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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “an imaging optical system” in lines 2-3. Claim 13 further recites “an imaging optical system” in line 5.
Examiner suggests amending “an imaging optical system” in line 2 to “the imaging optical system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 2-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (US 2017/0077164 A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 2015/0350529 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kawabata teaches an image capturing apparatus (Kawabata, Fig. 9) comprising:
an image sensor having a plurality of pixels (Kawabata, Figs. 1 and 4, Paragraph 0019), an imaging optical system (Kawabata, Fig. 9, imaging lens 902), each pixel comprising:
at least one photoelectric conversion unit (Kawabata, Fig. 1 photoelectric conversion element 105, Paragraph 0006); and
a microlens optical system (Kawabata, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0033) provided on a side on which light is incident with respect to the photoelectric conversion unit (Kawabata, Fig. 1), wherein a shape of a principal curved surface of the microlens optical system is such that a first curvature of the microlens optical system at a first distance (Kawabata, Fig, 4, Curvature at position x1. The first distance is the distance from the center L to position x1 in the x-direction.) from an optical axis of the microlens (Kawabata, Fig. 4, The optical axis is considered to be at the center of the microlens.) optical system is larger than a second curvature of the microlens optical system at a second distance (Kawabata, Fig, 4, Curvature at position x2. The second distance is the distance from the center L to position x2 in the x-direction.) which is farther from the optical axis of the microlens optical system than the first distance, and the first curvature of the microlens optical system is larger than a third curvature of the microlens optical system at a third distance which is nearer to the optical axis of the microlens optical system than the first distance (Kawabata, Paragraph 0033, “The microlens 401 features to gradually increase, within one pixel, in the curvature radius of the upper surface from a highest place x1 to the periphery of the sensor chip. In other words, the radius curvature of the upper surface of the microlens gradually increases toward an end portion in a direction opposite to the center of a region where a group of symmetrical microlenses is arranged.” The curvature radius at a position on the right of center L and at a distance less than the distance x1 would be larger than the curvature radius at x1. A larger curvature radius is a smaller curvature.), and
wherein the first curvature, the second curvature and the third curvature are positive curvatures(Kawabata, Fig. 4, All curvatures are positive.);
the imaging optical system (Kawabata, Fig. 9, imaging lens 902); and
a processing unit that processes signals output from the image sensor (Kawabata, Fig. 9, signal processing circuit 905)
However, Kawabata does not teach the image sensor having a plurality of pixels including focus detection pixels that outputs signals from which a pair of focus detection signals having parallax can be obtained based on light flux passing through different pupil regions of an imaging optical system.
In reference to Kato et al. (hereafter referred as Kato), Kato teaches an image sensor (Kato, Figs. 2 and 4) having a plurality of pixels including focus detection pixels (Kato, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0050 and 0055) that outputs signals from which a pair of focus detection signals having parallax can be obtained based on light flux passing through different pupil regions of an imaging optical system (Kato, Fig. 1, image pickup lens 101, Paragraph 0050, With respect to Figure 3, Kato states the light shield blocks light from one exit pupil and passes light from the other exit pupil. Figure 4 removes the light shield and places two photodiodes in the pixel. Therefore, each photodiode would obtain signals from different pupil regions of the imaging optical system. Further, it is known that phase difference detection pixels obtain parallax signals based on light flux passing through different pupil regions to operate (see conclusion).).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kawabata with the phase detection pixels as seen in Kato to allow the device to capture phase difference data and allow for automatic focusing.
Claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein:
let a pixel size of the pixel be P, the first distance be r1, and the second distance be r2, then
0.35P < r2
holds (Kawabata, Figs. 1 and 4, Pixel pitch is L, the second distance may be any distance from the center greater than the distance of x1 from the center. Therefore, r2 may be from 0.5P - x1 to 0.5P.).
The combination of Kawabata and Kato discloses the claimed invention except for r1 < 0.35P. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the location of x1 or the distance of the position of x1 from the center (first distance r1) to meet the condition r1 < 0.35P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Kawabata, Figure 2 and Paragraph 0025, further discloses the shapes of microlenses having asymmetrical shapes are changed such that the positions of the highest portions of the microlenses are shifted in accordance with the distances from the center of a group of microlenses having symmetrical shapes. Therefore, the limitation “r1 < 0.35P” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would improve the light collection efficiency in accordance with the distances from the pixel on which the microlens having the symmetrical shape is arranged.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein:
let the pixel size of the pixel be P, the second distance be r2, then
r2≤P
holds (Kawabata, Figs. 1 and 4, Pixel pitch is L, Distance from L to x2 (second distance be r2) is less than L.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein:
let a pixel size of the pixel be P, the first distance be r1, the second distance be r2, and the third distance be r0, then
0 ≤ r0 < r2 ≤ 0.5P
holds (Kawabata, Figs. 1 and 4, Pixel pitch is L, The second distance may be any distance from the center greater than the distance of x1 from the center. Therefore, r2 may be from 0.5P - x1 to 0.5P. The third distance may be any distance from the center less than the distance of x1 from the center.).
The combination of Kawabata and Kato discloses the claimed invention except for r0 < 0.29P r1 < 0.41P < r2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the location of x1 or the distance of the position of x1 from the center (first distance r1) to meet the condition r0 < 0.29P r1 < 0.41P < r2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Kawabata, Figure 2 and Paragraph 0025, further discloses the shapes of microlenses having asymmetrical shapes are changed such that the positions of the highest portions of the microlenses are shifted in accordance with the distances from the center of a group of microlenses having symmetrical shapes. Therefore, the limitation “r0 < 0.29P r1 < 0.41P < r2” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would improve the light collection efficiency in accordance with the distances from the pixel on which the microlens having the symmetrical shape is arranged.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis),wherein the microlens optical system includes one microlens (Kawabata, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the microlens optical system includes one microlens and one or more intralayer lenses (Kawabata, Fig. 7, interlayer lens 709, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the each pixel further comprises a wiring layer provided on an opposite side of the side on which light is incident (Kawabata, Fig. 1, wiring layer 107, Paragraph 0020 and 0051, Back-side illumination type image sensors have the wiring layer provided on an opposite side of the side on which light is incident.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the each pixel further comprises a wiring layer provided on a side on which light is incident (Kawabata, Fig. 1, wiring layer 107, Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kawabata and Kato teaches the image sensor according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the microlens optical system has a symmetrical shape (Kawabata, Figs. 4A and 4C, The microlens is symmetrical with respect to the x axis and z axis.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (US 2017/0077164 A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 2015/0350529 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 2016/0248967 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kawabata teaches an image capturing apparatus (Kawabata, Fig. 9) comprising:
an image sensor having a plurality of pixels (Kawabata, Figs. 1 and 4, Paragraph 0019), each pixel comprising:
at least one photoelectric conversion unit (Kawabata, Fig. 1 photoelectric conversion element 105, Paragraph 0006); and
a microlens optical system (Kawabata, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0033) provided on a side on which light is incident with respect to the photoelectric conversion unit (Kawabata, Fig. 1), wherein a shape of a principal curved surface of the microlens optical system is such that a first curvature of the microlens optical system at a first distance (Kawabata, Fig, 4, Curvature at position x1. The first distance is the distance from the center L to position x1 in the x-direction.) from an optical axis of the microlens (Kawabata, Fig. 4, The optical axis is considered to be at the center of the microlens.) optical system is larger than a second curvature of the microlens optical system at a second distance (Kawabata, Fig, 4, Curvature at position x2. The second distance is the distance from the center L to position x2 in the x-direction.) which is farther from the optical axis of the microlens optical system than the first distance, and the first curvature of the microlens optical system is larger than a third curvature of the microlens optical system at a third distance which is nearer to the optical axis of the microlens optical system than the first distance (Kawabata, Paragraph 0033, “The microlens 401 features to gradually increase, within one pixel, in the curvature radius of the upper surface from a highest place x1 to the periphery of the sensor chip. In other words, the radius curvature of the upper surface of the microlens gradually increases toward an end portion in a direction opposite to the center of a region where a group of symmetrical microlenses is arranged.” The curvature radius at a position on the right of center L and at a distance less than the distance x1 would be larger than the curvature radius at x1. A larger curvature radius is a smaller curvature.), and
wherein the first curvature, the second curvature and the third curvature are positive curvatures(Kawabata, Fig. 4, All curvatures are positive.); and
a processing unit that processes signals output from the image sensor (Kawabata, Fig. 9, signal processing circuit 905)
However, Kawabata does not teach an image capturing apparatus to/from which an imaging optical system can be attached/detached; the image sensor having a plurality of pixels including focus detection pixels that outputs signals from which a pair of focus detection signals having parallax can be obtained based on light flux passing through different pupil regions of an imaging optical system.
In reference to Kato et al. (hereafter referred as Kato), Kato teaches an image sensor (Kato, Figs. 2 and 4) having a plurality of pixels including focus detection pixels (Kato, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0050 and 0055) that outputs signals from which a pair of focus detection signals having parallax can be obtained based on light flux passing through different pupil regions of an imaging optical system (Kato, Fig. 1, image pickup lens 101, Paragraph 0050, With respect to Figure 3, Kato states the light shield blocks light from one exit pupil and passes light from the other exit pupil. Figure 4 removes the light shield and places two photodiodes in the pixel. Therefore, each photodiode would obtain signals from different pupil regions of the imaging optical system. Further, it is known that phase difference detection pixels obtain parallax signals based on light flux passing through different pupil regions to operate (see conclusion).).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kawabata with the phase detection pixels as seen in Kato to allow the device to capture phase difference data and allow for automatic focusing.
However, the combination of Kawabata and Kato does not teach an image capturing apparatus to/from which an imaging optical system can be attached/detached.
In reference to Sasaki, Sasaki teaches an image capturing apparatus (Sasaki, Fig. 1) to/from which an imaging optical system can be attached/detached (Sasaki, Fig. 1, image capturing optical system 104, Paragraph 0035) comprising:
an image sensor that outputs a pair of focus detection signals having parallax can be obtained based on light flux passing through different pupil regions of an imaging optical system (Sasaki, Paragraphs 0041-0042).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Kawabata and Kato with the use of the attached/detached optical system as seen in Sasaki to allow for changing of the optical system to use different optical systems or replacement of optical systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 6, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor according to claim 2, wherein diameters of convergence spots formed with light flux passing through circular portions of the microlens optical system with radii of a plurality of distances from the optical axis of the microlens optical system are respectively included in depths of focus of the microlens optical system corresponding to the plurality of distances, respectively.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki (US 2016/0248967 A1): Sasaki teaches phase difference pixels operate by using parallax signals obtained based on light flux passing through different pupil regions of an imaging optical system (Sasaki, Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights