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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 May 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the sensor pixels” in lines 17 and 21 respectively should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 2: “the sensor pixels” in lines 3 and 5-6 respectively should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” and “the sensor pixel” in lines 4-5 should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 3: “the sensor pixels” in line 4 should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 4: “the sensor pixels” in line 4 should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 6: “the sensor pixels” in lines 4-5 should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 7: “the sensor pixels” in line 4 should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 8: “the sensor pixels” in lines 3-5 and 5 respectively should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 9: “the sensor pixels” in lines 3 and 4-5 respectively should be “the plurality of sensor pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, “the sensor pixel” in lines 2-3 and 3-4 respectfully both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear.
Claims 6-9 are rejected for their dependency on claim 5.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (USPGPub 20220356435 A1) in view of Kato et al. (USPGPub 20180210185 A1) and Sugimoto et al. (WO 2022091972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a detection device comprising: a planar detection device (30/80) comprising a plurality of photodetection elements (30) arranged in a planar configuration (see figure 1, light receivers 30 located on base 80); a light source (10) device disposed so as to face the planar detection device (30/80) (see figure 1, light emitter 10); and a light-transmitting mounting substrate (20) on which a plurality of objects (60) to be detected are mounted, the light-transmitting mounting substrate (20) being disposed between the planar detection device (30/80) and the light source device (10) (see figure 1, first slit member 20 (i.e. mounting substrate) with cells 60 (i.e. objects) disposed thereon; ¶30, The light emitter 10 faces the light receivers 30 with the first slit member 20 between them; and ¶31, Examples of the transparent substrate include a glass substrate and a plastic substrate), wherein the planar detection device comprises: a detection area in which the photodetection elements (30) are arranged (see figure 1, light receivers 30 located on base 80; and a detection circuit (50) configured to acquire a sensor value of each of the photodetection elements (30) (see figure 1, determiner 50 (i.e. detection circuit); and ¶41, The determiner 50 determines that the cells 60 have proliferated to the predetermined number or greater in response to an amount of the light received by the light receivers 30). However, Watanabe fails to explicitly teach a plurality of sensor pixels comprising the photodetection element, wherein the photodetection elements are arranged in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction; and a control circuit configured to generate an image in the detection area by applying a filter according to a received light intensity to a value calculated based on the sensor value of each of the sensor pixels.
However, Kato teaches a plurality of sensor pixels comprising the photodetection element, wherein the photodetection elements are arranged in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (see figures 1A-1B, image sensor 150; and ¶80, In the image sensor 150, multiple pixels are arranged in a matrix layout).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Kato to have the planar detection device be arranged two-dimensionally as this is a common formation of image sensors in order to, for example, increase the sensing area of the device. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a control circuit configured to generate an image in the detection area by applying a filter according to a received light intensity to a value calculated based on the sensor value of each of the sensor pixels.
However, Sugimoto teaches a control circuit configured to generate an image in the detection area by applying a filter according to a received light intensity to a value calculated based on the sensor value of each of the sensor pixels (¶34, During each irradiation period T<sub>ｒ</sub>, the detection signal S3_r is sampled at high speed by the A/D converter 122, and a data group GD<sub>ｒ</sub> containing p digital values is generated. By filtering this data set GD<sub>ｒ</sub>, the data set GD<sub>ｒ</sub>' is generated. The filtered data set GD<sub>ｒ</sub>' has reduced AC noise and the DC component is extracted. The detection intensity generation unit 138 generates detection intensity b<sub>ｒ</sub> based on the filtered data group GD<sub>ｒ</sub>'; ¶35, Thus, according to this embodiment, the digital filter 136 can reduce the noise component included in the detected intensity b<sub>ｒ</sub>, and based on the detected intensity b<sub>ｒ</sub> with reduced noise influence, a reconstructed image G(x, y) is generated; ¶26, The digital filter 136 is a low-pass filter, and its cutoff frequency is set lower than the noise frequency; and see ¶25 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Watanabe and Kato to incorporate the teachings of Sugimoto to apply filtering to the detected signal in order to decrease noise and improve image quality (Sugimoto, ¶35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the detection device according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the control circuit is configured to multiply the sensor value for each of the sensor pixels by a correction coefficient according to the received light intensity of the sensor pixel such that a corrected value for each of the sensor pixels is calculated, and apply the filter according to the received light intensity to the corrected value such that the image in the detection area is generated.
Claim 3 is objected to for its dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the filter is a low-pass filter in which a cutoff frequency according to the received light intensity is set for each of the sensor pixels.
Claims 5-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-9 would be objected to for their dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakakibara et al. (USPGPub 20250238947 A1): Sakakibara teaches a variable cutoff frequency (¶182, non-uniform filtering refers to filtering with filters having different cutoff frequencies depending on the position in the image). However, Sakakibara fails to teach that the cutoff frequency is based off of received light intensity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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 Y 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights