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 .
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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kvamme et al. (US 2020/0225574; hereinafter Kvamme).
Regarding claim 1, Kvamme discloses a photodetector (fig. 5b) comprising: a rectangular pixel (502), with a ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (508/506).
Note that claim recitations (i.e., for detecting light from a mask with a reduction rate at the time of exposure in a longitudinal direction different from a reduction rate at the time of exposure in a lateral direction) have not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Kvamme discloses wherein the rectangular pixel (502) is one of a plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 5b), the photodetector comprises the plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 5b), the plurality of rectangular pixels are arranged in a direction corresponding to a smaller dimension among the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction and the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 3, Kvamme discloses wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (par. 35).
Regarding claim 6, Kvamme discloses a photodetector (fig. 5b) comprising: a rectangular pixel (502), with a ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (508/506).
Note that claim recitations in the preamble (i.e., for detecting light from an object that is arranged in an optical system with a reduction rate in a longitudinal direction different from a reduction rate in a lateral direction) have not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Kvamme discloses the ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (508/506).
Regarding claim 8, Kvamme discloses wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (par. 35).
Regarding claim 9, Kvamme discloses a photodetector (fig. 5b) configured as a TDI (par. 35) comprising a plurality of rectangular pixels arranged in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction of a rectangular pixel among the plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 5b).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eckardt (US 2020/0066785).
Regarding claim 1, Eckardt discloses a photodetector (fig. 1) comprising: a rectangular pixel (claim 5), with a ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (claim 5).
Note that claim recitations in the preamble (i.e., for detecting light from a mask with a reduction rate at the time of exposure in a longitudinal direction different from a reduction rate at the time of exposure in a lateral direction) have not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Eckardt discloses wherein the rectangular pixel (P) is one of a plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 1), the photodetector comprises the plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 1), the plurality of rectangular pixels are arranged in a direction corresponding to a smaller dimension among the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction and the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Eckardt discloses wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Eckardt discloses a photodetector (fig. 1) comprising: a rectangular pixel (claim 5), with a ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (claim 5).
Note that claim recitations in the preamble (i.e., for detecting light from an object that is arranged in an optical system with a reduction rate in a longitudinal direction different from a reduction rate in a lateral direction) have not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Eckart discloses the ratio of the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 5). The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Eckardt discloses wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Eckardt discloses a photodetector (fig. 1) configured as a TDI (claim 5) comprising a plurality of rectangular pixels (claim 5) arranged in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction of a rectangular pixel among the plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 1).
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) 4-5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvamme as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Behrooz et al. (US 2019/0124247; hereinafter Behrooz).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Kvamme discloses claims 1 and 9. Kvamme further discloses wherein the rectangular pixel is one of a plurality of rectangular pixels, the photodetector comprises the plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 5b), the photodetector is configured as a TDI (par. 35) with a direction corresponding to a larger dimension among the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction and the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 5b).
However, Kvamme fails to disclose transferring a charge in the direction.
Behrooz teaches transferring a charge (par. 145) in the direction (par. 198).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kvamme with the teaching of Behrooz, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for faster processing (Behrooz: par. 9). Furthermore, since transferring in the row or column directions were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made (Behrooz: par. 198), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute one direction for the other.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Kvamme discloses claims 1 and 9. Kvamme further discloses wherein the rectangular pixel is one of a plurality of rectangular pixels, the photodetector comprises the plurality of rectangular pixels (fig. 5b), the photodetector is configured as a TDI (par. 35) with a direction corresponding to a smaller dimension among the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction and the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 5b).
However, Kvamme fails to disclose transferring a charge in the direction.
Behrooz teaches transferring a charge (par. 145) in the direction (par. 198).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kvamme with the teaching of Behrooz, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for faster processing (Behrooz: par. 9). Furthermore, since transferring in the row or column directions were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made (Behrooz: par. 198), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute one direction for the other.
Regarding claim 12, Kvamme discloses wherein the photodetector detects light from an object that is arranged in an optical system (fig. 1) and a ratio of the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 5b). The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Kvamme discloses wherein the photodetector detects light from an object that is arranged in an optical system (fig. 1) and a ratio of the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to the dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (fig. 5b). The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 6-7 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12050184 (hereinafter USPN ‘184). This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, USPN ‘184 claims a photodetector comprising: a rectangular pixel, a ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction being equal to an inverse ratio of the reduction rate in the longitudinal direction to the reduction rate in the lateral direction (claim 6).
Note that recitations in the preamble have not been given patentable weight because a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Since these recitations do not have patentable weight, the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is the same as the scope of claim 6 in USPN ‘184. Since the claimed apparatus of the instant application is not structurally different from the claimed apparatus of USPN ‘184, the scope of claim 1 in the instant application the same as the scope of claim 6 in USPN ‘184.
Regarding claim 3, USPN ‘184 claims wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, USPN ‘184 claims a photodetector comprising: a rectangular pixel, with a ratio of a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the longitudinal direction to a dimension of the rectangular pixel in the lateral direction (claim 6).
Note that claim recitations in the preamble have not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Since the claimed apparatus of the instant application is not structurally different from the claimed apparatus of USPN ‘184, the scope of claim 6 in the instant application the same as the scope of claim 6 in USPN ‘184.
Regarding claim 8, USPN ‘184 claims wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (claim 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884