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 capacitance divider configured to; a signal controller configured to in claims [1 and 16].
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.
A review of the specification shows the claimed capacitance deriver to be the structure 142 as depicted in fig. 3 and described in the text of paragraph [0032]; and the claimed signal controller to be the structure 175 as depicted in fig. 1 and described in the text of paragraph [0117]. And the program being the steps as depicted in fig. 7A.
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 and 11-14] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Ham (US. 2007, 0046513).
Reclaim [1], Ham discloses an image sensing device (see fig. 1) comprising: a ramp generator configured to generate a ramp signal (see 140 fig. 1); a capacitance divider (see the CDS circuit array, 300, as depicted in fig. 3, is equated to the claimed capacitance deriver by the virtue of adjusting a voltage signal of the pixels output from the pixel array as for example disclosed in paragraph 0035]) configured to output a first adjustment pixel signal by adjusting a voltage level range of a pixel signal to a first voltage level range value in a first analog gain mode (see figs. 1-3 and ¶¶0037, 0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination and small under high illumination), or configured to output a second adjustment pixel signal by adjusting a voltage level range of the pixel signal to a second voltage level range value in a second analog gain mode (see figs. 1-3 and ¶¶0037, 0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination and small under high illumination)); and a signal controller configured to control the ramp generator so that a waveform of the ramp signal has a first slope in each of the first analog gain mode and the second analog gain mode (see ¶0040, The ramp signal generator 140, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention calibrates the slope of a second ramp signal VRAMP2 used in the CDS circuit array 130 in a non-linear manner in response to illumination [the ramp signal generator 140, by the virtue of calibrating the slope ramp signal in anon-linear manner is equated to the claimed signal controller]).
Reclaim [11], Ham further discloses, wherein the second voltage level range value is greater than the first voltage level range value (see ¶0040, see figs. 1-3, and ¶ 0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination and small under high illumination).
Reclaim [12] Ham further discloses, wherein: the first analog gain mode corresponds to a first illuminance environment (see ¶ 0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination and small under high illumination); and the second analog gain mode corresponds to a second illuminance environment, (see ¶0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination), and wherein illuminance corresponding to the first illuminance environment is higher than illuminance corresponding to the second illuminance environment (see ¶0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination and small under high illumination [the higher equated to first illuminance and the lower illumination equated to the claimed second illuminance]).
Reclaim [13] Ham further discloses , wherein: the capacitance divider is configured to output the second adjustment pixel signal by adjusting a voltage level range of the pixel signal to the second voltage level range value in a third analog gain mode (see figs. 1-3 and ¶0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination and small under high illumination, to prevent data loss even when the scene dynamic range is equal to the maximum sensor dynamic range); and the signal controller is configured to control the ramp generator so that a waveform of the ramp signal has a second slope in the third analog gain mode (see¶0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination).
Reclaim [14] Ham further discloses, wherein the second slope is gentler than the first slope (see ¶0040, the analog gain has to be large under low illumination, [by the virtue of the analog gain being larger]) .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims [16-20] are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reclaims [16] none of the prior arts on the record either singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests: An image sensing device comprising: a comparator configured to generate comparison data by comparing one of the first adjustment pixel signal or the second adjustment pixel signal with the ramp signal; in conjunction with the other limitation of the claim.
Claims[ 17-20] are allowed due to their direct or indirect dependency on claim [1].
Claims [2-10 and 15] 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reclaims [2] none of the prior arts on the record either singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests: The image sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the capacitance divider includes: a first capacitor connected between a first node and a second node, each of which receives the pixel signal as an input signal; a second capacitor connected to a ground terminal; and a first switch connected between the second node and the second capacitor, and configured to control a switching operation of the first switch in response to a first switch control signal.
Claims [3-7] are allowed due to their direct or indirect dependency on claim [2].
Reclaims [8 ] none of the prior arts on the record either singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests. The image sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the capacitance divider includes: a first capacitor connected between a first node and a second node, each of which receives the pixel signal as an input signal; a fourth capacitor connected to a ground terminal; a first switch connected between the second node and the fourth capacitor, and configured to control a switching operation of the first switch in response to a first switch control signal; a third capacitor connected between a third node and a fourth node, each of which receives the ramp signal as an input signal; a fifth capacitor connected to the ground terminal; a second switch connected between the fourth node and the fifth capacitor, and configured to control a switching operation of the second switch in response to a second switch control signal; and a shared line configured to connect the fourth capacitor to the fifth capacitor.
Reclaims [9-10] are allowed due to their direct or indirect dependency on claim [8].
Reclaim [15] none of the prior arts on the record either singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests.: The image sensing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a comparator configured to generate comparison data by comparing one of the first adjustment pixel signal or the second adjustment pixel signal with the ramp signal; and a counter configured to count the comparison data based on a counter enable signal.
Examiner note the claimed ramp generator ; counter and comparator in claims [1 and 15-16] are a well-known structure in the art, and thus don’t invoke 112 (6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (US. Pat. No. 11,496,704) discloses for example, the comparator unit 42 on each column of the comparator circuit 40 may be formed of a differential input type comparator 44, capacitors C0, C1, and C2, and switches SW1 and SW2. In col. 5 lines 51-54.
Lim (US. Pat. No. 8,395,539) discloses: a schematic block diagram illustrating an embodiment of analog-to-digital conversion using analog CDS in a CMOS image sensor. In col. 9 lines 16-17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights