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 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:
“a connection portion” in claims 1-15 and 18-22
“a distance information acquisition unit” in claim 21
The claims further recite “a standard signal output unit”, “a signal output unit” and “a reference signal output unit”. However, “output” as commonly defined refers to “The device or collective set of devices used for taking data out of a device” (IEEE 1000 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms Seventh Edition, p. 778). Therefore, “output” is considered to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure which performs the function and therefore does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), see MPEP 2181(I)(A):
If persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks") 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not apply. Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1372-73, 66 USPQ2d 1444, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 2013/0033632 A1) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2013/0228673 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Kishi discloses a photoelectric conversion device (e.g. Figures 1-2) comprising: a first substrate (Figures 1-2, 1); a second substrate bonded to the first substrate (Figures 1-2, 2; Paragraph 0058); a plurality of pixel circuits provided on the first substrate so as to form a plurality of columns, each of the plurality of pixel circuits being configured to output a signal based on charge generated by photoelectric conversion (Figures 1-2, pixel section 101 having pixels 201; a plurality of column circuits provided on the second substrate, each of the plurality of column circuits being configured to perform a gain processing on an output signal from the corresponding pixel circuit (Figures 1-2, column circuits 103 including gain amplifier; Paragraph 0065); an output unit provided on the second substrate and configured to output a signal according to the gain processing (Figures 1-2, 104; Paragraphs 0057, 0065); a connection portion electrically connecting the first substrate and the second substrate (Figures 1 and 2, 106); and a signal output unit including an amplifier circuit provided on the first substrate, wherein the signal output unit is configured to output a signal based on the signal input from the output unit via the connection portion to the plurality of column circuits via the amplifier circuit (Figures 1 and 2, 107 performing amplification; Paragraph 0065).
However, Kishi does not disclose that the output unit outputs a “standard signal”.
Hashimoto discloses a similar device which includes a column amplifier circuit performing gain processing and an output unit (Figure 11, amplifiers 1-2 and output unit 104), and further discloses outputting a reference or “standard signal” according to gain processing performed by the amplifiers (e.g. Paragraph 0079). The reference signal allows for detection of offset noise with a fixed pattern and a gain error due to semiconductor process variation which leads to degradation in image performance (Paragraph 0079) and which may be corrected in a correction unit (e.g. Paragraphs 0038, 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to output a reference or “standard signal” in the device of Kishi so that offset noise with a fixed pattern and a gain error due to semiconductor process variation which leads to degradation in image performance may be corrected.
Note that by outputting a “standard signal” using the output unit of Kishi, the output unit may be considered a “standard signal output unit” as claimed.
[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses a device further comprising a signal processing unit configured to process an output signal of the column circuit, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to correct a gain error of the column circuit superimposed on an output signal of the column circuit when an output signal of the pixel signal is input, using an output signal of the column circuit when an output signal of the signal output unit is input (Figures 2 and 3, correction unit 226; Paragraphs 0038, 0084).[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses a device wherein each of the plurality of column circuits includes a column amplifier configured to amplify the output signal of the pixel circuit (Kishi, Figures 1-2, column circuits 103 including gain amplifier; Paragraph 0065) and wherein the standard signal output unit is configured to set a level of the standard signal according to a gain of the column amplifier (Hashimoto, Paragraphs 0079-0084; note that the standard signal is amplified by the gain of the column amplifier, thus is “set according to the gain” as claimed).[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses wherein the connection portion comprises a plurality of connection portions, and wherein the standard signal output unit and the signal output unit are electrically connected to each other via the plurality of connection portions (Kishi, Figure 2, note plurality of connection units 106).[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses wherein the standard signal output unit includes a plurality of standard signal output circuits each configured to output the standard signal, and wherein a plurality of standard signals output by the plurality of standard signal output circuits is input to the signal output unit via the connection portions different from each other (Kishi, Figure 2, note plurality of standard signal output units 104 connected connection circuits 106 and outputting standard signals to the signal output unit).[claim 14]
Regarding claim 14, Kishi discloses further comprising a pad electrode provided on the second substrate to which a wiring is connected through an opening penetrating the first substrate (Figure 5, pad electrode formed at surface of substrate by interconnection layer 505 and connected via through hole 507).[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, Kishi discloses a pad electrode provided on the first substrate, wherein the pad electrode is electrically connected to the second substrate via a connection portion different from the connection portion electrically connecting the standard signal output unit and the signal output unit (Figure 5, pad electrodes formed by interconnection layer 505 at surface of substrate additionally connected by 512 supplying power and various kinds of driving pulses; Paragraph 0074).[claim 16]
Regarding claim 16, Kishi discloses wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate includes a metal interconnection as an uppermost-level interconnection layer, and wherein the connection portion is configured by a metal bonding of metal members constituting the metal interconnections (Figure 5, 505 and 115/512).[claim 17]
Regarding claim 17, Kishi discloses wherein the connection portion includes a through electrode provided to penetrate a semiconductor substrate constituting the first substrate or the second substrate (Figure 5, interconnection layer 505 connected by through holes 507).[claim 18]
Regarding claim 18, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses a device further comprising a plurality of photoelectric conversion units each of which generates charge, wherein the plurality of photoelectric conversion units is provided on the first substrate (Kishi, Figure 2, photodiodes in pixels 201 located on 1st substrate).[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses a photoelectric conversion system comprising: the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a signal processing device configured to process a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device (Kishi, Figure 10, 1006; Hashimoto, Figure 2, 2).
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 10, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 2013/0033632 A1) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2013/0228673 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, Kishi discloses a column circuit which includes an A-D converter (e.g. Paragraph 0066; see also Figure 12, 111), but does not explicitly disclose a reference signal output unit provided on the second substrate and configured to output a reference signal whose level changes with time, wherein each of the plurality of column circuits includes a comparator configured to compare the output signal of the pixel circuit with the reference signal and is configured to perform an analog-to-digital conversion of the output signal of the pixel circuit with a gain according to a time change rate of a level of the reference signal.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to perform A-D conversion using a reference signal output unit provided on the second substrate and configured to output a reference signal whose level changes with time (e.g. a ramp signal), wherein each of the plurality of column circuits includes a comparator configured to compare the output signal of the pixel circuit with the reference signal and is configured to perform an analog-to-digital conversion of the output signal of the pixel circuit with a gain according to a time change rate of a level of the reference signal (e.g. providing a counter/memory which is triggered when the analog signal matches the ramp signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a reference signal output unit and a comparator for each A-D converter of Kishi in view of Hashimoto so that the A-D conversion may be performed in a well-known standard manner.[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, see the rejection of claim 5 above and note that in the combined system of Kishi in view of Hashimoto, when an A-D converter is used in the column circuit, the standard signal would also undergo A-D conversion and the output level of the digital standard signal would be set according to the ramp signal through the A-D conversion process (i.e. when the analog standard signal matches the ramp signal, the digital value of the standard signal would be obtained).[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, Kishi in view of Hashimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference signal output unit includes a first reference signal output circuit configured to output a first reference signal and a second reference signal output circuit configured to output a second reference signal having the time change rate different from that of the first reference signal, and wherein each of the plurality of column circuits is configured to select one of the first refence signal and the second reference signal as the reference signal to be compared with the output signal of the pixel circuit according to a level of the output signal of the pixel circuit.
However, Official Notice is further taken that it is well known in the art to provide multiple ramps or slopes such as a first ramp with a first rate of change and a second ramp with a second rate of change to speed A-D conversion according to a signal level, e.g. a dual-slope or multi-slope ADC.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to output first and second reference signals with different rates of change so that dual- or multi-slope ADC may be performed resulting in faster conversion.[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses applying a predetermined gain (e.g. Kishi, Paragraph 0065), but does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of column circuit is configured to set a gain of the column amplifier according to a level of the output signal of the pixel circuit.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to set gains for amplifiers in an imaging device according to a level of an output signal so that a properly exposed image may be obtained (e.g. automatic gain control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to set the gain of the amplifiers in Kishi in view of Hashimoto according to an output signal of the pixel circuit so that properly exposed images with appropriate gain may be obtained.[claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, Kishi further discloses wherein each of the plurality of column circuits includes an AD converter that performs analog-to-digital conversion based on the output signal of the pixel circuit (e.g. Paragraph 0066; see also Figure 12, 111).
However, Kishi in view of Hashimoto does not disclose an oversampling type A-D converter.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to use oversampling type A-D converters to reduce cost and improve performance of the A-D converters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use an oversampling A-D converter in the system of Kishi in view of Hashimoto to reduce cost and improve performance.[claims 21 and 22]
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses an equipment comprising: the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and at least one of an optical device corresponding to the photoelectric conversion device (Kishi, Figure 10, 1001), a control device configured to control the photoelectric conversion device, a processing device configured to process a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device (Kishi, Figure 10, 1006; Hashimoto, Figure 2, 2), a mechanical device that is controlled based on information obtained by the photoelectric conversion device, a display device configured to display information obtained by the photoelectric conversion device (Kishi, Figure 10, 1012), and a storage device configured to store information obtained by the photoelectric conversion device (Kishi, Figure 10, 1008).
Note Kishi further discloses a distance measurement device (Figure 10, 1014), but does not measure the distance based on parallax. Kishi further does not disclose a mechanical device that is controlled based on information obtained by the photoelectric conversion device.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to obtain distances based on phase difference information or parallax images captured by a stereoscopic camera system. The use of stereoscopic camera would allow for 3D information of a scene to be obtained. Official Notice is further taken that it is well known in the art to control mechanical objects, such as a self-driving car, based on information obtained by a camera device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to arrange the captured device of Kishi in view of Hashimoto in a stereoscopic pair so that 3D information of a scene may be obtained and to use the obtained information to provide control of a mechanical object, such as a self-driving car so that a user may be freed from the task of driving.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 2013/0033632 A1) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2013/0228673 A1) in view of Tsukimura (US 2013/0314573 A1).[claim 19]
Regarding claim 19, Kishi in view of Hashimoto discloses a plurality of photoelectric conversion units each of which generates charge (Kishi, Figures 1-2, pixel section 101 including pixels 201) but does not teach wherein the plurality of photoelectric conversion units is provided on a third substrate, and the third substrate and the first substrate are electrically connected to each other.
Tsukimura teaches a device including photoelectric conversion units on a first substrate and other related pixel circuits on a second substrate bonded to the first substrate (e.g. Figures 2-4). By separating the pixel circuitry into two bonded substrates, the surface area of the imaging unit may be reduced (Paragraph 0098).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the first substrate of Kishi in view of Hashimoto using two bonded substrates as taught by Tsukimura so that the surface area of the imaging unit may be reduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 11 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 3]
Regarding claim 3, while the prior art teaches similar devices (see rejections above and references cited below), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 2, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to correct the gain error using a ratio between the output signal of the signal output unit when the standard signal of a first level is input and the output signal of the signal output unit when the standard signal of a second level different from the first level is input.
Specifically, while Hashimoto teaches correcting the signals using the standard signal to correct gain error, Hashimoto does not teach doing so based on a ratio between the output signal of the signal output unit when the standard signal of a first level is input and the output signal of the signal output unit when the standard signal of a second level different from the first level is input as claimed.[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, while the prior art teaches similar devices (see rejections above and references cited below), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1, wherein the signal output unit is configured to limit a voltage operation amplitude of the output signal of the pixel circuit input to the column circuit by an output signal when the standard signal is input.
Specifically, while Hashimoto teaches correcting the signals using the standard signal, the cited references do not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the signal output unit is configured to limit a voltage operation amplitude of the output signal of the pixel circuit input to the column circuit by an output signal when the standard signal is input as claimed.[claim 11]
Regarding claim 11, while the prior art teaches similar devices (see rejections above and references cited below), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of pixel circuits further includes a first amplifier transistor configured to amplify a signal corresponding to an amount of charge generated by a photoelectric conversion unit, wherein the signal output unit includes a plurality of second amplifier transistors provided corresponding to the plurality of columns and each configured to amplify the standard signal and output to the column circuit of the corresponding column, and wherein a size of the first amplifier transistor and a size of the second amplifier transistor are the same.
While it is known to use transistors in amplifiers, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein each of the plurality of pixel circuits further includes a first amplifier transistor configured to amplify a signal corresponding to an amount of charge generated by a photoelectric conversion unit, wherein the signal output unit includes a plurality of second amplifier transistors provided corresponding to the plurality of columns and each configured to amplify the standard signal and output to the column circuit of the corresponding column, and wherein a size of the first amplifier transistor and a size of the second amplifier transistor are the same as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references show similar devices having first and second substrates:
Kobayashi US 2023/0262353 A1
Kobayashi US 2022/0247964 A1
Shigiya et al. US 2022/0086383 A1
Inoue et al. US 2020/0194472 A1
Mabuchi US 2008/0042046 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639