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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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(s) submitted on 8/2/2024, 9/13/2024 and 6/26/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 is suggested to be amended as “[[an]] the image sensor” in line 7 for referring to the image sensor recited in line 2 for a better claim form.
Claim 13 is suggested to be amended as “[[an]] the image sensor” in line 7 for referring to the image sensor recited in line 2 for a better claim form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the computer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the computer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20220359597 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches A focus detection apparatus comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as:
an acquisition unit that acquires a pair of focus detection signals having parallax in one of a plurality of different directions for each pixel from signals of a plurality of pixels output from an image sensor (Figs. 2-6);
a separation unit that separates the focus detection signals for each of the directions of the parallax (Figs. 7-8; para. 0088: “AF data generator 730…vertical data 703a and horizontal data 703b may be stored”);
a detection unit that detects a focus state based on first focus detection signals, separated by the separation unit, having parallax in a predetermined first direction (Figs. 7-8; para. 0090: “PAF circuit 735 may primarily process the horizontal data 703b and may secondarily process the vertical data 703a”); and
a rearrangement unit that rearranges second focus detection signals, separated by the separation unit, having parallax in a predetermined second direction which is different from the first direction so as to change the direction of the parallax of the second focus detection signals to the first direction (Figs. 7-12; paras. 0063, 0090-0092, 0106; “the rotator 860 may rotate and deliver signals in the other directions except for a first direction (e.g., a horizontal direction) to the PAF circuit 835. For example, the vertical data 803a may rotate at 90 degrees to be delivered to the PAF circuit 835 (803a-1)”),
wherein the detection unit further detects a focus state based on the second focus detection signals rearranged by the rearrangement unit (Figs. 7-8; para. 0090: “PAF circuit 735 may primarily process the horizontal data 703b and may secondarily process the vertical data 703a”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the focus detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a number of the first focus detection signals arranged in the first direction is greater than a number of the second focus detection signals arranged in the second direction (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the focus detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the focus detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rearrangement unit perform rearrangement by transposing an array or by performing combination of rotation and inversion of the array (Figs. 7-8; paras. 0063, 0090-0092, 0106).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the focus detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as an interpolation unit that performs interpolation so as to increase the number of the second focus detection signals arranged in the second direction by using the second focus detection signals adjacent to the second focus detection signals in the second direction before the rearrangement unit performs rearrangement (Figs. 7-8; paras. 0063, 0090-0092, 0106).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches A focus detection apparatus comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as:
a generation unit that generates a pair of first focus detection signals having parallax in one of a plurality of different directions for each pixel from signals of a plurality of pixels output from an image sensor (Figs. 2-6);
a detection unit that detects a focus state based on the first focus detection signals in a case where a direction of the parallax is a predetermined first direction (Figs. 7-8; para. 0090: “PAF circuit 735 may primarily process the horizontal data 703b and may secondarily process the vertical data 703a”); and
a rearrangement unit that rearranges the first focus detection signals to generate second focus detection signals having parallax in the first direction in a case where the direction of the parallax of the first focus detection signals is a second direction which is different from the first direction (Figs. 7-12; paras. 0063, 0090-0092, 0106; “the rotator 860 may rotate and deliver signals in the other directions except for a first direction (e.g., a horizontal direction) to the PAF circuit 835. For example, the vertical data 803a may rotate at 90 degrees to be delivered to the PAF circuit 835 (803a-1)”),
wherein the detection unit further detects a focus state based on the second focus detection signals (Figs. 7-8; para. 0090: “PAF circuit 735 may primarily process the horizontal data 703b and may secondarily process the vertical data 703a”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the focus detection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the focus detection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second direction is inclined at 45 degrees with respect to the first direction (paras. 0058, 0134-0137).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches An electronic device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
an image sensor (Figs. 1-6); and
a focus detection apparatus comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry which function (Figs. 2-6; para. 0143-0146) as: (corresponding features as taught in claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches An electronic device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
an image sensor (Figs. 1-6); and
