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 14-16 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 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” and “being equal to an inverse ratio of the reduction rate in the longitudinal direction to the reduction rate in the lateral direction”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. 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), and 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 14, 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 recitations (i.e., “for detecting light from a mask in which a width in a lateral direction of a pattern extending in a longitudinal direction is different from a width in the longitudinal direction of a pattern extending in the lateral direction” and “being equal to a ratio of the width in the longitudinal direction of the pattern extending in the lateral direction to the width in the lateral direction of the pattern extending in the longitudinal direction”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, 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), and 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 16, Kvamme discloses wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (par. 35).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14-16 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 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” and “being equal to an inverse ratio of the reduction rate in the longitudinal direction to the reduction rate in the lateral direction”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. 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), and 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 14, 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 recitations (i.e., “for detecting light from a mask in which a width in a lateral direction of a pattern extending in a longitudinal direction is different from a width in the longitudinal direction of a pattern extending in the lateral direction” and “being equal to a ratio of the width in the longitudinal direction of the pattern extending in the lateral direction to the width in the lateral direction of the pattern extending in the longitudinal direction”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. The claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, 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), and 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 16, Eckardt discloses wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (claim 5).
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 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvamme as applied to claims 1 and 14, and further in view of Behrooz et al. (US 2019/0124247; hereinafter Behrooz).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Kvamme discloses claims 1 and 14. 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), and 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 18, Kvamme discloses claims 1 and 14. 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), and 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.
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, 14, and 16 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 (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”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from claim 6 in USPN ‘184 if claim 6 of USPN ‘184 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The instant claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the claim of USPN ‘184, thereby making the scope of claim 1 of 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 14, 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 recitations (i.e., “for detecting light from a mask in which a width in a lateral direction of a pattern extending in a longitudinal direction is different from a width in the longitudinal direction of a pattern extending in the lateral direction”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from claim 6 in USPN ‘184 if claim 6 of USPN ‘184 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The instant claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the claim of USPN ‘184, thereby making the scope of claim 1 of the instant application the same as the scope of claim 6 in USPN ‘184.
Regarding claim 16, USPN ‘184 claims wherein the photodetector is configured as a TDI (claim 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 35 USC 102/103 rejections should be withdrawn, since Kvamme/Eckardt fails to disclose how the ratio should be set or the concept of a reduction rate at the time of exposure. The Examiner disagrees. The method of forming a device (i.e., how the ratio should be set) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Kvamme discloses a ratio (fig. 5b), as does Eckardt (claim 5). Since Applicant’s independent claims as recited do not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art, Kvamme and Eckardt both read on the claims as recited, and the claims remain rejected.
Furthermore, recitations (i.e., a reduction rate at the time of exposure) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Again, the claim recitations do not impart a structural difference from the prior art. Therefore, the claims remain rejected.
Applicant further argues that Behrooz fails to teach transferring charges. The Examiner disagrees. Behrooz teaches extracting charges (par. 145) in a direction (par. 198: column-wise or row-wise), which reads on transferring charges in a direction. The Examiner also notes that transferring charges in a direction for read-out is inherent in CCDs. In light of Behrooz’s teachings (pars. 145 and 198) and the inherency of charge transfers in CCDs, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected.
Applicant also argues that Behrooz does not teach TDI. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Kvamme, the primary reference, already discloses using TDI concepts (par. 35).
Regarding the double patenting rejections, the added claim recitations in the body of the independent claims are with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, which do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from claim 6 in USPN ‘184 if claim 6 of USPN ‘184 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The instant claim recitations in the body of the claims do not impart a structural difference from the claim of USPN ‘184, thereby making the scope of claim 1 of the instant application the same as the scope of claim 6 in USPN ‘184. Therefore, the claims remain rejected.
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 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
Prosecution Insights