DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims pending 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.
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 1-3, 5, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggett et al (US 2010/0073535 A1) and Billingsley et al (US 2021/0145644 A1), in further view Pang et al (US 2017/0142352 A1).
As per claim 1, Huggett discloses a system (fig. 7A, image sensor 501A), comprising:
a pixel array for imaging (fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, sensor array 150); and
a shutter control signal generator circuit (fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, shutter control module 230), the shutter control signal generator circuit being configured:
to control shutters of a first subarray of the pixel array (first subarray of the pixel array may be a first row of pixels) with a first set of control signals, and
to control shutters of a second subarray of the pixel array (second subarray of the pixel array may be a row of pixels different from first row of pixels) with the first set of control signals (fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, shutter control module 230, may control multiple rows based on a first signal, see para 0048 and 0049).
Huggett fails to teach the first subarray comprising a respective portion of each of a plurality of rows of the pixel array and the controlling of the shutters of the first subarray comprising enabling a first pixel of a row of pixels of the first subarray and concurrently disabling a second pixel of the row of pixels of the first subarray. However, Billingsley discloses a shutter control system 16 with the ability to independently control shutters 10, therefore activating a shutter(s) 10 while a separate shutter(s) 10 is deactivated reads on the limitation as currently constructed.
Furthermore, Billingsley also teaches the ability to control at least 10 independently controllable shutters (para 0040), therefore in a 2 by 2 all the way up to a 5 by 5 matrix, the shutter control system 16 can be programmed to teach a first subarray comprising a respective portion of each of a plurality of rows of the pixel array (Billingsley, fig. 8, shutter control system 16, shutter(s) 10, para 0040 and 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings Huggett in view of Billingsley, as a whole, by incorporating the shutter control system as taught by Billingsley, into the imaging device as taught by Huggett, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of controlling the individual shutter(s), thus enhancing control of the overall imaging system.
The combined teachings of Huggett in view of Billingsley, as a whole, fails to teach each pixel comprising a photodetector and a shutter, the shutter comprising a first switch and a second switch, the first switch and the second switch being configured to be controlled by control signals for enabling and disabling the pixel. However, Pang discloses a BJT pixel circuit 300 comprising a photodiode 31, shutter, a first shutter switch SWshuton and a second shutter switch SWshutoff, for enabling and disabling the pixel circuit 300 (Pang, fig. 4, BJT pixel circuit 300, photodiode 31, shutter, first shutter switch SWshuton, second shutter switch SWshutoff).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Huggett and Billingsley, in further view of Pang, as a whole, by incorporating the first and second shutter switches as disclosed by Pang, into the imaging device as taught by Huggett and Billingsley, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of controlling each individual shutter, thus being able to control incoming light with more precision.
As per claim 2, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the shutter control signal generator circuit has h outputs, h being a positive integer, a first one of the h outputs being:
connected to a first row of the first subarray, and
connected to a first row of the second subarray (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, shutter control module 230 has an output, that is connected to sensor array 150).
As per claim 3, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein:
the first row of the first subarray is a row of pixels; and
the first row of the second subarray is a row of pixels (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 1 above).
As per claim 5, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the shutter control signal generator circuit has h x w outputs, w being a positive integer, each of the h x w outputs being connected to:
a respective pixel of the first subarray, and
a respective pixel of the second subarray (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, shutter control module 230, sensor array 150, shutter control module 230 can activate multiple rows and each row is connected to a pixel).
As per claim 15, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the pixel array is configured:
to combine outputs of pixels of a pixel readout block comprising a plurality of pixels, and
to read out the combined output (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, sensor array 150, combines the outputs of the pixel signals read out).
As per claim 18, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses a method, comprising:
controlling, with a first set of control signals, by a shutter control signal generator circuit, shutters of a first subarray of a pixel array for imaging,
controlling, with the first set of control signals, by the shutter control signal generator circuit, shutters of a second subarray of the pixel array,
the pixel array comprising a plurality of rows of pixels, each pixel comprising:
a photodetector and a shutter,
the shutter comprising a first switch and a second switch,
the first switch and the second switch being configured to be controlled by control signals for enabling and disabling the pixel,
the first subarray comprising a respective portion of each of a plurality of rows of the pixel array,
,the controlling of the shutters of the first subarray comprising enabling a first pixel of a row of pixels of the first subarray and concurrently disabling a second pixel of the row of pixels of the first subarray (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 1 above).
As per claim 19, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the shutter control signal generator circuit has h outputs, h being a positive integer, a first one of the h outputs being:
connected to a first row of the first subarray, and
connected to a first row of the second subarray (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 2 above).
