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(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 06 August 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through a second optical fiber” of claim 5, “wherein the metasurface filter array is configured inside a body of a patient” of claim 15, and “the apparatus comprising at least one additional fiber” of claim 21, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 13 and 21 are objected to for the following informalities: the claims recite “a/the fiber”, “a/the first fiber”, and/or “at least one additional fiber”. The independent claim has provided antecedence for “an optical fiber”. The subsequent appearances of “fiber” should be amended to the “optical fiber” i.e. “a first optical fiber”, “at least one additional optical fiber”, etc. for sake of continuity of nomenclature within the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “wherein each a spatial-spectral encoding comprises a plurality of meta-atoms…”. This appears to be an unintended inclusion of the underlined limitation, but renders the claim indefinite. Using claim 1 as a guide, examiner will interpret the limitation such that it reads as “wherein each pixel comprises a plurality of meta-atoms”.
Claims 13-22 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiency of claim 12.
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.
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.
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 1-2, 5-6, 11-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Compact meta-spectral image sensor for mobile applications” by Jaesoong Lee et al. (doi:10.1515/nanoph-2021-0706) (herein after “Lee”) in view of US 2017/0322079 A1 by Dukho Do et al. (herein after “Dukho”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for acquiring an image (Lee title and abstract discloses obtaining hyperspectral images) the method comprising:
generating incoming light by a source of light (Lee fig. 3(b) and Sec. 2.2 paragraph 2 discloses the use of a white light being incident to test the hyperspectral imaging device – all references to figures within Lee and/or other non-patent literature below include captions as applicable);
directing the incoming light toward a metasurface filter array (Lee fig. 3(b) and sec. 2.2 paragraph 2, discloses that the light is incident onto the fabricated device of Lee, where fig. 1(a) shows the fabricated device comprising a metasurface filter array) wherein the metasurface filter array comprises a plurality of pixels (Lee abstract discloses pixels within the multilayers of the metasurface imager; fig. 1(b) also shows a plurality of channels of the metasurface [the metasurface filter array comprises a plurality of pixels]), wherein each pixel comprises a plurality of meta-atoms of a characteristic size (Lee abstract discloses SI nanopost array [meta-atoms, consistent with the representation within applicant’s specification] of appropriate dimensions within the metasurface; fig. 1(a) and sec. 2.1 disclose the nanoposts varying in position and size to selectively transmit light of certain wavelengths [meta-atoms are of a characteristic size], wherein characteristic sizes of the pluralities of meta-atoms differ from one pixel to another (Lee fig. 1(a) and sec. 2.1 disclose a varying position and size of the plurality of nanoposts within the metasurface to selectively transmit light within certain wavelengths; it is clear that size of the nanopost groups differ from one section [i.e. one pixel] to another), and wherein the characteristic size of meta-atoms of a given pixel is configured for wavelength specific band-pass transmission of light through the given pixel of the metasurface filter array (Lee fig. 1(b) shows an optical image wherein two channels [pixels] are highlighted as an example with transmission spectra for each – it is clear each channel [each pixel] has a unique wavelength specific band-pass transmission of light through it, based on the varying size and position of the plurality of nanoposts within each channel (section 2.1) [characteristic size of meta-atoms is configured for wavelength specific band-pass transmission]; fig. 3(c) shows a similar transmission plot for a similar optical image of the channels, where the wavelength transmission peaks are associated with the channels);
transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light (Lee fig. 3(c) discloses a spatial relationship for light transmitted through the metasurface based on wavelength [spatio-spectrally encoded light is transmitted, i.e. obtained by a detector]); and
reconstructing an image based on the encoded light (Lee fig. 4 and sec. 2.3 disclose an example of hyperspectral imaging of the meta-spectral imager, where signals from each of the plurality of channels are each viewable, that channel sensing only in a particular wavelength range [reconstructing an imaged based on the received light]).
Lee is silent to a method for acquiring an endoscopic image, the method comprising:
transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through an optical fiber;
decoding light transmitted through the optical fiber by a spectral decoder, and reconstructing the endoscopic image based on decoded light.
However, Dukho does address this limitation. Lee and Dukho are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Dukho discloses “a method for acquiring an endoscopic image” (Dukho title, abstract; endoscopic imaging), “the method comprising:
transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through an optical fiber” (Dukho [0029] and fig. 4 disclose the collection of light from the sample via multimode fibers 402; the light collected by fibers 402 is spatially encoded from its interaction with the sample 114, see fig. 1 for spatio-spectrally encoded incident light [transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through an optical fiber]; the incorporation of Dukho to Lee is such that collected light via fibers 402 are collecting light having already passed through the metasurface filter array of Lee, and thus the light transmitted through fibers 402 is spatio-spectrally encoded light);
“decoding light transmitted through the optical fiber by a spectral decoder” (Dukho fig. 5 and [0031] discloses the termination of the fibers 402 at an entrance slit of a spectrometer 506 [spectrometer being a “spectral decoder” consistent with applicant’s specification]); and
“reconstructing the endoscopic image based on decoded light” (Dukho [0031] and fig. 5 discloses that after entrance to the spectrometer [i.e. after decoding], the light is imaged on detector 508 [an endoscopic image is “reconstructed via decoded light”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate a method for acquiring an endoscopic image, the method comprising transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through an optical fiber, decoding light transmitted through the optical fiber by a spectral decoder, and reconstructing the endoscopic image based on decoded light as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of maintaining spectral resolution of the spectrometer by utilizing a maximized amount of collected light, and therefore improving image resolution for images obtained by the endoscope (Dukho [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1. Lee is silent to the method of claim 1, wherein the source of light is configured for generating the incoming light in a visible spectrum.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the source of light is configured for generating the incoming light in a visible spectrum” (Dukho [0028] and fig. 3 discloses a broadband source 300 used as illumination light for the endoscope, where the source 300 provides light from 420 nm to 820 nm, which encompasses most of the visible spectrum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the source of light is configured for generating the incoming light in a visible spectrum as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of imaging without risks to tissue damage (i.e. with UV), or without imaging subfascial samples (i.e. with infrared).
Regarding claim 5, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1. Lee is silent to the method of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber is a first optical fiber, the method further comprising: transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through a second optical fiber.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the optical fiber is a first optical fiber, the method further comprising: transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through a second optical fiber” (Dukho fig. 5 shows light eventually incident to the spectrometer 506 via fiber 402 originates from [0027] a fiber ring 200, where several fibers 202 are detection fibers that collect light from the sample; fig. 2(b) shows a first and second optical fiber, each labeled 202, collecting light from the sample, and thus collecting and transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light (see claim 1 above)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the optical fiber is a first optical fiber, the method further comprising: transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light through a second optical fiber as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of achieving an increase in signal input to the detector and a greater reduction in speckle of the collected light (Dukho [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 5. Lee is silent to the method of claim 5, wherein each of the first fiber and the second fiber corresponds to 16 pixels of the metasurface filter array.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the method of claim 5, “wherein each of the first fiber and the second fiber corresponds to 16 pixels of the metasurface filter array” (as indicated in claim 1 above, the incorporation of Dukho to Lee is such that collected light via fibers 402 [i.e. first fiber and second fiber] have already passed through the metasurface filter array of Lee [comprising 16 pixels of the metasurface filter array]; therefore, the first and second optical fiber correspond (under the BRI of the term) to the 16 pixels of the metasurface filter array since they collect spatio-spectrally encoded light from the 16 pixels within the combination of Lee in view of Dukho).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein each of the first fiber and the second fiber corresponds to 16 pixels of the metasurface filter array as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of maintaining spectral resolution of the spectrometer by utilizing a maximized amount of collected light, and therefore improving image resolution for images obtained by the endoscope (Dukho [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1. Lee is silent to the method of claim 1, wherein the spectral decoder is a spectrometer or a spectrum analyzer.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the spectral decoder is a spectrometer or a spectrum analyzer” (Dukho fig. 5 and [0031] discloses a spectrometer as receiving the spatio-spectrally encoded light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the spectral decoder is a spectrometer or a spectrum analyzer as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of maintaining spectral resolution of the incoming light by utilizing a maximized amount of collected light, and therefore improving image resolution for images obtained by the endoscope decoded by the spectrometer (Dukho [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses an apparatus for imaging (Lee title and abstract discloses obtaining hyperspectral images), comprising:
a metasurface filter array (Lee sec. 2.1 paragraph 1 and fig. 1(a) discloses a metasurface bandpass filter array), configured for a spatio-spectral encoding of incoming light (Lee fig. 3(c) discloses a spatial relationship for light transmitted through the metasurface based on wavelength [spatio-spectral encoding of incoming light]), wherein the spatio-spectral encoding comprises a plurality of pixels (Lee abstract discloses pixels within the multilayers of the metasurface imager; fig. 1(b) also shows a plurality of channels of the metasurface [the metasurface filter array comprises a plurality of pixels, to aid in spatio-spectral encoding given fig. 3(c)]), wherein each pixel comprises a plurality of meta-atoms of a characteristic size (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; the strikethrough font above is as the claim appears, but is interpreted in light of claim 1 which has matching language; Lee abstract discloses SI nanopost array [meta-atoms, consistent with the representation within applicant’s specification] of appropriate dimensions within the metasurface; fig. 1(a) and sec. 2.1 disclose the nanoposts varying in position and size to selectively transmit light of certain wavelengths [meta-atoms are of a characteristic size]), wherein characteristic sizes of the pluralities of meta-atoms differ from one pixel to another (Lee fig. 1(a) and sec. 2.1 disclose a varying position and size of the plurality of nanoposts within the metasurface to selectively transmit light within certain wavelengths; it is clear that size of the nanopost groups differ from one section [i.e. one pixel] to another), and wherein a given characteristic size of the meta-atoms is configured for a wavelength specific band-pass transmission of light through the corresponding pixel of the metasurface filter array (Lee fig. 1(b) shows an optical image wherein two channels [pixels] are highlighted as an example with transmission spectra for each – it is clear each channel [each pixel] has a unique wavelength specific band-pass transmission of light through it, based on the varying size and position [i.e. a give characteristic size] of the plurality of nanoposts within each channel (section 2.1) [characteristic size of meta-atoms is configured for wavelength specific band-pass transmission]; fig. 3(c) shows a similar transmission plot for a similar optical image of the channels, where the wavelength transmission peaks are associated with the channels).
Lee is silent to an apparatus for endoscopy imaging, comprising: an optical fiber configured for transmitting light.
However, Dukho does address this limitation. Lee and Dukho are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Dukho discloses “an apparatus for endoscopy imaging” (Dukho title, abstract; endoscopic imaging), “comprising: an optical fiber configured for transmitting light” (Dukho [0029] and fig. 4 disclose the collection of light from the sample via multimode fibers 402; as an aside, the incorporation of Dukho to Lee is such that collected light via fibers 402 are collecting light having already passed through the metasurface filter array of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate an apparatus for endoscopy imaging comprising an optical fiber configured for transmitting light as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of achieving an increase in signal input to the detector and a greater reduction in speckle of the collected light by collecting and transmitting light via optical fibers (Dukho [0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Lee is silent to the apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a spectral decoder configured for decoding light transmitted through the fiber.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12, “further comprising a spectral decoder configured for decoding light transmitted through the fiber” (Dukho fig. 5 and [0031] discloses the termination of the fibers 402 at an entrance slit of a spectrometer 506 [spectrometer being a “spectral decoder” consistent with applicant’s specification and other dependent claims]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate a spectral decoder configured for decoding light transmitted through the fiber as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of maintaining spectral resolution of the spectrometer by utilizing a maximized amount of collected light, and therefore improving image resolution for images obtained by the endoscope (Dukho [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 13. Lee is silent to the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the spectral decoder is a spectrometer of a spectrum analyzer.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 13, “wherein the spectral decoder is a spectrometer of a spectrum analyzer” (Dukho fig. 5 and [0031] discloses a spectrometer as receiving the spatio-spectrally encoded light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the spectral decoder is a spectrometer or a spectrum analyzer as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of maintaining spectral resolution of the incoming light by utilizing a maximized amount of collected light, and therefore improving image resolution for images obtained by the endoscope decoded by the spectrometer (Dukho [0030]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and Lee further teaches the apparatus wherein the metasurface filter array is configured inside a body of a patient (Lee when modified by Dukho has disclosed the metasurface filter array of claim 12; the configuration of the apparatus within a body of a patient is an “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by [the] structure”, and does not impart patentability to the claims; Lee has disclosed the metasurface filter array – where the array is located does not differentiate it from the prior art – see MPEP §2115).
Regarding claim 16, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and Lee further teaches the apparatus, further comprising a source of light (Lee fig. 3(b) and Sec. 2.2 paragraph 2 discloses the use of a white light being incident to test the hyperspectral imaging device [metasurface filter array]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 16. Lee is silent to the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the source of light is configured for generating incoming light in a visible spectrum.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 16, “wherein the source of light is configured for generating incoming light in a visible spectrum” (Dukho [0028] and fig. 3 discloses a broadband source 300 used as illumination light for the endoscope, where the source 300 provides light from 420 nm to 820 nm, which encompasses most of the visible spectrum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the source of light is configured for generating incoming light in a visible spectrum as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of imaging without potential risks to tissue damage (i.e. with UV), or without the potential for imaging subfascial samples (i.e. with infrared).
Regarding claim 20, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and Lee further teaches the apparatus wherein the metasurface filter array comprises 16 pixels (Lee fig. 1(b) and fig. 3(c) show images of the metasurface filter array, where at least 16 channels are seen [filter array comprises 16 pixels]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Lee is silent to the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the fiber is a first fiber, the apparatus further comprising at least one additional fiber.
However, Dukho does address this limitation.
Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12, “wherein the fiber is a first fiber, the apparatus further comprising at least one additional fiber” (Dukho fig. 5 shows light eventually incident to the spectrometer 506 via fiber 402 originates from [0027] a fiber ring 200, where several fibers 202 are detection fibers that collect light from the sample; fig. 2(b) shows a first and second optical fiber, each labeled 202, collecting light from the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the fiber is a first fiber, the apparatus further comprising at least one additional fiber as suggested by Dukho for the advantage of achieving an increase in signal input to the detector and a greater reduction in speckle of the collected light (Dukho [0025]).
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dukho, and further in view of “Nano-optic endoscope for high-resolution optical coherence tomography in vivo” by Hamid Pahlevaninezhad et al. (doi: 1.1038/s41566-018-0224-2) (herein after “Hamid”). Examiner notes the reference Hamid was cited in the IDS filed 06 August 2025.
Regarding claim 3, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent to the method wherein the optical fiber is the only optical fiber configured for transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light.
However, Hamid does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and Hamid are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Hamid discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the optical fiber is the only optical fiber configured for transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light” (Hamid fig. 2 discloses an endoscope device where incoming light from a sample is incident through a metalens, and directed into a single fiber [only optical fiber configured for transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Dukho to incorporate wherein the optical fiber is the only optical fiber configured for transmitting spatio-spectrally encoded light as suggested by Hamid for the advantage of maintaining high resolution imaging (Hamid pg. 541 col. 2 paragraph 2), and minimizing signal distortion via a single mode fiber.
Regarding claim 4, Lee when modified by Dukho and Hamid discloses the method of claim 3, and Lee further teaches the method wherein the metasurface filter array comprises 16 pixels (Lee fig. 1(b) and fig. 3(c) show images of the metasurface filter array, where at least 16 channels are seen [filter array comprises 16 pixels]).
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee when modified by Dukho, and further in view of “Snapshot spectral imaging: from spatial-spectral mapping to metasurface-based imaging” by Kaiyang Ding et al. (doi: 10.1515/nanoph-2023-0867) (herein after “Ding”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent to the method wherein a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array.
However, Ding does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and Ding are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Ding discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array” (Ding fig. 21 shows a broadband filtering imaging apparatus using a metasurface filter array, seen in fig. 21(a); there are a plurality of subsections of shape patterns within the metasurface array, where three are highlighted; each of those subsections of shape has a corresponding microlens coupled to an image sensor, [i.e. a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Dukho to incorporate wherein a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array as suggested by Ding for the advantage of enabling its having a certain wavelength response over a wide spectral range, while enabling a refinement of resolution of reconstructed spectra obtained from the metasurface filter array (Ding page 1320 and 1322, sec. 4.2.2.2 Broadband filters array).
Regarding claim 22, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 12 but is silent to the apparatus wherein a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array.
However, Ding does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and Ding are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Ding discloses the apparatus of claim 12, “wherein a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array” (Ding fig. 21 shows a broadband filtering imaging apparatus using a metasurface filter array, seen in fig. 21(a); there are a plurality of subsections of shape patterns within the metasurface array, where three are highlighted; each of those subsections of shape has a corresponding microlens coupled to an image sensor, [i.e. a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Dukho to incorporate wherein a number of pixels of the metasurface filter array corresponds to a number of subsections of the metasurface filter array as suggested by Ding for the advantage of enabling its having a certain wavelength response over a wide spectral range, while enabling a refinement of resolution of reconstructed spectra obtained from the metasurface filter array (Ding page 1320 and 1322, sec. 4.2.2.2 Broadband filters array).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dukho, and further in view of “Simultaneous multi-spectral, single-photon fluorescence imaging using a plasmonic colour filter array” by Peter W. R. Connolly et al. (doi: 10.1002/jbio.202000505) (herein after “Connolly”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent to the method wherein the source of light is a fluorescent particle.
However, Connelly does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and Connelly are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Connelly discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the source of light is a fluorescent particle” (Connelly abstract and fig. 1 discloses simultaneous multi-spectral fluorescence imaging via a metasurface filter array, wherein fluorescence light is incident to the metasurface filter array – the claim needs to have only “generating incoming light by a source of light”, where fluorescence light from excitation of a specimen reads on the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Duhko to incorporate wherein the source of light is a fluorescent particle as suggested by Connelly for the advantage of reducing the need for bulky components, including filter wheels, prism, diffraction grating, etc. and eliminating the need for multiple detectors and/or exposures given the ability for high fidelity reconstruction images (Connelly abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 16 but is silent to the apparatus, wherein the source of light is a fluorescent particle.
However, Connelly does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and Connelly are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
Connelly discloses the apparatus of claim 16, “wherein the source of light is a fluorescent particle” (Connelly abstract and fig. 1 discloses simultaneous multi-spectral fluorescence imaging via a metasurface filter array, wherein fluorescence light is incident to the metasurface filter array – the claim needs to have only “generating incoming light by a source of light”, where fluorescence light from excitation of a specimen reads on the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Duhko to incorporate wherein the source of light is a fluorescent particle as suggested by Connelly for the advantage of reducing the need for bulky components, including filter wheels, prism, diffraction grating, etc. and eliminating the need for multiple detectors and/or exposures given the ability for high fidelity reconstruction images (Connelly abstract).
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dukho, and further in view of “Snapshot spectral imaging with parallel metasystems” by Andrew McClung et al. (doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc7646) (herein after “McClung”).
Regarding claims 9-10, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the method of claim 1 but is silent to the method wherein the source of light is a tunable laser.
However, McClung does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and McClung are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
McClung discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the source of light is a tunable laser” (note, claims 9 and 10 are duplicates of each other, therefore are grouped together in this rejection; McClung fig. 1 discloses a spectral imaging setup which uses a metasurface filter array having spectral encoding characteristics; fig. 3(E) shows a laser beam incident to the metasurface filter array before being imaged on an image sensor; pg 6 “Device characterization” discloses the use of a tunable laser beam as a means for calibrating the filter array [source of light is a tunable laser]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Dukho to incorporate wherein the source of light is a tunable laser as suggested by McClung for the advantage of enabling the test/calibration of a specific area of the metasurface filter array (seen in fig. 1(b) as having the same spatial-spectral encoding qualities as Lee), to ensure a proper transmission intensity for specific wavelengths of light.
Regarding claim 19, Lee when modified by Dukho discloses the apparatus of claim 16 but is silent to the apparatus wherein the source of light is a tunable laser.
However, McClung does address this limitation. Lee, Dukho, and McClung are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are imaging devices using spectrally encoded light to generate images.
McClung discloses the apparatus of claim 16, “wherein the source of light is a tunable laser” (McClung fig. 1 discloses a spectral imaging setup which uses a metasurface filter array having spectral encoding characteristics; fig. 3(E) shows a laser beam incident to the metasurface filter array before being imaged on an image sensor; pg 6 “Device characterization” discloses the use of a tunable laser beam as a means for calibrating the filter array [source of light is a tunable laser]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Dukho to incorporate wherein the source of light is a tunable laser as suggested by McClung for the advantage of enabling the test/calibration of a specific area of the metasurface filter array (seen in fig. 1(b) as having the same spatial-spectral encoding qualities as Lee), to ensure a proper transmission intensity for specific wavelengths of light.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 2021/0037219 A1 by Shane Colburn et al.
CN 117848494 A by Jin Xiang et al.
US 9,103,973 B2 by David A. Fattal et al.
“High efficiency all-dielectric pixelated metasurface for near-infrared full-Stokes polarization detection” by Chong Zhang et al. (doi: 10.1364/prj.415342)
“Video-rate hyperspectral camera based on a CMOS-compatible random array of Fabry-Perot filters” by Motoki Yako et al. (doi: 10.1038/s41566-022-01141-5)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights