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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/059279 A1 to Aoki et al. (cited by Applicant in the April 1, 2025 IDS, which included a copy of the reference; citations are made to corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0221601 to Aoki et al.)
Regarding Claim 1, Aoki discloses (e.g., at least starting with the thirteenth embodiment, illustrated in part in Figs. 40–52 and their description, where it would have been obvious to incorporate features from the other embodiments where the description is silent regarding certain features, or where such features are generally interchangeable, e.g., paragraph [0536]) a liquid crystal optical shutter PCA configured to form a mask used in coded imaging (e.g., Coded Aperture Pair CAP, paragraph [0553]) comprising: a first transparent electrode layer (e.g., paragraph [0145], pixel and common electrodes PE/CE of LC panel PNL); a second transparent electrode layer disposed opposite the first transparent electrode layer and having a plurality of transparent segment electrodes (paragraphs [0145] and [0686]); a liquid crystal layer disposed between the first transparent electrode layer and the second transparent electrode layer (paragraph [0145]; Fig. 17, LC1 between control electrodes RL1/RL2); and a light-shielding layer (e.g., BM1, Fig. 40) in which an aperture OP1 corresponding to a region including a light entry region of an optical system used for the coded imaging and wider than the light entry region (e.g., Fig. 40), and configured to shield light in a region outside the aperture (Fig. 40), wherein the plurality of segment electrodes includes a peripheral segment electrode corresponding to a peripheral region of the light entry region including an outline of the aperture (e.g., Fig. 62, paragraphs [0589]–[0590]), and wherein the mask is formed by controlling electrical signals applied to the first transparent electrode layer and each of the plurality of segment electrodes (e.g., paragraphs [0553]–[0555]).
Regarding Claim 2, Aoki would have rendered obvious wherein the light entry region is a circular region, and wherein the peripheral segment electrode has a ring shape (e.g., Figs. 44–50 and 53–69 illustrating various shape alternatives).
Regarding Claim 3, Aoki would have rendered obvious wherein a plurality of the masks being different from each other is formed by controlling electrical signals applied to the first transparent electrode layer and each of the plurality of segment electrodes (e.g., generally how segmented LC is controlled; also paragraphs [0146], [0164], [0226]–[0229], and [0258]).
Regarding Claim 4, Aoki would have rendered obvious wherein a segment corresponding to the peripheral segment electrode is in a light-shielding state when the mask is formed (e.g., Figs. 44–50 and 53–69).
Regarding Claim 5, Aoki would have rendered obvious wherein a width of the peripheral segment electrodes is 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less (where Aoki teaches in paragraph [0296] a thickness of the control electrodes being 390 µm; however, selecting another size based on design considerations, such as overall size of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 6, Aoki would have rendered obvious wherein, of the plurality of segment electrodes, two or more segment electrodes corresponding to segments that are commonly in a light-shielding state when the plurality of masks is formed include the peripheral segment electrode and are connected to each other (e.g., Figs. 44–50 and 53–69 and 74–91, illustrating various segment electrode configurations).
Regarding Claims 7-12, these claims recite the same features as Claims 1-6, respectively, with the addition of the liquid crystal optical shutter being part of an imaging device, which Aoki discloses (e.g., at least paragraph [0100]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights