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 10/16/2024 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "reading unit” in claims 1-2 and all claims dependent on, “rearrangement unit” in claims 1-2 and 9 and all claims dependent on, “row direction rearrangement unit” in claims 2-3 and 5-6 and all claims dependent on, “column direction rearrangement unit” in claims 2 and 4-7 and all claims dependent on, “first storage unit” in claims 3-5, “second storage unit” in claims 6-7 and all claims dependent on and “interpolation unit” in claims 9-10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites, inter alia, "A program causing a computer that controls an imaging device including a pixel array unit in which pixels that generate charges according to an amount of light received and output signals according to the charges are arrayed in a matrix in a row direction and a column direction, to execute processing including the steps of:” Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations (See MPEP 2106.03). Claim 12 is directed to a computer program per se and therefore the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021/256073.
Re claims 1 and 11-12, WO2021/256073 discloses an imaging device (solid state image sensor 200) and an imaging method comprising: a pixel array unit (212) in which pixels that generate charges according to an amount of light received and output signals according to the charges are arrayed in a matrix in a row direction and a column direction; a reading unit (reading circuit 250) that divides the pixel array unit (212) into a plurality of blocks (FD shared blocks 220) and reads the signal from the pixel at a same position in the block from each of the plurality of blocks (figure 2; paragraphs 19-32); and a rearrangement unit (251, 340) that performs rearrangement such that an array of the signals read by the reading unit is equivalent to an array of the pixels in the pixel array unit (212)(switching circuit 251 changes the order of output signals and performs processing on each digital signal to correct noise and sorting processing unit 340 sorts each of the noise corrected signals into the arrangement of the pixel array)(figures 2-5; paragraphs 19-70).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/256073 in view of JP2019-024172.
Re claims 9-10, the WO2021/256073 reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, although the WO2021/256073 reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose an interpolation unit that, in a case where the signal output from the rearrangement unit is a signal from a row having a smaller number of pixels than other rows, performs interpolation by generating signals corresponding to missing pixels, wherein an array of the pixels output from the interpolation unit is an array in a case where the signal is read by raster scanning from the pixel array unit.
JP2019-024172 discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device to include an interpolation unit that performs interpolation by generating signals corresponding to missing pixels and to supply image signals generated by interpolation to a development unit in the order of a raster scan of the image sensor (paragraphs 61-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of performing interpolation by generating signals corresponding to missing pixels and to read the signals by raster scanning as disclosed by the JP2019-024172 reference in the imaging device and method disclosed by the WO2021/256073. Doing so would provide a means for generating signals corresponding to missing pixels in an image sensor in order to generate image signals of high quality and free from errors or noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claims 2-8, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, an imaging device having the specific configurations disclosed in claims 2-8, wherein the imaging device comprises: a pixel array unit in which pixels that generate charges according to an amount of light received and output signals according to the charges are arrayed in a matrix in a row direction and a column direction; a reading unit that divides the pixel array unit into a plurality of blocks and reads the signal from the pixel at a same position in the block from each of the plurality of blocks; and a rearrangement unit that performs rearrangement such that an array of the signals read by the reading unit is equivalent to an array of the pixels in the pixel array unit, wherein the rearrangement unit includes: a row direction rearrangement unit that rearranges the array of the pixels read from the reading unit such that the array in a row direction is equivalent to the array in the row direction of the pixels in the pixel array unit; and a column direction rearrangement unit that rearranges the array of the pixels read from the reading unit such that the array in a column direction is equivalent to the array in the column direction of the pixels in the pixel array unit. The prior art fails to specifically disclose an imaging device including a pixel array unit, a reading unit and a rearrangement unit including a row direction rearrangement unit and a column direction rearrangement unit configured and arranged in the exact configuration disclosed in the specification and the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang et al. US 2020/0186723 discloses an image sensor for reading out data from selected groups of pixels and a converter for rearranging the digital pixel data.
Matsumoto et al. US 2008/0170137 discloses a solid-state imaging apparatus capable of reading out and performing addition processing on rows and columns of pixels and rearranging the order of readout.
Araki et al. US 2010/0283881 discloses a solid-state imaging apparatus including a readout structure wherein pixel data is rearranged in order of pixel row and column scan order.
Choi US 2015/0373289 discloses an image sensor including a pixel array including a readout structure to rearrange pixel data in row and column order.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights