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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 13-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 8-11, 13 and 14 of copending Application No. 18278500 hereinafter “500 App”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because....
Current Application
1. A sensor for ambient light and/or color sensing comprising: a pixel comprising a plurality of pinned photodiodes selectively coupled to a floating diffusion region; and circuitry configured to select an integration time, select a number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes to be coupled to the floating diffusion region in response to a sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel, and to selectively couple one or more of the plurality of pinned photodiodes so that only the selected number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are coupled to the floating diffusion region in response to a-thesensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel
500 App.
1. A pixel for an ambient light and/or color sensor comprising: a plurality of pinned photodiodes; and a floating diffusion region; wherein a ratio of an active area of the plurality of pinned photodiodes to an area of the floating diffusion region is greater than 150.
9. A sensor for color or ambient light sensing, comprising at least one pixel according to claim 1.
10. The sensor of claim 9 comprising circuitry configurable to selectively couple each pinned photodiode to the floating diffusion region.
11. The sensor of claim 10, wherein the circuitry is configurable to select an integration time and to couple one or more of the plurality of pinned photodiodes to the floating diffusion region in response to a sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel.
Claim 5 of the current application is anticipated by claim 2 of the 500 App.
Claim 6 of the current application is anticipated by claim 8 of the 500 App.
Claim 11 of the current application is anticipated by claim 3 of the 500 App.
Claim 13 of the current application is anticipated by claim 13 of the 500 App.
Claim 14 of the current application is anticipated by claim 13 of the 500 App.
Claim 15 of the current application is anticipated by claim 14 of the 500 App.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticiptaed by Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1, 2 and 5 of Tower teach a sensor for ambient light and/or color sensing comprising: a pixel comprising a plurality of pinned photodiodes (Items 104) selectively coupled (Paragraph 0020) to a floating diffusion region (Item 108); and circuitry configured to select an integration time, select a number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes to be coupled to the floating diffusion region in response to a sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel, and to selectively couple (Paragraph 0020) one or more of the plurality of pinned photodiodes so that only the selected number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are coupled to the floating diffusion region in response to a sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1 and 2 of Tower further teach where the pixel comprises four pinned photodiodes (Items 104) arranged around the floating diffusion region (Item 108).
Regarding claim 8, Tower further teaches a plurality of channels, each channel comprising at least one pixel, wherein each channel is configured to sense a different range of wavelengths of radiation (Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 10, the process limitation of “formed as a monolithic device in a low-voltge CMOS process” found in product claim 10 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 10 does not require that the sensor is formed as a monolithic device in a low-voltage CMOS process but instead only that the structural elements of the sensor (recited in claim 1) are present. As Tower reads on all of the structural limitations, and claim 10, being a product by process claim, only requires the structural elements to read on it, Tower reads on claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Tower teaches an electronic device comprising the sensor of claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above; For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here).
Regarding claim 14, Tower further teaches where the sensor is configured for backside-illumination (Paragraph 0018).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Gu (US 2021/0343765) hereinafter “Gu”.
Regarding claim 2, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Tower does not explicitly teach where the integration time is selected such that a charge accumulated by the one or more pinned photodiodes is less than 75% of a full well charge capacity of each of the pinned photodiodes.
However, the amount of charge accumulated by the one or more pinned photodiodes is a result effective variable (Tower Paragraph 0004 where photodetectors accumulate charge in accordance with incident light during an integration time and Paragraph 0019 where different integration times may be selected). MPEP 2144.05 states “In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the charge accumulated by one or more of the pinned photodiodes such that a charge accumulated by the one or more pinned photodiodes is less than 75% of a full well charge capacity of each of the pinned photodiodes because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the integration time be selected such that a charge accumulated by the one or more pinned photodiodes is less than 75% of a full well charge capacity of each of the pinned photodiodes because this prevents the photodetector from becoming full or saturated which stops any other information from being stored (Tower Paragraph 0004).
Gu teaches where if photocharges are generated and accumulated to exceed the full well capacity (FWC) of the photoelectric conversion element, an overflowing phenomenon in which photocharges move to the outside of the photoelectric conversion element may occur (Paragraph 0072).
Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the integration time be selected such that a charge accumulated by the one or more pinned photodiodes is less than 75% of a full well charge capacity of each of the pinned photodiodes because this would prevent an overflow of photocharges such that noise in a contiguous pixel does not occur (Gu Paragraph 0072).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Miyauchi et al. (US 2023/0156369) hereinafter “Miyauchi”.
Regarding claim 3, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is determined by the circuitry using data from a plurality of separate integrations.
Miyauchi teaches where the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is determined by circuitry using data from a plurality of separate integrations (Paragraph 0040 where light sensed from integrations of different photodiodes are combined).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel be determined by the circuitry using data from a plurality of separate integrations because this allows for sharing pixels which contribute to the light sensed (Miyauchi Paragraph 0040).
Alternately, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Dosluglu et al. (US 2007/0114629) hereinafter “Dosluglu”.
Regarding claim 3, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is determined by the circuitry using data from a plurality of separate integrations.
Dosluglu teaches where collected photoelectrons from a integration are stored in a storage node along with photoelectrons collected from other integrations and then the collected photoelectrons are analyzed using circuitry (Paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel be determined by the circuitry using data from a plurality of separate integrations because this allows an amplitude of pixel output electrical signal to be determined based on the intensity of light energy (Dosluglu Paragraph 0012).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower”.
Regarding claim 4, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Tower does not explicitly teach where the integration time is 150 microseconds or less.
However, the integration time is a result effective variable (Tower Paragraph 0055 where different integration times are selected based on achieving either a wide or narrow dynamic range for the imaging pixel). MPEP 2144.05 states “In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the integration time such that the integration time is 150 microseconds or less because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0249101) hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 5, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each pinned photodiode comprises an active region having an area of at least 25 µm2.
However, the area of an active region is a result effective variable (Zhang Paragraph 0035 where the area of the active region of the pinned photodiode is directly related to a rate at which an output of an image sensor reaches a saturation state in a nonlinear sensitivity phase can be controlled, thus controlling the image sensor). MPEP 2144.05 states “In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the area of the active region of the pinned photodiode such that the pinned photodiode comprises an active region having an area of at least 25 µm2 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0174232) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 7, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except a plurality of pixels, where the circuitry is configured to average a signal from each pixel of the plurality of pixels prior to analog-to-digital conversion.
Kim teaches where an average value of sensing signals output from shared pixels may be provided as a combined sensing signal to the analog-digital converter (Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of pixels, where the circuitry is configured to average a signal from each pixel of the plurality of pixels prior to analog-to-digital conversion because this is known to generate a high resolution image or generate an image that does not deteriorate in a low-light environment (Kim Paragraph 0098).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Shao et al. (US 10,817,018) hereinafter “Shao”.
Regarding claim 9, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each channel comprises an interference filter configured as a band-pass filter.
Shao teaches where each channel comprises an interference filter configured as a band-pass filter (Column 9, Lines 31-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each channel comprise an interference filter configured as a band-pass filter because this allows different photodiodes to be sensitive to different respective bands of wavelength (Shao Column 9, Lines 31-37).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Kozlowski et al. (US 2009/0128677) hereinafter “Kozlowski”.
Regarding claim 11, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the floating diffusion region is configured to have a capacitance of 2.5 Femtofarads, or less.
Kozlowski teaches where a floating diffusion region is configured to have a capacitance between 1 to several femtofarads (Paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the floating diffusion region be configured to have a capacitance of 2.5 femtofarads, or less because this allows a sensor to be in HS mode which produces 3 to 4 times higher sensitivity than normal sensitivity mode (Kozlowski Paragraph 0031). Further, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Lafferty et al. (US 2016/0047747) hereinafter “Lafferty”.
Regarding claim 12, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the sensor is configured to exhibit a resolution of at least 18 buts and/or at least 27 bits of dynamic range.
Lafferty teaches where a sensor is configured to exhibit between 8 bits and 32 bits of dynamic range (Paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sensor be configured to at least 27 bits of dynamic range because this is known to be provided in a high gain path (Lafferty Paragraph 0071). Further, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Chung et al. (US 2021/0320278) hereinafter “Chung”.
Regarding claim 15, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the electronic device further comprises an LED display, wherein the sensor is disposed rearward of a radiation emitting surface of the LED display and configured and receive radiation propagating through the LED display.
Chung teaches where an electronic device further comprises an LED display (Item 10), wherein the sensor (Item 40) is disposed rearward of a radiation emitting surface (Top surface) of the LED display (Item 10) and configured and receive radiation propagating through the LED display (Item 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electronic device further comprises an LED display, wherein the sensor is disposed rearward of a radiation emitting surface of the LED display and configured and receive radiation propagating through the LED display because this configuration allows the display to display an image while the sensor can act as a illuminance sensor, a proximity sensor, a thermal detection sensor or an iris sensor (Chung paragraph 0060).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0249101) hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 16, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is low a greater number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selected to be coupled to the floating diffusion region and when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is high a fewer number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selected to be coupled to the floating diffusion region.
Zhang teaches where the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is low a greater number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selected to be coupled to the floating diffusion region and when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is high a fewer number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selected to be coupled to the floating diffusion region (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is low a greater number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selected to be coupled to the floating diffusion region and when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is high a fewer number of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selected to be coupled to the floating diffusion region because this allows for a nonlinear sensitivity in the image sensor in which the image sensor has greater or lesser sensitivity based on the environment in which it is in (Zhang Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 17, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where all of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in low incident radiation intensity conditions, and only some of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in high incident radiation intensity conditions.
Zhang teaches where all of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in low incident radiation intensity conditions, and only some of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in high incident radiation intensity conditions (Paragraphs 0039 and 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have all of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in low incident radiation intensity conditions, and only some of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in high incident radiation intensity conditions because this allows for a nonlinear sensitivity in the image sensor in which the image sensor has greater or lesser sensitivity based on the environment in which it is in (Zhang Paragraph 0041).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Bock (US 2016/0381314) hereinafter “Bock”.
Regarding claim 18, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the integration time is the same for the plurality of pinned photodiodes.
Bock teaches where an integration time is constant for a plurality of pinned photodiodes (Paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the integration time is the same for the plurality of pinned photodiodes because keeping the integration time constant prevents a possible flickering effect related to short integration time (Bock Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 19, Tower further teaches where the integration time is selected based on the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel (Paragraph 0027).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tower et al. (US 2020/0027911) hereinafter “Tower” in view of Li et al. (US 9749521) hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 20, Tower teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the selected integration time is increased when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is low, and the selected integration time is reduced when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is high.
Li teaches where a selected integration time is increased when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is low, and the selected integration time is reduced when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is high (Column 3, Lines 64-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the selected integration time is increased when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is low, and the selected integration time is reduced when the sensed intensity of radiation incident on the pixel is high because this is known to improve the dynamic range of an image sensor (Li Column 3, Lines 60-61).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Tower does not teach the amended in limitations to claim 1 as all of the pinned photodiodes are coupled to the common node such that none of the pinned photodiodes have an integration time of zero (ie. where the transfer gate is not enabled). While the Examiner agrees that Tower suggests all of the pinned photodiodes are selected and coupled to the common node at different times the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s conclusion that this does not read on the amended in claim language of claim 1. Firstly, claim 1 does not require that some of the photodiodes are not selected. In actuality, the Applicant’s claim 1 allows for a situation where all of the pinned photodiodes are coupled to the floating diffusion region as is evidenced by Applicants new claim 17 where “all of the plurality of pinned photodiodes are selectively coupled to the floating diffusion region in low incident radiation intensity conditions”. Secondly, Tower teaches that that the four pinned photodiodes are selectively combined which one having ordinary skill in the art would understand to be that not all of the pinned photodiodes are necessarily combined together all the time but instead that they are connected such that some are combined at different times similar to how the Applicant’s invention selects and couples specific pinned diodes. The fact that Tower accomplishes this by varying integration times does not negate the fact that selective pinned photodiodes are combined versus what is implied by the Applicant in their remarks that all of the pinned photodiodes are coupled together. Thus, Tower teaches the selectivity and coupling required by amended claim 1 and as such the Examiner maintains the reliance on Tower to teach claim 1.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891