Ex Parte Gill

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 25, 2019

15006266 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/006,266 01/26/2016
38489 7590 04/29/2019
SILICON EDGE LAW GROUP, LLP
7901 Stoneridge Drive
Suite 528
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patrick R. Gill
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10312US02 6857
EXAMINER
FLOHRE, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
art@siliconedgelaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PA TRICK R. GILL
Appeal2018-007353 1
Application 15/006,266
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of
claims 1---6, 8-12, and 14--19. 2 App. Br. 1. The Examiner deems claim 7
allowable and objects to claim 13 as dependent from a rejected claim, but
but finds it otherwise allowable. Final Act. 12-14.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 Appellant asserts the real party in interest is Rambus Inc. Appeal Brief 1.
2 Hereinafter in this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
January 26, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 10, 2018), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 11, 2018), the Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed July 26, 2017), and the original Specification ("Spec.,"
filed January 26, 2016).
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates generally to capturing an image sensing
device and, more specifically, relates to reconstructing a digital image from
light incident on detectors, the light having passed through a diffraction
grating. Spec. ,r,r 1, 2. Figure 1 of Appellant's application is reproduced
below.
1·1tc• ' ._\/.
h
Photodetector krav trn
FIG. 1A
Figure 1 is a cut-away view of imaging device 100 including grating
105 overlaying photodetector array 110. Id. ,r 14.
Grating 105 produces an interference pattern for capture
by array 110. Digital photographs and other image information
can then be extracted from the pattern. Device 100 is constructed
to produce raw image data of high fidelity to support efficient
algorithms for image extraction. Light in a wavelength band of
interest strikes grating 105 from a direction that is normal to the
plane 120 of grating 105. Unless otherwise stated, the
wavelength band of interest is the visible spectrum. Cameras
2
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
developed for use in different applications can have different
bands of interest, as is well understood by those of skill in the art.
Id. ,r 15. Device 100 may be used with a lens for focus, but does not require
a lens. Id. ,r 20. Device 100 captures a diffraction pattern bearing little
resemblance to the actual scene being imaged. Id. However, the captured
diffraction pattern can be computationally reconstructed to form an image of
the scene lighting passing through the grating. Id.
The computationally reconstructed image may still be distorted due to
a common form of distortion referred to as "barrel distortion" or "fisheye."
Id. ,r 24. Such distortion can be reduced mathematically by resampling the
reconstructed distorted image. Id. ,r 28.
Independent method claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method of imaging a scene, the method comprising:
storing a deconvolution kernel associated with a point-
spread function of a diffraction grating;
passing light from the scene through the diffraction grating
to produce a distorted interference pattern;
sampling the distorted interference pattern with a sensor
array to obtain a digital sample of the distorted interference
pattern;
constructing a distorted image of the scene from the digital
sample of the distorted interference pattern and the
deconvolution kernel, wherein the distorted image of the scene
distorts aspects of the scene from which the light passed through
the diffraction grating to produce the distorted interference
pattern; and
resampling the distorted image of the scene to reduce the
distorted aspects of the scene from which the light passed
through the diffraction grating to produce the distorted
interference pattern.
App. Br. 11. Independent claim 8 includes similar recitations in the style of
a system (i.e., apparatus) claim. Id. at 13.
3
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Kurokawa (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0126275
Al), Alon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0256226 Al) ("Alon"),
and Millerd et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0083531 Al)
("Millerd"). Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 8-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Patrick Gill and David Stork, Lens less
Ultra-Miniature Imagers Using Odd-Symmetry Spiral Phase Gratings, slide
deck3 presented at Computational Optical Sensing and Imaging (COSI),
Arlington, Virginia, June 23-27, 2013, slides 1-18, submitted by Appellant
Apr. 13, 2016 ("Gill"), Alon, and Millerd. Final Act. 6-10.
Claims 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Gill, Alon, Millerd, and Nishimura (U.S. Patent
Publication No. 2006/0091300 Al). Final Act. 10-11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Gill, Alon, Millerd, and Renard (U.S. Patent Publication
No. 2015/0237245 Al). Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). We have
3 The slide deck submitted by Appellant differs from the slides shown in the
presentation video available at https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?
uri=cosi-2013-C\V4C.3#aiiicleSuQQHVfat. Herein, we rely on the slide deck
submitted by Appellant.
4
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that
the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2--4. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings
for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1-6
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Kurokawa teaches
most elements but relies on Alon in the proposed combination for disclosing
the step of storing a deconvolution kernel used in constructing an image as
claimed and relies on Millerd for disclosing the claimed resampling step of
the method. Final Act. 2-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Kurokawa
discloses the steps of: passing light from a scene through a grating;
sampling the distorted interference pattern generated by the grating; and
constructing a distorted image from the distorted interference pattern and the
deconvolution kernel. Final Act. 2--4 (citing Kurokawa ,r,r 96-99, 239, 402,
Fig. 30A). The Examiner further finds Alon discloses storing coefficients of
a deconvolution filter (Final Act. 3 ( citing Alon ,r 145)) and finds Millerd
discloses reducing distortion of an image by resampling the distorted image
(Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Millerd ,r,r 46--49, Fig. 7 (step 480))). The Examiner
articulates reasons an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined
Kurokawa with Alon and would have combined Kurokawa and Alon with
Millerd. Final Act. 4--5.
5
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
Appellant argues:
The Office action appears to be making a rejection of
"resampling" generally without due consideration for what is
resampled. The "resampling" element of claim 1 is not generic
to the idea of resampling; rather, claim 1 makes explicit that the
resampling is of a "distorted image of [a] scene ... from which
light passed through [al diffraction grating to produce [al
distorted image pattern" (Claim 1, emphasis added). Alon does
not use, nor even contemplate, a diffraction grating. As such,
Alon has no need to reduce distortion created "from light [which]
passed through [a] diffraction grating to produce [a] distorted
interference pattern" as addressed in claim 1. Millerd likewise
omits any teaching of diffraction gratings. And, as noted
previously, Kurokawa fails to disclose resampling at all. Thus,
none of the references teaches a "resampling" of a distorted
image "to reduce the distorted aspects of the scene from which
the light passed through [a] diffraction grating" as recited in
claim 1.
App. Br. 8.
Similarly, Appellant argues the combined references fail to disclose
the recited deconvolution kernel because Alon's "deconvolution filter DCF
applied to a blurred image captured through a single aperture would not
yield acceptable image data if applied to an interference pattern produced by
'passing light from the scene through [a] diffraction grating' as recited in
claim 1." Id. at 9.
Appellant essentially reiterates its arguments in its reply asserting,
"none of the references teaches a 'resampling' of a distorted image 'to
reduce the distorted aspects of the scene from which the light passed through
[a] diffraction grating' as recited in claim 1. Nor do the references teach
deconvolution in connection with a diffraction grating." Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Initially, we observe
Appellant improperly attacks the references individually despite the
6
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
rejection being based on what the combined references teach or suggest to
the ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant's arguments apply "piecemeal analysis of the prior
art." Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Kurokawa in the proposed
combination for disclosing use of a diffraction grating to generate an image.
Although Alon expressly discloses reducing blur in an image that passed
through an aperture or a lens (i.e., not through a diffraction grating), the
Examiner finds the combined disclosures of Kurokawa's image generation
by a diffraction grating and Alon's deconvolution of an image teaches or
suggests to the ordinarily skilled artisan the claimed deconvolution features.
Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Therefore, when applying this known technique of recovering an
image in a lensless acquisition system by applying a deconvolu-
tion filter to a captured image ("a digital sample of a distorted
interference pattern" as claimed in claim 1 corresponds to a
captured image), wherein the deconvolution filter which is
determined based on the point spread function of the optical
system used to captured the image, a person having ordinary skill
in the art would determine the deconvolution filter based on the
point spread function of the optical system of Kurokawa.
Ans. 4--5.
Similarly, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the combined teachings
of Kurokawa, Alon, and Millerd teach or suggest the resampling recited
feature asserting,
The resampling process taught by Millerd is a resampling
process in which distortion in an image is reduced by performing
interpolation of raw data (paragraph 47 teaches a process of
including a resampling step in which correcting new data for
distortion which can occur multiple times, wherein the correcting
of new data for distortion is performed using an interpolation
7
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
routine). Millerd's resampling process is not limited to reducing
any specific kind of distortion, therefore, when applying the
resampling to Kurokawa in which distortion is caused by passing
light through a diffraction grating to produce the distorted
interference pattern it is clear that distortion reduced through
resampling would also reduce distortion caused by passing light
through a diffraction grating to produce the distorted interference
pattern.
Ans. 3--4.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection relies on the combined references to
teach or suggest all features of claim I-not any single reference alone,
apart from the combination. The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. "A claim can be obvious even where all of the
claimed features are not found in specific prior art references, where 'there is
a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of [the prior
art] to the claimed invention."' Orm co Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463
F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting SIEJA Neurosciences, Inc. v.
Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Therefore,
Appellant's arguments attacking each reference individually as failing to
teach all elements of claim 1 are unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant's Reply Brief raises a new argument that, because Millerd
makes no reference to use of a grating in an imaging device or reference to
the type of error and distortion generated by a grating, there is no reason an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Millerd for solutions to
problems in Kurokawa' s imaging device other than improper reliance on
hindsight by the Examiner. Reply Br. 2. Raising new arguments in the
Reply Brief is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4I(b)(2) (2017). Regardless,
8
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
even considering this new argument, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. The Examiner articulated specific reasons an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have combined Alon with Kurokawa. Final Act. 3 ("the design
incentive of generating a restored output image with reduced blur and
therefore improved image quality would have prompted a predictable
variation of Kurokawa by applying Alon's known principal of storing a
deconvolution kernel associated with the optical system"). The Examiner
also articulated specific reasons an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
combined Millerd with Kurokawa and Alon. Final Act. 4--5 ("the design
incentive of improving measurement accuracy would have prompted a
predictable variation of Kurokawa by applying Millerd' s known principal of
resampling the distorted image of the scene to obtain a reduced-distortion
image of the scene"). Appellant's arguments fail to identify any error in the
Examiner's articulated reasons for the proposed combination. Thus, we
remain unpersuaded that the Examiner erred by using improper hindsight as
a reason for the proposed combination.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the
references fail to teach or suggest all features of claim 1 and that the
Examiner used improper hindsight in the proposed combination and we
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue the
rejection of claims 2---6 with particularity. App. Br. 9. Thus, for the same
reasons as claim 1 from which they depend, we sustain the rejection of
claims 2---6.
9
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
Claims 8-12, 18, and 19
The Rejection of independent claim 8 is similar to that of claim 1 but
replaces the Kurokawa reference with the Gill reference. 4 See Final Act. 6-
8. Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 8-12, 18, and
19 with particularity apart from the arguments presented for claim 1. See
App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 4.
Thus, for at least the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1, we
are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-12, 18, and 19 and
we sustain the rejection of claims 8-12, 18, and 19.
Claims 14-16
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 14--16 with
particularity apart from the arguments for claim 8 from which they depend.
See App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 4.
Thus, for at least the same reasons as discussed above for claim 8, we
are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14--16 and we
sustain the rejection of claims 14--16.
Claim 17
Appellant presents no arguments regarding the rejection of claim 17,
which depends from claim 8. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 8, we are
unpersuaded of error and sustain the rejection of claim 17.
4 We note the Examiner does not rely on Millerd for any disclosure in the
rejection of claim 8. Millerd is relied on in the rejection of claims 10-12
dependent from claim 8. Thus, Millerd is superfluous to the rejection of
claim 8 ( as well as claims 9, 18, and 19, also dependent from claim 8). We
deem the error harmless to our analysis.
10
Appeal2018-007353
Application 15/006,266
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting all pending
claims 1---6, 8-12, and 14--19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11