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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 11-12 of copending Application No. 18/911335. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 and 11-12 of the copending Application anticipate instant claims 1-11 or the instant claims 1-11 are an obvious variation of the claims 1-9 and 11-12 of the copending Application.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/911385. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 of the copending Application anticipate instant claims 1-11 or the instant claims 1-11 are an obvious variation of the claims 1-11 of the copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi et al. (Patent Pub. No. US 20170263664 A1) in view of Okamoto et al. (Patent Pub. No. US 20210280619 A1).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-9 an image capture apparatus comprising: an image sensor (11) in which a length of a pixel portion (237) in a first direction is longer than a length of the pixel portion (236) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the pixel portion includes: a plurality of microlenses (101) arranged in a matrix in the first direction and the second direction, and a plurality of photoelectric conversion portions (204 and 123) provided for each microlens of at least some of the plurality of microlenses and configured to perform photoelectric conversion on light that has entered the photoelectric conversion portions via the each microlens, the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions are arranged in at least one direction of the first direction and the second direction and a processing unit (Fig. 9, 606) that processes signals output from the image sensor, wherein the processing unit is implemented by one or more processors, circuitry or a combination thereof. Koizumi et al. does not disclose an electric charge crosstalk rate between a plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction is higher than an electric charge crosstalk rate between a plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the second direction. Okamoto et al. discloses an electric charge crosstalk rate between a plurality of photoelectric conversion portions (201) arranged in the first direction is higher than an electric charge crosstalk rate between a plurality of photoelectric conversion portions (202) arranged in the second direction ([0005] – [0007] and [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a different electric charge crosstalk rate of Okamoto et al. on the device of Koizumi et al. for the purpose of managing the crosstalk noise.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions are two photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction or the second direction (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions are four photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction and the second direction ([0040]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein impurity concentration of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction is set lower than impurity concentration of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the second direction ([0057]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein a width of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction is set smaller than a width of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the second direction .
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein in the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction, a potential gradient from a side on which light is incident to an area in which an electric charge obtained through photoelectric conversion is accumulated is made more moderate than a potential gradient in the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the second direction.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1 further comprising an electrode for controlling a potential of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions, wherein a potential of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the first direction is set lower than a potential of a separation area that separates the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions arranged in the second direction (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein when a length of the pixel portion in the first direction is 36 mm and a length of the pixel portion in the second direction is 24 mm, an electric charge crosstalk rate between the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions in the first direction is about 10% and an electric charge crosstalk rate in the second direction is about 8%.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Fig. 9 the image sensor according to claim 1 further comprising an output unit (606) that converts, into signals, electric charges obtained by photoelectric conversion by the plurality of photoelectric conversion portions, and outputs the signals, wherein the output unit is implemented by one or more processors, circuitry or a combination thereof ([0096]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Koizumi et al. shows in Figs. 1-5 the image capture apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processing unit performs on-imaging plane phase difference focus detection based on the signals ([0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Byun (Patent Pub. No. US 20190035839 A1) discloses an image sensor including a substrate including a plurality of pixels including a first pixel and a second pixel that are located adjacent to each other in a first direction.
Wakashima et al. (Patent Pub. No. US 20240171879 A1) discloses an image sensor including a plurality of pixels, and each pixel comprising: a microlens and a plurality of photoelectric conversion units that convert incident light into charge and accumulate the charge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG C SOHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4123. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5.
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 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.
/SEUNG C SOHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878