Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/863,200

IMAGING ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 05, 2024
Examiner
SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T
Art Unit
2639
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 913 resolved
+9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
952
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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: “reference signal generation unit” in claim 1 and 8. 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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3 – 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishino (US 2019/0068902). Regarding claim 1, Nishino discloses, in at least figures 1 and 5, an imaging element (11) comprising: a pixel (21) that outputs a pixel signal according to incident light (¶46); a reference signal generation unit (DAC 21 and 24) that generates a reference signal having an inclined waveform (ramp), the inclined waveform linearly changing with a predetermined inclination as time elapses (¶53-54); an analog-digital conversion circuit (23, 24 and 25) that includes a comparator (25), the comparator comparing the pixel signal with the reference signal, and performs analog-digital conversion on the pixel signal (¶51, 54); and a noise correction circuit (22) that corrects noise of a pixel power supply, the pixel power supply supplying power to the pixel by superimposing the noise on the reference signal (¶58), wherein the noise correction circuit includes: a first correction circuit (114) that generates a first correction signal for correcting a relatively low frequency band with respect to noise of the pixel power supply (¶98); and a second correction circuit (113/115) that generates a second correction signal, the second correction signal being different in output polarity from the first correction signal and correcting a relatively high frequency band for noise of the pixel power supply (¶96, 102, 105). Regarding claim 3, Nishino discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nishino also teaches wherein the first correction circuit and the second correction circuit each have a function of adjusting frequency characteristics of the first correction signal and the second correction signal (¶96, 98, 102-105). Regarding claim 4, Nishino discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nishino also teaches wherein the noise correction circuit corrects noise of a power supply that supplies power to the comparator (fig. 1; ¶57-58). Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Nishino also teaches an electronic apparatus (901) (fig. 9; ¶202). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 5 – 7 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST. 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. /ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604093
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STABILIZING A SHOOTING VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601959
Camera Focus and Stabilization System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597104
IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593059
IMAGING APPARATUS AND IMAGING METHOD FOR GENERATING SIGNATURE DATA BASED ON COMPRESSED IMAGE DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593115
DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, DATA PROCESSING METHOD, DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM, OPTICAL ELEMENT, IMAGING OPTICAL SYSTEM, AND IMAGING APPARATUS TO SELECT SUITABLE WAVELENGTH FOR OBJECT DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 913 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month