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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant amendment has been fully considered. The amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the prior office action. However, amendments introduce new unclarity in claims 1-7 as explained below. Hence, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The office now relies on new reference Yang (US 20210126033 A1) for the rejection of amended limitations of claims 1-7, as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments. Yang teaches the added four first imaging pixels/four second imaging pixels structure in the amended claims 1-7 as explained below. Hence, the rejection for claims 1-7 is maintained.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites “…four second imaging pixels, each adjacent to the phase difference detecting pixel in each of two opposite angle directions of the phase difference detecting pixel…” is unclear. The claim recites four second imaging pixels, but refers to “each” second imaging pixel being adjacent in “each of two opposite angle directions”, making it unclear whether each second imaging pixel is located in both opposite angle directions, whether two pixels are located in one angle direction and two pixels are located in the opposite angle direction, or whether the four second imaging pixels are located in four different diagonal/angle directions around the phase-difference detecting pixel. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring four second imaging pixels arranged in diagonal/angle directions around the phase-difference detecting pixels, with at least one pair located in opposite angle directions.
Claims 2-7 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 for being dependent on claim 1, hence rejected under U.S.C. 35 112(b).
Claim 7 recites “…each of the four imaging pixels…”. This lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “four first imaging pixels” and “four second imaging pixels”, but does not recite “four imaging pixels”. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 7 refers to the four first imaging pixels, the four second imaging pixels, or another set of four imaging pixels. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “each of the four first imaging pixels” because the claim further recites “each of the four first imaging microlens”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210126033 A1) in view of Onuki (US 20110025904 A1) further in view of Chou (US 20170077163 A1).
Re: Independent Claim1 (Currently Amended), Yang discloses a solid-state imaging device, comprising:
four first imaging pixels, each configured to receive a respective first light flux (Yang teaches, in Fig. 1A and ¶ [0019], image pixel 102 including surrounding subpixels 103, 104, 105 and 106, where the sub-pixels include photodiode 113 configures to receive incident light and generate image charge. Thus, selected edge-adjacent surrounding individual photodiodes 113 (such as B2, GB1, GR1, and R2) within Yang’s surrounding subpixels 103-106 correspond to the claimed imaging pixels);
a phase difference detecting pixel adjacent to each of the four first imaging pixels (Yang teaches, in Fig. 1A, and ¶ [0019], phase detection pixel 108 surrounded by subpixels 103, 104,105 and 106);
four first imaging microlenses, each one of the four first imaging microlenses respectively disposed above a corresponding one of the four first imaging pixels, each of the four first imaging microlenses protruding above the phase difference detecting pixel, and configured to collect the respective first light flux onto a respective first imaging pixel of the four first imaging pixels (Yan teaches, in Fig. 1A and ¶ [0021], a plurality of microlenses 107, where each individual microlens 107 is optically aligned with an individual photodiode 113, extends over approximately one row and one column of the photodiode array, and directs light toward a single corresponding photodiode 113 . Therefore, selected microlenses 107 disposed above the selected surrounding photodiodes 113 corresponds to the claimed four first imaging microlenses, each disposed above a corresponding first imaging pixel and configures to collect a respective first light flux onto that corresponding first imaging pixel. Yang teaches selected surrounding microlenses 107 disposed above corresponding imaging photodiodes 113 and laterally surrounding shared microlens 109. Because the surrounding microlenses 107 extend laterally toward the phase detection pixel 108 and surround the phase-detection microlens 109 in plan view, the selected surrounding microlenses 107 are interpreted as protruding toward/above a peripheral portion of the phase detection pixel 108);
a phase difference detecting microlens disposed above the phase difference detecting pixel, integrally formed with the four first imaging microlenses(Yang teaches, in Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020], shared microlens 109 disposed above phase detection pixel 108 and optically aligned with neighboring photodiodes 120, 122, 124 and 126. Yang further teaches a plurality of surrounding microlenses 107 disposed above corresponding surrounding photodiodes 113, where the plurality of microlenses 107 laterally surrounds shared microlens 109. Yang also teaches, in ¶ [0026], that the plurality of microlenses 107 and shared microlens 109 may be formed together as polymer-based microlenses using photolithography from a master mold or template. Accordingly, Yan teaches claimed phase difference detecting microlens (shared microlens) 109 integrally formed with the surrounding imaging microlenses 107 as part of the same microlens array/layer.);
four second imaging pixels, each adjacent to the phase difference detecting pixel in each of two opposite angle directions of the phase difference detecting pixel, each second imaging pixel being configured to receive a respective second light flux (Yang teaches, in Fig. 1A and ¶ [0019], additional photodiodes 113 located in surrounding sub-pixels 103-106, where each photodiode is responsive to incident light and generated image charge proportional to the incident light. Selected individual imaging units, each including a corresponding photodiode 113 arranged in diagonal/angle positions relative to phase detection pixel 108, correspond to the claimed four second imaging pixels); and
four second imaging microlenses, each one of the four second imaging microlenses respectively disposed above a corresponding one of the four second imaging pixels, each of the four second imaging microlenses configured to collect the respective second light flux onto the respective second imaging pixel (Yang teaches additional microlenses 107 disposed over selected corner/diagonal surrounding imaging photodiodes 113 in diagonal/angle positions (including B1, GB2, GR3 and R4) relative to phase detection pixel 108 correspond to the claimed four second imaging microlenses),
wherein:
the four first imaging microlenses and the four second imaging microlenses are arranged to surround the phase difference detecting microlens in a plan view (Yang teaches image pixel 102 including phase detection pixel 108, where phase detection pixel 108 includes shared microlens 109. Yang further teaches a plurality of individual microlenses 107 disposed around shared microlens 109, and expressly teaches that, based on the arrangement of the subpixels 103, 104, 105 and 106 and phase detection pixel 108, the plurality of microlenses 107 laterally surrounds shared microlens 109. Therefore, selected individual microlenses 107 surrounding shared microlens 109 correspond to the claimed four imaging microlens and four second imaging microlenses arranged to surround the phase difference detecting microlens in plan view),
and in the plan view, the four first imaging microlenses are disposed above the four first imaging pixels, and the four second imaging microlenses are disposed above the four second imaging pixels (Yang teaches, in Fig. 1A and ¶ [0027], that individual microlenses 107 are each optically aligned with an individual photodiode 113, extend over approximately on row and one column of the photodiode array, and direct light toward a single corresponding photodiode 113. Accordingly, a first selected set of four microlenses 107 disposed over four selected imaging photodiodes 113 around phase detection pixel 108 corresponds to the claimed four first imaging microlenses, and a different selected set of four microlenses 107 disposed over the additional selected imaging photodiodes 113 around the phase detection pixel 108, including photodiodes in angle/diagonal directions, corresponds to the claimed four second imaging microlenses.)
each of the four first imaging microlenses respectively protrudes above an outer peripheral portion of the phase difference detecting pixel, and each of the four second imaging microlenses respectively protrudes above the outer peripheral portion of the phase difference detecting pixel (Yang’s selected surrounding microlenses 107 laterally surround shared microlens 109, and shared microlens 109 is disposed above phase detection pixel 108. Thus, in plan view, the selected surrounding microlenses 107 extend/protrude toward the peripheral region of phase detection pixel 108 around shared microlens 109. Accordingly, each selected first imaging microlens 107 and each selected second imaging microlens 107 protrudes above, or at least toward/over, an outer peripheral portion of phase detection pixel 108 in plan view).
Yang is silent regarding
the phase difference detecting pixel configured to receive a pupil-divided light flux, and the phase difference detecting microlens configured to collect the pupil-divided light flux onto the phase difference detecting pixel.
However, Onuki teaches the phase difference detecting pixel configured to receive a pupil-divided light flux, and the phase difference detecting microlens configured to collect the pupil-divided light flux onto the phase difference detecting pixel (Onuki teaches, in ¶¶ [0044] - [0045] and ¶¶ [0048] - [0049], focus-detecting pixels S_HA/S_HB and S_VC/S_VD, arranged in the sensor array, where each pixel in the pair receives light from a different region of the exit pupil (e.g., EP_HA vs. EP_HB) via on-chip microlens 162 and slit, and autofocus is computed from the phase difference between their outputs. Accordingly, in Onuki the “focus-detecting pixels (S_HA/S_HB)” are phase-difference detecting pixels, because each receives light from a different pupil region and the Autofocus calculation uses the phase difference between their signals. Applying Onuki’s explicit pupil division to the adjacent phase difference detecting pixel of Kim yields a phase difference detecting pixel configured to receive a pupil-divided light flux.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Yang’s phase detection pixel 108 and shared microlens 109 to receive and collect pupil-divided light flux, as taught by Onuki, in order to obtain phase-difference autofocus signals from different exit-pupil regions and improve focus-detection accuracy.
Yang is also silent regarding
a phase difference detecting microlens occupying an area smaller than an area occupied by each microlens of the four first imaging microlenses.
However, Chou teaches, in ¶ [0040], an image sensor including a PDAF pixel and an image-capture pixel, where a PDAF microlens changes the focus of incident radiation to an image-capture microlens to increase angular response discrimination. Chou further teaches, in ¶ [0039], a small PDAF microlens, such as PDAF microlens 316d, where the PDAF receiving surface may be larger than the upper surface of the PDAF microlens, and the PDAF microlens provides good angular response discrimination for PDAF.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang’s shared phase-detection microlens 109 so that the phase-difference detecting microlens occupies an area smaller than each surrounding imaging microlens, as taught by Chou, in order to improve angular response discrimination for PDAF.
Re: Claim 2 (Currently amended), Yang, Onuki and Chou disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Chou further teaches
wherein the phase difference detecting microlens has a focal length shorter than a focal length of each of the four first imaging microlenses. (Chou Fig 3A, ¶ 0032], teaches phase detection autofocus (PDAF) microlens 316a is designed with greater optical power than the image capture microlens 304, due to the larger optical power, the PDAF distance D.sub.AF is less than the image capture distance D.sub.IC, hence phase difference detecting microlens has a focal length shorter than a focal length of the imaging microlenses).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Chou's focal length ordering (higher optical power/shorter focal length than the imaging lens) in yang’s phase difference detection microlens design in view of Onuki in order to achieve good angular response discrimination for PDAF (Chou, ¶ [0032]).
Re: Claim 3 (Currently amended), Yang, Onuki and Chou disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Chou further teaches
wherein, in a cross-section including an optical axis of the phase difference detecting microlens, a curvature of an incidence surface of the phase difference detecting microlens is constant regardless of a direction of the cross-section (Chou teaches, in ¶ [0031], a PDAF microlens 316a configures to focus incident radiation onto a PDAF focal plane 322a, wherein the PDAF microlens is centered along PDAF axis 148 and may be a plano-convex lens. A centered plano-convex lens has a curvature that is constant in cross-sections including the optical axis regardless of the direction of the cross-section. Therefore, Chou teaches the claimed constant-curvature incident surface of the phase difference detecting microlens).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure Yang’s phase difference detecting microlens, as modified by Onuki, to have Chou’s centered plano-convex PDAF microlens shape in order to predictably focus incident light onto the phase-detection pixel and achieve good angular response discrimination for PDAF.
Re: Claim 7 (Currently amended), Yang, Onuki and Chou disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yang further teaches
each of the four imaging pixels has a respective light receiving surface that receives the respective first light flux (Yang teaches image pixel 102 including phase detection pixel 108 surrounded by subpixels 103, 104, 105 and 106, and a plurality of individual photodiodes 113 arranged around phase detection pixel 108. Yang teaches that each photodiode 113 is responsive to incident light and generates image charge proportional to the intensity of the incident light. Thus, each selected photodiode 113 corresponding to one of the four first imaging pixels has a respective light receiving surface that receives the respective first light flux).
Chou further teaches
each of the four first imaging microlenses has a focal point behind the respective light receiving surface that receives the respective first light flux (Chou teaches, in Fig 3A and ¶ [0030], that an image capturing microlens 304 focuses onto an image capture focal plane 310 that is spaced below the pixel sensors (114/116) i.e., the focal point is behind the light receiving surface. Thus, Chou teaches than an imaging microlens has a focal point behind the light receiving surface that receives the image-capture light flux).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Chou's image capture focusing (focal plane behind the sensor surface) in Yang's four first imaging microlenses 107, in order to promote good angular response discrimination for PDAF (Chou, ¶ [0025]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210126033 A1) in view of Onuki (US 20110025904 A1) further in view of Chou (US 20170077163 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20150062390 A1).
Re: Claim 4 (Currently amended), Yang, Onuki and Chou disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Yang further teaches
wherein two of the four second imaging pixels are adjacent to each other in one of the two opposite angle directions, and each of the two second imaging pixels is configured to receive one of a third light flux or a fourth light flux (Yang teaches image pixel 102 including phase detection pixel 108 surrounded by subpixels 103, 104, 105 and 106, and a plurality of individual photodiodes 113 arranged around phase detection pixel 108. Yang teaches that each photodiode 113 is responsive to incident light and generates image charge proportional to the incident light. Thus, two selected adjacent surrounding photodiodes 113 positioned in one angle-side region relative to phase detection pixel 108, such as selected adjacent photodiodes B1 and GB2 shown in Fig. 1A, correspond to the claimed two second imaging pixels configured to receive the third and fourth light fluxes); and
each of two of the four second imaging microlenses is disposed above a respective one of the two second imaging pixels, and each of the two second imaging microlenses is configured to collect one of the third light flux or the fourth light flux onto the respective one of the two second imaging pixels (Yang teaches a plurality of microlenses 107, where each microlens 107 is optically aligned with an individual photodiode 113, extends over approximately one row and one column of the photodiode array, and directs light towards a single corresponding photodiode 113. Thus, the microlenses 107 disposed above the selected adjacent photodiodes B1 and GB2 correspond to the claimed two second imaging microlenses),
Yang, Onuki and Chou are silent regarding
wherein a height measured from a top flat surface of a planarization film that is formed beneath the phase difference detecting microlens and one of the second imaging microlenses, at a first boundary between the phase difference detecting microlens and the one of the second imaging microlenses, is lower than a height of the two second imaging microlenses at a second boundary between the two second imaging microlenses.
However, Kim teaches this feature. Kim teaches, in Fig. 5 and ¶¶ [0058] – [0060], an integrally formed microlens structure in which a microlens for phase difference detection is integrally formed with a conventional general microlens so than one microlens 175 may be obtained. Kim further teaches that, because there is no dead zone between the phase-difference detecting microlens and the general microlens, signal size can be improved and light collected in an adjacent pixel can be blocked or controlled by adjusting the radius of curvature of the lens.
Kim also teaches, in Fig. 7A and ¶ [0066], general microlenses 176 formed above general pixels. In Fig. 5, because the phase-difference detecting microlens portion and the adjacent imaging microlens portion are integrally connected as one microlens 175, the surface profile at their boundary is a connecting region between different lens portions. In contrast, the boundary between two adjacent general microlenses 176 in Figs. 7A and 7B is the boundary between two ordinary imaging microlenses. Accordingly, Kim’s Fig. 5, when compared with Figs. 7A and 7B, teaches that height measured from the adjacent imaging microlens is lower than the height at the boundary between two adjacent imaging microlenses.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s integrated phase-difference/imaging microlens boundary profile to Yang’s phase detection microlens arrangement in order to remove or reduce a dead zone between the phase-difference detecting microlens and the adjacent imaging microlens, improve signal size, and control light collected in an adjacent pixel, as taught by Kim.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210126033 A1) in view of Onuki (US 20110025904 A1) further in view of Chou (US 20170077163 A1), and further in view of Uenishi (US 20080258250 A1).
Re: Claim 5 (Original), Yang, Onuki and Chou disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Onuki further teaches,
wherein the phase difference detecting pixel has a light receiving surface that receives the pupil- divided light flux (Onuki teaches that the focus-detecting pixels S_HA/S_HB are pupil-division pixels that receive light from different exit-pupil regions EP_HA/EP_HB via on-chip microlenses (see Figs. 2, 9A/9B and ¶ [0045] and ¶ [0080], "some pixels...are given the pupil division function for phase difference focus detection). Thus, the phase difference detecting pixel's photoelectric conversion unit 152 presents a light receiving surface that receives the pupil-divided light flux).
Yang, Onuki and Chou are silent regarding, the phase difference detecting microlens has a focal point on the light receiving surface.
However, Uenishi teaches the phase difference detecting microlens has a focal point on the light receiving surface (Uenishi teaches, in ¶ [0039], setting the microlens focal point on the surface of the light receiving section of the pixel).
Yang, Onuki, Chou and Uenishi teach image capturing devices using microlens, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Uenishi's teaching of focal point setup in Yang's phase difference detecting microlens in view of Onuki's pupil-division pixel optics so that incident light is efficiently taken in as a signal charge by a photo diode as a light receiving section (Uenishi, ¶ [0006]).
Re: Claim 6 (Currently amended), Yang, Onuki, Chou and Uenishi disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Uenishi further teaches,
wherein the phase difference detecting microlens has the focal point on the light receiving surface (Uenishi teaches, in ¶ [0039], to set the microlens focal point on the surface of the light-receiving section) on both of:
a first cross-section including an optical axis of the phase difference detecting microlens and laid in parallel with an opposite side direction of the phase difference detecting pixel; and a second cross-section including the optical axis and laid in parallel with an opposite angle direction of the phase difference detecting pixel (placing the focal point on the photodiode surface yields the same focal point (a single point on the sensor surface) in any plane that includes the optical axis of the PD microlens. Accordingly, in both first and second cross-sections recited- one parallel to the opposite side direction and one parallel to the opposite angle direction-the focal point remains on the light-receiving surface of the PD pixel because it is a point on that surface independent of the particular axial cross-section chosen. Thus, applying Uenishi's focusing condition to Yang’s phase difference detecting microlens 109, as modified by Onuki and Chou, satisfies the claimed requirement that the phase difference detecting microlens has the focal point on the light receiving surface in both recited cross-sections).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights