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 12/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 29-62 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 29-62 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as reciting means-plus functions.
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 limitations are: “a first conversion unit configured to convert”, “a computing unit configured to”, “a scanning unit”, “an input unit”, “a first conversion unit configured to convert”, “a second conversion unit configured to convert”, in claims 1 and 29-62.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 29-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (“Hasegawa”, US 2021/0314486) in view of Eki (WO2020/090509).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses an imaging element comprising:
a first substrate including a plurality of pixels configured to output signals based on charges obtained by photoelectric conversion (Hasegawa: see figs. 3, 5 and par. [0076], wherein a first substrate 61 including a plurality of pixels 44 configured to output signals based on charge obtained by CMOS images sensor);
a second substrate laminated with the first substrate, the second substrate including a first conversion unit configured to convert at least (i)a first signal output from a first pixel among the plurality of pixels into a first digital signal and (ii) a second signal output from the first pixel after the first signal into a second digital signal (Hasegawa: see figs. 5-6 and par. [0127], in which a second substrate 62 laminated with the first substrate 61, the second substrate including a first conversion unit 62B configured to convert at least (i) a first signal output from a first pixel among the plurality of pixels into a first digital signal as signal in the past frame and (ii) a second signal output from the first pixel after the first signal into a second digital signal as signal in the current frame); and
a third substrate laminated with the first substrate, the second substrate including a computing unit configured to control output of at least one of the first digital signal and the second digital signal based on a first evaluation value obtained using the first digital signal converted into a digital signal by the first conversion unit and a second evaluation value obtained using the second digital signal converted into a digital signal by the first conversion unit (Hasegawa fig. 5-13 and pars. [0137]-[0138], [0140], [0142], [0146], note that a third substrate 64 laminated with the first substrate 61 through the second substrate 62, the second substrate 62 including a processing circuit 62 configured to control output of at least one of the first digital signal as signal of past frame image data and the second digital signal as signal of current frame image data based on a first evaluation value Ipast(x, y) using the first digital signal as signal of the past frame image data converted into a digital signal by the first conversion unit 62B and a second evaluation value Icurr(x, y) using the second digital signal as signal of the current frame image data converted into a digital signal by the first conversion unit 62B), wherein
the second substrate is disposed between the first substrate and the third substrate in a lamination direction of the first, second, and third substrates (Hasegawa: see fig. 5 and par. [0115], wherein the second substrate 62 is disposed between the first substrate 61 and the third substrate 64 in a lamination direction of the first, second, and third substrates).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose that the conversion unit and the computing unit are located in different substrates.
However, Eki teaches that the conversion unit and the computing unit are located in different substrates (Eki: see figs. 4-6, wherein the conversion unit ADC 17 and the computing unit 14 are located in different substrates).
One would have been modified to include a structure as taught by Eki in the apparatus of Hasegawa to provide alternative design for the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Eki with the Hasegawa’s system to include that the conversion unit and the computing unit are located in different substrates.
Regarding claim 29, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the computing unit includes a calculating unit that calculates the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value (Hasegawa: see par. [0142], wherein the processing circuit 62 include a calculating unit that calculates the first evaluation value Ipast(x, y) and the second evaluation value Icurr(x, y)).
Regarding claim 30, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 29, wherein the computing unit includes a selecting unit that outputs at least one of the first and second digital signals based on the first and second evaluation values calculated by the calculating unit (Hasegawa: see fig. 15 and par. [0160], wherein the computing unit 62 includes a selecting unit that outputs the recent frame image data as output image data based on the first and second evaluation value calculated by the calculating unit 62).
Regarding claim 31, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein, based on the first and second evaluation values, the computing unit outputs one of the first and second digital signals and does not output the other of the first and second digital signals (Hasegawa: see fig. 15 and par. [0160], in which, based on the first and second evaluation values, the computing unit outputs the recent frame image data and does not output the past frame image data).
Regarding claim 32, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 31, wherein the computing unit erases the digital signal that was not output among the first and second digital signals (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the image data does not use, the image data should be erased).
Regarding claim 33, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1.
Hasegawa in the combination with Eki does not explicitly disclose comprising a fourth substrate laminated with the first substrate, the fourth substrate having an output unit for outputting externally the at least one digital signal among the first and second digital signals output by the computing unit.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a fourth substrate laminated with the first substrate, the fourth substrate having an output unit for outputting externally the at least one digital signal among the first and second digital signals output by the computing unit is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a fourth substrate into Hasegawa and Eki’s system to include an output unit for outputting externally the at least one digital signal among the first and second digital signals output by the computing unit.
The rational/motivation to do so is to have alternate design for the system.
Regarding claim 34, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 33, wherein the second substrate includes a scanning unit that supplies a first control signal for reading out the first signal from the first pixel and a second control signal for reading out the second signal from the first pixel (Hasegawa: see fig. 6 and par. [0126], wherein the second substrate 62 includes a scanning unit 62E configured to supply a first control signal for reading the first signal as past frame image data from the first pixel and a second control signal for reading the second signal as signal of most recent frame image data from the first pixel).
Hasegawa in the combination with Eki does not explicitly disclose the fourth substrate includes an input unit that receives instruction signals for supplying the first and second control signals from the scanning unit.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that comprising a fourth substrate including an input unit that receives instruction signals for supplying the first and second control signals from the scanning unit is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a fourth substrate into Hasegawa’s system to include an input unit that receives instruction signals for supplying the first and second control signals from the scanning unit.
The rational/motivation to do so is to have alternate design for the system.
Regarding claim 35, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate includes a scanning unit that supplies a first control signal for reading out the first signal from the first pixel and a second control signal for reading out the second signal from the first pixel (Hasegawa: see fig. 6 and par. [0126], wherein the second substrate 62 includes a scanning unit 62E configured to supply a first control signal for reading the first signal as past frame image data from the first pixel and a second control signal for reading the second signal as signal of most recent frame image data from the first pixel).
Regarding claim 36, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 35, wherein the scanning unit supplies the first and second control signals so that imaging conditions when outputting the first signal from the first pixel and when outputting the second signal from the first pixel are different (Hasegawa: see fig. 6 and par. [0126], wherein the scanning unit 62 supplies the first control signal and the second control signal so that the image condition when outputting the first signal from the first pixel and when outputting the second signal from the first pixel are different as captured at different time).
Regarding claim 37, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 36, wherein the imaging conditions are shutter speed (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the image capturing condition is a shutter speed).
Regarding claim 38, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 36, wherein the imaging conditions are ISO sensitivity (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the image capturing are ISO sensitivity).
Regarding claim 39, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the third substrate includes a memory that stores at least one of the first and second digital signals (Hasegawa: see fig. 5 and par. [0115], wherein the third substrate 64 includes a memory unit including a storage capacity configured to store the first image and the second image).
Regarding claim 40, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 39, wherein the memory stores both the first and second digital signals (Hasegawa: see fig. 5 and par. [0115], wherein the third substrate 64 includes a memory unit including a storage capacity configured to store the first image and the second image).
Regarding claim 41, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 39, wherein the computing unit outputs at least one of the first and second digital signals from the memory based on the first and second evaluation values (Hasegawa: see fig. 15 and par. [0160], in which the processing circuit 62 outputs the recent frame image data from the memory based on the first and second evaluation values).
Regarding claim 42, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the computing unit controls output such that the digital signal of the first and second digital signals that is determined to have a higher evaluation value based on comparison of the first and second evaluation values is output (Hasegawa: see figs. 12-13 and pars. [0141], [0146], wherein the most recent frame image data is output based on the comparison of image data related with evaluation values).
Regarding claim 43, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the computing unit controls output such that the digital signal of the first and second digital signals that is determined to have a higher evaluation value based on comparison of the first and second evaluation values with a predetermined reference value is output (Hasegawa: see figs. 12-13 and pars. [0141], [0146], wherein the most recent frame image data is output based on the comparison of image data related with evaluation values with a predetermined reference value can be 0).
Regarding claim 44, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the first and second evaluation values are evaluation values related to brightness of an imaged subject (Hasegawa: see par. [0142], the value of image data represents for brightness).
Regarding claim 45, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pixels receive incident light passing through an imaging optical system, and the first and second evaluation values are evaluation values related to a focusing state of the imaging optical system when imaging is performed (Hasegawa: see pars. [0012], [0077], wherein the plurality of pixels receive incident light passing through an imaging optical system 14, and the first and second evaluation values are indicating a degree of focusing when imaging is performed).
Regarding claim 46, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the first and second evaluation values are evaluation values related to movement of an imaged subject (Hasegawa: see fig. 12 and par. [0142], wherein the difference image data is generated based on the first and second evaluation values, and having difference image data based on different pixel values, so it can be interpreted that values related to movement of an imaged subject).
Regarding claim 47, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1.
Eki further teaches comprising a first connection unit for electrically connecting the first substrate and the second substrate, the first connection unit including conductive members disposed to face each other in the lamination direction (Eki: see fig. 17 and page 18, second paragraph, wherein a first connection unit as the wiring layer 501 connecting the first substrate 100 and the second substrate 120, the first connection unit 501 including conductive members disposed to face each other in the lamination direction).
One would have been modified to include a first connection unit as taught by Eki in the apparatus of Hasegawa to connect the first substrate and the second substrate electrically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Eki with the Hasegawa’s system to include a first connection unit for electrically connecting the first substrate and the second substrate, the first connection unit including conductive members disposed to face each other in the lamination direction.
Regarding claim 48, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 47.
Eki further teaches comprising a second connection unit for electrically connecting the second substrate and the third substrate, the second connection unit including a through-electrode penetrating the second substrate (Eki: see fig. 17 and last paragraph of page 18, in which a second connection unit 422 for electrically connecting the second substrate and the third substrate, the second connection unit 422 including a through-electrode penetrating the second substrate 120).
One would have been modified to include a second connection unit as taught by Eki in the apparatus of Hasegawa to connect the second substrate and the third substrate electrically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Eki with the Hasegawa’s system to include a second connection unit for electrically connecting the second substrate and the third substrate, the second connection unit including a through-electrode penetrating the second substrate.
Regarding claim 49, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate includes a second conversion unit that converts into digital signals at least (i) a third signal output from a second pixel among the plurality of pixels and (ii) a fourth signal output from the second pixel after the third signal (Hasegawa: see the analysis of claim 1, figs. 5-6, 9-10 and pars. [0138], [0140], wherein a second substrate 62 including a second conversion unit 62 configured to convert a third signal output from the second pixel and a fourth signal output from the second pixel after the third signal into digital signals as the second pair in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 50, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 49, wherein the second pixel is arranged alongside the first pixel in a row direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19, in a row direction).
Regarding claim 51, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 50, wherein the second pixel is arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the row direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19, in a row direction).
Regarding claim 52, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 49, wherein the second pixel is arranged alongside the first pixel in a column direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 53, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 52, wherein the second pixel is arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the column direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 54, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 49, wherein the second substrate includes a third conversion unit that converts into digital signals at least (i) a fifth signal output from a third pixel among the plurality of pixels and (ii) a sixth signal output from the third pixel after the fifth signal (Hasegawa: see the analysis of claim 1, figs. 5-6, 9-10 and pars. [0138], [0140], wherein a second substrate 62 including a third conversion unit that converts into digital signals at least (i) a fifth signal outputs from a third pixel among the plurality of pixels and (ii) a sixth signal output from the third pixel after the fifth signal as the third pair in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 55, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 54, wherein the second pixel is arranged alongside the first pixel in a first direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 56, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 55, wherein the second pixel is arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 57, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 55, wherein the third pixel is arranged alongside the first pixel in the first direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 58, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 57, wherein the third pixel is arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 59, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 55, wherein the third pixel is arranged alongside the first pixel in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 60, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging element according to claim 59, wherein the third pixel is arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the second direction (Hasegawa: see fig. 19).
Regarding claim 61, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses an imaging device comprising: the imaging element according to claim 1; and a control unit that performs image processing on a digital signal among the first and second digital signals that is output from the imaging element by the computing unit (Hasegawa: see fig. 5 and par. [0100], wherein a control unit 46 that performs image processing on a digital signal among the first and second digital signals that is output from the imaging element 61 by the computing unit 62).
Regarding claim 62, Hasegawa in the combination with Eki discloses the imaging device according to claim 61, wherein the control unit performs image processing on the digital signal output from the imaging element and does not perform image processing on a digital signal not output from the imaging element by the computing unit (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the control unit would perform signal output from the imaging by the processing circuit 62 and vice versa).
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 CHAN T H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/CHAN T NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638