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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10: “the refractive index of the color filter included in…” in lines 5-6 should be “the refractive indices s included in…” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitation is:
“a photoelectric conversion unit that…” in claim 7: the photoelectric conversion unit is defined as a photodiode, (see ¶13, Each imaging element 100 includes a photodiode (photoelectric conversion unit) (not illustrated) that performs photoelectric conversion on incident light to generate a charge).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 this limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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 10-11 and 15-19 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.
Regarding claim 10, “the color filter” in line 3 is lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. The only prior mention of color filters has been regarding the color filter of the first imaging element and the color filter of the second imaging element, both of which are different than the color filter of the third imaging element.
Regarding claim 11, “the color filter” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. The only prior mention of color filters has been regarding the color filter of the first imaging element and the color filter of the second imaging element, which do not include 4 color filter elements.
Regarding claim 15, “an imaging element” in lines 3, 3-4, and 4-5 respectively are all unclear as two imaging elements have been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 15 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same imaging element mentioned previously or different imaging element? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to at least the first and second imaging elements mentioned previously and an additional imaging element.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for their dependency on claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, “the unit region” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. The only mention of unit regions previously was in the plural. To which of the many unit regions is this limitation referring?
Regarding claim 19, “the unit region” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. The only mention of unit regions previously was in the plural. To which of the many unit regions is this limitation referring?
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 1-2, 10, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishi (JP 2005101266 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishi teaches an imaging device comprising: a pixel array unit formed by arraying unit regions including a plurality of imaging elements (2) including a first imaging element (2) and a second imaging element (2) in a two-dimensional array (see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B; and ¶4, the photoelectric conversion elements are arranged in two dimensions), wherein each of the first imaging element (2) and the second imaging element (2) includes a color filter (8) that transmits light having a wavelength of a predetermined wavelength band (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively), and the color filter (8) included in the first imaging element (2) has a higher refractive index than a refractive index of the color filter (8) included in the second imaging element (2) (¶6, the refractive index of color filters is not the same for all colors, but differs depending on the color; ¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color, and the material of the resin; and ¶23, the case in which two of the three color filters have the same refractive index and only one is different was described, but it is also possible for all three to be different).
Regarding claim 2, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the color filter (8) included in the first imaging element (2) includes photosensitive particles (¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color).
Regarding claim 10, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging elements (2) includes a third imaging element (2) including the color filter (8) (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively), and the color filter (8) included in the third imaging element (2) has a refractive index different from the refractive index of the color filter (8) included in each of the first imaging element (2) and the second imaging element (2) (¶6, the refractive index of color filters is not the same for all colors, but differs depending on the color; ¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color, and the material of the resin; and ¶23, the case in which two of the three color filters have the same refractive index and only one is different was described, but it is also possible for all three to be different).
Regarding claim 12, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the color filter (8) is a color filter that transmits red light, a color filter that transmits green light, or a color filter that transmits blue light (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively).
Regarding claim 13, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the color filter (8) is a color filter that transmits red light, a color filter that transmits green light, a color filter that transmits blue light, or a color filter that transmits white light (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively).
Regarding claim 14, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the color filter (8) is a color filter that transmits red light, a color filter that transmits green light, a color filter that transmits blue light, a color filter that transmits yellow light, a color filter that transmits magenta light, or a color filter that transmits cyan light (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively).
Regarding claim 20, Nishi teaches an electronic device equipped with an imaging device (¶1, The present invention relates to a solid-state imaging device… and a camera), wherein the imaging device includes a pixel array unit formed by arraying unit regions including a plurality of imaging elements (2) including a first imaging element (2) and a second imaging element (2) in a two-dimensional array (see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B; and ¶4, the photoelectric conversion elements are arranged in two dimensions), each of the first imaging element (2) and the second imaging element (2) includes a color filter (8) that transmits light having a wavelength of a predetermined wavelength band (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively), and the color filter (8) included in the first imaging element (2) has a higher refractive index than a refractive index of the color filter (8) included in the second imaging element (2) (¶6, the refractive index of color filters is not the same for all colors, but differs depending on the color; ¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color, and the material of the resin; and ¶23, the case in which two of the three color filters have the same refractive index and only one is different was described, but it is also possible for all three to be different).
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 (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 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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Oota et al. (KR 101949774 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Nishi teaches the color filter (8) included in the second imaging element (2) (see figure 1). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the color filter included in the second imaging element does not include the photosensitive particles.
However, Oota teaches wherein the color filter included in the second imaging element does not include the photosensitive particles (¶56, wherein the first pixel comprises at least one of an inorganic particle and a high-refractive index resin, and the second colored pixel substantially does not comprise an inorganic particle and a high-refractive index resin, and the difference in refractive index between the first colored pixel and the second colored pixel at a wavelength of 535 nm is 0.10 or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Oota to have a color filter containing particles and another different color filter not containing particles in order to filter different colors properly and alter the refractive indices of the respective color filters.
Regarding claim 5, Nishi teaches the photosensitive particles (¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color, and the material of the resin). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the photosensitive particles include at least one selected from a group including titanium oxide particles, zirconium oxide particles, zinc oxide particles, and nanodiamond particles.
However, Oota teaches wherein the photosensitive particles include at least one selected from a group including titanium oxide particles, zirconium oxide particles, zinc oxide particles, and nanodiamond particles (¶17, A color filter according to any one of <3> to <5>, comprising at least one of titanium dioxide and zirconium oxide as inorganic particles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Oota to use zirconium oxide particles due to their high refractive index and low optical loss, which ensures high efficiency color filtering.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Borthakur et al. (USPGPub 20150350540 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nishi teaches wherein the color filters include photosensitive particles (¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color, and the material of the resin). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the color filter included in the second imaging element includes the photosensitive particles at a concentration lower than a concentration of the color filter included in the first imaging element.
However, Borthakur teaches wherein the color filter (54) included in the second imaging element (28) includes the photosensitive particles (52) at a concentration lower than a concentration of the color filter (54) included in the first imaging element (28) (¶25, Aspects that influence the optical properties and wavelengths that are absorbed by a filter formed with metallic nanoparticles include, but are not limited to… the amount (i.e., density or concentration) of metallic nanoparticles formed in the matrix; and claim 4, wherein the color filter array comprises first and second regions that filter different colors, wherein the first and second regions each include metallic nanoparticles within the matrix, wherein the first region includes first metallic nanoparticles, wherein the second region includes second metallic nanoparticles, and wherein the first and second metallic nanoparticles are different in at least one of: size, shape, type of metal, and concentration within the matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Borthakur to provide different concentrations of particles in different color filters [i]n order to obtain color filter regions that filter different colors (Borthakur, ¶25).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Asatsuma et al. (USPGPub 20210193727 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nishi teaches the first and second imaging elements (2) (see figure 1). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein in plan view, the first and second imaging elements have a polygonal shape, and an area of the first imaging element is larger than an area of the second imaging element.
However, Asatsuma teaches wherein in plan view, the first (101) and second (102) imaging elements have a polygonal shape (see figure 5, first photoelectric conversion unit 101 (i.e. first imaging element) being square and second photoelectric conversion unit 102 (i.e. second imaging element) being square), and an area of the first imaging element (101) is larger than an area of the second imaging element (102) (see figure 5; and ¶111, The first photoelectric conversion unit 101 has a larger light receiving area of the photodiode than the second photoelectric conversion unit 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Asatsuma to provide first and second imaging elements having different sizes in order to provide both an element with high sensitivity and an element with wide dynamic range in the same array (Asatsuma, see ¶¶112-114).
Claims 7-9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Kurose et al. (JP 2020174158 A) (using USPGPub 20220173150 A1 as a translation).
Regarding claim 7, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second imaging elements (2) includes: the color filter (8) ; and a photoelectric conversion unit (2) that is provided in a semiconductor substrate (1) located below the color filter (8); with light incident on a light incident surface of the semiconductor substrate (1) via the color filter (8) (see figure 1, color filters 8G, 8B, and 8R located above photoelectric conversion elements 2 and substrate 1; and ¶16, this solid-state imaging device comprises a silicon semiconductor substrate 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 formed in the silicon semiconductor substrate 1). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the photoelectric conversion unit generates a charge by light incident on the light incident surface, wherein the photoelectric conversion unit is a photodiode; and the light incident surface located above the photoelectric conversion unit of the first imaging element has roughness.
However, Kurose teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion unit (42) generates a charge by light incident on the light incident surface (¶83, the vertical drive circuit 4 selectively scans the pixels 2 of the pixel array 3 in the vertical direction sequentially row by row, and provides pixel signals based on signal charges generated in photoelectric conversion parts of the pixels 2 depending on the amount of received light), wherein the photoelectric conversion unit (42) is a photodiode (¶80, The pixels 2 each include a photodiode as a photoelectric conversion element); and the light incident surface (48) located above the photoelectric conversion unit (42) of the first imaging element (2a) has roughness (see figure 2, recessed region 48 (i.e. rough light incident surface)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Kurose to have the photoelectric conversion element comprise a photodiode as they are commonly used as photoelectric conversion elements due to their fast response time, high linearity, and low operating voltage. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have a rough light incident surface in order to prevent the reflection of incident light to improve sensitivity (Kurose, ¶5).
Regarding claim 8, Nishi as modified by Kurose teaches the imaging device according to claim 7, wherein the light incident surface located above the photoelectric conversion unit (Nishi 2 | Kurose 42) of the second imaging element (Nishi 2 | Kurose 2a) is flat (Kurose, see figure 14, some pixels comprises the recessed regions 48 and some comprising a flat surface).
Regarding claim 9, Nishi as modified by Kurose teaches the imaging device according to claim 7, wherein the light incident surface (Kurose 48) located above the photoelectric conversion unit (Nishi 2 | Kurose 42) of the second imaging element (Nishi 2 | Kurose 2a) has roughness (Kurose, see figure 10, recessed regions 48 disposed over all pixels).
Regarding claim 15, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging elements (2) includes an imaging element that receives red light, an imaging element that receives green light, and an imaging element that receives blue light (see figure 1, color filters 8R, 8G, and 8B passing red, green, and blue wavelengths respectively). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the imaging elements generate charges in response to light.
However, Kurose teaches wherein the imaging elements generate charges in response to light (¶83, the vertical drive circuit 4 selectively scans the pixels 2 of the pixel array 3 in the vertical direction sequentially row by row, and provides pixel signals based on signal charges generated in photoelectric conversion parts of the pixels 2 depending on the amount of received light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Kurose to have the imaging elements generate charges in response to light as that is how photoelectric conversion functions, which provides a signal to the device in response to light received.
Regarding claim 19, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the unit region includes the plurality of imaging elements (2) (see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B; and ¶4, the photoelectric conversion elements are arranged in two dimensions). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the imaging elements are arrayed in four rows and four columns.
However, Kurose teaches wherein the imaging elements (2a) are arrayed in four rows and four columns (see figure 7, color filter unit arranged in a 4x4 matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Kurose to provide the unit region in a 4x4 arrangement, as a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Goto (JP 2014003190 A).
Regarding claim 11, Nishi teaches wherein the plurality of imaging elements includes three imaging elements (2) each including the color filter (8) (see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B), and the color filters (8) have refractive indexes different from one another (¶6, the refractive index of color filters is not the same for all colors, but differs depending on the color; ¶7, This refractive index is determined by the particle size of the pigment, which varies depending on the color, and the material of the resin; and ¶23, the case in which two of the three color filters have the same refractive index and only one is different was described, but it is also possible for all three to be different). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of imaging elements includes four or more imaging elements each including the color filter, and the color filters included in the four or more imaging elements have refractive indexes different from one another.
