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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a readout unit” and “a setting unit” in claims 1-13.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (US 2021/0144307 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura discloses an apparatus provided with a sensor (106) including a plurality of pixels that are arrayed two-dimensionally, at least a part of the plurality of pixels being a phase-difference detection pixel that include a first conversion unit (201a) and a second conversion unit (201b) for performing phase-difference AF (Fig. 1-7 and par. [0006], [0024]-[0025], [0031]), the apparatus comprising:
a driving mechanism (116) configured to change an angle of an image plane of the sensor relative to a main plane of an optical system; and a readout unit configured to read out signals obtained in the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit in an order corresponding to the angle (see Fig. 1-7 and par. [0028], [0031] & [0035], wherein the signals from the photoelectric conversion units 201a and 201b are read out in the order corresponding to all angles of the image sensor, hence encompassing the angle as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, as also disclosed by Kimura, the readout unit is further configured to first read out a signal from one of the first conversion unit (201a) and the second conversion unit (201b), and then read out a sum of signals of the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit (see par. [0031]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, these claims are also met by the discussions in claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, these claims are also met by the discussions in claims 1 and 2, respectively. Note that Kimura further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more programs for operating the apparatus as mentioned in paragraphs [0008] & [0074].
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 2021/0144307 A1) in view of Numata (US 2015/0228687 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura does not teach that the phase-difference detection pixels include microlenses, and a center of the microlens of each phase-difference detection pixel is decentered in accordance with a position of the sensor. However, this lack of teaching is compensated by Numata in Fig. 2A and paragraph [0028] in which a center of the microlens of each phase-difference detection pixel is shifted from a center with respect to a position of the sensor so that the pixels in peripheral region of the image sensor are able to obtain optimal incident light.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Kimura to provide the microlens arrangement as taught by Numata to improve light reception at each pixel for better signal quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 12-14, 17 and 20 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 3, the prior art references of record fail to teach or suggest: “the readout unit is further configured to perform readout first from one of the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit that has a lower sensitivity than the other one.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “the readout unit is further configured to change an order of readout from the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit depending on magnitudes of pixel signals.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “provided that both side regions that are distanced by a first threshold or more in a direction that passes through a center of the sensor and is perpendicular to a pupil-division direction are a first region and a second region, the readout unit is further configured to read out the signals so that an order of readout from the first and second conversion units in the second region is a reverse of an order of readout from the first and second conversion units in the first region.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, these claims are dependent from claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “the readout unit is further configured to change an order of readout from the first and second conversion units depending on whether the angle is equal to or larger than a second threshold.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “a setting unit configured to, only in a case where the angle is equal to or larger than a second threshold, set a setting indicating one of the first and second conversion units from which readout is performed first by the readout unit.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is dependent from claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “the readout unit is further configured to read out the signals without changing an order of readout from the first and second conversion units in a case where the angle is equal to or smaller than a preset first angle, and read out the signal first from the conversion unit located on a side where a distance from the image plane to a subject plane is relatively short in a case where the angle exceeds the first angle.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “the microlenses are placed in a decentered manner so that the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit have the same sensitivity in a case where the angle is a preset second angle, and the readout unit is further configured to, in a case where the angle is smaller than the second angle, read out the signal first from the conversion unit located on a side where a distance from the image plane to a subject plane is relatively long.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “the microlenses are placed in a decentered manner so that the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit have the same sensitivity in a case of a middle angle between the largest angle and the smallest angle that can be set by the driving mechanism, and a proportion of phase-difference detection pixels in which readout from the first conversion unit is performed first is larger in a case where the angle is smaller than the middle angle, and a proportion of phase-difference detection pixels in which readout from the second conversion unit is performed first is larger in a case where the angle is larger than the middle angle.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the prior art references of record also fail to teach or suggest: “changing an order of readout from the first conversion unit and the second conversion unit depending on magnitudes of pixel signals or on whether the angle is equal to or larger than a second threshold.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/NHAN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638