gratings can be used so that modulations at a plurality of spatial frequencies are produced, with each spatial frequency corresponding to a spectral component of an input optical flux).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stein and Shinohara, by using a multi-layer blazed grating, thus producing modulations at a plurality of spatial frequencies, with each spatial frequency corresponding to a spectral component of an input optical flux (Kudenov, Abstract).
As per claim 16, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 3 are applicable for claims 16.
7. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein (US 2009/0182690) in view of Shinohara (US 2019/0198541) in further view of Ushigome (US 2016/0334635).
As per claim 13, Stein and Shinora disclose the imaging system of claim 1; however, Stein or Shinora do not explicitly disclose wherein the grating comprises an antireflection structure.
In an analogous art, Ushigome discloses wherein the grating comprises an antireflection structure (paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stein and Shinohara, by having the grating comprises an antireflection structure, thus preventing reflection which does not influence the travelling directions of the input light.
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 MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00am-10:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights