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: “charge-voltage conversion unit”, “transfer unit”, “reset unit” in claims 6-12. NOTE: in-pixel readout unit in claim 1 does not invoke as it is modified by structures in claim 1 (i.e. “includes a source follower circuit….”).
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
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) 1-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0094864 A1 to Lee et al.
NOTE: MPEP 2114 states:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
A review of Applicant’s specification shows that the concept of the current through a current source being more or less then other currents through other current sources at various times comes from the fact that either no signal is being read out (i.e. no current flows) or the signal being read out has predetermined possible signal level range that would inherently require less current than the other signals being read out. That is, for example in Fig. 9 of Applicant’s specification, signals N, SA and SAB need to be read out into their corresponding storage capacitors. Signal N is a reset level (i.e. max voltage level of VDD) and signal SA and SAB are the remaining charge from that reset level (i.e. must be the same as or lower then VDD).
Because of this the different currents from the different blocks as a function of the manner in which the apparatus is operated. As Lee provides for all of the claimed structural limitations Lee anticipates the claims. The Examiner has focused the rejection below so as to show the mapping of structures for the claim limitations and Lee.
With respect to claim 1 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, a photoelectric conversion device that includes a plurality of pixels arranged to form a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns (Fig. 1 and paragraph 25), the device comprising a controller (120) configured to control the plurality of pixels divided into a plurality of blocks, wherein each of the plurality of blocks includes pixels arranged in the same row and pixels arranged in different rows (paragraph 28 and 37; where the controller can control pixel integrations by row groups), each pixel (Fig. 15A) includes a photoelectric conversion element (PDL and PDR) (paragraph 128), and an in-pixel readout unit configured to perform an in-pixel readout operation of reading out and holding a signal from the photoelectric conversion element (paragraph 41), the in-pixel readout unit includes a source follower circuit including an amplification transistor (SF1) (paragraph 44) and a current source (PCX) (paragraph 48), the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that a period during which the in-pixel readout unit of each of the plurality of pixels performs the in-pixel readout operation is the same within each individual block and different between the plurality of blocks (paragraph 37), the plurality of blocks include a first block that is controlled as a block to perform the in-pixel readout operation by the controller in a predetermined period, a second block that is controlled as a block to perform the in-pixel readout operation by the controller in a period after the predetermined period, and a third block different from the first block and the second block, in the predetermined period, an amount of current flowing through the current source in the third block is smaller than an amount of current flowing through the current source in the first block and an amount of current flowing through the current source in the second block, and in the predetermined period, an amount of current flowing through the current source in the second block is not more than an amount of current flowing through the current source in the first block (Fig. 16 shows a staggered readout, as stated above the current amounts is related to how the image sensor is operated, Lee provides a pixel structure as discussed above that is capable of reading to obtain theses current relationships).
With respect to claim 2 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1, wherein in a first period before the predetermined period, an amount of current flowing through the current source in the first block is larger than an amount of current flowing through the current source in the second block (As discussed above these currents are related to which signals are read and when, as also stated above Lee provided a pixel structure and controller capable of performing the reading to obtain these current relationships. Therefore, the structures of Lee anticipate the claim).
With respect to claim 3 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 2, wherein an amount of current flowing through the current source in the first block in the first period is smaller than an amount of current flowing through the current source in the first block in the predetermined period (As discussed above these currents are related to which signals are read and when, as also stated above Lee provided a pixel structure and controller capable of performing the reading to obtain these current relationships. Therefore, the structures of Lee anticipate the claim).
With respect to claim 4 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that a timing at which the in-pixel readout unit of each of the plurality of pixels starts the in-pixel readout operation is the same within each individual block and different between the plurality of blocks (paragraph 28; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 5 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1, wherein the source follower circuit further includes a control transistor (PSEL2), and the amplification transistor (SF1), the current source (PCX), and the control transistor (PSEL2) are connected in series (Fig. 15A), and the controller switches the control transistor to ON to perform the in-pixel readout operation (Fig. 15A; where this is a manner of operating the device but the transistor provides the structures to be capable of doing this).
With respect to claim 6 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 5, wherein the in-pixel readout unit further includes a charge-voltage conversion unit (FD), a transfer unit (TXL, TXR) configured to transfer a charge of the photoelectric conversion element (PDL, PDR) to the charge-voltage conversion unit (FD), and a reset unit (RX) configured to reset the charge-voltage conversion unit (FD) (Fig. 15A and paragraph 128 and 130), and the source follower circuit reads out a signal corresponding to a voltage of the charge-voltage conversion unit as a signal of the photoelectric conversion element (Fig. 15A; where this is a manner of operating but it can be seen the charge goes through the FD for readout).
With respect to claim 7 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 6, wherein the in-pixel readout operation includes a first operation of reading out a noise level from the photoelectric conversion element, and a second operation of reading out an optical signal level corresponding to incident light from the photoelectric conversion element, and the in-pixel readout unit includes a first memory (SAMP1) configured to hold the noise level (paragraph 51), and a second memory (SAMP2, SAMP3) configured to hold the optical signal level (Fig. 17 and paragraph 143).
With respect to claim 8 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 7, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels so as to execute a preliminary operation prior to the in-pixel readout operation, the controller controls execution of the preliminary operation with each block of the plurality of blocks as a unit, and the preliminary operation includes an operation of setting the control transistor in an ON state while causing the reset unit to reset the charge-voltage conversion unit (paragraph 28; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 9 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 8, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that, in a period during which the in-pixel readout operation is performed in one block of the plurality of blocks, the preliminary operation is performed in another block of the plurality of blocks where the in-pixel readout operation is to be performed next (paragraph 28; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 10 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 9, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that, in a period for performing the in-pixel readout operation in a block where the in-pixel readout operation is performed last among the plurality of blocks, the preliminary operation is performed in another block (paragraph 28; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 11 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 9, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that the number of blocks to simultaneously perform the preliminary operation is kept constant (paragraph 28; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 12 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 9, further comprising a dummy current source, wherein the controller operates the dummy current source in a period during which the in-pixel readout operation is performed in a block where the in-pixel readout operation is performed last among the plurality of blocks (paragraph 28; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above at this time there is no claimed structural requires for the dummy current source that would distinguish it from just the last row of the imager).
With respect to claim 13 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that a period during which the photoelectric conversion element of each of the plurality of pixels performs a charge accumulation operation is the same within each individual block and different between the plurality of blocks (paragraph 28 and 37; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 14 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 13, wherein the controller controls the plurality of pixels such that a timing at which the photoelectric conversion element of each of the plurality of pixels starts the charge accumulation operation is the same within each individual block and different between the plurality of blocks (paragraph 28 and 37; where these limitations are a manner of operating the device, Lee’s controller anticipates that claimed structures as discussed above).
With respect to claim 15 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 14, further comprising an out-of-pixel readout unit configured to read out signals from the plurality of pixels, wherein the out-of-pixel readout unit starts to read out signals from the plurality of pixels after the in-pixel readout operation ends in all of the plurality of pixels (paragraph 54-56).
With respect to claim 16 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1, wherein the source follower circuit further includes a selection transistor (PSEL1) arranged between the amplification transistor (SF1) and the current source (PCX) (Fig. 15A).
With respect to claim 17 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of blocks are arranged to form a plurality of block rows and a plurality of block columns (paragraph 28 and 37; where the controller can control pixel integrations by row groups).
With respect to claim 20 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, Equipment comprising: a photoelectric conversion device defined in claim 1; and a processing device configured to process a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device (paragraph 3; where a digital camera or cellphone camera would have an external processing device from the imager).
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0094864 A1 to Lee et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0400214 A1 to Shim.
With respect to claim 18 Lee discloses, in Fig. 1-17, the device according to claim 1 (see above), further comprising an out-of-pixel readout unit (150) configured to read out signals from the plurality of pixels (paragraph 25).
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein at least a part of the out-of-pixel readout unit is arranged on a third substrate different from one of a first substrate and a second substrate where the plurality of pixels are arranged.
However, before the invention was effectively filed it was well known within the art to include an out-of-pixel readout unit on a third substrate different from a first and second comprising pixel circuitry. For example, see Fig. 19 of Shim which shows two substrates for pixel array circuits and a third for logic circuit which include the out-of-pixel readout (22) of Shim (paragraph 28 and 113).
Before the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have split the components as claimed and disclosed by Lee across 3 substrates as taught by Shim for doing so would be use of a known technique of substrate arrangement to improve the similar device of Lee in the same way.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reason as claim 18 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights