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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024, 2/27/2025 and 8/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,143.
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 1-2, 8, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi US 2012/0038810 in view of Kim et al. US 2017/0187949.
Re claim 1, Taniguchi discloses an imaging apparatus (image capturing apparatus) comprising: a processor (125) (figure 1); and an imaging element (image sensor) that has a first pixel group and a second pixel group arranged in a first direction (pixels arranged in an array horizontally and vertically), the first pixel group including a plurality of phase difference pixels (rows corresponding to V4, V5, V10, V11 include phase difference pixels SA, SB) and a plurality of imaging pixels (non-focus detection pixels) and the second pixel group including a plurality of imaging pixels (rows corresponding to V0-V3, V6-V9 include non-focus detection pixels), wherein the processor (125) sets exposure times for the pixels (figures 2A-4; paragraphs 31-39). However, although the Taniguchi reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, it fails to specifically disclose that the processor is configured to set a first exposure time, during which the first pixel group is exposed, and a second different exposure time, during which the second pixel group is exposed.
Kim discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for an imaging device to include both phase difference pixels and imaging pixels in groups and for the phase difference pixels to have a longer exposure time than pixels in other groups not having phase difference pixels (paragraphs 146-149). 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 setting a longer exposure time for phase difference pixels in a group of pixels and a shorter exposure time for a group that does not include phase difference pixels as disclosed by the Kim reference in the imaging apparatus disclosed by the Taniguchi reference. Doing so would provide a means for ensuring that an appropriate exposure time is set for each group of pixels in an image sensor array according to the purpose of the particular pixel group in order to ensure that an image of acceptable quality is generated.
Re claim 2, Taniguchi further discloses that the imaging element has column signal lines, which are for reading out signals and extend in the first direction, and the first pixel group includes the plurality of phase difference pixels (SA, SB) and the plurality of imaging pixels that are arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction and the second pixel group includes the plurality of imaging pixels arranged in the second direction (the image sensor includes horizontal and vertical signal lines for reading out focus and non-focus detection signals) (figures 2A-4; paragraphs 31-39).
Re claim 8, Taniguchi further discloses that the processor is configured to read out a signal of one of the first pixel group and the second pixel group, and then read out a signal of the other of the first pixel group and the second pixel group, in a frame period (vertical scanning unit 602 reads out pixel signals on a row by row basis) (figures 4,6; paragraph 42).
Re claim 10, Kim further discloses that the processor is configured to execute synthesis processing of generating a video signal by synthesizing a signal which is read out from the first pixel group and a signal which is read out from the second pixel group (camera module 1502 may synthesize images from image sensors 1521a, 1521b to output a third image) (paragraphs 114-116).
Re claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a driving method of an imaging apparatus and includes limitations nearly identical to the limitations of the imaging apparatus of claim 1 above and therefore the rejection provided above regarding claim 1 is also applicable to claim 14.
Re claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for operating an imaging apparatus and includes limitations nearly identical to the limitations of the imaging apparatus of claim 1 above and therefore the rejection provided above regarding claim 1 is also applicable to claim 15.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi US 2012/0038810 in view of Kim et al. US 2017/0187949 and further in view of Morisawa et al. US 2020/0336719.
Re claim 13, the combination of the Taniguchi and Kim references discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 above. However, although the combination discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 above, it fails to specifically disclose that the processor performs electronic vibration-proof processing on the video signal generated by the synthesis processing.
Morisawa discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for an image capturing apparatus include a processor capable of performing an electronic vibration control process on images to reduce blurs of images caused by vibration of a camera 112 (figure 3; paragraph 110). 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 an electronic vibration control process as disclosed by the Morisawa reference in the imaging apparatus disclosed by the Taniguchi and Kim references. Doing so would provide a means for reducing blurs in captured images caused by vibration of a camera.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi US 2023/0402475 discloses an imaging apparatus including pixel groups including phase difference detection pixels.
Hwang et al. US 2018/0352199 discloses an image sensor including phase detection pixels.
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