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 Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 defines the term “a control circuit,” and claim 13 introduces the term “a control unit.” Although no antecedent issue is being flagged as these two terms are written as and interpreted to be different components, they are too similar to each other and can create confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 correction unit” in claim 1, and “a control unit” in claim 13.
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. The specification states, “The correction unit that performs the correction processing may be the signal processing circuit 40 of the photoelectric conversion apparatus 100 illustrated in FIG. 1 or may be the output circuit 60,” see paragraph [0089]. Paragraph [0149] states: “an electronic control unit (ECU) 330, which is a control apparatus that outputs a control signal for generating a braking force for the vehicle”.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0343406 ("Ikedo") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0075171 ("Anhut").
Regarding claim 1, Ikedo discloses a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising:
a photodiode (302, Fig. 13) to which a first voltage (Vbias1, Fig. 13) and a second voltage (Vbias2, Fig. 13) are supplied, the photodiode being an avalanche-multiplication-type photodiode (paragraph [0028]: “The photodiode 302 is an avalanche photodiode.”);
a counter (301, 305, Fig. 13) configured to count a pulse (paragraph [0029]) generated at the photodiode (302, Fig. 13), and hold a count value (paragraph [0030]);
a control circuit (1301, Fig. 13, and 206, Fig. 2) configured to control the first voltage (Vbias1, Fig. 13) to be supplied to the photodiode (302, Fig. 13); and
a correction unit (paragraph [0023]: “The signal processor 101 performs predetermined signal processing (image processing) or the like, such as correction processing, on the image pickup signal outputted from the solid-state image pickup element 100.”),
wherein a signal (PEN signal, Figs. 13-14) input into the control circuit (1301, Fig. 13) has a first level (PEN is H level, Figs. 13-14) at which the first voltage is supplied to the photodiode (302, Fig. 13, paragraph [0071]) via the control circuit (1301, Fig. 13) and a second level (PEN is L level, Figs. 13-14) at which the first voltage is not supplied to the photodiode (paragraph [0072]).
Ikedo does not disclose that the correction unit is configured to correct the count value output from the counter in a case where the count value exceeds a threshold value by matching it to gradient a.
However, Anhut discloses a correction unit (implicit, see step S4, Fig. 5, and paragraph [0074]: “When the detector elements saturate, however, the measured photon count rate may be corrected (as shown in FIG. 3)”) configured to correct the count value output from the counter (see corrected curve m-corr, Fig. 3), wherein in a case where the count value output from the counter exceeds a threshold value (predefined threshold, S3, Fig. 5, paragraphs [0048], [0085], I-sat, Fig. 3), the correction unit corrects a count value at which a gradient of the count value (see curve m, Fig. 3) with respect to a number of photons incident on the photodiode in a range exceeding the threshold value (I-sat, Fig. 3) falls in a range different from a gradient a (see difference between curves m and m-corr, Fig. 3 after threshold I-sat) of the count value with respect to a number of photons until the count value reaches the threshold value (I-sat, Fig. 3) so as to match the gradient a (m-corr, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to correct the count value in a case where the count value exceeds a threshold value as disclosed by Anhut in the device of Ikedo in order to increase the dynamic range of the SPAD array which in turn helps deal with large light intensities.
Regarding claim 2, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a period from resetting the count value of the counter (t601, Fig. 6, counter is reset, paragraph [0034], and see Fig. 14A or 14B) to reading the count value of the counter (t607, Fig. 6, paragraph [0041]) includes a first period (for example, from t601 to t603, Fig. 6, is a first period, and see Fig. 14A or 14B, as the first period) and a second period that is after the first period (from t603 to t607, Fig. 6, is the second period, and see Fig. 14B as the second period after Fig. 14A, or Fig. 14C as the second period after Fig. 14B),
wherein the second period (from t603 to t607, Fig. 6, and Fig. 14B or 14C) is a period after the count value reaches [a count value] (see Fig. 6, at t603, and end of Fig. 14A or 14B, the count value has reached a certain count value), wherein,
in the first period (from t601 to t603, Fig. 6, Fig. 14A or 14B), a ratio of a length of the second level (PEN is L value, Figs. 6, 14A-C) to a length of the first level (PEN is H value, Figs. 6, 14A-C) is a first value (see for example Fig. 14A, paragraph [0077], PEN is always H value in this period, or in Fig. 14B, ratio between PEN being H and L is 2:1, paragraph [0078]), wherein, in the second period (see t603 to t607, Fig. 6, or see either Fig. 14B or 14C), a ratio of a length of the second level (PEN is L value, Figs. 6, 14B or 14C) to a length of the first level (PEN is H value, Figs. 6, 14B or 14C) is a second value (see Figs. 6, 14B, 14Cparagraph [0078]-[0079]), and wherein the second value is greater than the first value (see 14B, 14C, paragraphs [0078]-[0079]).
Ikedo does not disclose that the second period is a period after the count value reaches the threshold value.
However, Anhut discloses two periods, a first period (period before I-sat, Fig 3) and a second period, after the first period, after the count values reaches a threshold (period after I-sat, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031], [0081]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to define periods into before and after the count value reaching a threshold as disclosed by Anhut in the device of Ikedo in order to use occurrence of saturation as a criterion for whether or not a specific action needs to be taken.
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 2, and Ikedo further discloses that, in the first period, the signal input (PEN, Figs. 6, 14A) into the control circuit (1301, Fig. 13) is kept at the first level (PEN is always H value in this period, see Figs. 6, 14A), and wherein, in the second period, the signal input (PEN, Figs. 6, 14B) into the control circuit is set at the first level and at the second level sequentially more than once (PEN signal, Figs. 6, 14B, alternating between H and L levels).
Regarding claim 4, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 2, and Ikedo further discloses that, in the first period (this period is shown in Fig. 14B), the signal (PEN, Fig. 14B) input into the control circuit is set at the first level and at the second level sequentially more than once (see Fig. 14B, alternating between H and L levels), and wherein, in the second period (period shown in Fig. 14C), the signal (PEN, Fig. 14C) input into the control circuit is set at the first level and at the second level sequentially more than once (see Fig. 14B, alternating between H and L levels).
Regarding claim 9, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Ikedo further discloses that the first voltage (Vbias1, Fig. 13) is a voltage to be supplied to a cathode of the photodiode (cathode of 302, Fig. 13), wherein the second voltage (ground, Fig. 13) is a voltage to be supplied to an anode of the photodiode (anode of 302, Fig. 13), and wherein the control circuit (1301, Fig. 13) is configured to change a potential at the cathode of the photodiode (302, Fig. 13, paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Ikedo further discloses a plurality of pixels (201, Fig. 2) including the photodiode (paragraph [0023]), wherein the control circuit (1301, Fig. 13 and 206, Fig. 2) includes a control signal generation unit (206, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]), and wherein the control signal generation unit of the control circuit is connected in common to the plurality of pixels (see Fig. 2, and paragraph [0026], 206 supplies a signal to each of the unit pixels in the array).
Regarding claim 11, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Ikedo further discloses that the photodiode (301 is within 300, Fig. 5) is mounted on a first semiconductor substrate (501, Fig. 5), and the counter (301, Fig. 13, paragraph [0032]) is mounted on a second semiconductor substrate (502, Fig. 5), wherein the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate are stacked (see Fig. 5, paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses an imaging system, and Ikedo further discloses comprising: the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1 (100, Fig. 1); and a signal processing unit (101, Fig. 1) configured to process a signal output from the photoelectric conversion apparatus (paragraphs [0023], [0043]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Anhut further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0382726 ("Inaoka").
Regarding claim 5, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 2, and Ikedo further discloses that the period further includes a third period (see Fig. 14C as the third period) that is after the second period (Fig. 14B is the second period), wherein the third period is a period after the count value reaches a [count value] (see end of 14B, the count value has reached a certain count value), wherein, in the third period (Fig. 14C), the signal input (PEN, Fig. 14C) into the control circuit is set at the first level and at the second level sequentially more than once (see PEN signal, Fig. 14C), and wherein a length of the second level (PEN is L value, Fig. 14C) in the third period is greater than a length of the second level in the second period (see Figs. 14b-14C, PEN is L level longer lengths during the third period shown in Fig. 14C, see also paragraph [0079]).
Ikedo in view of Anhut does not disclose that a count value reaches a second threshold value that is greater than the threshold value.
However, Inaoka discloses two thresholds (Th1, Th2, Fig. 12) wherein the second threshold is greater that the first threshold (Fig. 12, paragraph [0110]), to which a count value is compared against (paragraphs [0109]-[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include additional thresholds as disclosed by Inaoka in the device of Ikedo in view of Anhut in order to use as a criterion, such as low, intermediate, or high luminance values, for whether or not a specific action needs to be taken.
Regarding claim 8, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the first voltage is a voltage to be supplied to an anode of the photodiode, wherein the second voltage is a voltage to be supplied to a cathode of the photodiode, and wherein the control circuit is configured to change a potential at the anode of the photodiode.
However, Inaoka discloses a first voltage (any of VE1 or VE2, Fig. 6) is a voltage to be supplied to an anode of the photodiode (anode of 224, Fig. 6), wherein the second voltage (ground, Fig. 6) is a voltage to be supplied to a cathode of the photodiode (cathode of 224, Fig. 6), and wherein the control circuit (273, 225, Fig. 6) is configured to change a potential at the anode of the photodiode (anode of 224, Fig. 6, see paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the potential at either the cathode or anode of a photodiode as disclosed by Inaoka in the device of Ikedo in view of Anhut as it is well known in the art that it achieves the same goal of controlling the voltage across the photodiode to be in either Geiger mode or linear mode as desired for a particular application.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Anhut further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0209846 ("Mandai").
Regarding claim 7, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the control circuit includes a recharging circuit, wherein a recharging operation is performed by the recharging circuit when a signal having the first level is input into the control circuit, and wherein the recharging operation by the recharging circuit is stopped when a signal having the second level is input into the control circuit.
However, Mandai discloses a recharging circuit (912, 908, Fig. 9), wherein a recharging operation is performed by the recharging circuit when a signal having the first level is input into the control circuit (paragraphs [0100],[0132]-[0135], under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recharging is required after an avalanche event is quenched, which in Ikedo’s circuit can only happen when PEN signal is H level), and wherein the recharging operation by the recharging circuit is stopped when a signal having the second level is input into the control circuit (implicit, as recharging is not required when PEN signal is L level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a recharging circuit as disclosed by Mandai in the device of Ikedo in view of Anhut in order to speed up the recovery time after a photon generated an avalanche current output and therefore increase the SPAD detector’s sensitivity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Anhut further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0305146 ("Kuroda").
Regarding claim 13, Ikedo in view of Anhut discloses the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose a moving object comprising: a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire distance information about a distance to a target, from a parallax image based on a signal from the photoelectric conversion apparatus; and a control unit configured to control the moving object based on the distance information.
However, Kuroda discloses a moving object (vehicle, Figs. 11A-11b) comprising:
a distance information acquisition unit (316, Fig. 11A) configured to acquire distance information about a distance to a target (paragraph [0089]), from a parallax image based on a signal from the photoelectric conversion apparatus (paragraph [0089]); and a control unit (330, Figs. 11A-11b) configured to control the moving object based on the distance information (paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the device of Ikeda in view of Anhut in a moving object as disclosed by Kuroda in order to for example, enable automatic driving control and avoiding collisions, and/or object recognition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: correcting the count value based on the specific equation (A), is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878