DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/253,930 is responsive to communications filed 11 September 2025, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 11 March 2025.
Claims 1–15, 21, 23, and 25 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1, 8, 21, and 23 were objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i) for formatting informalities. Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for inconsistency with parent claim 8. Claims 22 and 24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as redundant with parent claims. Claims 1–15 and 21–25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0058697 A1 (“Meylan”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0219776 A1 (“Timudogan”).
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been considered. The objections to claims 1, 8, 21, and 23 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i) are withdrawn. The rejection of claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) are withdrawn as moot. A new rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is made in view of the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9–11, filed 11 September 2023, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn. Specifically, Applicant has clarified the existence of both a first power source that provides first and second voltages, and a distinct controllable power source that provides an activation voltage and a rest voltage. The combination of Meylan and Timudogan does not provide the complete claimed functionalities of both these power sources.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11–12, filed 11 September 2023, with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 8 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn. Specifically, the various components in Meylan Figure 7b that correspond with the claimed components as amended are arranged differently such that rearranging the components would affect their operation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the power source providing a first voltage area voltage to a first doped area and providing a second voltage area voltage to a second doped area must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. Each of independent claims 1 and 21 recites a power source, distinct from a separate “controllable power source”, that provides voltage to both doped areas of a diode. Applicant has stated on the record that this power source has support in the specification as power source 6250, which “supplies biasing voltages” to both the first and second doped areas in diode 6230. 11 September 2025 “REMARKS” at 10. This limitation has support in the specification at paragraph 0078, which states that power source 6250 provides first-area voltage to first doped area 6232 and second-area voltage to second area 6234. However, figures 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C consistently only show power delivered from power source 6250 through electrode 6233 to a single doped area 6232, not to both doped areas 6232 and 6234 as claimed.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) because in Figure 8 reference character “6460” has been used to designate both a readout electrode and a transfer gate referred to in paragraph 00111 as transfer gate 6410. Compare with Figures 10 and 11.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 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 Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 25 is dependent on cancelled claim 24. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place it in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–15, 21, and 23 are allowed.
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and M.P.E.P. § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0028974 A1
US 6140630 A
EP 2541897 A2
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
EP 2982940 A1
WO 2020/205028 A3
US 2018/0024232 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487