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 .
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine et al. (US 20140152801) in view of Last (US 20140071431).
Re claim 1: Fine teaches a detection device (fig. 1 and 62) comprising: a plurality of photodiodes (105/102/104/1005/832) provided on a substrate (106) (see fig. 1, 56 and 62, paragraph 101, 106, 107, 190 and 207); a plurality of light emitters (1001) arranged so as to face the photodiodes (see fig. 62, paragraph 207); and a collimating prism (1002) that is located between the photodiodes (105/1005) and the light emitters (1001) and is configured to emit parallel light toward the pixels (105/1005) (see fig. 62, paragraph 207), wherein images can be collected from emission at different positions of the plurality of light emitters one at a time (paragraph 207), and the collimating prism (1002) is configured to emit the parallel light at a different emission angle depending on a position of the light emitter in a lit state (paragraph 207, fig. 62, “light from a point 1000 on the OLED array 1001 that enters a suitable and appropriately positioned anamorphic prism 1002 is internally reflected from convex 1003 and concave 1004 internal surfaces, and emerges as a collimated beam 1008 that passes through the specimen chamber 1006 to fill the image sensor active area 1005. Light from any other point 1007 similarly emerges from the anamorphic prism as a collimated beam 1009, but impinges on the image sensor from a different angle”), but does not specifically teach a collimating lens and wherein at least one of the light emitters is configured to be brought into a lit state and other of the light emitters are configured to be brought into an unlit state. Last teaches a collimating lens (120/420) configured to emit parallel light (paragraph 52), wherein at least one of a plurality of light emitters (212) is configured to be brought into a lit state and other of the light emitters (212) are configured to be brought into an unlit state (paragraph 51), and the collimating lens (120/420) is configured to emit the parallel light at a different emission angle depending on a position of the light emitter in the lit state (paragraphs 53, fig. 4A-4C, fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a collimating lens of Last instead of the prism of Fine and actively control the light emitters similar to Last with the imaging of different emission positions of Fine in order to reduce the size of the optical collimating element for the emitters while only emitting a desired emitter at a specific location at a time to be imaged providing for a more compact and efficient design.
Re claim 2: Fine as modified by Last teaches the detection device, comprising a stage (Fine, sample chamber and surface of the sensor, paragraph 207, fig. 62, 694 in fig. 45, holds/stages sample between lens and photodiodes) provided between the photodiodes and the collimating lens (Fine, see fig. 62 and 45) in a direction orthogonal to the substrate (Fine, 106, fig. 1, 45 and 62), wherein an object (Fine, sample) to be detected is to be placed on the stage (Fine, 694/sample chamber/surface of the sensor functions as a stage that is between the photodiodes of the sensor and the collimating lens, fig. 1, 45 and 62).
Re claim 3: Fine as modified by Last teaches the detection device, wherein the light emitters are configured to be sequentially brought into the lit state in detection periods, and the photodiodes are each configured to sequentially output a detection signal corresponding to the position of the light emitter in the lit state in each of the detection periods (Last, paragraph 51, Fine, paragraph 207).
Re claim 4: Fine as modified by Last teaches the detection device, comprising an image processing circuit configured to generate one image by combining a plurality of images acquired in the respective detection periods, based the detection signals that have been output in the respective detection periods and information on the light emitters in the lit state in the respective detection periods (Fine, paragraph 207, Last, paragraph 51).
Re claim 10: Fine as modified by Last teaches the detection device, comprising a light source that is located so as to face the photodiodes and comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements, wherein the light emitters are the light-emitting elements (Fine, paragraph 207).
Re claim 11: Fine as modified by Last teaches the detection device, comprising a liquid crystal panel that is located so as to face the photodiodes and comprises a plurality of pixels, wherein the light emitters are the pixels (Fine, paragraph 207).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the detection device according to claims 3 and 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein an amount of shift of each of the images in the respective detection periods in plan view is a non-integer multiple of an arrangement pitch of the photodiodes.
In regards to claim 6, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the detection device according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with comprising a light distribution lens provided between the light emitters and the collimating lens.
In regards to claim 7, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the detection device according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with comprising a reference marker between the photodiodes and the collimating lens, wherein the reference marker has a first region having higher light transmittance and a second region having lower light transmittance than the first region.
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of their dependency on claim 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwasaki et al. (US 20230314334) teaches a detection device comprising: a plurality of photodiodes provided on a substrate (abstract, 38, fig. 3D); a plurality of light emitters (31) arranged so as to face the photodiodes (abstract, 38, fig. 3D); and a collimating lens (32) that is located between the photodiodes and the light emitters and is configured to emit parallel light toward the photodiodes (see fig. 3D), wherein at least one of the light emitters is configured to be brought into a lit state and other of the light emitters are configured to be brought into an unlit state (paragraph 98, fig. 3D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights