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 .
Double Patenting
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 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 Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,893. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11 of this application recites the same features as claims 1 and 10 respectively of the patent, except that the patent additionally recites “wherein the second pixel is disposed adjacent to the first pixel in a first direction in plan view…wherein the third pixel is disposed adjacent to the first to the first pixel in a second direction in the plan view…wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction”. That is, claims 1 and 11 of this application reads on claims 1 and 10 of the patent. As such, this double patenting rejection is proper.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,893 in view of Noudo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0242874).
As detailed above,
Claims 1 and 11 of the patent renders obvious the features of claims 1 and 10.
The patent does not recite:
Regarding claim 2 and 12. The light detecting device according to claim 1, wherein the effective light-receiving region is configured to generate electrons based on an incident light.
Regarding claim 3 and 13. The light detecting device according to claim 1, wherein the effective light-receiving region is a Si substrate of effective light-receiving surface.
Regarding claim 4 and 14. The light detecting device according to claim 1, wherein the effective light-receiving region of each pixel is based on a thickness of a light shielding film.
Regarding claim 5 and 15. The light detecting device according to claim 2, wherein the effective light-receiving region of each pixel is based on a position of the light shielding film in a thickness direction of the light shielding film.
Regarding claim 6 and 16. The light detecting device according to claim 1, wherein the effective light-receiving region of the first pixel is greater than the effective light-receiving region of the third pixel in the plan view.
Regarding claim 7 and 17. The light detecting device according to claim 1, further comprising a fourth pixel without a color filter.
Regarding claim 8 and 18. The light detecting device according to claim 7, wherein the first pixel, the second pixel and the third pixel are located adjacent to the fourth pixel.
Regarding claim 9 and 19. The light detecting device according to claim 7, wherein an effective light-receiving region of the fourth pixel is greater than the effective light-receiving region of the second pixel in the plan view.
Regarding claim 10 and 20. The light detecting device according to claim 7, wherein the fourth pixel receives white light.
In related art, Noudo discloses:
Regarding claim 2 and 12. The light detecting device according to claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the effective light-receiving region is configured to generate electrons based on an incident light. ([0220])
Regarding claim 3 and 13. The light detecting device according to claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the effective light-receiving region is a Si substrate of effective light-receiving surface.([0003])
Regarding claim 4 and 14. The light detecting device according to claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the effective light-receiving region of each pixel is based on a thickness of a light shielding film.(See Fig. 13, and 104)
Regarding claim 5 and 15. The light detecting device according to claim 2 (claim 14), wherein the effective light-receiving region of each pixel is based on a position of the light shielding film in a thickness direction of the light shielding film. (See Fig. 13, and 104)
Regarding claim 6 and 16. The light detecting device according to claim 1 (claim 11), wherein the effective light-receiving region of the first pixel is greater than the effective light-receiving region of the third pixel in the plan view. (See Fig. 13, and 104, the region of G being larger than R and B)
Regarding claim 7 and 17. The light detecting device according to claim 1 (claim 11), further comprising a fourth pixel without a color filter. (See Fig. 13 and Fig. 20 including W, and 104, the region of G being larger than R and B)
Regarding claim 8 and 18. The light detecting device according to claim 7 (claim 17), wherein the first pixel, the second pixel and the third pixel are located adjacent to the fourth pixel. (See Fig. 13 and Fig. 20 including W, and 104, the region of G being larger than R and B)
Regarding claim 9 and 19. The light detecting device according to claim 7 (claim 17), wherein an effective light-receiving region of the fourth pixel is greater than the effective light-receiving region of the second pixel in the plan view. (See Fig. 13 and Fig. 20 including W, and 104, the region of G being larger than R and B)
Regarding claim 10 and 20. The light detecting device according to claim 7 (claim 17), wherein the fourth pixel receives white light. (See Fig. 13 and Fig. 20 including W, and 104, the region of G being larger than R and B)
Noudo discloses that the recited features provides the benefit of forming a good solid state imaging device, providing a good detection and generation of an image. As such, the features of claims 2-10 and 12-20 would have been obvious to one having Ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights