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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 09/10/2025.
Currently, claims 1-13 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 3, 5, 10, and 11 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, and 12 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the limitations of amended claim 1. This argument is not found persuasive because the cited prior art does teach the limitations of amended claim 1 (see prior art rejections below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation that “each of the plurality of capacitive elements has one end connected to the ramp wire”. Claim 1 establishes that at least one of the plurality of capacitive elements are connected to the pixel signal line (see last line of claim 1). The one of the plurality of capacitive elements connected to the pixel signal line appears to correspond to the pixel input capacitor 220 (see Fig. 1 of the instant application), which is not connected to the ramp wire 200. Therefore, the limitations of claim 2 are not supported by the written description and are new matter. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 will be read as requiring at least one of the plurality of capacitive elements to have one end connected to the ramp wire.
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, 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 1-2, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over HWANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0277688) in view of INOUE et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0117193).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hwang teaches, a photoelectric conversion device (Fig. 5) comprising:
a pixel signal line (Fig. 5 , wire from pixel array 310 connected to capacitor 342 , ¶¶ [0048]-[0051]) configured to transmit a pixel signal;
a ramp wire (Fig. 5, wire connected to capacitor 343 from ramp signal generation unit 330, ¶¶ [0048]-[0051]) configured to transmit a ramp signal;
a comparator (Fig. 5, 340, ¶ [0048]]) configured to compare the pixel signal to the ramp signal; and
a plurality of capacitive elements (Fig. 5, 342 + 343, ¶ [0050]) disposed to have at least a part thereof overlapping the ramp wire in plan view (Fig. 5, ¶ [0050] teaches that 343 is directly connected to 330. Therefore, 343 and the wire coming from 330 would overlap in a plan view).
However, Hwang does not explicitly teach that in the plan view, a first virtual straight line extending in a first direction passes through a plurality of gate electrodes of the plurality of capacitive elements that are connected to the ramp wire, and
in the plan view, a second virtual straight line extending in a second direction which is different from the first direction passes through one of the plurality of gate electrodes of the plurality of capacitive elements that are connected to the ramp wire and a gate electrode of one of the plurality of capacitive elements that are connected to the pixel signal line.
However, Inoue is a pertinent art that teaches that in the plan view (Fig. 1), a first virtual straight line extending in a first direction passes through a plurality of gate electrodes (Fig. 1, CU0 through CU2, ¶ [0110]) of the plurality of capacitive elements that are connected to the ramp wire (the Examiner notes that Inou teaches a capacitor plurality of capacitors arranged in an array (Fig. 1) in order to reduce issues caused by parasitic capacitance (¶ [0010]). All of Hwang’s capacitors are connected to Hwang’s comparators. Half of Hwang’s capacitors are connected to Hwang’s ramp signal while the other half is connected to Hwang’s pixel array. When modifying Hwang’s capacitors to be in a capacitor array according to the teaching of Inoue, it would be obvious to have Hwang’s capacitors that share an input be in a same row of a capacitor array in order to simplify manufacturing. Hwang modified by Inoue’s sampling capacitors 342 would be on a different row from the second sampling capacitors 343 and would therefore fulfill this limitation), and
in the plan view, a second virtual straight line extending in a second direction which is different from the first direction passes through one of the plurality of gate electrodes of the plurality of capacitive elements that are connected to the ramp wire and a gate electrode of one of the plurality of capacitive elements that are connected to the pixel signal line (Inoue Fig. 1, capacitors on different rows/columns of Inoue’s capacitor array are aligned in the form of an array and would therefore fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang modified by Inoue teaches the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1, and Hwang teaches that each of the plurality of the capacitive elements (Fig. 5, 342 + 343, ¶ [0050] teaches that at least one of Hwang’s capacitors have one end attached to the ramp signal) has one end connected to the ramp wire (Fig. 5, wire connected to capacitor 343 from ramp signal generation unit 330, ¶¶ [0048]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang modified by Inoue teaches the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1, and Hwang teaches that the pixel signal line (Fig. 5, wire from pixel array 310 connected to capacitor 342 , ¶¶ [0048]-[0051]) is provided between the ramp wire (Fig. 5, wire connected to capacitor 343 from ramp signal generation unit 330, ¶¶ [0048]-[0051]) and the plurality of capacitive elements (Fig. 5, 343, ¶ [0050]) in a direction perpendicular to a substrate (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang modified by teaches the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 6.
However, Hwang does not explicitly teach that a shield wire between the pixel signal line and the ramp wire or between the pixel signal line and one of the plurality of capacitive elements.
However, Inoue teaches a shield wire (Fig. 30, S171, ¶ [0227]) between the pixel signal line and the ramp wire or between the pixel signal line (Fig. 30, 191, ¶ [0197] teaches that 191 is an input interconnect and would thus correspond to Hwang’s pixel signal line) and the capacitive element (Fig. 30, CU11 + CL11 + 63, ¶¶ [0207] & [0217]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hwang’s photoelectric conversion device to have a shield wire according to the teaching on Inoue (Fig. 30) in order to suppress capacitance unevenness (Inoue ¶ [0227]).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang modified by Inoue teaches the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 7, and Inoue teaches that an area of the shield wire (Fig. 30, S171, ¶ [0227]) is larger than an electrode area (Fig. 30, CU11, ¶ [0217]) of the one of the plurality of capacitive elements.
Regarding claim 9, Hwang modified by Inoue teaches the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1, and Hwang teaches that the plurality of capacitive elements (Fig. 5, 342 + 343, ¶ [0050], there are multiple capacitors connected to multiple ramp signal generation units) are distributed to be arranged at a plurality of locations (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang modified by Inoue teaches a photoelectric conversion system (Fig. 5) comprising:
the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1 (Fig. 5, 340 +330, ¶ [0048); and
a signal processing unit (Fig. 5, 350 + 360, ¶ [0048]) that processes a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over HWANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0277688) in view of INOUE et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0117193) and further in view of KAWAZU et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0373190).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang modified by Inoue teaches the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1.
However, Hwang modified by Inoue does not explicitly teach a moving body comprising: a moving device; a processing device configured to acquire information from a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device; and a control device configured to control the moving device on the basis of the information.
However, Kawazu is a pertinent art that teaches a moving body (Figs. 27-28) comprising:
a moving device (Fig. 28, 12100, ¶ [0208]);
a processing device (Fig. 27, 12053, ¶ [0197]) configured to acquire information from a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device (Figs. 27-28, 12031, ¶¶ [0207] & [0214] teaches that an imaging device similar to Hwang’s photoelectric conversion device is used in a vehicle control system.); and
a control device (Fig. 27, 12051, ¶ [0203]) configured to control the moving device on the basis of the information.
Kawazu ¶¶ [0207] & [0214] teaches that an imaging device similar to Hwang’s photoelectric conversion device can be used in a vehicle control system. Therefore, a vehicle control system would be an obvious application of Hwang modified by Inoue’s photoelectric conversion device.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813