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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed August 3, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim 20 is currently withdrawn from consideration since the claim is drawn to non-elected Invention II.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention/Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on August 3, 2026, is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shinozuka (US 20220075033).
Re claims 1 and 2: Shinozuka teaches an optical sensor (fig. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10) comprising: a light-emitting element (301) configured to project light that changes with time (fig. 1, paragraph 50, laser emits in a pulsed manner); a light-receiving element (302/2000) including a pn junction and configured to directly or indirectly receive the light projected by the light-emitting element (301) (paragraph 87, fig. 10 and 1); a measuring section (101) configured to measure an electric current generated based on an amount of the light received by the light-receiving element (302/2000) (paragraphs 63-65); and a bias application section (2003) configured to apply a bias to the light-receiving element (302/2000, more specifically 2000), wherein the bias application section (2003), before measuring the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received, applies the bias to the light-receiving element to cause either a forward current that flows through the pn junction when the light-receiving element is turned ON, or a breakdown current that flows through the pn junction when the pn junction breaks down (paragraphs 85-101, breakdown voltage and a situation with forward bias dependent on bias voltage).
Re claims 7 and 8: Shinozuka teaches the optical sensor, wherein: the optical sensor repeats a first operation, where during which the light is projected by the light-emitting element and the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received is measured, and a second operation, during which the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received is not measured, and the bias application section causes either the forward current or the breakdown current to flow through the pn junction of the light-receiving element in the second operation (paragraphs 49, 50 and 85-101, fig. 1 and 10).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozuka (US 20220075033) in view of Andreou et al. (US 20170131143).
Re claims 3 and 4: Shinozuka teaches wherein the bias application section (2003), before measuring the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received, applies the bias to the light-receiving element to cause either a forward current that flows through the pn junction when the light-receiving element is turned ON, or a breakdown current that flows through the pn junction when the pn junction breaks down (paragraphs 85-101, breakdown voltage and a situation with forward bias dependent on bias voltage), but does not specifically teach wherein each of the forward current and the breakdown current has an absolute value that is larger than an absolute value of a leak current that flows when the light-receiving element is turned OFF. Andreou teaches a current has an absolute value that is larger than an absolute value of a leak current that flows when the light-receiving element is turned OFF (paragraph 39 and 79, noise and dark signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the forward and breakdown current be larger than the leakage/noise current in order to ensure the effects of the leakage/noise are small compared to the desired signal providing for higher quality output.
Re claims 5 and 6: Shinozuka teaches wherein the bias application section (2003), before measuring the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received, applies the bias to the light-receiving element to cause either a forward current that flows through the pn junction when the light-receiving element is turned ON, or a breakdown current that flows through the pn junction when the pn junction breaks down (paragraphs 85-101, breakdown voltage and a situation with forward bias dependent on bias voltage), but does not specifically teach wherein each of the forward current and the breakdown current has an absolute value that is larger than an absolute value of a dark current of the light receiving element. Andreou teaches a current has an absolute value that is larger than an absolute value of a dark current of the light receiving element (paragraph 39 and 79, noise and dark signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the forward and breakdown current be larger than the leakage/noise/dark current in order to ensure the effects of the leakage/noise/dark are small compared to the desired signal providing for higher quality output.
Re claims 18 and 19: Shinozuka teaches wherein the bias application section (2003), before measuring the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received, applies the bias to the light-receiving element to cause either a forward current that flows through the pn junction when the light-receiving element is turned ON, or a breakdown current that flows through the pn junction when the pn junction breaks down (paragraphs 85-101, breakdown voltage and a situation with forward bias dependent on bias voltage), but does not specifically teach wherein more carriers are trapped in a defect level after either the forward current or the breakdown current is caused to flow through the pn junction than before either the forward current or the breakdown current is caused to flow through the pn junction. Andreou teaches wherein more carriers are trapped in a defect level after either the forward current or the breakdown current is caused to flow through the pn junction than before either the forward current or the breakdown current is caused to flow through the pn junction (paragraph 39 and 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to understand that after the forward and breakdown currents occur that there would be an increase in carriers in a defect layer similar to Andreou in Shinozuka since the forward and breakdown current pass through the pn junction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 9 and 10, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the optical sensor according to claims 1 or 2 respectively as claimed, more specifically with further comprising a switch section configured either to electrically connect the light-receiving element to the measuring section or to electrically disconnect the light-receiving element from the measuring section, wherein the switch section electrically disconnects the light-receiving element from the measuring section in a period in which either the forward current or the breakdown current is caused to flow through the pn junction of the light-receiving element and electrically connects the light-receiving element to the measuring section in a period in which the light is projected and the electric current generated based on the amount of the light received is measured.
In regards to claims 11 and 12, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the optical sensor according to claims 1 or 2 respectively as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein: the light-receiving element is a photodiode with a grounded anode, the bias application section includes a negative-voltage generation circuit, and the negative-voltage generation circuit applies a negative voltage to a cathode of the photodiode to apply a forward voltage across the pn junction of the photodiode and to cause the forward current to flow.
In regards to claims 13 and 14, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the optical sensor according to claims 1 or 2 respectively as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein: the light-receiving element is a photodiode with a grounded anode, the bias application section includes: a diode with a cathode being connected to a cathode of the photodiode; a current source connected to an anode of the diode; and a switch section configured either to connect a first node to the photodiode and the cathode of the diode or to disconnect the first node from the photodiode and the cathode of the diode, and the switch section connects the first node to the photodiode and the cathode of the diode to cause the breakdown current to flow through the pn junction of the photodiode.
Claim 15 is objected to because of its dependency on claim 14.
In regards to claims 16 and 17, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the optical sensor according to claims 1 or 2 respectively as claimed, more specifically in combination with further comprising a control section configured to control a period in which either the forward current or the breakdown current is caused to flow through the pn junction of the light-receiving element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights