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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 April 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 is:
“a switching system” in claims 9 and 19: the switching system includes a first, a second and a third switches page 3, lines 16-17.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 11-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 11, “a first type of electrical charge” in lines 6-7 and 7 respectively are unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same first type of electrical charge mentioned previously or a different type of electrical charge? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same first type of electrical charge mentioned previously.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, “the switch” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a system as claimed, comprising: a photodetector (PD), wherein the PD generates a first type of electrical charge and a second type of electrical charge; an integrating capacitor connected to the PD; and more specifically in combination with a controller configured to switch between a first collection state of the integrating capacitor and a second collection state of the integrating capacitor, wherein, during the first collection state, the integrating capacitor is charged by the first type of electrical charge derived from photocurrent and by the first type of electrical charge derived from dark current, and wherein, during the second collection state, the integrating capacitor is discharged by the second type of electrical charge derived from dark current, wherein the first type of electrical charge is inversed to the second type of electrical charge such that electrical charges derived from dark current are thereby substantially eliminated.
Claims 2-10 are allowed for their dependency on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a method as claimed, comprising: providing a photodetector (PD) connected to an integrating capacitor, and to a controller, wherein the PD generates a first type of electrical charge and a second type of electrical charge inversed to the second type of electrical charge; switching, by the controller, to a first collection state of the integrating capacitor; charging the integrating capacitor, during the first collection state, by a first type of electrical charge derived from photocurrent and by a first type of electrical charge derived from dark current; more specifically in combination with switching, by the controller, to a second collection state of the integrating capacitor; and discharging the integrating capacitor, during the second collection state, by the second type of electrical charge derived from dark current, thereby substantially eliminating electrical charges derived from dark current.
Claims 12-20 are rejected but would be allowable for their dependency on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adusumalli et al. (USPGPub 20220299362 A1): Adusumalli teaches a device for reducing dark current using an integration circuit. Adusumalli specifically teaches using an op-amp to cancel dark currents of opposing polarities by applying an offset voltage across the detector (see ¶¶42-50). However, Adusumalli fails to explicitly teach wherein a photodetector is operating in two different modes, one of which generating a first type of charge for both dark and photo currents, and the other mode generating an inverse charge for just dark current.
Dobrinsky et al. (USPGPub 20210227119 A1): Dobrinsky teaches circuitry for reducing dark current, specifically using a current source to cancel out dark current (see ¶175). However, Dobrinsky fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitations. Additionally, it would not make sense to use Dobrinsky to teach the limitations of the claims as the opposing charge is resulting from a current source and not from a detector operating in two different modes.
Cao (USPGPub 20200252561 A1): Cao teaches a dark noise compensating detector that uses different currents from current sources to compensate for dark noise that differs from an interior located pixel to an exterior located pixel. However, Cao fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
Ikeda et al. (USPGPub 20170040361 A1): Ikeda teaches a photoelectric conversion device that uses two photodetectors, one that generates electrons, and one that generates holes. However, Ikeda fails to teach using these opposing charges for the purpose of dark current mitigation, and Ikeda teaches two different photodetectors as opposed to a single photodetector operating in two different modes.
Huang et al. (USPGPub 20110192958 A1): Huang teaches a dark current cancellation device that uses two different photosensors, a first sensor that doesn’t receive light and that outputs only dark current, and a second sensor that does receive light and therefore outputs both a photocurrent and a dark current component. The first sensor acts as a reference detector, and a current replication circuit replicates the dark current and uses it to cancel out the dark current from the second sensor. Huang differs vastly from the claimed invention in that it uses two photosensors as opposed to a single photosensor operating in two modes, which drastically changes the circuitry and processes involved in dark current cancellation.
Lin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11703385 B1): Lin teaches a dark current elimination device using a shielded detector and an exposed detector that output signals into a reverse capacitor that cancels out the dark current. However, Lin fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
Shimada (JP 2012175408 A): Shimada teaches a dark current cancellation device that does not use a shielded sensor. Instead, Shimada teaches controllably altering the parameters (exposure) of the image sensor that are known to alter dark current and correcting the dark current based on the ratios between different exposures. However, Shimada fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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 Y 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights