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 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 light-receiving element” in claims 1-19
“a generation section” in claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20
“a control section” in claims 1-20
“a supply section” in claim 3
“a detection section” in claim 11-18
“a comparison section” in claims 12-18
“a signal retaining section” in claims 13-18
“a determination section” in claims 17 and 18
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.
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 2 and 14-18 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 2]
Claim 2 recites “[t]he photodetection device according to claim 1, wherein the control section is configured to control the supply of the electric current to the light-receiving element and adjust the pulse width of the first signal”.
Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “… and a control section configured to control supply of electric current to the light-receiving element on a basis of pulse width of the first signal”.
It is unclear whether the recitation of “wherein the control section is configured to control the supply of the electric current to the light-receiving element” and “a control section configured to control supply of electric current to the light-receiving element on a basis of pulse width of the first signal” refers to the same control of the supply of electric current to the light-receiving element or whether “wherein the control section is configured to control the supply of the electric current to the light-receiving element” refers to a different control of the supply of electric current to the light-receiving element than that recited in claim 1.
If they two control limitations refer to the same control in both claims, it is unclear why this limitation is duplicated in claim 2. If they refer to different controls, it is unclear what other control claim 2 refers since the specification does not appear to disclose two separate controls of the current applied to the light-receiving element.
For the purposes of applying prior art, the controls recited in claim 1 and claim 2 will be read as referring to the same control.
Clarification is required.[claims 14-18]
Claims 14-18 variously recite “a plurality of pixels, each of which includes the light-receiving element and the generation section, wherein the control section is configured to control the pixels in response to the second signal”.
As written, claim 14 appears to require that each pixel include the same light-receiving element and the same generation section (i.e. the light-receiving element and the generation section of claim 1).
However, the specification describes a system in which each pixel includes a separate light-receiving element and generation section (e.g. Figures 17-20).
Based on this inconsistency, it is unclear whether the claims require pixels which share a common light-receiving element and generation section, or whether the claims require an arrangement where each pixel has a separate light-receiving element and generation section.
See MPEP 2173.03: “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).”
For the purposes of applying prior art, claims 14-18 will be read as requiring a plurality of pixels each having separate light-receiving elements and generation sections.
Clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-13, 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.[claims 1-20]
Regarding claims 1-6 and 10-20 the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a photodetection device comprising: a light-receiving element configured to receive light and generate a signal; a generation section configured to generate a first signal based on the signal generated by the light-receiving element; and a control section configured to control supply of electric current to the light- receiving element on a basis of pulse width of the first signal.
Regarding claims 7-9 the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a photodetection device comprising: a light-receiving element configured to receive light and generate a signal; a generation section configured to generate a first signal based on the signal generated by the light-receiving element; and a control section configured to control the generation section on a basis of pulse width of the first signal.
For example, Homma (WO 2021/11766 A1) teaches a photodetection device comprising a light-receiving element (Figure 3, 51), a generation section (Figure 3, 55) and a control section (Figure 3, 54; Figure 6, 54 and 60).
However, the control section of Homma does not meet the requirements of the control section of claims 1-20, specifically Homma does not disclose the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see e.g. Figure 3, 90; Paragraph 0033).
Ota et al. (US 2023/0120430 A1 – Figure 4), Hamamatsu et al. (US 2022/0345652 A1 – Figure 6), Ikedo et al. (US 2021/0168323 A1 – Figure 7), Nishino (US 2020/0296313 A1 – Figure 4), Ozaki et al. (US 2020/0041621 A1 – Figure 10), Shiozuka et al. (WO 2020/149173 A1 – Figures 5 and 11), Sasaki et al. (JP 2019/009768 A) and Dierickz (US 2012/0305786 A1 – Figure 9) disclose similar photodetector arrangements, but like Homma do not teach the particular requirements of the various sections of the claims when construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
While Shiozuka (Figures 13 and 14) shows a similar arrangement for a control section (1100a including transistor 1010 and 1100b including current source 1011 or transistor 1020 and current source Iref), the control section in these embodiments does not control supply of electric current on a basis of pulse width of the first signal as required by the claims. Instead, the current is supplied on the basis of a bandgap reference voltage Vbgr (see English language equivalent Shiozuka (US 2022/0075033 A1 – Paragraph 0123, 0129-0134).
Therefore, while the prior art teaches similar photodetection devices, the prior art does not teach the particular requirements of the claims as described in the specification according to the 35 USC 112(f) invocation of the various elements of the claims.
However, the above 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome before all claims can be considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639