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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaki (US 20110235017 A1; hereinafter Iwasaki).
Regarding claim 1, FIG. 14A-14B of Iwasaki teach a solid-state imaging apparatus (314 ¶ [0098]), comprising: a light receiving element (detection section) that photoelectrically converts incident light (incident light B/G/R/IR ¶ [0082],[0105]); an optical filter (520) that controls a color of light incident on the light receiving element (detection section ¶ [0195]); and a multi-bandpass filter (540) that acquires light incident through the optical filter (520) or light incident on the optical filter (520 ¶ [0215]), in a plurality of frequency bands, wherein the optical filter (520) is a filter corresponding to a plurality of the colors (e.g. red (R), green (G), blue (B), and infrared (IR)) and controls the color incident with respect to each of the light receiving element (detection section ¶ [0195]), and in the multi-bandpass filter (540), at least one of peaks of a transmitted frequency band (e.g. R, G, B, IR) has a frequency different from a peak of transmitted light in the filter (e.g. R, G, B filters) corresponding to each of the plurality of colors (see FIGS. 14A-14B).
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and FIG. 3 of Iwasaki further teaches wherein the plurality of colors (R, G, B) have different spectral peak frequencies (¶ [0085],[0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and FIGS. 14A-14B of Iwasaki further teach wherein the optical filter (520) is at least one of a color filter, a plasmon filter, or an organic photoelectric conversion film (e.g. color filter ¶ [0195]).
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and FIG. 14A-14B of Iwasaki further teach wherein the multi-bandpass filter (540) has a plurality of transmission bands in a transmission frequency band of the optical filter (520) corresponding to each of the plurality of colors (¶ [0173],[0197]).
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 6, and FIG. 2 of Iwasaki teaches wherein the light receiving element (detection section) outputs a signal having a plurality of spectral peaks (e.g. signal shown in FIG. 2) through the multi-bandpass filter (540 ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and FIGS. 14A-14B of Iwasaki teach wherein the light receiving element (detection section) includes: a first light receiving element (first photodiode in detection section) into which light is incident through the multi-bandpass filter (540); and a second light receiving element (second photodiode) into which light is incident without going through the multi-bandpass filter (540), the light receiving element (detection section) acquiring a signal (see FIG. 2) on the basis of an output of the first light receiving element (first photodiode) and an output of the second light receiving element (second photodiode ¶ [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the multi-bandpass filter (540) includes: a first multi-bandpass filter (first portion of 540 above R/G/B filters); and a second multi-bandpass filter (second portion of 540 above W filter) having a transmission band different from that of the first multi-bandpass filter (first portion of 540), and wherein the light receiving element (detection layer) includes: a third light receiving element (photodiode/photodiodes below R/G/B filters) into which light is incident through the first multi-bandpass filter (first portion of 540 above R/G/B filters); and a fourth light receiving element (photodiode below W filter) into which light is incident through the second multi-bandpass filter (second portion of 540 above W filter), and acquires a signal on the basis of an output of the third light receiving element (photodiode/photodiodes below R/G/B filters) and an output (see signal of FIG. 2) of the fourth light receiving element (second portion of 540 above W filter ¶ [0106]).
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and FIGS. 3-4 & 14B of Iwasaki further comprising a wavelength extraction circuit (image signal processing section 330 ¶ [0106]-[0108]) that extracts an intensity of light of a predetermined wavelength (e.g. predetermined wavelengths in the visible and infrared range ¶ [0106]) with respect to a signal output (e.g. SIR, SVL ¶ [0107]) by the light receiving element (detection layer comprising photodiodes).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Themelis et al. (George Themelis, Jung Sun Yoo, and Vasilis Ntziachristos, "Multispectral imaging using multiple-bandpass filters," Opt. Lett. 33, 1023-1025 (2008); hereinafter Themelis)
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
Iwasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the multi-bandpass filter has a transmission band with a half-value width narrower than a half-value width of the optical filter corresponding to each of the plurality of colors.
FIG. 1 of Themelis teaches a method for multispectral imaging including a CCD covered by a set of CMYG microfilters (see FIG. 1(a)) with broad transmission bands (see dashed lines of FIG. 1(c)) and a multi-bandpass filter (quadruple-bandpass filter (QBPF)) with narrow transmission bands (see solid lines in FIGS. 1(b) and 1(c)); wherein the multi-bandpass filter (QBPF) has a transmission band (e.g. transmission bands shown in FIGS. 1(b) and 1(c)) with a half-value width (i.e. full width at half maximum (FWHM)) narrower than a half-value width (i.e. FWHM) of the optical filter (CMYG microfilter shown in FIG. 1(a)) corresponding to each of the plurality of colors (dashed lines shown in FIG. 1(c), pg. 1023 paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state imaging apparatus taught by Iwasaki with the multi-bandpass filter taught by Themelis for the purpose of simultaneously measuring multiple narrow spectral bands (pg. 1024 paragraph 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Boettiger et al. (US 20150381907 A1; hereinafter Boettiger).
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and FIG. 14B of Iwasaki further teaches wherein the multi-bandpass filter (540) is integrally formed in the apparatus (e.g. FIG. 14B).
Iwasaki does not teach explicitly teach wherein the multi-bandpass filter is integrally formed in the apparatus by coating, adhesion, or deposition.
FIG. 1 of Boettiger teaches a solid-state imaging apparatus (12), wherein a dual bandpass filter (20) is integrally formed in the apparatus (12) by coating, adhesion, or deposition (e.g. multiple layers of coating ¶ [0042])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state imaging apparatus taught by Iwasaki with the bandpass coating taught by Boettiger for the purpose of forming the multi-bandpass filter integrally in the solid-state imaging apparatus.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Roh et al. (US 20210127101 A1; hereinafter Roh).
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki teaches The solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 8.
Iwasaki does not explicitly teach wherein spectral estimation is executed on the basis of the output of the first light receiving element and the output of the second light receiving element.
FIG. 8 of Roh teaches a solid-state imaging apparatus (300) comprising a light receiving element (elements 111) including: a first light receiving element (first instance of 111) and a second light receiving element (second instance of 111), the light receiving element (elements of 111) acquiring a signal on the basis of an output of the first light receiving element (“image data” of λ1 acquired by first instance of 111 ¶ [0058]-[0059]) and an output of the second light receiving element (“image data” of λ2 acquired by second instance of 111 ¶ [0058]-[0059]); wherein spectral estimation is executed on the basis of the output of the first light receiving element (“image data” of first instance of 111) and the output of the second light receiving element (“image data” of second instance of 111 ¶ [0058]-[0059],[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state imaging apparatus taught by Iwasaki with the spectral estimation method taught by Roh for the purpose of improving the stability of the analysis of the spectrum received by the light receiving element (¶ [0072]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20110102308 A1; hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 15, FIG. 14A-14B of Iwasaki teach an imaging element (314 ¶ [0098]), comprising: a light receiving element (detection section) that photoelectrically converts incident light (incident light B/G/R/IR ¶ [0082],[0105]); an optical filter (520) that controls a color of light incident on the light receiving element (detection section ¶ [0195]); and a multi-bandpass filter (540) that acquires light incident through the optical filter (520) or light incident on the optical filter (520 ¶ [0215]), in a plurality of frequency bands, wherein the optical filter (520) is a filter corresponding to a plurality of the colors (e.g. red (R), green (G), blue (B), and infrared (IR)) and controls the color incident with respect to each of the light receiving element (detection section ¶ [0195]), and in the multi-bandpass filter (540), at least one of peaks of a transmitted frequency band (e.g. R, G, B, IR) has a frequency different from a peak of transmitted light in the filter (e.g. R, G, B filters) corresponding to each of the plurality of colors (see FIGS. 14A-14B).
Iwasaki does not teach an electronic device, comprising: a display that displays image information with light emitted by a light emitting element; and an imaging element that captures images through the display on an opposite side of a light emitting surface of the display.
FIG. 1A of Nakamura teaches an electronic device (e.g. FIG. 1A), comprising: a display (10) that displays image information with light emitted by a light emitting element (e.g. OLED ¶ [0056]-[0057]); and an imaging element (20) that captures images through the display (10) on an opposite side of a light emitting surface of the display (see FIG. 1A ¶ [0056]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state imaging apparatus taught by Iwasaki with the electronic device taught by Nakamura for the purpose of enhancing the functionality of the electronic device taught by Nakamura by providing an imaging element which avoids detection of light of undesired wavelengths (¶ [0050]) and has enhanced sensitivity (¶ [0058]) since it has been held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143(I)(A), that examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, wherein in the instant case an electronic device comprising a display and an imaging element together as taught by Nakamura is taught in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined a display and an imaging element together as taught by Nakamura with the solid-state imaging apparatus taught by Iwasaki with each element performing the same function as it does separately, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the combination predictable since the components are commonly used together.
Regarding claim 16, Iwasaki as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, and FIGS. 3-4 & 14B of Iwasaki further teach comprising, inside of the imaging element (314), a wavelength extraction circuit (image signal processing section 330 ¶ [0106]-[0108]) that extracts an intensity of light of a predetermined wavelength (e.g. predetermined wavelengths in the visible and infrared range ¶ [0106]) with respect to a signal output (e.g. SIR, SVL ¶ [0107]) by the light receiving element (detection layer comprising photodiodes).
Regarding claim 17, Iwasaki as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, and FIG. 6 of Nakamura further teaches comprising, outside of the imaging element (20), a wavelength extraction circuit (information processing circuit ¶ [0040],[0092]) that extracts an intensity of light of a predetermined wavelength (¶ [0086]) with respect to a signal output by the light receiving element (20 ¶ [0087]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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:
Claim 12 recites the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the multi-bandpass filter includes: a third multi-bandpass filter; and a fourth multi-bandpass filter having a transmission band different from that of the third multi-bandpass filter, wherein light is made incident on the light receiving element through the third multi-bandpass filter and the fourth multi-bandpass filter so as to have different transmission bands with respect to an image height, and the wavelength extraction circuit executes wavelength extraction using a wavelength extraction parameter for light received from the same target at different image heights.
Iwasaki teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 11, FIG. 14B of Iwasaki further teaches wherein the wherein the multi-bandpass filter (540) includes: a third multi-bandpass filter (first portion of 540 above R/G/B filters); and a fourth multi-bandpass filter (second portion of 540 above W filter) having a transmission band different from that of the third multi-bandpass filter (first portion of 540); wherein light (light rays shown in FIG. 14B) is made incident on the light receiving element (detection layer) through the third multi-bandpass filter (first portion of 540) and the fourth multi-bandpass filter (second portion of 540).
However, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest “wherein light is made incident on the light receiving element through the third multi- bandpass filter and the fourth multi-bandpass filter so as to have different transmission bands with respect to an image height, and the wavelength extraction circuit executes wavelength extraction using a wavelength extraction parameter for light received from the same target at different image heights” together with all the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12 as claimed. Claims 13-14 contain allowable subject matter insofar as they depend upon and require all the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nora T Nix whose telephone number is (571)270-1972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/Nora T. Nix/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891