As per claim 20, the combined teachings of Huggett and Billingsley in further view of Pang, as a whole, further discloses a system, comprising:
a pixel array for imaging comprising a plurality of rows of pixels, each pixel comprising:
a photodetector and a shutter,
the shutter comprising a first switch and a second switch,
the first switch and the second switch being configured to be controlled by control signals for enabling and disabling the pixel; and
the pixel array comprising
a means for shutter control,
the means for shutter control being configured:
to control shutters of a first subarray of the pixel array with a first set of control signals, and
to control shutters of a second subarray of the pixel array with the first set of control signals,
the first subarray comprising a respective portion of each of a plurality of rows of the pixel array,
the controlling of the shutters of the first subarray comprising enabling a first pixel of a row of pixels of the first subarray and concurrently disabling a second pixel of the row of pixels of the first subarray (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 1 above).
Claims 6, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggett et al (US 2010/0073535 A1), Billingsley et al (US 2021/0145644 A1), and Pang et al (US 2017/0142352 A1), in further view of Johnson et al (US 2016/0255289 A1).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 2, wherein the first row of the first subarray is a row of macro blocks.
Huggett and Billingsley, in further view of Pang, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 6. However, Johnson discloses an image sensor 16 wherein the pixels may be super-pixel(s) 22 (i.e. macro blocks) wherein a shutter control signal SG may be applied to the super-pixel(s) 22 for controlling exposure (Johnson, fig. 3, super-pixel 22, see associated written description, also see para 0030 and 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Huggett, Billingsley, and Pang, in further view of Johnson, as a whole, by incorporating the ability for a pixel to be a super-pixel (i.e. macro block) as taught by Johnson, into the imaging device as taught by Huggett, Billingsley and Pang, because doing so would increase the resolution of image sensor, thus enhancing the image being captured.
As per claim 11, the combined teachings of Huggett, Billingsley, and Pang, in further view of Johnson, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 6, wherein:
the first row of the second subarray is a row of macro blocks (Johnson, fig. 3, super-pixel 22, pixels may be super-pixel (i.e. macro blocks), para 0030 and 0033); and
the shutter control signal generator circuit has h x w outputs, w being a positive integer (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, shutter control module 230), each of the h x w outputs being connected to:
a respective macro block of the first subarray, and
a respective macro block of the second subarray (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, sensor array 150, shutter control module 230 can activate multiple rows and each row is connected to a pixel).
As per claim 15, the combined teachings of Huggett, Billingsley, and Pang, in further view of Johnson, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the pixel array is configured:
to combine outputs of pixels of a pixel readout block comprising a plurality of pixels, and
to read out the combined output (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claims 6 and 15).
As per claim 16, the combined teachings of Huggett, Billingsley, and Pang, in further view of Johnson, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 15, wherein:
the first row of the first subarray is a row of macro blocks; and
the pixel readout block contains the same pixels as a first macro block of the row of macro blocks (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, sensor array 150, output of sensor array 150 is based on row(s) activated from sensor array 150, also claim limitations have been discussed and rejected regarding subarray being super-pixel(s) (i.e. macro blocks), see claims 6 and 15).
As per claim 17, the combined teachings of Huggett, Billingsley, and Pang, in further view of Johnson, as a whole, further discloses the system of claim 15, wherein:
the first row of the first subarray is a row of macro blocks; and
the pixel readout block contains:
a pixel included in a first macro block of the row of macro blocks, and a pixel included in a second macro block of the row of macro blocks (Huggett, fig. 7A, image sensor 501A, sensor array 150, output of sensor array 150 is based on row(s) activated from sensor array 150, also claim limitations have been discussed and rejected regarding subarray being super-pixel(s) (i.e. macro blocks), see claims 6 and 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-10, 12-14 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:
Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the following claimed limitations, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record, the system of claim 3, wherein: the first subarray comprises w flip flops configured as a shift register, w being a positive integer; each of the w flip flops is in a respective pixel of a first row of pixels of the first subarray; a first flip flop of the w flip flops is connected to an output of the h outputs of the shutter control signal generator circuit; and a second flip flop of the w flip flops is connected to an output of the first flip flop.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the following claimed limitations, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record, the system of claim 6, wherein: the first subarray comprises w flip flops configured as a shift register, w being a positive integer; each of the w flip flops is in a respective macro block of the first row of the first subarray; a first flip flop of the w flip flops is connected to an output of the h outputs of the shutter control signal generator circuit; and a second flip flop of the w flip flops is connected to an output of the first flip flop. Claims 8-10 depend from claim 7 and are allowable for the same reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 12, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the following claimed limitations, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record, the system of claim 11, wherein: a first pixel of a first macro block is connected to an output of the h outputs and configured to receive a first signal, the first signal being equal to an output signal from the output; and a second pixel is configured to receive a second signal, the second signal being a complement of the first signal. Claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 12 and are allowable for the same reasons stated above.
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 JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights