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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on 08/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suh et al. (US 2020/0084403 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Suh et al. (hereafter referred as Suh) teaches an imaging device (Suh, Fig. 2), comprising:
an imaging lens (Suh, Fig. 2, lens 1202, Paragraph 0045); and
an imaging element (Suh, Figs. 2 and 17, image sensor 1200, Paragraph 0045), wherein
the imaging element includes
a light receiving section that includes a photoelectric conversion element that generates a charge (Suh, Fig. 17, photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4, Paragraphs 0055 and 0122)
an event detecting section that generates an event detection signal on a basis of the charge supplied from the light receiving section (Suh, Fig. 17, DVS pixel 1311, Paragraph 0091 and 0124),
a pixel signal generating section that generates a pixel signal on a basis of the charge supplied from the light receiving section (Suh, Fig. 17, reset transistor RT, drive transistor DT, select transistor ST and Switch SW1, Paragraph 0085 and 0122), and
a switching element that switches between a first electric path through which the charge is supplied from the light receiving section to the event detecting section and a second electric path through which the charge is supplied from the light receiving section to the pixel signal generating section (Suh, Fig. 9, second switch SW2, Paragraph 0091 and 0123-0124).
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 19.
Regarding claim 4, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the light receiving section and the switching element are provided on different substrates (Suh, Figs. 8 and 17, Paragraph 0083, CIS pixels 1211 and DVS pixel 1311 are on different substrates. Switch SW2 is on the DVS pixel 1311 substrate.).
Regarding claim 5, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis), wherein the light receiving section is provided on a first substrate, and
the switching element is provided on a second substrate stacked on the first substrate (Suh, Fig. 8, Paragraph 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 6, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 5 (see claim 5 analysis), further comprising:
a floating diffusion layer that accumulates the charge supplied from the photoelectric conversion element (Suh, Fig. 17, floating diffusion region FD, Paragraph 0056), wherein
the pixel signal generating section includes a reset element for initializing the charge accumulated in the floating diffusion layer (Suh, Fig. 17, Switch SW1, Paragraph 0097, Switch SW1 provides voltage VDD for initializing the charge when resetting and is considered to be a reset element.), and
the reset element is provided on the second substrate (Suh, Figs. 8 and 17, Switch SW1 is on the second substrate.).
Regarding claim 7, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 5 (see claim 5 analysis), wherein the event detecting section is provided on the second substrate (Suh, Figs. 8 and 17, DVS pixel 1311is on the second substrate.).
Regarding claim 16, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein
a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Sug, Fig. 17, Four photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4 are a pixel block.), and
the event detecting section and the pixel signal generating section are provided for each of the pixel blocks (Suh, Fig. 17, Each pixel block is provided with the event detecting section and the pixel signal generating section.).
Regarding claim 17, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein
wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Suh, Fig. 17, Four photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4 are a pixel block.), and
the event detecting section adds the charges individually obtained from a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block, and generates the event detection signal on a basis of the added charges (Suh, Paragraph 0124, Transfer transistors TG1-TG4 are on in DVS mode. Charges generated by PSD1-PDS4 would be added on the FD.).
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(s) 8-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 2020/0084403 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0043119 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Suh, Fig. 17, Four photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4 are a pixel block.).
However, Suh does not teach the imaging element further comprises a pixel block separator that separates the pixel block and reflects light.
In reference to Lee et al. (hereafter referred as Lee), Lee teaches wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Lee, Figs. 4 and 6, Paragraphs 0064 and 0083); and
further comprises a pixel block separator that separates the pixel block and reflects light (Lee, Fig. 11, Trench D2, Paragraph 0114 and 0115).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Suh with the pixel block separator as seen in Lee to prevent electrical crosstalk and optical crosstalk from occurring between adjacent pixel blocks.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Suh and Lee teaches the imaging element according to claim 8 (see claim 8 analysis), wherein
the pixel block separator is a barrier having a length equal to or more than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element (Lee, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Suh, Fig. 17, Four photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4 are a pixel block.).
However, Suh does not teach the imaging element further comprises a pixel separator that separates a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block and reflects light.
In reference to Lee, Lee teaches wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Lee, Figs. 4 and 6, Paragraphs 0064 and 0083), and
further comprises a pixel separator that separates a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block and reflects light (Lee, Fig. 11, Trench D1, Paragraph 0114 and 0115).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Suh with the pixel separator as seen in Lee to prevent electrical crosstalk and optical crosstalk from occurring between adjacent photodiodes.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Suh and Lee teaches the imaging element according to claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis), further comprising:
a floating diffusion layer that accumulates the charge supplied from the photoelectric conversion element of each of the predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block (Suh, Fig. 17, floating diffusion FD).
Regarding claim 13, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Suh, Fig. 17, Four photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4 are a pixel block.).
However, Suh does not teach the imaging element further comprises a pixel block separator that separates the pixel block and reflects light and a pixel separator that separates a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block and reflects light.
In reference to Lee et al. (hereafter referred as Lee), Lee teaches wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Lee, Figs. 4 and 6, Paragraphs 0064 and 0083); and
further comprises a pixel block separator that separates the pixel block and reflects light (Lee, Fig. 11, Trench D2, Paragraph 0114 and 0115), and
a pixel separator that separates a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block and reflects light (Lee, Fig. 11, Trench D1, Paragraph 0114 and 0115).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Suh with the pixel block separator and pixel separator as seen in Lee to prevent electrical crosstalk and optical crosstalk from occurring between adjacent pixel blocks and adjacent pixels.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 2020/0084403 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0043119 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0170216 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Suh and Lee teaches the imaging element according to claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis). However, the combination of Suh and Lee does not teach wherein the pixel separator is a barrier having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element.
In reference to Lee et al. (US 2017/0170216 A1, hereafter referred as Lee2), Lee2 teaches wherein the pixel separator is a barrier having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element (Lee2, Figs. 10-11, device isolation layer 251, Paragraphs 0090 and 0093).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Suh and Lee with the teaching of the pixel separator having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Suh and Lee with the teaching of the pixel separator having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element since it is a known alternative pixel separator barrier length and would provide similar and expected results for preventing crosstalk between pixels.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Suh and Lee teaches the imaging element according to claim 13 (see claim 13 analysis), wherein
the pixel block separator is a barrier having a length equal to or more than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element (Lee, Fig. 11).
However, the combination of Suh and Lee does not teach wherein the pixel separator is a barrier having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element.
In reference to Lee2, Lee2 teaches wherein the pixel separator is a barrier having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element (Lee2, Figs. 10-11, device isolation layer 251, Paragraphs 0090 and 0093).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Suh and Lee with the teaching of the pixel separator having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Suh and Lee with the teaching of the pixel separator having a length shorter than a length in a height direction of the photoelectric conversion element since it is a known alternative pixel separator barrier length and would provide similar and expected results for preventing crosstalk between pixels.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 2020/0084403 A1) in view of Mao et al. (US 2017/0347047 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein a predetermined number of the light receiving sections constitute a pixel block (Suh, Fig. 17, Four photoelectric conversion device PDS1-PDS4 are a pixel block.).
However, Suh does not teach the imaging element further comprises an overflow drain layer for a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block.
In reference to Mao et al. (hereafter referred as Mao), Mao teaches an overflow drain layer for a predetermined number of the light receiving sections in the pixel block (Mao, Figs. 2 and 14, Paragraph 0028 and 0030, Anti-blooming (AB) gates AB1-AB4 connect the photodiodes to an overflow drain layer. Anti-blooming (AB) gates are used to address overflow issues.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Suh with the overflow drain layer/antiblooming gates as seen in Mao to address the issues of overflow and loss of useful information from saturated pixels.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 2020/0084403 A1) in view of Anas et al. (US 2020/0020726 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Suh teaches the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, Suh does not teach wherein in a case where the event detection signal is generated by the event detecting section, the pixel signal generating section generates the pixel signal on a basis of the charge supplied from the light receiving section.
In reference to Anas et al. (hereafter referred as Anas), Anas teaches wherein in a case where an event detection signal is generated by an event detecting section, a pixel signal generating section generates a pixel signal on a basis of the charge supplied from the a receiving section (Anas, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0139, Anas teaches switching from an event sensing mode to a normal imaging mode based on a detected event.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices with event sensing modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Suh with the teaching of switching modes based on detecting an event as seen in Anas to allow the device to only capture necessary images after an event is detected and reduce processing of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 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, 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639