DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed on 03/27/26, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see Amendment (Remarks), page 4-7, filed 03/27/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that: “The Examiner alleges in page 2 of the Office Action that a plurality of microlenses is disclosed by Kageyama. Kageyama discloses, with reference to FIG. 9, a phase difference detection pixel (e.g., pixel 131 A or pixel 131 B), wherein each pixel comprises a (single) photodiode 222. Although FIG. 9 discloses two microlenses 225, the different microlenses shown in FIG. 9 are for concentrating the light on a different photodiode 222. More concretely, each pixel 131 A or 131 B only contains a single microlens 225. As such, in contrast to the configuration required by the present invention, FIG. 9 of Kageyama only discloses, for each photodiode, a single microlens for concentrating light onto the photodiode (i.e., one-to-one correspondence between a single microlens and a single photodiode)”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim call for “incident on each of the microlenses, onto the photodiode”. By definition “each” is a distributive word used to refer to every individual member or item in a group of two or more, considered separately and one by one. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the term “incident on each of the microlenses, on the photodiode” as incident on one individual microlens of the plurality of microlenses into the photodiode. Examiner suggest applicant to remove the term “each” to further clarify the claim as “a photodiode, a plurality of microlenses for concentrating light, incident on the plurality of microlenses, onto the photodiode..”. Otherwise, the Kageyama reference still read on the claim invention.
Applicant’s argues that: “Furthermore, the present invention requires that each microlens is associated with a light shield that blocks part of the light transmitted by that microlens towards said photodiode, wherein the light shields are offset from an optical axis of their associated microlenses in a same offset direction. As such, as a plurality of microlenses per photodiode are required, the present invention equally requires a plurality of light shields per photodiode. The Examiner alleges that the configuration shown in FIG. 5 which shows different light shields 133A-1133B and 133C-133D offset in a same offset direction is equivalent to the aforementioned features of the present invention. However, FIG. 5 shows only a single light shield for each pixel 111 so that only a single light shield (and, correspondingly, a singe lens) is provided per photodiode. The same is true for FIG. 14A and 14B, indicated by the Examiner, in which also a single light shield is shown per pixel 131 A-D. The different light shields indicated by the Examiner are, indeed, associated with different photodiodes/pixels.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language require: “for each microlens, a light shield associated therewith, for blocking part of the light transmitted by the microlens towards the photodiode, wherein the light shields are offset from an optical axis of their associated microlenses in a same offset direction “. The Examiner replied on the light shielding portion 133A-133D Kageyama (Fig. 5, 9 and 14A-B) that are associated or placed bellow each one of microlens 225 ([0154-0155]). As shown in Fig. 5, all light shield 133B on column 3 and 11 are placed on the same right off set direction, all light shield 133B on column 7 and 15 are placed on the same left off set direction. As shown in Fig. 14A, all light shield 131B are on the same left off set direction while all light shield 131A are on the same right off set direction. As shown in Fig. 14B, all light shield 131D are on the top off set direction while all light shield 131C are on the same bottom off set directions. Therefore, the arrangement of light shield portions 131A-131D or 133A-133B of Kageyama read the claim invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.
“In the state of the art, an issue arises for large pixels, each containing a correspondingly large photodiode, when a single microlens, associated with a single light shield, for focusing light on the photodiode of the pixel is used. Indeed, in that case, the height and radius of curvature of the microlens may become so large that known manufacturing techniques do not result in well-formed microlenses. As a result, in the state of the art, the microlens may poorly focus light incident at a given angle onto the plane of the light shields. This leads to a poor selectivity with respect to blocking of light based on the angle at which the light is incident onto the microlenses, as explained in the section "Background of the Invention", with reference to FIG. 1A and 1B (see also page 5, lines 24-28; page 19, lines 11-29; and FIG. 8 of the application)
Good selectivity is, however, advantageous for obtaining good contrast between different phase detection autofocus pixels in an image sensor, which in turn allows for good autofocussing of the image sensor with respect to a camera lens. To solve this issue, the present invention provides for the use of multiple microlenses - that may therefore be small compared to those of the state of the art, preferably of a size for which manufacturing techniques may have been optimized - each microlens being associated with a light shield for blocking part of the light transmitted by the microlens towards the (single) photodiode, wherein the light shields are offset from an optical axis of their associated microlenses in a same offset direction. By using multiple smaller microlenses instead of a single larger one, better focusing by the microlenses may be achieved, and, in turn, said light blocking selectivity may be improved. As such, the consequences of the limited focusing capabilities of the microlenses may be mitigated (see page 20, lines 1-28, and FIG. 8 of the application) The distinguishing feature of the present invention may, therefore, be used to provide good autofocusing of an image sensor, containing the phase detection autofocus pixels of the present invention, with respect to a camera lens. In light of the above, the objective technical problem may thus be formulated as: how to provide good autofocusing of an image sensor containing phase detection autofocus pixels with respect to a camera lens. Kageyama does not disclose or suggest the issue of poor selectivity associated with large phase detection autofocus pixels. It is, indeed, not even mentioned in Kageyama that large lenses may result in poor focusing of light. There is no indication in Kageyama that the use of multiple microlenses per photodiode could possibly result in improved focusing of light at the light shield, and, hence, of an improved light blocking selectivity. Hence, Kageyama does not provide any disclosure, teaching, or hint that would allow the skilled person, starting from this document and in response to the objective technical problem, to include the distinguishing feature in the pixels of Kageyama so as to arrive at the present invention”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the above, the Examiner believes that the broadest interpretation of the present claimed invention does in fact read on the cited reference for at least the reasons discussed above and as stated in the detail Office Action as follows. This Office action is now made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kageyama (US2021/0306581).
Regarding claim 1, Kageyama discloses a phase detection autofocus pixel comprising,
a photodiode (Fig.2, 5-6; 8-9, 14A-B: See PD 61 in each detection pixel 131A-131B),
a plurality of microlenses for concentrating light, incident on each of the microlenses, onto the photodiode (Fig. 8-9: See light rays incident on lenses 225 on to each detection pixel 131A-131D or 132A-132D light transmitting portions; [0151-0154]), and
for each microlens, a light shield associated therewith, for blocking part of the light transmitted by the microlens towards the photodiode (Fig. 5; 9; 14A-B: See light shield 133A-133D; [0144-0148; 0153]), wherein the light shields are offset from an optical axis of their associated microlenses in a same offset direction (See light shield offset directions of light shield 133A-133B and 133C-133D in Fig. 5 and 14A-B; As shown in Fig. 5, all light shield 133B on column 3 are placed on the same right off set direction, all light shield 133B on column 7 are on the same left off set directions. As shown in Fig. 14A, all light shield 131B are on the same left off set direction while all light shield 131A are on the same right off set direction. As shown in Fig. 14B, all light shield 131D are on the top off set direction while all light shield 131C are on the same bottom off set directions; [0146; 0153-155; 0194-0195]).
Regarding claim 2, Kageyama discloses the phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1, wherein the plurality of microlenses are organized in a square array ([0151-0155; 0371-0374]: chip lens formed on the upper layer of the pixel array and a sample of 2 pixels and lenses in Fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, Kageyama discloses the phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 2, wherein the square array of microlenses comprises rows and columns of microlenses, each row and column comprising at least two microlenses ([0151-0155; 0371-0374]: See column and row of pixel arrays in Fig. 5, 9 and 14A-14B and chip lens formed on the upper layer of the pixel array and a sample of 2 pixels and lenses in Fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 4, Kageyama discloses the phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1, wherein the plurality of microlenses are substantially uniform in shape and size ([0151-0155; 0371-0374]: chip lens formed on the upper layer as shown in Fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 5, Kageyama discloses the phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1, wherein the light shield associated with a microlens blocks substantially all light transmitted by the associated microlens that would, in absence of the microlens, be collected by the photodiode at a side of said optical axis in said offset direction ([0144-0148; 0153-0154]).
Regarding claim 6, Kageyama discloses the phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1, wherein each light shield is formed of a metal ([0113; 0144-0148]).
Regarding claim 7, Kageyama discloses the phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1, wherein the light shields have substantially the same dimensions, and wherein the light shields are offset by substantially a same distance from the optical axis of their associated microlens (See light shield size/dimension and offset distance to optical axis in Fig. 5, 9 and 14A-14B).
Regarding claim 8, Kageyama discloses the image sensor comprising a pair of phase detection autofocus pixels comprising: a first phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 phase detection pixels of Fig. 5 and 14A-B), wherein the light shields of the first phase detection autofocus pixel are each offset from the optical axis of their associated microlens in a first offset direction (See light shielding on left side of each pixels in Fig. 5 and 14A or See light shielding on top of each pixel in Fig 14B), and a second phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 phase detection pixels of Fig. 5 and 14A-B), wherein the light shields of the second phase detection autofocus pixel are each offset from the optical axis of their associated microlens in a second offset direction, substantially opposite to the first offset direction (See light shielding on right side of each pixels in Fig. 5 and 14A or See light shielding in bottom of each pixel in Fig 14B).
Regarding claim 11, Kageyama discloses the Use of a phase detection autofocus pixel in accordance with claim 1 for focusing of a camera lens (See the rejection of claim 1; abstract; [0004; 0006; 0176-0177] ).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Sano (US2017/0150063).
Regarding claim 9, Kageyama fails to explicitly discloses the image sensor in accordance with claim 8, comprising a device configured for comparing a signal generated by the photodiode of the first phase detection autofocus pixel with a signal generated by the photodiode of the second phase detection autofocus pixel.
In an analogous of art, Sano teaches that a defocus amount can be calculated by finding a phase difference phase_dif of the pixel signal of the pair of one side light-shielding pixel and opposite side light-shielding pixel using a correlation operation, and thus, auto-focus can be achieved by adjusting (moving) an imaging forming lens ([0062; 0106; 0160; 0218]). In light of the teaching from Sano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the phase difference comparison and auto focus system of Sano. The modifications thus provide a means for adjusting (moving) an imaging forming lens based on phase difference comparison (Sano: [0062; 0106; 0160; 0218]).
Regarding claim 10, Kageyama in view of Sano discloses the camera comprising the image sensor in accordance with claim 9, further comprising a camera lens, wherein the camera is configured for moving the camera lens along an optical axis of the camera lens based on said comparing of a signal generated by the photodiode of the first phase detection autofocus pixel with a signal generated by the photodiode of the second phase detection autofocus pixel (Sano: [0106; 0160; 0218]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUNG H LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7367. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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.
/HUNG H LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 05/30/26
Prosecution Insights