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 first switching element” in claims 5-12
“a second switching element” in claims 5-12
“a third switching element” in claims 6 and 11
“a fourth switching element” in claim 7
“a photoelectric conversion element” in claims 13-18
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (US 2006/0006915 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses an image sensing device comprising:
a transfer signal output node coupled to output an electrical signal (Figure 4; OUT O; Paragraph 0030);
a pull-up driver configured to pull up a voltage level of the transfer signal output node to a first charge pumping voltage based on a pull-up control signal applied to the pull-up driver (Figure 4, M1a; Paragraphs 0031-0032);
a first pull-down driver configured to pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node at a first pull-down speed based on a first pull-down control signal applied to the first pull-down driver (Figure 1, M4a or M4b; Paragraphs 0031-0032;
a switching circuit configured to selectively connect the transfer signal output node to either the pull-up driver or the first pull-down driver based on a switching control signal applied to the switching circuit (Figure 4, M2 and M3; Paragraph 0033); and
a second pull-down driver coupled to the transfer signal output node and configured to pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node at a second pull-down speed different from the first pull-down speed based on a second pull-down control signal (Figure 4, other of M4b or M4a; Figure 5; Paragraphs 0031-0032).[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Yan discloses wherein the second pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the transfer signal output node to a second charge pumping voltage at a higher speed than the first pull-down speed (Figure 5, 206-210; note higher speeds are provided depending on selected pull-down driver).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Yan discloses wherein the first pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the transfer signal output node to a voltage level between the first charge pumping voltage and the second charge pumping voltage (Figure 5; note during pull-down operations 206-210 the voltage is pulled down from a high voltage to an intermediate voltage before settling to a low voltage; as claimed the intermediate voltages may read on the claimed “voltage level between the first charge pumping voltage and the second charge pumping voltage” since the claims do not require that the voltage remain at the voltage level after the pull-down operation is completed).
Alternatively, see the 35 USC 103 rejection over Yan in view of Moon below.[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Yan discloses wherein the second pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the transfer signal output node, which has been pulled down by the first pull-down driver, to the second charge pumping voltage (Figures 4 and 5; note that the first and second pull-down drivers may be simultaneously activated according to FALL<3:0>, in such a case where the first and second drivers are activated, the two drivers will pull-down the voltage together, thus the second driver will pull-down the voltage to VLO, where the voltage has been at least partially pulled-down to an intermediate voltage through activation of the first driver).
Should Applicant desire to claim a sequential process, e.g. the first driver is activated to pull the voltage down to an intermediate level and subsequently the second driver pulls the voltage down to the second charge pumping voltage, it is suggested that the series of sequential steps be explicitly claimed.
Alternatively, see the 35 USC 103 rejection over Yan in view of Moon below.[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, Yan discloses wherein the switching circuit includes:
a first switching element connected to the pull-up driver and the transfer signal output node, and configured to receive the switching control signal through a gate terminal of the first switching element (Figure 4, M2 receiving EN); and
a second switching element connected to the first pull-down driver and the transfer signal output node, and configured to receive the switching control signal through a gate terminal of the second switching element (Figure 4, M1 receiving EN).[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, Yan discloses wherein the pull-up driver includes:
a third switching element connected to the first switching element and a first charge pumping voltage node and configured to receive the pull-up control signal through a gate terminal of the third switching element (Figure 4, M4A receiving RISE control signal).[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, Yan discloses wherein the first pull-down driver includes:
a plurality of fourth switching elements connected in series between the second switching element and a second charge pumping voltage node and configured to commonly receive the first pull-down control signal through gate terminals of the plurality of fourth switching elements (Figure 4, plurality of M4a-M4d receiving FALL control signals).[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Yan discloses a third pull-down driver selectively connected in parallel to the first pull-down driver based on a third pull-down control signal and configured to pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node together with the first pull-down driver (Figure 4; e.g. M4c or M4d receiving FALL control signal and configured to pull-down the voltage; note FALL is a digital value which may turn on a plurality of the pull-down drivers according to FALL<3:0> such as b’1111).[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, Yan discloses an image sensing device comprising:
a photoelectric conversion element configured to generate photocharges through a photoelectric conversion of incident light (Figure 1, photodiode 12; Paragraph 0005);
a floating diffusion node configured to receive the photocharges from the photoelectric conversion element and accumulate the photocharges (Figure 1, FLOATING DIFFUSION N; Paragraph 0005);
a transfer transistor coupled to the photoelectric conversion element and the floating diffusion node, and configured to transmit the photocharges generated by the photoelectric conversion element to the floating diffusion node based on a transfer signal (Figure 1, TX 14; Paragraph 0005); and
a row driver configured to generate the transfer signal and provide the transfer signal to the transfer transistor, wherein the row driver is configured to change a pull-down speed at which the transfer signal is being pulled down from a first charge pumping voltage to a second charge pumping voltage (e.g. Figures 4-5; Paragraph 0030-0032; row driver adjusting slew rate of pull-up and pull-down for control signals including TX according to RISE and FALL control signals).[claim 14]
Regarding claim 14, Yan discloses wherein the row driver includes:
a pull-up driver configured to pull up a voltage level of a transfer signal output node to the first charge pumping voltage based on a pull-up control signal (Figure 4, M1a; Paragraphs 0030-0032); and
a pull-down driver configured to gradually pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node at different pull-down speeds based on a first pull-down control signal and a second pull-down control signal (Figure 4, e.g. M4a and M4b; Paragraphs 0030-0032).
See also Figure 5 showing different slew rates for the pull-up and pull-down operations.[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, Yan discloses wherein the pull-down driver includes:
a first pull-down driver configured to pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node to a pixel power-supply voltage level at a first pull-down speed based on the first pull-down control signal (Figure 4, e.g. M4a or M4b; Figure 5, 210); and
a second pull-down driver configured to pull down the transfer signal output node that has been pulled down to the pixel power-supply voltage level to the second charge pumping voltage at a second pull-down speed higher than the first pull-down speed based on the second pull-down control signal (Figure 4, e.g. other of M4a or M4b; Figure 5, 206 or 208).[claim 16]
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 9 above.[claim 17]
Regarding claim 17, Yan discloses: a switching circuit configured to selectively connect any one of the pull-up driver and the first pull-down driver to the transfer signal output node based on a switching control signal (Figure 4, M1 and M2 receiving EN).[claim 18]
Regarding claim 18, Yan discloses wherein a resistance of a first current path flowing through the first pull-down driver is greater than a resistance of a second current path flowing through the second pull-down driver (Paragraphs 0034-0035; digitally controlled resistor network using transistors of different sizes to control slew rates based on changes in resistance).
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.
Alternatively, claim(s) 3, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (US 2006/0006915 A1) in view of Moon et al. (US 2025/0097595 A1). [claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, while Yan arguably teaches all limitations (see rejection above), Yan does not teach wherein the first pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the transfer signal output node to an intermediate voltage level between the first charge pumping voltage and the second charge pumping voltage, wherein the first pull-down driver is connected to the intermediate voltage.
Moon teaches a similar row driver having first and second pull-down drivers and further teaches wherein the first pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the transfer signal output node to a voltage level between the first charge pumping voltage and the second charge pumping voltage (Figures 4-6; note first pull-down operation at t3 to VSSA where the first pull-down driver is connected to the intermediate voltage VSSA). Moon discloses the use of two voltages as described which allows a voltage settling time to be reduced (Paragraph 0041, 0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use first and second pull-down drivers as taught by Moon which pull the voltage down to two separate voltages so that the voltage settling times may be reduced.[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4 see the rejection of claim 3 and note that Moon discloses wherein the second pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the transfer signal output node, which has previously been pulled down by the first pull-down driver, to the second charge pumping voltage (Figures 4-6; note first pull-down operation at t3 and second pull-down operation at t4).[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claim 3 above and note that Moon discloses wherein the second pull-down driver includes: a first switching element having one terminal connected to the transfer signal output node, and configured to receive a pixel power-supply voltage through a gate terminal of the first switching element (Figure 4, TR2 connected to CS2; Paragraph 0072 and 0078); and
a second switching element connected to the first switching element and a second charge pumping voltage node, and configured to receive the second pull-down control signal through a gate terminal of the second switching element (Figure 4, PDTR connected to PDS; Paragraph 0079).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (US 2006/0006915 A1).[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, Yan discloses setting transistor sizes for different pull-down speeds (Figures 4 and 5; Paragraph 0038), but does not disclose wherein the third pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node at the first pull-down speed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set sizes so that the third pull-down driver is configured to: pull down the voltage level of the transfer signal output node at the first pull-down speed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).[claim 19]
Regarding claim 19, Yan discloses setting transistor sizes for different pull-down speeds (Figures 4 and 5; Paragraph 0038), but does not explicitly disclose the particular combination of pull-down speeds claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set sizes so that the first pull-down driver and the third pull-down driver are configured to pull down the transfer signal output node at a third pull-down speed that is greater than the first pull-down speed and smaller than the second pull-down speed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.[claims 10 and 11]
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the image sensing device according to claim 9, wherein the third pull-down driver includes: a first switching element having one terminal connected to the transfer signal output node, and configured to receive the third pull-down control signal through a gate terminal of the first switching element; and a plurality of second switching elements connected in series between the first switching element and a second charge pumping voltage node, and configured to receive the first pull-down control signal through gate terminals of the plurality of second switching elements.
While the prior art teaches pull-down drivers which include a plurality of switching elements connected in series and receiving a pull-down control signal through gate terminals thereof (e.g. Chou et al. (US 2012/0044398 A1) – Figure 5; Saint-Laurent et al. (US 6,573,777 B2) – Figure 9), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the particular circuit arrangement recited in claims 10 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references show additional systems having pull-up/pull-down circuit arrangements in image sensors:
Lim US 2020/0322558 A1
Prathipati US 2020/0145597 A1
Mudegowdar US 2020/0145596 A1
Sundararaman et al. US 2007/0001101 A1
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
Prosecution Insights