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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0099876), hereinafter referenced as Shimada, in view of Yamauchi (United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0134660).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada discloses an imaging device comprising: a pixel array configured to include a plurality of image detection pixels configured to detect light from a target object and to output image signals for generating an image of the target object and a plurality of phase-difference detection pixels configured to detect phase difference information in light rays from the target object (figure 6 exhibits a pixel array with phase detection pixels and image detection pixels, when the pixels are output phase detection signals, they are phase detection pixels and when they output an image signal they are image detection pixels); a position determiner configured to determine a position of each unit pixel in the pixel array (paragraph 145 teaches setting a gain based on the x,y position, therefore, the position must be determined); a weight setting unit configured to set different weights for each position of each phase-difference detection pixel based on an output signal of the position determiner (paragraph 145 teaches that lens shading correction unit 27 sets gain values for the pixels based on their x,y address); a signal blending unit configured to generate a plurality of phase images (figure 2 exhibits sorting circuit 21 which generates phase images as discussed at paragraph 122); a parallax calculator configured to calculate a parallax in at least one of a first direction proceeding from a center point of an optical axis in the plurality of phase images or a second direction different from the first direction (figure 2 exhibits phase difference detection circuit 31 which detects a difference between phase images in a direction as disclosed at paragraph 150); and a focus position determiner configured to generate a driving signal for adjusting a position of a lens based on the parallax calculated by the parallax calculator (paragraph 150 teaches that a focus position is determined for AF based on the phase difference). However, Shimada fails to disclose the signal blending unit adds the weight set by the weight setting unit to each of the phase-difference detection pixels.
Yamauchi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yamauchi teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving pixel accuracy by correcting for light leakage based on the pixel position would have prompted a predictable variation of Shimada by applying Yamauchi’s known principal of adding a weight set by the weight setting unit to each of the phase-difference detection pixels (figure 12 exhibits correction unit 201 which adds weights to each pixel and blends the pixel values together based on the weight as disclosed at paragraph 190).
In view of the motivations such as improving pixel accuracy by correcting for light leakage based on the pixel position one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shimada.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, in addition, Shimada discloses wherein: the pixel array includes a plurality of pixel groups (figure 6 shows an array of pixel groups), wherein each of the plurality of pixel groups includes a plurality of unit pixels arranged in a matrix, wherein the plurality of unit pixels has color filters of a same color and shares one microlens (figure 6 shows that each unit pixel is part of a 2x2 group which have a same color filter and share a microlens).
Regarding claim 3, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, in addition, Shimada discloses wherein the position determiner is configured to: count position values of pixels corresponding to indices of unit pixels arranged in a row direction within the pixel array and position values of pixels corresponding to indices of unit pixels arranged in a column direction within the pixel array (paragraph 145 teaches that the gain is based on the x,y position, in order to determine these values it is apparent that there is a count corresponding to the row and column); and sequentially read out data of the pixels (paragraph 73 teaches that pixels are read out sequentially).
Regarding claim 4, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, in addition, Shimada discloses wherein the position determiner is configured to: determine the position of each unit pixel by detecting angle information between the optical axis and each unit pixel on the pixel array (paragraph 145 teaches that the gain is based on the x,y position, the x,y position is information which indicates an angle between the optical axis and each pixel).
Regarding claim 6, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, however, Yamada fails to disclose wherein: the pixel array is divided into quadrants based on a horizontal line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a horizontal direction and a vertical line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a vertical direction; and the weight setting unit is configured to differently set the weight in each quadrant of the pixel array.
Yamauchi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yamauchi teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving pixel accuracy by correcting for light leakage based on the pixel position would have prompted a predictable variation of Shimada by applying Yamauchi’s known principal of wherein: the pixel array is divided into quadrants based on a horizontal line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a horizontal direction and a vertical line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a vertical direction (it is apparent that the array shown in figure 2 can be divided into quadrants); and the weight setting unit is configured to differently set the weight in each quadrant of the pixel array (figure 5 shows that the weights for each pixel are set differently based on their location in the array as disclosed at paragraphs 138 and 139; by setting the weights differently as shown in figure 5, it is apparent that the weights are differently set for each quadrant).
In view of the motivations such as improving pixel accuracy by correcting for light leakage based on the pixel position one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shimada.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, in addition, Shimada discloses wherein: the number of the plurality of phase images is equal to or less than the number of the plurality of phase-difference detection pixels (figure 17 shows that 4 phase images which is equal to the number of phase detection pixels can be generated as disclosed at paragraph 243).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada in view of Yamauchi and further in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0327393), hereinafter referenced as Yang.
Regarding claim 16, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, however, Shimada fails to disclose wherein the parallax calculator is configured to: obtain data correlation values of two phase images from among the plurality of phase images; and calculate a disparity value at which the data correlation values are minimized.
Yang is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yang teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving phase detection accuracy would have prompted a predictable variation of Shimada by applying Yang’s known principal of obtain data correlation values of two phase images from among the plurality of phase images; and calculate a disparity value at which the data correlation values are minimized (paragraph 47 teaches calculating correlation values and determining a disparity with a minimum correlation value).
In view of the motivations such as improving phase detection accuracy one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shimada.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0273608) in view of Yamauchi.
Regarding claim 17, Tsukada discloses an imaging device comprising: a pixel group including a plurality of unit pixels arranged in a matrix and operable to detect input light from a target object to capture an image of the target object and a plurality of phase-difference detection pixels configured to detect phase difference information in light rays from the target object to produce pixel values carrying the phase difference information (figure 3 exhibits an array of imaging and phase difference pixels as disclosed at paragraph 33); and an image signal processor (figure 1 exhibits processor 3 as disclosed at paragraph 25) configured to generate a plurality of phase images (paragraph 46 teaches generating pairs of phase images), and calculate a parallax for the plurality of phase images in at least one of a first direction proceeding from a center point of an optical axis or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (paragraph 52 teaches applying a correction value to determine a defocus amount in the tangential and radial directions). However, Tsukada fails to disclose that the phase images are generated by adding different weights for each position of the plurality of unit pixels to the pixel values of the phase-difference detection pixels.
Yamauchi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yamauchi teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving pixel accuracy by correcting for light leakage based on the pixel position would have prompted a predictable variation of Tsukada by applying Yamauchi’s known principal of adding a weight set by the weight setting unit to each of the phase-difference detection pixels (figure 12 exhibits correction unit 201 which adds weights to each pixel and blends the pixel values together based on the weight as disclosed at paragraph 190).
In view of the motivations such as improving pixel accuracy by correcting for light leakage based on the pixel position one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Tsukada.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, Tsukada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 17, in addition, Tsukada discloses wherein the image signal processor is configured to: calculate the parallax in the first direction, the parallax being a disparity with respect to a radius distance from the center point of the optical axis to edges of the plurality of phase images (paragraph 52 teaches applying a correction value to determine a defocus amount in the tangential and radial directions).
Regarding claim 20, Tsukada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 17, in addition, Tsukada discloses wherein the image signal processor is configured to: calculate the parallax in the second direction, the parallax being a disparity at which the plurality of phase images deviates from the center point of the optical axis by a predetermined angle (paragraph 52 teaches applying a correction value to determine a defocus amount in the tangential and radial directions).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada in view of Yamauchi and further in view of Shimada.
Regarding claim 18, Tsukada in view of Yamauchi discloses the imaging device according to claim 17, however, Tsukada fails to disclose wherein: the pixel group has color filters of a same color and shares one microlens.
Tsukada discloses an imaging device in which each imaging pixel is a single pixel per microlens. Shimada discloses an imaging device in which the pixel group has color filters of a same color and shares one microlens (figure 6 shows that each unit pixel is part of a 2x2 group which have a same color filter and share a microlens). Because both Tsukada and Shimada disclose pixel arrangements for capturing color images, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pixels taught by Shimada for the pixels taught by Tsukada to achieve the predictable result of capturing a color image.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-16 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.
Claim 5 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the position determiner is configured to: divide the pixel array into quadrants based on a horizontal line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a horizontal direction and a vertical line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a vertical direction; determine a position of a target pixel group based on a distance between the center point and each of the unit pixels respectively located in the quadrants; and calculate the angle information in response to the optical axis and the position of the pixel group, in combination with all of the elements from the claims from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Shimada in view of Yamauchi teaches determining position information about pixels, however, the combination fails to reasonably teach or suggest “wherein the position determiner is configured to: divide the pixel array into quadrants based on a horizontal line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a horizontal direction and a vertical line crossing the center point of the optical axis in a vertical direction; determine a position of a target pixel group based on a distance between the center point and each of the unit pixels respectively located in the quadrants; and calculate the angle information in response to the optical axis and the position of the pixel group” as currently claimed.
Claim 8 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the signal blending unit is configured to generate: a first phase image having positive radial distortion in the first direction; and a second phase image having negative radial distortion in the first direction, in combination with the other elements of claim 1 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses generating phases images and Tsukada teaches generating data which corresponds to parallax information in the radial and tangential directions, however, the prior art both alone and in combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the signal blending unit is configured to generate: a first phase image having positive radial distortion in the first direction; and a second phase image having negative radial distortion in the first direction” as currently claimed.
Claims 9-11 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 12 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the signal blending unit is configured to generate: a third phase image having positive tangential distortion in the second direction; and a fourth phase image having negative tangential distortion in the second direction, in combination with the other elements of claim 1 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Shimada in view of Yamauchi discloses generating phases images and Tsukada teaches generating data which corresponds to parallax information in the radial and tangential directions, however, the prior art both alone and in combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the signal blending unit is configured to generate: a third phase image having positive tangential distortion in the second direction; and a fourth phase image having negative tangential distortion in the second direction” as currently claimed.
Claims 13-15 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 12.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yim et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0223918) discloses a method for generating phase data.
Jang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0247318) discloses a method for generating phase data.
Tanaka et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0408042) discloses a method for generating phase data.
Ishiwata (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0234449) discloses a method for generating phase data.
Fukuda et al. (United States Patent 8,964,079) discloses a method for generating phase data.
Kimijima et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0019028) discloses a method for generating phase data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights