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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office Action based on the application filed on July 24, 2024. The current application is a continuation of application 17/946257, now US patent 12,081,886 B2, which is a continuation of application 17/237621, now patent US 11,539,904 B2 (issued on 12/27/2022), which is a continuation of application 16/574146, now patent US 11,044,430 B2 (issued on 06/22/2021), which is a continuation of application 15/763137, now patent US 10,455,173 B2 (issued on 10/22/2019). The Examiner acknowledges the following:
3. Claim 1 was filed.
4. The drawings filed on 07/24/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
5. Current claim 1 is pending and it is being considered for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The two IDS documents filed on 08/14/2024, 01/17/2025 and 09/03/2025 are acknowledged.
Priority
7. Priority documents are based on a Japanese patent application JP-2015-195283 with foreign priority date of September 30, 2015. A certified copy of the priority documents was filed to the office with the great-grandparent application 15/763137 on 03/26/2018.
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
1. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
2. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
3. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a photoelectric conversion unit”, “an accumulation unit”, “a transfer unit” and “a supply unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
___________________________________________________
5. Instant Application and the first application of this application series, application 15/763137 (US 10,455,173 B2) allowed on October 22, 2019) present a Double Patent problem. As for that matter: new claim 1 includes the same limitations as claim 1 of the patent US 10,455,173 B1 as indicated in Table I (see below), which is now allowed in view of Maruyama (US 2010/0141816 A1) and Oike (US 2007/0096238 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
The limitations of the instant claim 1 were already patented in US 10,455,173 B2. Indeed, claim 1 of patent US 10,455,173 B2 has more limitations that the current claim 1 as seen in Table I, wherein the common limitations are indicated by the underlined bold portions.
Claim 1 is rejected nonstatutory obvious-type Double Patent as fully encompassed by claim 1 of the patent US 10455,173 B2.
18/782755- Non-Statutory Double Patent Table
Table I: Comparison between the application 15/763137 (US 10,455,173 B2 and application 18/782755
15/763137 – claims allowed on 10/22/2019 – US 10,455,173 B2
Application – 18/782755
An image sensor, comprising
a first voltage source that supplies a first voltage and
a plurality of pixels supplied with the first voltage, wherein the pixels each include:
a photoelectric conversion unit that photoelectrically converts incident light;
an accumulation unit to which an electric charge resulting from photoelectric conversion by the photoelectric conversion unit is transferred and accumulated;
a transfer unit that transfers the electric charge from the photoelectric conversion unit to the accumulation unit;
a second voltage source that supplies a second voltage; and
a supply unit that supplies the transfer unit with a transfer signal based on either the first voltage supplied by the first voltage source or the second voltage supplied by the second voltage source; and
the supply unit includes a capacitor arranged between the first voltage source and the transfer unit, and a second resistor arranged between the second voltage source and the transfer unit.
1. An image sensor, comprising
a first voltage source that supplies a first voltage and
a plurality of pixels supplied with the first voltage, wherein the pixels each include:
a photoelectric conversion unit that photoelectrically converts incident light;
an accumulation unit to which an electric charge resulting from photoelectric conversion by the photoelectric conversion unit is transferred and accumulated;
a transfer unit that transfers the electric charge from the photoelectric conversion unit to the accumulation unit;
a second voltage source that supplies a second voltage; and
a supply unit that supplies the transfer unit with a transfer signal based on either the first voltage supplied by the first voltage source or the second voltage supplied by the second voltage source.
In conclusion, current claim 1 is rejected under non-statutory-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of patent US 10,455,173 B2, which was already patented before with patent US 10,455,173 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Yasushi Maruyama et al., US 2010/0141816 A1, hereinafter Maruyama” in view of “Takeshi Fujita, JP 2013-033852, hereinafter Fujita” (NOTE: Both arts are from the IDS document. The translation of Fujita is provided by the Examiner).
Regarding Claim 1:
Maruyama teaches a solid-state imaging device with a pixel structure including a main substrate (or first) and a second substrate. As for claim 1 limitations, Maruyama teaches,
An image sensor (Fig 1,2 (See 0058 – 0064]), image sensor or pixel portion 11 (See Fig 2; [0065 – 0067]) as a CMOS image sensor ([0073]), comprising
a first voltage source that supplies a first voltage (Fig 2, it applies a first voltage VDD to the plurality of pixels of the pixel structure as to reset the floating diffusion (See [0065]). See also [0086, 0087] and a plurality of pixels supplied with the first voltage (Fig 2, it applies a first voltage VDD to the plurality of pixels of the pixel structure as to reset the floating diffusion (See [0065]), wherein the pixels each include:
a photoelectric conversion unit that photoelectrically converts incident light (Fig 2, photodiode 21 (See [0066]). Fig 3, photodiode 31 (See [0071]);
an accumulation unit (Fig 4, charge accumulation region 41 (See [0077; 0078; 0084])to which an electric charge resulting from photoelectric conversion by the photoelectric conversion unit is transferred and accumulated;
a transfer unit that transfers the electric charge from the photoelectric conversion unit to the accumulation unit (Fig 4, transfer transistor 22 with transfer gate 51 (See [0080; 0086]) that transfer charges from the photodiode/photoelectric conversion 21/31 to the accumulation region 41 (See [0077; 0078; 0080; 0084; 0086]);
a second voltage source that supplies a second voltage (A second voltage source supplies a second voltage VDD as +1 V; - 1V; +3.3 V or +2.7 V (See [0086; 0087]); and
Even though, Maruyama teaches most of claim 1 limitations, it fails to clearly teach the last limitation of claim 1, which in the same field of endeavor is taught by Fujita. Fujita teaches, a supply unit that supplies the transfer unit with a transfer signal based on either the first voltage supplied by the first voltage source or the second voltage supplied by the second voltage source (Fig 1, the structure of an image sensor with two substrates and the first substrate, wherein the first substrate 100 includes the pixel array and a voltage generating circuit 10 and a second semiconductor substrate 200 with a source current 2a, which provides the ground or second voltage (See [0024]). Fig 2 shows the second substrate 200 with a VDD voltage source and a ground voltage (See [0025]). Fig 3 shows the voltage generation circuit 10, wherein a first voltage VDD or a second voltage ground voltage VGND which is lower that VDD (See [0030; 0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skills to modify Maruyama with the Fujita features that would provide the user with the ability of selecting a first or a second voltage source with voltage lower than the first voltage as taught by Fujita as to improve the efficiency of his/her device as for regulating the voltage applied to the main substrate.
Conclusion
11. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Osamu Saruwatari, US 10,455,173 B2 – it is the parent of the current application and it presents a double patent problem with it. See Double Patent rejection section for more detail.
Contact
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLY S.B. CAMARGO whose telephone number is (571)270-3729. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lin Ye can be reached on 571-272-7372. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARLY S CAMARGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638