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 . The claim interpretation, objections, and rejections from the Office Action of 5/7/2026 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14-16, 18-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for probabilistically determining a conversion factor for an image sensor photodiode array based on the relationship between received photons, generated photoelectrons, and corresponding electrical signal relative to the generated photoelectrons (i.e., see the recited equations in Claims 5-8).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no specific use of the conversion factor that would improve the performance of any particular machine is recited.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving, in an image sensor, photoelectrons” and “outputting an electrical signal intensity corresponding to a number of generated photoelectrons when light is input to each pixel” are necessary data gathering steps in obtaining the data needed for implementing the algorithm to determine the conversion factor. “Acquiring” the information needed to perform the algorithm amounts to the recitation of necessary and routine data gathering for implementing the abstract idea through use of a general-purpose computer. The recited processor, estimation program, and estimation device amount the recitation of corresponding software and/or general-purpose computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer and does not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Allowable Subject Matter
All claims are currently rejected. However, the following would be the reason for an indication for allowable subject matter in light of the prior art:
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 18, Vliet discloses representing a distribution of photons with regards to the first recited term of Formula 5 [Page 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
259
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
]. It would have been obvious to represent the distribution for photons as recited because this would have been an effective manner for doing so.
Gaunt, A SIMPLE PROOF OF THE CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTION OF STUDENT’S t-DISTRIBUTION, Mathematics Subject Classification, 2019 [
PNG
media_image2.png
166
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
] discloses representing a distribution with regards to the second recited term of Formula 5 [Page 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
89
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
]. It would have been obvious to represent the distribution for photoelectron conversion as recited because this would have been an effective manner for doing so.
However, the prior art of record fails to disclose that a degree of freedom of v is defined as:
PNG
media_image4.png
61
117
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
183
858
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
334
860
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding claim interpretation of claims invoking 35 USC 112(f) is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
261
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
New grounds for rejection under 35 USC 101 are presented above.
Applicant argues:
The prior art rejections from the Office Action of 5/7/2026 are moot and should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. The corresponding prior art rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Janesick et al., Particle and Photon Detection: Counting and Energy Measurement, Sensors, 2016
US 20110084212 A1 – Multi-layer Photon Counting Electronic Module
US 20120016634 A1 – Characterization Of Single-Photon Detectors Using A Source Of Photon Pairs
US 20110210262 A1 – APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DETECTING HIGH-ENERGY RADIATION
US 20130030763 A1 – SPECTROMETER INCLUDING A GEIGER-MODE AVALANCHE PHOTODIODE
US 20150338270 A1 – DISCRIMINATING PHOTO COUNTS AND DARK COUNTS IN AN AVALANCHE PHOTODIODE
US 20120056078 A1 – COORDINATED IN-PIXEL LIGHT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS
US 20080224054 A1 – Photon Detection Device
US 20160044255 A1 – TECHNIQUES FOR PROCESSING IMAGING DATA HAVING SENSOR-DEPENDENT NOISE
US 20200374478 A1 – PHOTON COUNTING DEVICE AND PHOTON COUNTING METHOD
US 5694211 A – Light Measuring Apparatus For Quantizing Photon
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights