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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 20-24 and 30-47 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.
The title of the invention has been amended to accurately describe the invention and therefore the previous objection to the title has been withdrawn.
The claims have been amended to overcome the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection and therefore the obviousness-type double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: "first conversion unit” in claims 1, 20 and 30; “calculation unit” in claims 1, 20, 22-23 and 31; “control unit” in claims 23-25 and 31; “first amplification unit” in claims 30-32 and 37; “second amplification unit” in claim 32; “connection units” in claim 39; “image processing unit” in claim 44; “display unit” in claim 45 and “driving unit” in claim 46.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 32-36 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 32 recites the limitation "the conversion unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 33-36 depend on claim 32 and lack antecedent basis for the reasons above regarding claim 32.
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.
Claims 1, 20-24, 30-31 and 37-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita JP2016171455 (machine translated copy provided in information disclosure statement filed 9/24/2025).
Re claim 1, Yamashita discloses an imaging element (image sensor) comprising: a first substrate (CH1) that includes a plurality of photoelectric converters (array of photoelectric conversion units 50) that convert light into an electric charge (pixel P includes photoelectric conversion unit 50) (figures 8,9, 18-22; paragraphs 24-26, 69-72); a second substrate (CH2) that includes a first conversion unit (analog to digital conversion circuit 120) that converts into a first digital signal a first signal that is based on the electric charge converted by at least a first photoelectric converter of the plurality of photoelectric converters the second substrate (CH2) being a substrate that is laminated together with the first substrate (CH1) (figures 18-22; paragraphs 43-53, 69-72); and a third substrate (CH3) that includes a calculation unit (control circuit 140) that, using the first digital signal, calculates information for setting an accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by the first photoelectric converter (50) is accumulated, the third substrate (CH3) being a substrate that is laminated together with the first substrate (CH1) (control circuit 140 is arranged on semiconductor chip CH3 and controls accumulation periods of pixels P) (figures 18-22; paragraphs 43-53, 69-72).
Re claim 20, Yamashita further discloses that the first conversion unit (120) converts into a second digital signal a signal that is based on the electric charge converted by the first photoelectric converter (50) and is input before the first signal; and the calculation unit (140) calculates the information using the first signal digital and the second digital signal (analog to digital converter 120 converts output signals of pixel group PG into digital signals and accumulation times/operations are adjusted by control circuit 140 according to saturation/dynamic range constraints) (figure 8; paragraphs 43-53).
Re claim 21, Yamashita further discloses that the third substrate (CH3) includes a memory (130) that stores at least one digital signal among the first digital signal and the second digital signal (pixel block memory 130 stores digital pixel values output from analog to digital converter 120) (paragraphs 43-53).
Re claim 22, Yamashita further discloses that the calculation unit performs an addition process that adds the first digital signal and the second digital signal (control circuit 140 performs operations to capture and convert multiple image frames to generate wide dynamic range images) (figure 8; paragraphs 43-53).
Re claim 23, Yamashita further discloses that the second substrate (CH2) includes a control unit that controls the accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by the first photoelectric converter is accumulated, based on the information calculated by the calculation unit (charge accumulation unit 60 of each pixel P controls accumulation time) (figure 8; paragraphs 43-53).
Re claim 24, Yamashita further discloses that the control unit outputs to the first substrate (CH1) a control signal for controlling the accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by the photoelectric converter is accumulated (charge accumulation unit 60 of each pixel P controls accumulation time) (figure 8; paragraphs 43-53).
Re claim 30, Yamashita further discloses a first amplification unit (pixel amplifier circuit 70) that amplifies the first signal (signal from photodiode), wherein the first conversion unit (120) converts the first signal amplified by the first amplification unit into the first digital signal (control circuit 140 can control the pixel amplifier circuit 70 and the gain of the gain amplifier 110)(paragraphs 54-56).
Re claim 31, Yamashita further discloses that the control unit controls an amplification gain of the first amplification unit based on the information calculated by the calculation unit (control circuit 140 can control the pixel amplifier circuit 70 and the gain of the gain amplifier 110)(paragraphs 54-56).
Re claim 37, Yamashita further discloses that the first amplification unit (70,110) is arranged on the first substrate (CH1) (figures 18-22; paragraphs 54-56, 69).
Re claim 38, Yamashita further discloses that the second substrate (CH2) is arranged between the first substrate (CH1) and the third substrate (CH3) in a laminating direction in which the first substrate (CH1), the second substrate (CH2), and the third substrate (CH3) are laminated (figures 18-22; paragraphs 69-72).
Re claim 39, Yamashita further discloses a plurality of connection units that each includes conductive members arranged to face each other in the laminating direction and electrically connect the first substrate (CH1) and the second substrate (CH2) (semiconductor chips CH1, CH2, CH3 are laminated and electrically connected via electronic bump bonding and through electrodes) (figures 18-22; paragraphs 69-72).
Re claim 40, Yamashita further discloses that the second substrate (CH2) includes a through electrode for electrically connecting with the third substrate (CH3) (semiconductor chips CH1, CH2, CH3 are laminated and electrically connected via electronic bump bonding and through electrodes) (figures 18-22; paragraphs 69-72).
Re claim 41, Yamashita further discloses that the third substrate (CH3) includes a through electrode for electrically connecting with the second substrate (CH2) (semiconductor chips CH1, CH2, CH3 are laminated and electrically connected via electronic bump bonding and through electrodes) (figures 18-22; paragraphs 69-72).
Re claim 42, Yamashita further discloses an imaging device comprising the imaging element according to claim 1 (image sensor 5 may be included in a digital camera 1) (figure 2; paragraph 9).
Re claim 43, Yamashita further discloses an image processing engine (image signal processor 6) to which the information is sent from the imaging element (5) (figure 2; paragraph 9).
Re claim 44, Yamashita further discloses that the image processing engine (6) includes an image processing unit that generates image data using the first digital signal (figure 2; paragraph 9).
Re claim 45, Yamashita further discloses a display unit (8) that displays an image that is based on the image data (figure 2; paragraph 9).
Re claims 46-47, Yamashita further discloses a driving unit (lens driving mechanism 47c) that drives a lens (47) included in an optical system that emits light to the imaging element (figure 1; paragraphs 10-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-29 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:
Re claims 25-29, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an imaging element having the specific configurations disclosed in claims 25-29, wherein the imaging element comprises: an imaging element comprising: a first substrate that includes a plurality of photoelectric converters that convert light into an electric charge; a second substrate that includes a first conversion unit that converts into a first digital signal a first signal that is based on the electric charge converted by at least a first photoelectric converter of the plurality of photoelectric converters the second substrate being a substrate that is laminated together with the first substrate; and a third substrate that includes a calculation unit that, using the first digital signal, calculates information for setting an accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by the first photoelectric converter is accumulated, the third substrate being a substrate that is laminated together with the first substrate, wherein the second substrate includes a control unit that controls the accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by the first photoelectric converter is accumulated, based on the information calculated by the calculation unit, wherein the control unit performs control such that (i) the accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by the first photoelectric converter is accumulated and (ii) an accumulation time during which the electric charge converted by a second photoelectric converter among the plurality of photoelectric converters, which is disposed at a position different from the first photoelectric converter, is accumulated are different accumulation times. The prior art fails to specifically disclose an imaging element having three different substrates laminated together and each performing different functions and wherein different accumulation times are calculated for different photoelectric converters located at different positions and disclosed in the specific configuration in the claims figures, and the specification.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hasegawa et al. US 2021/0314486 discloses an imaging device incorporating a photoelectric conversion element, a processing circuit and a memory disposed on separate substrates laminated together.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
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).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699