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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the photodiodes and transfer switches 1103 and 1104 of Yamashita are not distinct pixel, however, this argument contradicts the previous sentence which defines distinct transfer transistors feeding a single FD as being the “strict structural relationship between the two pixels” (see page 11 lines 4-8 of Remarks). Therefore, as Yamashita discloses transfer switches 1103 and 1104 which feed a single FD, these elements meet the “strict structural relationship between the two pixels” as required by the claimed. In view of the foregoing, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (page 11 lines 11-25), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the claims which are dependent on claim 1 are allowable due to their dependence on claim 1 (see page 12 of Remarks). In view of the rejection of claim 1 being maintained for the reasons discussed above, the dependent claims are also rejected as further detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0319056), hereinafter referenced as Yamashita, in view of Jang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0394219), hereinafter referenced as Jang.
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses an imaging element comprising: a pixel block including a first pixel that performs photoelectric conversion of incident light having a predetermined wavelength among kinds of incident light and generates electric charges (figure 2A exhibits a first pixel which includes photodiode 1101 as disclosed at paragraph 50; figure 1B shows that a color filter is present as disclosed at paragraph 44), and a second pixel that performs photoelectric conversion of incident light and generates electric charges (figure 2A exhibits a second pixel which includes photodiode 1102 as disclosed at paragraph 50), the first pixel and the second pixel each being independently connected to a shared electric charge holding unit through respective charge-transfer units (figure 2A exhibits charge holding unit 1105 which is connected to each pixel through transfer transistors 1103 and 1104 as disclosed at paragraph 50); an electric charge holding unit that holds the electric charges generated by the first pixel and the second pixel (figure 2A exhibits charge holding unit 1105 as disclosed at paragraph 50), and a signal generation circuit that generates an image signal based on the electric charges held by the electric charge holding unit (figure 2A exhibits pixel amplifier 1106 which converts charge to a signal as disclosed at paragraph 50); a pixel block control circuit (figure 1 exhibits vertical scanning circuit 102 as disclosed at paragraph 45) that performs control to transfer, in a first transfer operation, all of the electric charges generated by the first pixel to the electric charge holding unit and cause the signal generation circuit to generate a first image signal (paragraph 45 teaches causing readout of an A signal) and to further transfer, in a second transfer operation distinct from the first transfer operation, all of the electric charges generated by the second pixel to the electric charge holding unit while the electric charges of the first pixel remain held therein, and cause the signal generation circuit to generate an added image signal that is the image signal based on electric charges obtained by adding up the electric charges respectively generated by the first pixel and the second pixel (paragraph 45 teaches causing readout of an A+B signal); and a signal processor (figure 13 exhibits a signal processing unit comprising a plurality of blocks after the image sensor 400) configured to generate a second image signal that is the image signal obtained by subtracting the first image signal from the added image signal (figure 13 exhibits B signal generation unit 408 as disclosed at paragraph 78), the signal processing processor switching a first mode for outputting the first image signal and the added image signal (figure 13 exhibits for image generation, the A signal and the A+B signals are output to the line selection processing unit as disclosed at paragraph 107, the mode of this signal processing path is interpreted as an image generation mode and is a first mode) and a second mode for outputting the first image signal and the second image signal (figure 13 exhibits for focus detection, B signal generation unit will output the A signal and the B signal to a phase difference detection unit as disclosed at paragraph 97, the mode of this signal processing path is interpreted as a focus setting mode and therefore is a second mode from the dynamic range expansion mode). However, Yamashita fails to disclose the second pixel performs photoelectric conversion of incident light having a wavelength different from the wavelength of the first pixel.
Jang is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Jang teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving sensitivity would have prompted a predictable variation of Yamashita by applying Jang’s known principal of pixels of two different wavelengths combined (figures 4A and 4B exhibits shared pixels in which a first color of red green or blue photodiodes are present with white photodiodes as disclosed at paragraph 67).
In view of the motivations such as improving sensitivity one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Yamashita.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, in addition, Jang discloses wherein the first pixel performs photoelectric conversion of any one of red light, green light, and blue light among the kinds of incident light (figures 4A and 4B exhibits shared pixels in which a first color of red green or blue photodiodes are present with white photodiodes as disclosed at paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, in addition, Jang discloses wherein the second pixel performs photoelectric conversion of white light among the kinds of incident light (figures 4A and 4B exhibits shared pixels in which a first color of red green or blue photodiodes are present with white photodiodes as disclosed at paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, in addition, Jang discloses wherein the pixel block is configured by a plurality of the first pixels and a plurality of the second pixels being arranged in a square matrix and the first pixels and the second pixels being alternately arranged in a row direction and a column direction (figure 4B exhibits a RGBW array of pixels with color and white pixels alternately arranged in row and column directions).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, however, Yamashita fails to disclose a reset unit that performs reset by discharging the electric charges of the electric charge holding unit, wherein the pixel block control circuit further performs control to cause a reference image signal to be generated, the reference image signal being an image signal at a reset time by the reset unit, and the signal processor further corrects the first image signal by subtracting the reference image signal from the first image signal and corrects the added image signal by subtracting the reference image signal from the added image signal.
Jang is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Jang teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of removing noise from a pixel signal would have prompted a predictable variation of Yamashita by applying Jang’s known principal of a reset unit that performs reset by discharging the electric charges of the electric charge holding unit (figure 4A exhibits reset transistor RT as disclosed at paragraph 61), wherein the pixel block control unit further performs control to cause a reference image signal to be generated, the reference image signal being an image signal at a reset time by the reset unit (paragraph 79 teaches outputting a reset signal), and the signal processing unit further corrects the first image signal by subtracting the reference image signal from the first image signal and corrects the added image signal by subtracting the reference image signal from the added image signal (paragraph 51 teaches that the ADC performs correlated double sampling which removes the reset noise from the pixel signals).
In view of the motivations such as removing noise from a pixel signal one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Yamashita.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 1, in addition, Yamashita discloses wherein the signal processor further includes an analog- to-digital conversion unit that converts the first image signal and the added image signal into a digital signal (figure 1 exhibits analog to digital conversion unit 104 as disclosed at paragraph 47), and the signal processor outputs the first image signal and the added image signal of the digital signal converted by the analog-to-digital conversion unit (figure 1 shows that the signal processing unit 106 is after the ADC 104 and therefore the signals output by the signal processing unit are digital signals).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 9, in addition, Yamashita discloses wherein the pixel block control circuit generates a plurality of at least one of the first image signals and the added image signals, the analog-to-digital conversion unit converts the plurality of first image signals or the plurality of added image signals into digital signals, and the signal processor outputs an average of the first image signals of a plurality of digital signals or the added image signals of the plurality of digital signals as the first image signal or the added image signal (paragraph 170 teaches averaging 8 pixels worth of A pixel signals, therefore a plurality of first image signals are generated and then averaged).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses electronic equipment comprising the imaging element according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Jang and further in view of Solhusvik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0312537), hereinafter referenced as Solhusvik.
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element of claim 1, however, Yamashita fails to disclose wherein the second pixel performs photoelectric conversion of any one of yellow light, reddish violet light, and bluish green light among the kinds of incident light.
Yamashita discloses a pixel array of red, green, blue and white pixels. Solhusvik teaches that cyan, magenta and yellow pixels can be substituted in such an array (paragraph 23 teaches that C, M and Y pixels can be substituted into a pixel array). Because both Yamashita and Solhusvik discloses colors for use in a color filter array, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cyan, yellow and magenta pixels taught by Solhusvik for the pixels disclosed by Yamashita achieve the predictable result of capturing a color image.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element of claim 1, however, Yamashita fails to disclose wherein the second pixel performs photoelectric conversion of infrared light among the kinds of incident light.
Yamashita discloses a pixel array of red, green, blue and white pixels. Solhusvik teaches that infrared light can be used in such an array (paragraph 23 teaches that infrared pixels can be substituted into a pixel array). Because both Yamashita and Solhusvik discloses colors for use in a color filter array, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the infrared pixels taught by Solhusvik for the pixels disclosed by Yamashita to achieve the predictable result of capturing a color image.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Jang and further in view of Kusaka (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0258526).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita in view of Jang discloses the imaging element according to claim 9, however, Yamashita fails to disclose wherein the signal processor generates and outputs the added image signal of the digital signal having a bit width aligned with a bit width of the first image signal of the digital signal.
Kusaka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kusaka teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of simplifying image processing would have prompted a predictable variation of Yamashita by applying Kusaka’s known principal of generating individual signals and added signals with a common bit width (figure 10 exhibits ADC units which output individual signals having a H-length bit width as disclosed at paragraph 92 and digital adder circuits 26 which generate added signals that also have a H-length bit rate as disclosed at paragraph 93).
In view of the motivations such as simplifying image processing one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Yamashita.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11, 12 and 14-17 are allowed.
Claim 8 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an image element wherein the first pixel includes a plurality of photoelectric conversion units for subjecting a subject to pupil division, and the pixel block control unit further performs control to transfer electric charges generated by any one of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units of the first pixel to the electric charge holding unit and cause the signal generation unit to generate an image signal based on the electric charges, and transfers electric charges generated by the plurality of photoelectric conversion units of the first pixel to the electric charge holding unit and causes the signal generation unit to generate an image signal based on the electric charges as the first image signal, in combination with the elements of claim 1 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Yamashita in view of Jang teaches the imaging element of claim 1, however, in Jang, the first and second pixels are used for pupil division and therefore, the combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first pixel includes a plurality of photoelectric conversion units for subjecting a subject to pupil division, and the pixel block control unit further performs control to transfer electric charges generated by any one of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units of the first pixel to the electric charge holding unit and cause the signal generation unit to generate an image signal based on the electric charges, and transfers electric charges generated by the plurality of photoelectric conversion units of the first pixel to the electric charge holding unit and causes the signal generation unit to generate an image signal based on the electric charges as the first image signal” as currently claimed.
Claim 11 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an imaging element wherein the signal processing unit deletes a most significant bit of the added image signal of the digital signal converted by the analog-to-digital conversion unit to thereby align the bit width of the added image signal with the bit width of the first image signal, in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest prior art of record, Yamashita in view of Jang and further in view of Kusaka teaches the imaging element of claim 1. However, Kusaka teaches that the signals have the same bit width and does not teach deleting and specific bit of the signals. Therefore, the combination fails to teach or suggest wherein the signal processing unit deletes a most significant bit of the added image signal of the digital signal converted by the analog-to-digital conversion unit to thereby align the bit width of the added image signal with the bit width of the first image signal as currently claimed.
Claim 12 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an imaging element wherein the signal processing unit deletes a least significant bit of the added image signal of the digital signal converted by the analog-to-digital conversion unit to thereby align the bit width of the added image signal with the bit width of the first image signal, in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest prior art of record, Yamashita in view of Jang and further in view of Kusaka teaches the imaging element of claim 1. However, Kusaka teaches that the signals have the same bit width and does not teach deleting and specific bit of the signals. Therefore, the combination fails to teach or suggest wherein the signal processing unit deletes a least significant bit of the added image signal of the digital signal converted by the analog-to-digital conversion unit to thereby align the bit width of the added image signal with the bit width of the first image signal as currently claimed.
Claims 15-17 are allowable due to their dependence on one of claims 8, 11 and 12.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights