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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/568,373, filed on 12/8/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/17/2025, 9/22/2025, 12/17/2025 and 8/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, line 2, please delete “the third floating diffusion potion” and replace it with “the third floating diffusion portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 1 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 1 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 2 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 2 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 3 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 3 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 4 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 4 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 5 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 5 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 6 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 6 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 7 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 7 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 8 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 8 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 9 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 9 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 10 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 10 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 11 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 11 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 12 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 12 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 13 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 13 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 15 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 15 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 17 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 17 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 18 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 18 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 19 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 19 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 in view of Takizawa et al. US 2020/0186732. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044. It is further noted that claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 does not explicitly disclose an imaging device including a reset transistor coupled to a floating diffusion, an amplification transistor coupled to a floating diffusion portion and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, however Takizawa et al. discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device including a pixel to include a reset transistor (113) coupled to a floating diffusion (131), an amplification transistor (114) coupled to a floating diffusion portion (131) and a selection transistor (115) coupled to the amplification transistor (114) (figure 2; paragraphs 106-112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 with the teachings disclosed by Takizawa so that image signals captured by pixels of an image sensor may be stored, amplified and read out.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 20 of the instant application 19/309,946 is encompassed by the combination of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,044 and the Takizawa reference, allowing claim 20 of the instant Application 19/309,946 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are 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:
Re claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, an imaging device having the specific configurations disclosed in claim 14, wherein the imaging device comprises: a pixel, including: a photodiode; a first transfer transistor coupled to the photodiode; a first floating diffusion portion coupled to the first transfer transistor; a second transfer transistor coupled to the first floating diffusion portion; a second floating diffusion portion coupled to the second transfer transistor; a third transfer transistor coupled to the second floating diffusion portion; a third floating diffusion portion coupled to the third transfer transistor; a reset transistor coupled to the third floating diffusion portion; a capacitor coupled to the third floating diffusion portion; an amplification transistor coupled to the first floating diffusion portion; and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, wherein a capacity to store charge of the capacitor is greater than a capacitance of the second floating diffusion portion. The prior art fails to specifically disclose an imaging device including a photodiode, a plurality of transfer transistors, a plurality of floating diffusion portions, a reset transistor, a capacitor, an amplification transistor and a selection transistor arranged in the exact configuration as disclosed in the claims and specification.
Re claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, an imaging device having the specific configurations disclosed in claim 16, wherein the imaging device comprises: a pixel, including: a photodiode; a first transfer transistor coupled to the photodiode; a first floating diffusion portion coupled to the first transfer transistor; a second transfer transistor coupled to the first floating diffusion portion; a second floating diffusion portion coupled to the second transfer transistor; a third transfer transistor coupled to the second floating diffusion portion; a third floating diffusion portion coupled to the third transfer transistor; a reset transistor coupled to the third floating diffusion portion; a capacitor coupled to the third floating diffusion portion; an amplification transistor coupled to the first floating diffusion portion; and a selection transistor coupled to the amplification transistor, wherein a capacitance of the capacitor is greater than a capacitance of the first floating diffusion portion, wherein a capacitance of the capacitor is greater than a capacitance of the second floating diffusion portion, and wherein a capacitance of the capacitor is greater than a capacitance of the third floating diffusion portion. The prior art fails to specifically disclose an imaging device including a photodiode, a plurality of transfer transistors, a plurality of floating diffusion portions, a reset transistor, a capacitor, an amplification transistor and a selection transistor arranged in the exact configuration as disclosed in the claims and specification.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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 submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