a focus detection apparatus comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry which function (Figs. 2-6; para. 0143-0146) as: (corresponding features as taught in claim 9).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches A focus detection method comprising:
generating a pair of first focus detection signals having parallax in one of a plurality of different directions for each pixel from signals of a plurality of pixels output from an image sensor (Figs. 2-6);
rearranging the first focus detection signals to generate second focus detection signals having parallax in the first direction in a case where the direction of the parallax of the first focus detection signals is a second direction which is different from the first direction (Figs. 7-12; paras. 0063, 0090-0092, 0106; “the rotator 860 may rotate and deliver signals in the other directions except for a first direction (e.g., a horizontal direction) to the PAF circuit 835. For example, the vertical data 803a may rotate at 90 degrees to be delivered to the PAF circuit 835 (803a-1)”);
detecting a focus state based on the first focus detection signals in a case where a direction of the parallax is the first direction, and detecting a focus state based on the second focus detection signals in a case where a direction of the parallax is the second direction (Figs. 7-8; para. 0090: “PAF circuit 735 may primarily process the horizontal data 703b and may secondarily process the vertical data 703a”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 14 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons above. In addition, Lee teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the storage medium storing a program that is executable by the computer (Figs. 2-6; para. 0143-0146), wherein the program includes program code for causing the computer to function as a focus detection apparatus comprising: (corresponding features as taught in claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 reciting features corresponding to claim 9 is also rejected for the same reasons above. In addition, Lee teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the storage medium storing a program that is executable by the computer, wherein the program includes program code for causing the computer to function as a focus detection apparatus (Figs. 2-6; para. 0143-0146) comprising: (corresponding features as taught in claim 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20220359597 A1) in view of Fukuda (US 10063764 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a processing unit that performs shading correction on the second focus detection signals before the rearrangement unit performs rearrangement (Fig. 8; filter 870 and rotator 860).
However, in the same field of endeavor Fukuda teaches
wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a processing unit that performs shading correction on the second focus detection signals before the rearrangement unit performs rearrangement (Fig. 7; col. 12; performing shading correction before a filtering processing and focus state determining).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Fukuda in Lee to have wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a processing unit that performs shading correction on the second focus detection signals before the rearrangement unit performs rearrangement for improving correlation between the first and second focus detection signals to improve a focus detection performance yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as
But fails to teach
the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a processing unit that performs shading correction on the first focus detection signals.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fukuda teaches
the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a processing unit that performs shading correction on the first focus detection signals (Fig. 7; col. 12; performing shading correction before a filtering processing and focus state determining).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Fukuda in Lee to have the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a processing unit that performs shading correction on the first focus detection signals for improving correlation between the first and second focus detection signals to improve a focus detection performance yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20220359597 A1) in view of Sugie et al (US 20140125861 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches
wherein the image sensor outputs signals in one of an all-pixel readout mode in which signals are read out from all of the pixels constituting the image sensor (Figs. 8-9),
but fails to teach
a thinning readout mode in which some of the pixels are thinned out and read out, and wherein in a case where the signals are read out in the thinning readout mode, the separation unit separates the first focus detection signals from the focus detection signals of the plurality of pixels.
However, in the same field of endeavor Sugie teaches
a thinning readout mode in which some of the pixels are thinned out and read out, and wherein in a case where the signals are read out in the thinning readout mode, the separation unit separates the first focus detection signals from the focus detection signals of the plurality of pixels (Figs. 6-7; paras. 0096-0098; “read out an image signal from the specific area R2 by thinning out a predetermined horizontal line”, “phase difference detecting unit 601 detects a phase difference based on the specific area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Sugie in Lee to have a thinning readout mode in which some of the pixels are thinned out and read out, and wherein in a case where the signals are read out in the thinning readout mode, the separation unit separates the first focus detection signals from the focus detection signals of the plurality of pixels for allowing focus detection in a desirable area improving focus at a target subject yielding a predicted result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637