N O N - F I N A L A C T I O N
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 5/22/23 and 8/17/23 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that the current title “IMAGING DEVICE AND EQUIPMENT” is a good starting point, but recommends adding analogous language to “PIXELS WITH DIFFERENT SENSITIVITIES” and “CAPTURING IMAGES WITH HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE” into the current title. For example, Examiner recommends the following amended new title:
“IMAGING DEVICE COMPRISING PIXELS WITH DIFFERENT SENSITIVITIES FOR CAPTURING IMAGES WITH HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE AND EQUIPMENT”
Election / Restriction – Election without Traverse
Applicant’s reply filed on 11/06/25, elected Species III (claims 1-8 & 10-13) embodiment, which is without traverse.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species I & II embodiments, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b) – Definiteness Requirement
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 1-8 and 10-13 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 (lines 12-15) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“a charge of a photoelectric conversion unit other than the first photoelectric conversion unit and the second photoelectric conversion unit is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the first floating diffusion unit in each of the first pixel and the second pixel”.
The Examiner understands claim 1 to correspond to the structure shown in Fig. 12 (or Fig. 13). That being said, the above underlined limitation is confusing to follow due to the claim construction which compresses a lot of structural features using the shorthand terms “other than” as used with the limitation phrase “a photoelectric conversion unit other than…” AND “different from…” as used with the limitation phrase “a floating diffusion unit different from…”.
Due to this, it is unclear if the “a photoelectric conversion unit other than…” is located in the first/second pixel OR located in a another pixel (i.e. third/fourth pixel) with a different floating diffusion unit.
Also, it is unclear how / if the said “a floating diffusion unit different from…” is connected to the first/second pixel.
Examiner recommends – rather than using language that describes a manner of operating the imaging device (i.e. a charge of… is read from…) mixed with structure, it would be clearer to finish defining the pixel structure of the first pixel and/or second pixel by using example language like “wherein the first pixel comprises a third photoelectric conversion unit connected with a second floating diffusion unit”.
Claim 2 (lines 2-4) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“an image processing unit which performs high dynamic range image generation processing by using images having different sensitivities based on a charge read from a floating diffusion unit”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation term “a floating diffusion unit” because the first occurrence of this term was already recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if this language is referring to the same feature or a different feature. Correction is required.
Claim 5 (lines 2-3) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“individual photoelectric conversion units in each pixel include color filters of the same color”.
It is unclear if the said “individual photoelectric conversion units” is referring to different photoelectric conversion units than those recited in claim 1, OR to the same photoelectric conversion units to those recited in claim 1.
What does Applicant mean by using the descriptor “individual” with “photoelectric conversion units”? Isn’t each photoelectric conversion unit an “individual” photoelectric conversion unit (i.e. single photodiode)?
Claim 6 (lines 5-14) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“a microlens is disposed over a third photoelectric conversion unit which is adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion unit in the vertical direction, constitutes a pixel with the first photoelectric conversion unit, and is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the first floating diffusion unit, and the first photoelectric conversion unit,
and a microlens is disposed over a fourth photoelectric conversion unit which is adjacent to the second photoelectric conversion unit in the vertical direction, constitutes a pixel with the second photoelectric conversion unit, and is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the first floating diffusion unit, and the second photoelectric conversion unit”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation term “a floating diffusion unit different from…” AND “a pixel with…” in each instant bolded above because the first occurrence of these terms were already recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if this language is referring to the same feature or a different feature.
Furthermore, the limitations in lines 5-9 & lines 10-14 are considered to be a run-on-sentences which make it confusing to understand what photoelectric conversion units are covered with the said “a microlens” in each instant.
Claim 7 (lines 5-14) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“a microlens is disposed over a fifth photoelectric conversion unit which is adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion unit in the horizontal direction, constitutes a pixel with the first photoelectric conversion unit, and is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the first floating diffusion unit, and the first photoelectric conversion unit,
and a microlens is disposed over a sixth photoelectric conversion unit which is adjacent to the second photoelectric conversion unit in the horizontal direction, constitutes a pixel with the second photoelectric conversion unit, and is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the first floating diffusion unit, and the second photoelectric conversion unit”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation term “a floating diffusion unit different from…” AND “a pixel with…” in each instant bolded above because the first occurrence of these terms were already recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if this language is referring to the same feature or a different feature.
Furthermore, the limitations in lines 5-9 & lines 10-14 are considered to be a run-on-sentences which make it confusing to understand what photoelectric conversion units are covered with the said “a microlens” in each instant.
Regarding independent claim 8, the claimed invention (lines 1-17 in total) does not appear to correspond to the elected Species III (Fig. 12-13) and/or the Examiner had a hard time mapping the claim limitations to the features shown in Fig. 12-13 and as described in the written description. Furthermore, the claim language seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth pixels AND the claim language seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth photoelectric conversion units was only found to describe the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 in view of para [0040] per the publication written description.
Additionally, claim 8 (lines 15-17) recites some confusing language in the following underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“a charge of a photoelectric conversion unit other than the seventh to tenth photoelectric conversion units is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the second floating diffusion unit in each of the seventh to tenth pixels”.
The above underlined limitation is confusing to follow due to the claim construction which compresses a lot of structural features using the shorthand terms “other than” as used with the limitation phrase “a photoelectric conversion unit other than…” AND “different from…” as used with the limitation phrase “a floating diffusion unit different from…”.
Due to this, it is unclear if the “a photoelectric conversion unit other than…” is located in any one of the seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth pixels OR located in a another pixel with a different floating diffusion unit.
Also, it is unclear how / if the said “a floating diffusion unit different from…” is connected to any one of the seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth pixels.
Examiner recommends – rather than using language that describes a manner of operating the imaging device (i.e. a charge of… is read from…) mixed with structure, it would be clearer to finish defining the pixel structure of any one of the seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth pixels and specifying that this pixel is connected with a first floating diffusion unit.
NOTE: for above reasons, the Examiner was not able to consider/apply prior art to claim 8 and corresponding dependent claims 10-13.
Claim 10 (lines 2-4) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“an image processing unit which performs high dynamic range image generation processing by using images having different sensitivities based on a charge read from a floating diffusion unit”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation term “a floating diffusion unit” because the first occurrence of this term was already recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if this language is referring to the same feature or a different feature. Correction is required
Claim 13 (lines 2-3) recites the underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold):
“individual photoelectric conversion units in each pixel include color filters of the same color”.
It is unclear if the said “individual photoelectric conversion units” is referring to different photoelectric conversion units than those recited in claim 1, OR to the same photoelectric conversion units to those recited in claim 1.
What does Applicant mean by using the descriptor “individual” with “photoelectric conversion units”? Isn’t each photoelectric conversion unit an “individual” photoelectric conversion unit (i.e. single photodiode)?
For above reasons, the independent claims 1 and 8 do not meet the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-7 and 10-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons discussed above and for respectively depending from rejected claims 1 and 8.
Closest Prior Art
The prior art (cited on PTO-892) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among these, the following references are considered to be the closest, collectively disclosing the state of the art concerned with an image sensor’s pixel / circuit architecture having pixel units with both low and high sensitivity photoelectric conversion units.
SASAKI AKIRA (JP 2014033054) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, (English translation attached), see Abstract, Fig. 2, 4, 7-8, 13 and para [0112]. SASAKI’s Fig. 7 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
IKEMOTO (US 20130258098) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Fig. 5, Fig. 9, and para [0084-88, 0156-0159, 0162-163].
UI (US 20100013969) – see Fig. 3-4, Fig. 9A & 10, and para [0164, 0166, 0171]: discloses optical attenuation films OATT-A, OATT-B, OATT-C, and OATT-D different from each other in the photosensitivity or the degree of light blocking are disposed on the color filter CLF. For example, light blocking films having different transmittances are disposed on the respective regions of the divided pixels DPC-A, DPC-B, DPC-C, and DPC-D in order to make the photo-sensitivities different from each other.
KATO (US 20170110503) – see Abstract, Fig. 3, Fig. 10, Fig. 18, in view of the additional embodiments to configure the pixels in each pixel sharing unit with different on-chip color filters (OCCFs) AND different on-chip lenses (OCLs) per para [0013, 0098, 0162, 0168-169], wherein FD addition may be performed to expand dynamic range.
NOTE: Examiner welcomes INTERVIEW(s) to discuss the instant application’s claimed invention as it corresponds to the specification embodiments, as well as, discussing the similarities/differences taught/not taught by prior art. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments/amendments should not only address the cited closest art applied/relied on in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection (below), but also address the other cited closest art not applied/relied on.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASAKI AKIRA (JP 2014033054) in view of IKEMOTO (US 20130258098) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, SASAKI teaches an imaging device (imaging device of Figs. 2 in view of the pixel configuration shown in Fig. 7) comprising:
a plurality of pixels (pixel 702 and pixel 706) each of which includes a microlens (microlens 701 and microlens 705) and a plurality of photoelectric conversion units (photoelectric conversion units 703 b and 707), wherein the plurality of pixels include a first pixel and a second pixel adjacent to the first pixel (pixel 702 and pixel 706 adjacent),
a first photoelectric conversion unit included in the first pixel and a second photoelectric conversion unit included in the second pixel are configured to share a first floating diffusion unit (photoelectric conversion units 703 b and 707 of two adjacent unit pixels 702 and 706 share the FD 704),
and a charge of a photoelectric conversion unit (703a) other than the first photoelectric conversion unit and the second photoelectric conversion unit is read from a floating diffusion unit different from the first floating diffusion unit in each of the first pixel and the second pixel (See Fig. 7 which depicts a second floating diffusion by the dashed left rectangle adjacent to 703a).
Regarding the limitation (emphasis in bold): “sensitivity of the second photoelectric conversion unit is lower than sensitivity of the first photoelectric conversion unit in a wavelength range in which the first photoelectric conversion unit has a peak of the sensitivity”,
SASAKI can be considered to meet this limitation when interpreting each color filter arranged with each photoelectric conversion unit to control sensitivity, wherein arranging each adjacent pixel with different color filters can equate to Applicant’s underlined limitation since there are a variety of ways known in the art to configure a pixel’s photoelectric conversion units to have different sensitivities.
For example, see SASAKI’s Fig. 7 in view of the embodiment discussed in para [0112] which states the configuration of the color filter (CF) that performs color separation of light incident on the photoelectric conversion unit can be freely configured according to the use of the solid-state imaging device. For example, all of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units may have a spectral transmittance of different colors. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have conceived of Applicant’s claimed “sensitivity of the second photoelectric conversion unit is lower than sensitivity of the first photoelectric conversion unit…” based on a configuration that uses different colors filters.
However, for sake of completeness to make the record clear, since SASAKI does not explicitly disclose each pixel may have photoelectric conversion units with both low and high sensitivities, Examiner further evidences related prior art IKEMOTO. See Fig. 5 in view of para [0084, 0086, 0088]. IKEMOTO discloses first and second pixels 151/152, each configured with a low sensitivity photoelectric conversion unit 154/156 and high sensitivity photoelectric conversion unit 153/155. Also see IKEMOTO’s embodiment taught in Fig. 9 over the discussion in para [0156, 158-159] in view of para [0162-163].
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, 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 IKEMOTO (to configure each pixel with low and high sensitivity photoelectric conversion units) into suitable modification with the teachings of SASAKI (per Fig. 7 pixels and para [0112]) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to capture high quality images of a scene with high/low luminance objects in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 3, SASAKI in view of IKEMOTO teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the first photoelectric conversion unit and the second photoelectric conversion unit include color filters having different transmittances of light in incidence units of the light (This feature is obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1 over the additional teachings of SASAKI in para [0112]).
As per CLAIM 4, SASAKI in view of IKEMOTO teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the second photoelectric conversion unit includes a light-shielding film in an incidence unit of light (This feature is obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1 over the additional teachings of IKEMOTO to use light shield filters having different sized openings for motivated reason (para [0162-163]) to achieve a pixels arranged with photoelectric conversion units having different sensitivities to capture high quality images of a scene with high/low luminance objects – see Fig. 5 in view of the further arrangement in Fig. 9 as discussed in para [0156, 158-159]).
As per CLAIM 5, SASAKI in view of IKEMOTO teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein individual photoelectric conversion units in each pixel include color filters of the same color (This feature is considered to be met by the additional teachings of SASAKI in para [0112]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the EXAMINER should be directed to AKSHAY TREHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5252. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 10am – 6pm during the weekdays Monday – Friday.
Interviews with the examiner are available via telephone AND video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may contact the examiner via telephone OR use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR), which can be found 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKSHAY TREHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639