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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 3/20/2026.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The term “closer to the light-emitting elements in the second row” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closer to the light-emitting elements in the second row” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase appears to be a comparison, but does not explicitly state what the closeness is to be compared to. The claim is interpreted as requiring that the photodiodes to be driven are closer to the light-emitting elements in the second row than to the light emitting elements in the first row.
Claim Interpretation
In Applicant’s role as their own lexicographer, the term “plan view” is interpreted according to the definition found in lines 5-7 of the disclosure, and the second paragraph of page 27 is interpreted as defining what it means for photodiodes to “correspond to” particular light-emitting elements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig (US patent publication 20170328830) in view of Paschotta (non-patent literature “Image Sensors”).
Regarding claim 1, Ludwig teaches a detection device comprising:
an optical sensor comprising a plurality of photodiodes arranged in a planar configuration (FIG. 27, image sensing array. Note that Ludwig refers to the sensing elements as LEDs, but, as noted in paragraph 189, an LED is also a photodiode when configured appropriately, which Ludwig does);
a light source comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements configured to emit light to the photodiodes (FIG. 27, LED array); and
an object placement member that has a light-transmitting property and is configured to be disposed between the optical sensor and the light source, and on which a plurality of objects to be detected are to be placed (FIG. 27, sample holding module), wherein the photodiodes are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction (FIG. 27 shows a small section with three rows and three columns, but also see FIGs. 12-14 for a better sense of scale),
the light-emitting elements are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration in the first direction and the second direction (FIG. 27 shows a small section with only a few rows and columns explicitly shown) and are configured to be sequentially driven along the second direction at least one row by one row (FIG. 21 shows a sequential spatially-modulated light-field with illumination provided in at least one row), and
at a given time, photodiodes to be driven among the photodiodes correspond to light-emitting elements to be lit among the light-emitting elements in plan view (FIG. 57 shows the correspondence, which paragraph 245 points out may reduce the computational burden by reducing the number of paths from each light source to different detectors).
Ludwig states that the image sensing can be done in a 2-dimensional manner similar to the 1-dimensional imaging arrangements of a document scanner (paragraph 156), but does not clarify explicitly that the photodiodes are configured to be sequentially driven along the second direction at least one row by one row.
In the same field of endeavor of imaging by scanning, Paschotta does explain how document scanners work, so does explicitly teach that the photodiodes are configured to be sequentially driven along the second direction at least one row by one row (first page, last item on the list and the following paragraph clarify that document scanners typically combine one-dimensional images from a row of sensors to make a two-dimensional image). By producing a number of linear images, a scanner of the type described by Paschotta can provide partially-formed image output to process into fully-formed image output (also see FIG. 22 of Ludwig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the detection device and document scanner-style imaging arrangement of Ludwig in the manner of the document scanners described by Paschotta as a particular way to produce two-dimensional images without the added cost of adding lenses (paragraph 156 of Ludwig).
Regarding claim 2, Ludwig, as modified by Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the detection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ludwig further teaches that a row of the light-emitting elements with shortest distances in the second direction from the photodiodes to be driven are configured to be lit (FIG. 54a shows the direct light path between a light source and a photodiode with the shortest distance in both first and second directions, which maximizes the sensed light, as shown in FIG. 54b and discussed in paragraph 239).
Regarding claim 3, Ludwig, as modified by Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the detection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ludwig further teaches that two rows of the light-emitting elements that are adjacent to the row of the light-emitting elements corresponding to the photodiodes to be driven are further configured to be lit, one of the two rows is located on one side in the second direction of the row of the photodiodes to be driven and the other one of the two rows is located on the other side in the second direction of the row of the photodiodes to be driven (paragraph 248 describes a procedure in which all the light-emitting diodes are lit, which would include the rows adjacent on both sides to any particular row. Note that this claim does not require a particular timing for when the adjacent rows are lit.).
Regarding claim 4, Ludwig, as modified by Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the detection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ludwig further teaches that the number of the light-emitting elements is smaller than the number of the photodiodes (paragraph 207 teaches that the resolution of the array of light-emitting elements may match, exceed, or be less than that of the image sensor pixel array), and
when the light-emitting elements in a first row and a second row that are adjacent to each other in the second direction are lit and the photodiodes to be driven are closer to the light-emitting elements in the second row, the light-emitting elements in a third row adjacent to the second row in the second direction are further configured to be lit (paragraph 248 describes a procedure in which all the light-emitting diodes are lit, which would include the rows adjacent on both sides to any particular row).
Regarding claim 5, Ludwig, as modified by Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the detection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ludwig further teaches that the light-emitting elements are light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights