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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, Applicant argues that,
“The Examiner contends that Aikio teaches the basic catadioptric surround-view imager and that it would have been obvious to modify Aikio's top surface with the spectral filtering element taught by Uemura to separate visible and near-infrared light for a second detector. This reasoning is traversed as it constitutes an improper hindsight reconstruction and, in particular, fails to arrive at the claimed invention.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate the spectral filtering element taught by Uemura into the Aikio's top surface without using an improper hindsight because (1) without splitting infrared light from the input light, the infrared light would cause noise in the image captured by the first detector, and (2) the split infrared light can be captured to supplement the visible light image.
As such, incorporating the teachings of Uemura into the top surface of Aikio would have been advantageous in enhancing the quality of the captured image as described in the Office Action.
On pages 4-5, Applicant argues that,
“Moreover, claim 1, as amended, is patentable over the cited combination because the prior art, whether considered individually or combined, fails to teach or suggest the specific architecture of arranging two image detectors opposite one another along a common vertical axis.
Aikio alone is deficient. The Aikio reference discloses a catadioptric lens system for surround view imaging but teaches a system with only a single image detector (DET1, see Aikio: FIG. 12). Aikio provides no teaching or motivation whatsoever for incorporating a second detector, let alone arranging two detectors in the specific opposite configuration recited in claim 1, as amended.”
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the motivation for incorporating a second detector to capture the transmitted light in a second spectrum would have been advantageous in supplementing the captured image with at least extra information that can be processed to sharpen the captured image and/or determine depth of objects in the captured image.
On pages 5-6, Applicant argues that,
“Uemura does not cure the deficiency. The Examiner relies on Uemura to provide the
teaching of a second detector for a different spectral range. While Uemura may disclose splitting an optical path to a first detector (110) for a visible spectral range and a second detector (210) for a near-infrared spectral range (Uemura: FIG. 4, para. [0047], copied below), the architecture disclosed in Uemura is fundamentally different from that recited in claim 1, as amended.
Uemura's system, designed for precision object measurement, utilizes a conventional beam splitter cube (211) that directs the two light paths to detectors arranged in a side-by-side or orthogonal configuration. The detectors in Uemura are explicitly not arranged opposite one another along a common vertical axis.
[…]
The Examiner's combination fails to arrive at claim 1, as amended. If a person of ordinary skill in the art were to modify Aikio's system by incorporating Uemura's beam-splitting concept, they would arrive at a system where the second detector is placed to the side of the primary optical path, consistent with Uemura's teaching. This would not result in the claimed architecture where the detectors are arranged "opposite to one another." The Examiner's conclusory statement that the detectors are "thus. arranged opposite to each other" (Office Action, p. 6) is unsupported by the teachings of the references.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, as described in the Office Action, with the top surface of Aiko being equipped with the spectral filtering element taught by Uemura, the transmitted light would have been transmitted toward to the top of lens LNS1 shown in Fig. 12 of Aiko, not toward the sides where the input light is entered. As such, the second detector must be arranged at the top facing downward to capture the transmitted light.
On page 6, Applicant further argues that,
“Moreover, the Examiner's stated motivation to combine, which means "to enhance the quality of the captured image by avoiding visual noise" (Office Action, p. 3), is not only generic but also fails to recognize the actual problem solved by the unique architecture.”
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that infrared light, if not filtered, causing noise in visible light sensor is well known in the art (see, for example, Ohno (US 2016/0323527 A1). [0077] for illustration).
Further, infrared light if filtered out and captured would provide supplemental information that can be used to enhance the resolution and/or sharpen the captured visible light image.
Applicant’s other arguments on pages 6-7 are moot in view of the discussion of Aiko and Uemura above.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikio (US 2015/0346582 A1 – hereinafter Aikio) and Uemura (US 2014/0362385 A1 – hereinafter Uemura).
Regarding claim 1, Aikio discloses an imager for a surround-view imaging system (Fig. 3b), comprising a first image detector and a cylindrical catadioptric lens system forming an inner volume (Fig. 3b; Fig. 12 – lens LNS1) with an entrance aperture (Fig. 3b; Fig. 12 – the inner volume of the lens LNS1 have an aperture via which light beams BO1-BOk can enter the inner volume as shown), a top surface (Fig. 12 – top surface SRF3) and a bottom surface (Fig. 12 – bottom surface comprising region SRF2 and region SRF4); wherein in a field of view of the imager, imaging light from a surrounding of the imager enters the inner volume by the entrance aperture, is firstly reflected towards the top surface by the bottom surface (Fig. 12 – BO1-BOk enter the inner volume by the entrance aperture as B1k, is firstly reflected by region SRF2 of the bottom surface towards the top surface as B2k), is secondly reflected back to the bottom surface by the top surface (Fig. 12 – secondly reflected back to the SRF4 region of the bottom surface as B3k), and leaves the inner volume towards the first image detector by a bottom aperture in the bottom surface for detecting imaging light (Fig. 12 – leaving the inner volume towards first image detector DET1 upon which an optical image IMG1 is formed), wherein a spectrum of the imaging light comprises a first spectral range, wherein the top surface reflects the imaging light of a first spectral range back to the bottom surface (Fig. 12 – the input light beams comprising at least a first spectral range as a spectral range of visible light as further described at least in [0191], the light of this first spectral range is reflected back to the SRF4 region of the bottom surface).
However, Aikio does not disclose a spectrum of the imaging light comprises a second spectral range different from the first spectral range, wherein the top surface comprises a spectral filtering element which reflects only the imaging light of the first spectral range back to the bottom surface but transmits the imaging light of the second spectral range; and a second image detector for detecting the transmitted imaging light, wherein the first image detector and the second image detector are arranged opposite to one another with their active surface parallelly aligned along a vertical axis of the imager.
Uemura discloses a spectrum of imaging light comprises a first spectral range and a second spectral range different from the first spectral range ([0047]-[0048] – a spectrum of imaging light comprises a spectral range of visible light and a spectral range of near-infrared light), wherein a top surface comprises a spectral filtering element which reflects only the imaging light of the first spectral range ([0047] – a surface of a wavelength filter 211 reflects only light of visible spectrum) but transmits the imaging light of the second spectral range ([0047]-[0048] – transmitting light of near-infrared light); and a second image detector for detecting the transmitted imaging light (Fig. 4; [0047] – image detector 210 for detecting transmitted near-infrared light).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Uemura into the top surface in the imager taught by Aikio to enhance the quality of the captured image by avoiding visual noise caused by light of non-visible light spectrum in capturing environment where input light comprising infrared light and implementing the imager with such a second image detector would have been advantageous in detecting the depth of the object thus adding extra dimension to the captured image.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, with the incorporated feature, Aikio and Uemura also disclose the first image detector and the second image detector are arranged opposite to one another with their active surface parallelly aligned along a vertical axis of the imager (Aikio: Fig. 12 – the first image detector arranged with an active surface perpendicular to a vertical axis of the imager on the side of the reflected light. Uemura: Fig. 4 – the second imager arranged with an active surface perpendicular to the vertical axis of the imager on the side of the transmitted light, thus the first image detector and the second detector are arranged opposite to each other – also see “Response to Arguments” above).
Regarding claim 2, Aikio in view of Uemura also discloses the imager of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical catadioptric lens system is formed by a cylindrically shaped monolithic catadioptric lens (Fig. 12 – lens LNS1) having a corpus filling the inner volume (Fig. 12 – corpus of the LNS1), and having a mantle including the entrance aperture (Fig. 12 – having a mantle including the entrance aperture via which light beams BO1-BOk can enter the inner volume as shown), the top surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 12 – top surface SRF3 and bottom surface including the flat regions, the SRF2 region and SRF4 region).
Regarding claim 3, Aikio in view of Uemura also discloses the imagerof claim 1, wherein the imaging light is firstly reflected by a circumferential first aspheric lens region arranged around a center of the bottom surface (Fig. 12 – reflected at aspheric lens region SRF2), is secondly reflected by a second aspheric lens region arranged at a center of the top surface (Fig. 12 – secondly reflected at aspheric lens region SRF3), and leaves the inner volume towards the first image detector by a third aspheric lens region at the center of the bottom surface (Fig. 12 – leaving the inner volume towards the first image detector DET1 by aspheric lens region SRF4 of the bottom surface).
Regarding claim 4, Aikio in view of Uemura also discloses the imager of claim 1, wherein the imager further comprises a first optical system to project an image of an environment in the first spectral range on the first image detector (Fig. 12 – the imager comprises a first optical system 300 to project an image of an environment in the first spectral range on the first image detector DET1 as further shown in Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 6, Uemura in view of Aikio also discloses the imager of claim 1, wherein the imager further comprises a second optical system to project an image of the environment in the second spectral range on the second image detector (Fig. 4 – an optical system for transmitting the infrared light to the detector 210).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Uemura into the imager has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Aikio and Uemura also discloses the imager of claim 1, wherein the first image detector is a detector for a visible spectral range and the second image detector is a time-of-flight detector, or wherein the first image detector is a time-of-flight detector and the second image detector is a detector for the visible spectral range (Aikio: [0191]. Uemura: [0047] – the first image detector is detector for a visible spectral range and the second image detector is a time-of-flight detector).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Uemura into the imager has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikio and Uemura as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Cabib et al. (US 2011/0279681 A1 – hereinafter Cabib).
Regarding claim 8, Aikio in view of Uemura also discloses the imager of claim 1, wherein the entrance aperture comprises a surface configured for transmitting a full spectrum of the imaging light (Fig. 12; [0191]).
However, Aikio and Uemura do not disclose the surface comprises an antireflection coating.
Cabib discloses a surface configured for transmitting light comprises an antireflection coating ([0039] - surfaces of window 24 and optical components 30 and 32 are coated with antireflection coatings).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the antireflection coating taught by Cabib into the entrance aperture taught by Aikio and Uemura to maximize the transmission of light in the wavelength range, and so reducing unwanted reflections, maximizing the achievable contrast, and minimizing the flare and ghost images, in the imaging.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikio and Uemura as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Garsha et al. (US 2020/0080940 A1 – hereinafter Garsha).
Regarding claim 10, see the teachings of Aikio and Uemura as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Aikio and Uemura do not disclose the spectral filtering element comprises a dielectric layer or grating.
Garsha discloses a spectral filtering element comprises a dielectric layer or grating ([0152]-[0153] – a spectral filtering element is a spectrally selective system comprises a diffractive grating).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Garsha into the imager taught by Aikio and Uemura because such an implementation were known to have been advantageous due to providing superior resolution.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
