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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20130027713-A1, US-20070165223-A1, US-20220146645-A1, US-20210072437-A1, US-20210112647-A1, US-5461239-A)
Conclusion
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: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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