However, Goto teaches wherein the plurality of imaging elements includes four or more imaging elements each including the color filter (see figure 3, WRGB light filter including white, red, green, and blue color filters), and the color filters included in the four or more imaging elements have refractive indexes different from one another (see figure 1; and ¶10, Figure 1 shows the wavelength dependence of the refractive index for each color in the WRGB filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Goto to further include a fourth color filter, in this case white, in order to improve sensitivity (Goto, ¶3).
Regarding claim 18, Nishi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the unit region includes the plurality of imaging elements (2) (see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B; and ¶4, the photoelectric conversion elements are arranged in two dimensions). However, Nishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the imaging elements are arrayed in two rows and two columns.
However, Goto teaches wherein the imaging elements are arrayed in two rows and two columns (see figure 3, color filter unit arranged in a 2x2 matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishi to incorporate the teachings of Goto to provide the unit region in a 2x2 arrangement, as a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Kurose et al. (JP 2020174158 A) (using USPGPub 20220173150 A1 as a translation) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Goto (JP 2014003190 A).
Regarding claim 16, Nishi as modified by Kurose teaches the plurality of imaging elements the generate charges (Nishi, see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B; and Kurose, ¶83, the vertical drive circuit 4 selectively scans the pixels 2 of the pixel array 3 in the vertical direction sequentially row by row, and provides pixel signals based on signal charges generated in photoelectric conversion parts of the pixels 2 depending on the amount of received light). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an imaging element that generates a charge by white light.
However, Goto teaches an imaging element that generates a charge by white light (see figure 3, WRGB light filter including white, red, green, and blue color filters; and ¶14, When these incoming light rays are received by the photoelectric converter and signal charges are generated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nishi and Kurose to incorporate the teachings of Goto to further include a white imaging element, in order to improve sensitivity (Goto, ¶3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (JP 2005101266 A) in view of Kurose et al. (JP 2020174158 A) (using USPGPub 20220173150 A1 as a translation) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (JP 6473350 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Nishi as modified by Kurose teaches the plurality of imaging elements the generate charges (Nishi, see figure 1, photoelectric conversion elements 2 having a repeating structure of R, G, and B; and Kurose, ¶83, the vertical drive circuit 4 selectively scans the pixels 2 of the pixel array 3 in the vertical direction sequentially row by row, and provides pixel signals based on signal charges generated in photoelectric conversion parts of the pixels 2 depending on the amount of received light). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an imaging element that receives yellow light, an imaging element that receives magenta light, or an imaging element that receives cyan light.
However, Yamaguchi teaches an imaging element that receives yellow light, an imaging element that receives magenta light, or an imaging element that receives cyan light (see figure 1, red, green, blue, yellow, cyan, and magenta color filters; and ¶19, As shown in Figure 1, the color image sensor according to this invention is composed of a plurality of cells (not shown) consisting of photoelectric conversion elements arranged vertically and horizontally (two-dimensional arrangement), and a color filter placed on the light-receiving surface of each cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nishi and Kurose to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi to additionally provide color filters for yellow, cyan, and/or magenta light in order to provide further color information to the device, thereby allowing the device to build an accurate image of the environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yun et al. (USPGPub 20210144315 A1): Yun teaches unit pixels arranged in matrixes including 2x2, 4x4, 8x8, and 4x3 (see figures 8A-8D).
Yoshihara et al. (USPGPub 20200224047 A1): Yoshihara teaches color filters 13 having various particles (11/12) disposed therein (see figure 1).
Naruse et al. (USPGPub 20110228149 A1): Naruse teaches different sized pixels (low-sensitivity and high-sensitivity pixels) with polygonal shapes arranged in an array (see figure 2B).
Hirota (JP 2007287891 A): Hirota teaches a plurality of pixels having different sizes arranged in a matrix, containing red, blue, green, and white color filters (see figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights