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 11/11/2024 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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“readout portion” in claim(s) 1 and 8.
“sorting portion” in claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 8.
“first output portion” in claim(s) 1, 4 and 8.
“second output portion” in claim(s) 1 and 4-8.
“resize portion” in claim(s) 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikedo (US 20160198110 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikedo teaches An image sensor, comprising:
a pixel portion (700/1100) in which unit pixels are arrayed in a matrix, the unit pixels each including one microlens and a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (Figs. 7, 12);
a readout portion (1200) configured to read out signals from the pixel portion, the readout portion being capable of performing a first readout operation (Fig. 8B) of reading out mixed signals obtained by mixing signals of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements of the unit pixels, and a second readout operation (Fig. 9) of reading out unmixed signals which are not a mixture of signals of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements of the unit pixels (Figs. 7, 8B, 9; para. 0066);
a sorting portion (1300) configured to store signals obtained through the first readout operation and the second readout operation into captured image signals and focus detection signals (Fig. 12; para. 0084);
a first output portion (1301, 1303) configured to output the captured image signals sorted by the sorting portion (Fig. 12); and
a second output portion (1302, 1304) configured to output the focus detection signals sorted by the sorting portion (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 2, Ikedo teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein with respect to the unit pixels in a first region (image capture region 701) of the pixel portion, the first readout operation is performed and the mixed signals are read out, and with respect to a second region (an image capture and focus detection region 702) different from the first region of the pixel portion, the first readout operation and the second readout operation are performed and the mixed signals and the unmixed signals are read out (Figs. 7’s; para. 0064).
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo teaches the image sensor according to claim 2, wherein the sorting portion distributes the mixed signals that have been read out from the first region to the first output unit, and distributes the mixed signals and the unmixed signals that have been read out from the second region to the second output unit (Figs. 7-9, 12; paras. 0064, 0084).
Regarding claim 5, Ikedo teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a resize portion configured to reduce the focus detection signals before the focus detection signals are output from the second output portion (Fig. 7’s; para. 0069).
Regarding claim 8, Ikedo teaches An image capturing apparatus (Fig. 2), comprising:
an image sensor (1000) including a pixel portion (700/1100) in which unit pixels are arrayed in a matrix, the unit pixels each including one microlens and a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements, a readout portion (1200) configured to read out signals from the pixel portion, the readout portion being capable of performing a first readout operation (Fig. 8B) of reading out mixed signals obtained by mixing signals of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements of the unit pixels, and a second readout operation (Fig. 9) of reading out unmixed signals which are not a mixture of signals of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements of the unit pixels (Figs. 7, 8B, 9; para. 0066), a sorting portion (1300) configured to store signals obtained through the first readout operation and the second readout operation into captured image signals and focus detection signals, a first output portion (1301, 1303) configured to output the captured image signals sorted by the sorting portion, and a second output portion (1302, 1304) configured to output the focus detection signals sorted by the sorting portion (Fig. 12; para. 0084); and
at least one processor or circuit (Fig. 2; 1001, 1004) configured to function as:
a first processing unit (1001) configured to process the captured image signals output from the first output portion (Fig. 2; para. 0031); and
a second processing unit (1004) configured to process the focus detection signals output from the second output portion (Fig. 2; para. 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Ikedo teaches the image capturing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the first processing unit transmits the captured image signals to the second processing unit (Fig. 2; para. 0031).
Regarding claim 10, Ikedo teaches the image capturing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second processing unit records the captured image signals into a recording medium (Fig. 2; para. 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Ikedo teaches the image capturing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the second processing unit performs focus detection based on the focus detection signals (Fig. 2; para. 0031).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo (US 20160198110 A1) in view of Nishida (US 7050202 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Ikedo teaches everything as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 7-9; A+B image signal has higher resolution than AF image signal), but fails to teach
wherein a communication speed at which signals are output from the first output portion is higher than a communication speed at which signals are output from the second output portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor Nishida teaches
wherein a communication speed at which signals are output from the first output portion is higher than a communication speed at which signals are output from the second output portion (col. 12, lines 23-27: “low resolution image data is transmitted at a slower transmission speed and high resolution image data is transmitted at a faster transmission speed”).
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 Nishida in Ikedo to have wherein a communication speed at which signals are output from the first output portion is higher than a communication speed at which signals are output from the second output portion for shortening time taken for image transferring optimizing image data transfer speed yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo (US 20160198110 A1) in view of Wakabayashi (US 20150163403 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ikedo teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
further comprising a memory configured to adjust a processing speed in accordance with a communication speed of the second output portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor Wakabayashi teaches
further comprising a memory configured to adjust a processing speed in accordance with a communication speed of the second output portion (Fig. 2; para. 0149: “allowing the readout speed by the data processing unit 33, that is, data output rate, to be lower than the transfer speed of the pixel data to the memory unit 32, reduction of the channels of the interface unit 38 and lower processing speed of the signal processing block (for example, DSP) in the latter stage can be realized. This can contribute to low power consumption of the entire system including the signal processing block in the latter stage”).
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 Wakabayashi in Ikedo to have further comprising a memory configured to adjust a processing speed in accordance with a communication speed of the second output portion for realizing high-speed readout of pixel data with lower power consumption yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo (US 20160198110 A1) in view of Ito (US 20170307371 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ikedo teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the sorting portion transmits the focus detection signals to the second output portion once every multiple frames.
However, in the same field of endeavor Ito teaches
wherein the sorting portion transmits the focus detection signals to the second output portion once every multiple frames (Fig. 8; paras. 0064-0066).
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 Ito in Ikedo to have wherein the sorting portion transmits the focus detection signals to the second output portion once every multiple frames for making less prominent a difference in level of the noise signal between the regions in the imaging element 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