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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 14-15, 19 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2007/0206242).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a camera system, comprising:
a lens configured to capture light from a scene (Smith: see fig. 2B and par. [0021], wherein a lens 204 configured to capture light from a scene);
a reconfigurable spectral filter configured to receive the light captured from the scene and to transmit two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals (Smith: see fig. 2B and par. [0020], wherein a reconfigurable spectral filter 205 configured to receive the light captured from the scene and to transmit two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals); and
a detector configured to receive the two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals for detecting wavelengths of interest (Smith: see fig. 2B and par. [0021], in which a detector 203 configured to receive the two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals for detecting wavelengths of interest).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the reconfigurable spectral filter is situated in a same plane as the detector (Smith: see fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the wavelengths detected at the detector form an image (Smith: see fig. 4 and par. [0025], in which the wavelengths detected at the detector 203 form an image).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1, further comprising: a memory that stores a representation of an image based on the wavelengths detected at the detector (Smith: see fig. 7 and par. [0034], wherein a memory 994 that stores a representation of an image based on the wave lengths detected at the detector 203).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses a method, comprising:
at a camera system comprised of a lens configured to capture light from a scene, a reconfigurable spectral filter configured to receive the light captured from the scene and to transmit two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals, and a detector configured to receive the two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals for detecting wavelengths of interest (Smith: see fig. 2B and pars. [0020]-[0023], at a camera system 200 comprises of a lens 204 configured to capture light from a scene, a reconfigurable spectral filter 205 configured to receive the light captured from the scene and to transmit two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals, and a detector 203 configured to receive the two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals for detecting wavelengths of interest):
capturing, by the lens, the light from the scene (Smith: see fig. 2A, 2B and par. [0021], capturing, by the lens 204, the light from the scene);
receiving, by the reconfigurable spectral filter, the light captured from the scene and transmitting two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals (Smith: see fig. 2B and par. [0021], receiving, by the reconfigurable spectral filter 205, the light captured from the scene and transmitting two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals); and
receiving, by the detector, the two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals for detecting wavelengths of interest (Smith: see fig. 2B and par. [0021], receiving, by the detector 203, the two or more non-contiguous narrow spectral bandwidth signals for detecting wavelengths of interest).
Regarding claims 27-28, claims 27-28 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 14-15, respectively. Claims 27-28 are similar scope to claims 14-15, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 13, 20, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2007/0206242) in view of Delgado et al. (“Delgado”, US 2021/0153742).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1.
Smith does not explicitly disclose that the spectral filter includes a dispersive optical element configured to change a direction in which the light captured from the scene travels based on its wavelength or frequency, and a reconfigurable optical filter configured to select wavelengths transmitted based on the changed direction of the light.
On the other hand, Delgado teaches that the spectral filter includes a dispersive optical element configured to change a direction in which the light captured from the scene travels based on its wavelength or frequency, and a reconfigurable optical filter configured to select wavelengths transmitted based on the changed direction of the light (Delgado: see fig. 2B and par. [0043], note that reference director optic 256 includes a diffractive optical structure that is angle-selective and wavelength-selective to direct infrared reference beam 257 received from reference port 255 to imaging module 260).
One would have been modified to include the spectral filter as taught by Delgado in the apparatus of Smith to deliver spectral wavelength to the image sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Delgado with the Smith’s system to include that the spectral filter includes a dispersive optical element configured to change a direction in which the light captured from the scene travels based on its wavelength or frequency, and a reconfigurable optical filter configured to select wavelengths transmitted based on the changed direction of the light.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in the combination with Delgado discloses the camera system of claim 2.
Delgado further teaches that the lens is a focusing lens that focuses the light from the scene onto the dispersive optical element (Delgado: see fig. 2B and par. [0043]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 2.
Delgado further teaches that the dispersive optical element is a diffractive optical element (see fig. 2B and par. [0043]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Smith in the combination with Delgado discloses the camera system of claim 5.
Delgado further teaches that the diffractive optical element is a diffraction grating (Delgado: see par. [0043], wherein a diffractive optical structure is angle-selective which is a diffraction grating).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Smith in the combination with Delgado discloses the camera system of claim 5, wherein the diffractive optical element is a holographic element (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diffractive optical element is a holographic element).
Regarding claim 13, Smith in the combination with Delgado discloses the camera system of claim 2.
Delgado further teaches that the spectral filter includes:
a diffractive optical element configured to change a direction of the light per spectral band or group of spectral bands (Delgado: see par. [0043], wherein a diffractive optical element 256 configured to change a direction of the light per spectral band or group of spectral bands),
a beam splitter configured to receive the light from the diffractive optical element, to filter a first portion of the light, and to transmit a second portion of the light (Delgado: see fig. 4B and par. [0057], a beam splitter 168 configured to receive the light from the diffractive optical element, to filter a first portion of the light and to transmit a second portion of the light), and
a spatial light modulator (SLM) configured to receive the second portion of the light from the beam splitter and to transmit the wavelengths of the second portion of the light that are in a preselected subset of spectral bands (Delgado: see fig. 4A and par. [0057], in which a spatial light modulator 168 configured to receive the second portion of the light from the beam splitter and to transmit the wavelengths of the second portion of the light that are in a preselected subset of spectral bands).
Regarding claims 20, 22-23, 26, claims 20, 22-23, 26 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 2, 5-6, 13, respectively. Claims 20, 22-23, 26 are similar scope to claims 2, 5-6, 13, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2007/0206242) in view of Delgado et al. (“Delgado”, US 2021/0153742) and further in view of Chen et al. (“Chen”, US 2022/0247992).
Regarding claim 4, Smith in the combination with Delgado discloses the camera system of claim 2, wherein the lens is near the dispersive optical element to be parallel to an optical axis of the reconfigurable optical filter (Smith: see fig. 2B and see the analysis of claim 2).
Smith in the combination with Delgado does not explicitly disclose that the lens is a telecentric lens that change angle of the light focused.
Nevertheless, Chen teaches that the lens is a telecentric lens that change angle of the light focused (Chen: see fig. 1 and par. [0023], wherein the lens 102 is a telecentric lens that change angle of the light focused).
One would have been modified to substitute a telecentric lens as taught by Chen in the apparatus of Smith and Delgado to obtain constant magnification, eliminates parallax error and removes perspective distortion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen with the Smith and Delgado’s system to include that the lens is a telecentric lens that change angle of the light focused.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claim 4. Claim 21 are similar scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 16-18 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2007/0206242).
Regarding claim 16, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1.
Smith does not explicitly disclose comprising: a control element configured to receive a selection of non-contiguous narrow spectral bands of interest.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a control element configured to receive a selection of non-contiguous narrow spectral bands of interest is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a control element into Smith’s system to select the spectral bands of interest.
The rational to do so is to identify the spectral characteristics of different scene.
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 16.
Smith does not explicitly disclose the control element is manipulatable by a user of the camera system for inputting the selection.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a control element manipulatable by a user of the camera system for inputting the selection is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a control element into Smith’s system to select the spectral bands of interest.
The rational to do so is to be flexible in selecting the spectral bands as desired by a user.
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the non-contiguous narrow spectral bands of interest are chosen randomly.
Smith does not explicitly disclose the non-contiguous narrow spectral bands of interest are chosen randomly.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that the non-contiguous narrow spectral bands of interest are chosen randomly is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate that teaching into Smith’s system to select the spectral bands of interest randomly.
The rational to do so is to obtain different type of image data.
Regarding claims 29-31, claims 29-31 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 16-18, respectively. Claims 29-31 are similar scope to claims 16-18, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2007/0206242) in view of Delgado et al. (“Delgado”, US 2021/0153742) and further in view of Ray et al. (“Ray”, US 2003/0147002).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in the combination with Delgado discloses the camera system of claim 2.
Smith in the combination with Delgado does not explicitly disclose that the optical filter is a rotating filter.
However, Ray teaches that the optical filter is a rotating filter (Ray: see fig. 1 and par. [0045], wherein the spectral filter includes a color filter wheel 50 comprised of a plurality of filter each configured to transmit wavelengths for one or more different spectral bands as red, green, blue…).
One would have been modified to include a color filter wheel as taught by Ray in the apparatus of Smith and Delgado to maximum sensor resolution, superior light sensitivity and automated convenience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ray with the Smith and Delgado’s system to include that the optical filter is a rotating filter.
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2007/0206242) in view of Ray et al. (“Ray”, US 2003/0147002).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses the camera system of claim 1.
Smith does not explicitly disclose that the spectral filter includes a color filter wheel comprised of a plurality of filters each configured to transmit wavelengths for one or more different spectral bands.
However, Ray teaches that the spectral filter includes a color filter wheel comprised of a plurality of filters each configured to transmit wavelengths for one or more different spectral bands (Ray: see fig. 1 and par. [0045], wherein the spectral filter includes a color filter wheel 50 comprised of a plurality of filter each configured to transmit wavelengths for one or more different spectral bands as red, green, blue…).
One would have been modified to include a color filter wheel as taught by Ray in the apparatus of Smith to maximum sensor resolution, superior light sensitivity and automated convenience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ray with the Smith’s system to include a color filter wheel comprised of a plurality of filters each configured to transmit wavelengths for one or more different spectral bands.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claim 11. Claim 25 is similar scope to claim 11, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN T H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/CHAN T NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights