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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, it claims that during a second phase, an input charge is removed from the charge storage device. From par. 62, it describes how the reset method removes all charges, so it is presumed that the reset transistor MNR removes charges from C1 and C2. However, it is unclear how MNR removes "an input charge" during the second phase. Then, the claim describes how "noise and offsets represent an excess charge removal during the said second phase." It is unclear what an excess charge removal constitutes since in the previous paragraph of the claim, "an input charge is removed." Furthermore, it is unclear what the noise and offsets is with respect to- the correlated double sampling reset device, multiplier 20, or the charge storage device. It is also unclear how "noise and offsets" represents a charge removal, and whether it should be claimed that excess charge removed represents the noise and offset? It is unclear what is "added again"- the noise and offsets or the excess charge removal. If the noise and offset is removed and then added, it is unclear how this cancels the noise and offset since it is added again.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Do describes an ultra-high dynamic range pixel architecture. Milkov describes comparator circuits with constant input capacitance. Ziff describes an interconnect system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIBIN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5768. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/SIBIN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights