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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the other end…” in the last line should read “the other end of the reset transistor…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 18 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 18 recites the limitation "the green color filter" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8, 12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamori et al. (US 2018/0054578) in view Tashiro et al. (US 2020/0066773).
Regarding claim 1, Kitamori discloses an imaging device comprising: a plurality of pixel blocks (23) each having a plurality of light-receiving pixels (PD) including color filters (66) of the same color, and the plurality of light-receiving pixels being divided into a plurality of pixel pairs each including two light-receiving pixels (fig. 17, 18); and a plurality of lenses (67) each provided at a position corresponding to the plurality of pixel pairs, wherein the pixel block includes: a photoelectric converter (PD), a first floating diffusion (FD) having a plurality of combinations of transfer transistors (TX) having one set of ends connected to the photoelectric converter and being connected to the other set of ends of the plurality of transfer transistors (figs. 2, 17, 18); and a reset (RST) transistor having one end being supplied with a predetermined potential (VDD) (figs. 2, 17). Kitamori fails to explicitly disclose a separation transistor having one end connected to the first floating diffusion; a second floating diffusion connected to the other end of the separation transistor; and a reset transistor having one end connected to the other end of the separation transistor, and the other end being supplied with a predetermined potential.
In the same field of In the same field of endeavor, Tashiro teaches imaging devices having a photoelectric conversion unit, a transfer transistor (51), and a floating diffusion (61), a configuration that uses a separation transistor (55) having one end connected to a first floating diffusion (51), a second floating diffusion (62) connected to another end of the separation transistor, and a reset transistor (52) having one end connected to the other end of the separation transistor and the other end being supplied with a predetermined potential (fig. 8). In light of the teaching of Tashiro, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Tashiro’s configuration in Kitamori’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a device able to utilize almost all photoelectrically converted charges for signals during high capacitance.
Regarding claim 2, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein the separation transistor is put into a disconnected state and the reset transistor is put into a connected state (fig. 9: shows times when the separation transistor is in OFF, and times when reset transistor is in ON).
Regarding claim 3, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of the transfer transistors is put into a connected state according to the connected state of the reset transistor. (¶16-122: transfer transistor operated in connection with separation transistor which is operated in connection with reset).
Regarding claim 4, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 3. Tashiro also teaches wherein when the reset transistor is in a connected state, a potential of the first floating diffusion goes higher due to a first stray capacitance between a gate of the reset transistor and the first floating diffusion (¶118).
Regarding claim 5, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein after the separation transistor and the reset transistor are put into a connected state, the separation transistor is put into a disconnected state, and at least one of the transfer transistors is put into a connected state according to the disconnected state of the separation transistor (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein after the separation transistor and the reset transistor are put into a connected state, the separation transistor is put into a disconnected state, the reset 48transistor is put into a disconnected state, and at least one of the transfer transistors is put into a connected state according to reconnection of the reset transistor (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein after the separation transistor and the reset transistor are put into a connected state, the separation transistor is put into a disconnected state, and at least one of the transfer transistors is put into a connected state according to disconnection of the separation transistor (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein a second stray capacitance between the gate of the transfer transistor and the other end of the transfer transistor increases the potential of the first floating diffusion when the transfer transistor is put into a connected state (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 8. Tashiro also teaches wherein when the plurality of transfer transistors are put into a connected state, the periods in which the plurality of transfer transistors are in a connected state do not overlap (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Tashiro also teaches wherein when transferring charges stored in the plurality of photoelectric converters to at least the first floating diffusion, periods of the connection state of the plurality of the transfer transistors do not overlap (fig. 9).
Claim(s) 9and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamori et al. (US 2018/0054578) in view Tashiro et al. (US 2020/0066773) in view of Hanzawa (US 2016/0141326).
Regarding claim 9, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 8. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein when transferring charges stored in the photoelectric converter connected to the one end of the transfer transistor to the first floating diffusion, the other transfer transistors to which charges have already been transferred are put into a connected state.
In the same field of In the same field of endeavor, Hanzawa teaches imaging devices wherein pixel signals of a plurality of same color pixels adjacent in a vertical direction can be added at the FD units 63 and then output by simultaneously turning on transfer transistors 62 (¶134). In light of the teaching of Hanzawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hanzawa’s configuration in Kitamori’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a device with increased dynamic range.
Regarding claim 13, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein when transferring charges stored in the photoelectric converter connected to the one end of the transfer transistor to the first floating diffusion, the other transfer 49transistor to which charges have already been transferred is put into a connected state.
In the same field of In the same field of endeavor, Hanzawa teaches imaging devices wherein pixel signals of a plurality of same color pixels adjacent in a vertical direction can be added at the FD units 63 and then output by simultaneously turning on transfer transistors 62 (¶134). In light of the teaching of Hanzawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hanzawa’s configuration in Kitamori’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a device with increased dynamic range.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamori et al. (US 2018/0054578) in view Tashiro et al. (US 2020/0066773) in view of Muto (US 2015/0281616).
Regarding claim 11 and 15, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. Kitamori also teaches an amplification transistor (33) having a gate connected to the first floating diffusion; a selection transistor (34) having one end connected to the amplification transistor and the other end connected to a signal line (fig. 17). The combination fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a voltage control circuit that controls a voltage of the signal line when the transfer transistor is put into a connected state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kitamori et al. with the teachings of Muto. Kitamori discloses an imaging device with multiple timings controlled by voltages but is silent on how the voltage is controlled. Muto teaches an imaging device with a transfer transistor, PD and FD and a voltage control circuit section for controlling the voltage of a signal line if the transfer transistor is placed in a connected state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a voltage controller, as taught by Muto, with the invention of Kitamori et al. would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim(s) 16 – 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamori et al. (US 2018/0054578) in view Tashiro et al. (US 2020/0066773) in view of Takahashi (US 2018/0352182).
Regarding claim 16, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the two light-receiving pixels are arranged in parallel in a first direction, and in each of the plurality of pixel blocks, the two pixel pairs arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction are arranged to be shifted in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of theinvention to modify the invention of Kitamori et al. with the pixel array as taught by Takahashi et al. Kitamori discloses a pixel array with phase detection pixel pairs. Takahashi et al. teaches having focus detection pixel pair that are shifted by a half-pixel (figs. 9, 12; ¶72). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Kitamori in view of Tashiro disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of pixel blocks include a first pixel block and a second pixel block, in the first pixel block, the plurality of light-receiving pixels are arranged in a first arrangement pattern, in the second pixel block, the plurality of light-receiving pixels are arranged in a second arrangement pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of theinvention to modify the invention of Kitamori et al. with the pixel array as taught by Takahashi et al. Kitamori discloses a pixel array with phase detection pixel pairs. Takahashi et al. teaches having focus detection pixel pair that are shifted by a half-pixel and have different patterns for each set of pixels (figs. 2;). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18, Kitamori in view of Tashiro in view of Takahashi disclose the limitations of claim 17. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the number of the plurality of light-receiving pixels in the first pixel block is greater than the number of the plurality of light-receiving pixels in the second pixel block, and the plurality of light-receiving pixels included in the first pixel block include the green color filter. Before the effective filing date of the invention, there had been a recognized problem of increasing the frequency of correct detection of pull-down signals. There are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized problem: 1) increase the threshold such that a detection is easily held; 2) decrease the threshold such that a detection is not easily held. Sumiyoshi teaches solution 1. It would have been obvious to try the other solution. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639