DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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.
Claims 11 and 14-16 are 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.
Claim 11 recites that some surfaces are “greater” than others. It’s not clear in what way a surface per se is greater than another, thus the scope is unclear. The claim has been examined assuming the intended scope is greater size.
Claim 14 recites “the optical signal.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Each of claims 15 and 16 recites “the region covered by the optical signal.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9, and thus claim 10 by way of dependence, recites that the photoelectric detector units of the K subarrays and P subarrays are on respective, non-coplanar planes. However, parent claim 8 recites that they are both on the first plane. Thus, claim 9 attempting to replace, not further limit, the corresponding scope of claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopalan Nair Jalakumari et al. (“Jalakumari”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0115364) in view of Ma et al. (“Ma”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0308429).
Note: the use of “M” and “N” in Jalakumari is coincidental, and does not correspond to the claimed variables M and N. Quotes will be used to cite Jalakumari’s use.
Regarding claim 1, Jalakumari discloses an apparatus, comprising: N photoelectric detector unit subarrays (fig. 5 elements 511n and paragraph 0059, fig. 7 and paragraphs 0066-0069, and fig. 12 and paragraphs 0122-0125); and M output ports connected to the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays (fig. 5 the output connections of elements 511n toward elements 513n), a quantity of photoelectric detector units included in at least one of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays is greater than or equal to 2 (fig. 5 each subarray has “M” x “N” photodiodes), N is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (fig. 5 for N = 4), M is an integer less than or equal to N (fig. 5 for M = 4), a photoelectric detector unit in the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays is configured to obtain a first electrical signal by performing photoelectric conversion on an optical signal and the M output ports are configured to output the first electrical signal (paragraph 0059 in light of 0005). Jalakumari does not disclose that at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays are different. Ma discloses N photoelectric detector unit subarrays (fig. 4, the five regions of 406 and paragraphs 0027 and 0033-0035 and figs. 5-7 and paragraphs 0017-0019), wherein at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays are different (fig. 4, the set of 414, the set of 416 and the set of 418), and discloses using additional subarrays as well (fig. 4 element 404 and figs. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the subarrays of Jalakumari like those of Ma, to provide the benefit of being able to have multi-directional receiving arrays based on the 3 dimensional shapes achievable using the Ma structures.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jalakumari and Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays being different comprises at least one of: (i) shapes of the at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays being different, (ii) areas of the at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays being different, (iii) quantities of photoelectric detector units comprised in the at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays being different, (iv) areas of photosensitive surfaces of photoelectric detectors comprised in the at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays being different, or (v) spacings between photoelectric detector units comprised in the at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays being different (Ma: fig. 4, the set of 414, the set of 416 and the set of 418 and paragraphs 0027 and 0030-0035, as applicable for the combination).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jalakumari and Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein photosensitive surfaces of an array formed by the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays are axisymmetrically distributed (Ma: fig. 4, the set of 414, the set of 416 and the set of 418 and paragraphs 0027 and 0030-0035, as applicable for the combination).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jalakumari and Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays are located on a same plane (Ma: figs. 4, 5 and 7, where each subarrays is a plane, paragraph 0034, as applicable for the combination).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jalakumari and Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a processor connected to the M output ports, wherein the processor is configured to: receive the first electrical signal, and determine, based on the first electrical signal, data carried by the first electrical signal (Jalakumari: fig. 12 element 1213 and paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jalakumari and Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein a region covered by the optical signal comprises a target photoelectric detector unit subarray in the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays, and a function to control a quantity of photoelectric detector units in the target photoelectric detector unit subarray that perform photoelectric conversion on the optical signal to be a variable value (Jalakumari: fig. 7 and paragraphs 0066-0069). The combination as formulated above does not disclose that the processor performs the function. However, the processor is for data recovery (Jalakumari: fig. 12 element 1213). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the function in the logic of the processor, since the function is related to receiving data.
Regarding claim 17, Jalakumari discloses an apparatus, comprising: a plurality of arrays, wherein at least one of the plurality of arrays comprises N photoelectric detector unit subarrays (fig. 5 elements 511n and paragraph 0059, fig. 7 and paragraphs 0066-0069, and fig. 12 and paragraphs 0122-0125) and M output ports connected to the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays (fig. 5 the output connections of elements 511n toward elements 513n), a quantity of photoelectric detector units comprised in at least one of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays is greater than or equal to 2 (fig. 5 each subarray has “M” x “N” photodiodes), N is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (fig. 5 for N = 4), M is an integer less than or equal to N (fig. 5 for M = 4), a photoelectric detector unit in the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays is configured to obtain a first electrical signal by performing photoelectric conversion on an optical signal, and the M output ports are configured to output the first electrical signal. (paragraph 0059 in light of 0005). Jalakumari does not disclose that at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays are different. Ma discloses N photoelectric detector unit subarrays (fig. 4, the five regions of 406 and paragraphs 0027 and 0033-0035 and figs. 5-7 and paragraphs 0017-0019), wherein at least two of the N photoelectric detector unit subarrays are different (fig. 4, the set of 414, the set of 416 and the set of 418), and discloses using additional subarrays as well (fig. 4 element 404 and figs. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the subarrays of Jalakumari like those of Ma, to provide the benefit of being able to have multi-directional receiving arrays based on the 3 dimensional shapes achievable using the Ma structures.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jalakumari and Ma discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising: a light source (Jalakumari: fig. 9 element 917 and paragraph 0085).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Related photodetector arrays – US Patent Nos. 5581094, 7061598, 12487120; US Patent Application Publication Nos. 2023/0232138, 2019/0199438, 2018/0091230, 2015/0303231.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights