DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application 19/074,893 filed on March 10, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on March 10, 2025 was received and has been 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.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Figure 2 does not include the reference numerals “51”, “52” and “53” discussed in paragraph 0032 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims either recite nothing more than the judicial exception or recite generic computer components that do nothing more than implement the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because either no additional elements are included or the included elements are only generic computer components that do nothing more than implement the judicial exception. See the following detailed analysis of the limitations of claims 1-20.
Claim 1 recites a design method of an image sensor, the design method comprising:
determining a degree of similarity between specification data of each of a plurality of image sensors in a database and specification data of an image sensor to be designed; (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Comparing specification data only involves an observation which may be performed in the human mind.).
selecting, based on the specification data of the image sensor to be designed and the degree of similarity with the image sensor to be designed, at least two image sensors from among the plurality of image sensors, wherein the at least two image sensors correspond to design model candidates; (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Making a selection based upon the comparison of the specification data only involves a judgement that may be performed in the human mind.)
selecting a design model to be verified by combining the design model candidates corresponding to the at least two image sensors and verifying whether the design model to be verified operates normally; (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Combining design model candidates only includes an evaluation which may be performed in the human mind, selecting a design model only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind, and verifying whether a design model operates normally only involves an evaluation, observation, judgement, or opinion that may be performed in the human mind.) and
selecting the design model to be verified, which is operating normally, as a final design model (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a design model only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 2 recites a machine learning model or a statistical learning model is configured to perform: the determining the degree of similarity, the selecting the at least two image sensors, and the verifying whether the design model to be verified operates normally (The use of a machine learning model or statistical learning model to perform these steps only involves using generic computing components to perform the mental process that constitutes the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1).).
Claim 3 recites the machine learning model is learned using a neural network technique (The use of a machine learning model learned using a neural network technique only involves using generic computing components to perform the mental process that constitutes the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1).).
Claim 4 recites the selecting the design model to be verified, comprises: selecting a pixel model candidate of the image sensor to be designed; and selecting a circuit model candidate of the image sensor to be designed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a model only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 5 recites the circuit model candidate comprises an analog circuit model candidate and a digital circuit model candidate (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting an analog circuit model and a digital circuit model only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 6 recites the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate are selected for a driving unit pixel that corresponds to a minimum unit, that operates independently, and that comprises at least one pixel (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a pixel model candidate and circuit model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 7 recites the pixel model candidate comprises at least one of a size of the at least one pixel in the driving unit pixel, information on a microlens, information on a color filter, and a color of the color filter (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a pixel model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 8 recites the analog circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a design of a plurality of elements in the driving unit pixel, a disposition of the plurality of elements, connection information of the plurality of elements, a design of a photodiode, and a disposition of a plurality of metal wirings (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting an analog circuit model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 9 recites the digital circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a clock signal and a digital pattern for operating a single row or a single column in which the driving unit pixel is repeatedly disposed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a digital circuit model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 10 recites verifying a layout of the pixel model candidate; verifying a layout of the analog circuit model candidate; and verifying at least one of whether a signal of the digital circuit model candidate is duplicated or whether the signal is disconnected (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Performing a verification, at its broadest reasonably interpretation, only involves an evaluation, observation, judgement, or opinion that may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 11 recites the specification data of the image sensor to be designed is input in a file format (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Comparing specification data files only involves an observation which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 12 recites a design method of an image sensor, comprising:
determining a degree of similarity between specification data of each of a plurality of image sensors in a database and specification data of an image sensor to be designed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Comparing specification data only involves an observation which may be performed in the human mind.);
selecting, based on the degree of similarity, a pixel model candidate and a circuit model candidate, from among design models of each of the plurality of image sensors in the database (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Making a selection based upon the comparison of the specification data only involves a judgement that may be performed in the human mind.);
verifying each of the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate, merging the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate, and verifying whether the merged model candidate operates normally (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Verifying model candidates only includes an evaluation or observation which may be performed in the human mind, merging model candidates only includes an evaluation or observation which may be performed in the human mind, and verifying whether a design model operates normally only involves an evaluation, observation, judgement, or opinion that may be performed in the human mind.); and merging the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate that are verified and selecting the merged pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate as a final design model of the image sensor to be designed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Merging model candidates only includes an evaluation or observation which may be performed in the human mind. Selecting a circuit model candidate and merged pixel model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 13 recites the circuit model candidate comprises an analog circuit model candidate and a digital circuit model candidate (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting an analog circuit model and a digital circuit model only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 14 recites the analog circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a design of a plurality of elements, a disposition of the plurality of elements, connection information of the plurality of elements, a design of a photodiode, and a disposition of a plurality of metal wirings (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting an analog circuit model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 15 recites the digital circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a clock signal and a digital pattern for operating a single row or a single column in which a driving unit pixel is repeatedly disposed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a digital circuit model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 16 recites the specification data comprises data on specifications of the image sensor to be designed, and wherein the specifications of the image sensor to be designed comprise at least one of a size of the image sensor to be designed, a pixel size, and an effective resolution of the image sensor to be designed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Comparing specification data only involves an observation which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 17 recites the pixel model candidate comprises at least one of a size of a pixel in the image sensor to be designed, information on a microlens, information on a color filter, and a color of the color filter (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Selecting a pixel model candidate only includes a judgement which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 18 recites a design method of an image sensor, comprising:
a first design step of selecting a driving unit pixel for each of pixel models and circuit models, using specification data and design models of each of a plurality of image sensors in a database, and generating a single row or a single column by repeatedly disposing a design of the driving unit pixel (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Making a selection based upon specification data only involves a judgement that may be performed in the human mind. Generating a single row or a single column by repeatedly disposing a design, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, only involves a mental design process.);
a second design step of generating a row layout or a column layout by merging and repeatedly disposing the pixel models and the circuit models for the single row or the single column (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generating a row layout or a column layout by merging and repeatedly disposing the pixel models and the circuit models for the single row or the single column only involves, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental design process.);
a first verification step of verifying a structure of the row layout or the column layout (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Verifying a structure of the row layout or the column layout only includes an evaluation or observation which may be performed in the human mind.);
a third design step of generating a pixel array and peripheral circuits using the row layout or the column layout, reflecting a special pixel and a special circuit, and performing a special function into each of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generating a design for a pixel array and peripheral circuits only involves, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental design process.);
a second verification step of verifying a performance of the special function of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Verifying a performance of the special function of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected only includes an evaluation or observation which may be performed in the human mind.); and
an overall verification step of merging the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected and verifying whether the merged circuit of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits operates normally (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Merging the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected only involves, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental design process. Verifying whether the merged circuit of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits operates normally only includes an evaluation or observation which may be performed in the human mind.).
Claim 19 recites a step of re-performing one design step performed immediately before, among the first to third design steps, in a state in which at least one of the first to third verification steps fails to pass (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Re-performing a design step only involves, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental design process.).
Claim 20 recites a step of selecting the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected as a final design model of the image sensor to be designed, when the overall verification step is passed (This is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process being capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Making a selection of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits only involves a judgement that may be performed in the human mind.).
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayubi-Moak et al. (US 10,528,684), hereinafter referred to as Ayubi.
Consider claim 1, Ayubi teaches:
A design method of an image sensor (figure 1), the design method comprising:
determining a degree of similarity between specification data of each of a plurality of image sensors in a database and specification data of an image sensor to be designed (An image sensor design (85) includes a single pixel layout file (97, i.e. specification data) used to generate a core 3D model (119), column 8, lines 13-31, column 9, lines 10-13. Modified image sensor models (139, 149, 159) having different degrees of similarity are then determined in the prototyping toolstep 120, column 9, lines 14-31. Column 8, lines 54-62 states, “As set forth below, the use of these modular templates significantly reduces the time required to generate models for optical simulation by allowing a designer to easily generate different image sensor configurations (i.e., by way of exchanging an applied template with different template), thereby facilitating quick re-configuration of a pixel design and side-by-side comparison in the same simulation/project flow with very little effort.”);
selecting, based on the specification data (97) of the image sensor to be designed and the degree of similarity with the image sensor to be designed, at least two image sensors from among the plurality of image sensors, wherein the at least two image sensors correspond to design model candidates (e.g. selecting modified image sensor models 139, 149 and 159 for the mesh generation toolstep 160, figure 1, column 9, lines 26-31);
selecting a design model to be verified by combining the design model candidates (139, 149, 159) corresponding to the at least two image sensors (i.e. at the mesh generation toolstep 160 of figure 1, column 9, lines 26-31, column 16, lines 41-66) and verifying whether the design model to be verified operates normally (i.e. during the simulation toolstep 170 of figure 1, column 9, lines 32-36, column 18, line 28 through column 19, line 37); and
selecting the design model to be verified, which is operating normally, as a final design model (i.e. by using the simulation results (175) “for subsequent fabrication of an associated integrated circuit device”, column 8, lines 23-31).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Ayubi further teaches a machine learning model or a statistical learning model is configured to perform: the determining the degree of similarity, the selecting the at least two image sensors, and the verifying whether the design model to be verified operates normally (The invention may be implemented via a “neural network processor”, column 21, lines 43-63.).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 2 above, Ayubi further teaches that the machine learning model is learned using a neural network technique (The invention may be implemented via a “neural network processor”, column 21, lines 43-63.).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Ayubi further teaches that the selecting the design model to be verified, comprises: selecting a pixel model candidate of the image sensor to be designed; and selecting a circuit model candidate of the image sensor to be designed (Modified image sensor models 139, 149 and 159 are selected for the mesh generation toolstep 160, figure 1, column 9, lines 26-31. These include pixel array models (i.e. pixel model candidates, column 9, lines 19-26) and back-end structures (i.e. circuit model candidates, column 12, lines 33-47).).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Ayubi further teaches that the specification data of the image sensor to be designed is input in a file format (An image sensor design (85) includes a single pixel layout file (97, i.e. specification data) used to generate a core 3D model (119), column 8, lines 13-31, column 9, lines 10-13.).
Consider claim 12, Ayubi teaches:
A design method of an image sensor (figure 1), comprising:
determining a degree of similarity between specification data of each of a plurality of image sensors in a database and specification data of an image sensor to be designed (An image sensor design (85) includes a single pixel layout file (97, i.e. specification data) used to generate a core 3D model (119), column 8, lines 13-31, column 9, lines 10-13. Modified image sensor models (139, 149, 159) having different degrees of similarity are then determined in the prototyping toolstep 120, column 9, lines 14-31. Column 8, lines 54-62 states, “As set forth below, the use of these modular templates significantly reduces the time required to generate models for optical simulation by allowing a designer to easily generate different image sensor configurations (i.e., by way of exchanging an applied template with different template), thereby facilitating quick re-configuration of a pixel design and side-by-side comparison in the same simulation/project flow with very little effort.”);
selecting, based on the degree of similarity, a pixel model candidate and a circuit model candidate, from among design models of each of the plurality of image sensors in the database (Modified image sensor models 139, 149 and 159 are selected for the mesh generation toolstep 160, figure 1, column 9, lines 26-31. These include pixel array models (i.e. pixel model candidates, column 9, lines 19-26) and back-end structures (i.e. circuit model candidates, column 12, lines 33-47).);
verifying each of the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate (Modified image sensor models 139, 149 and 159 are selected for the mesh generation toolstep 160, figure 1, column 9, lines 26-31. These include verification of pixel array models (i.e. pixel model candidates, column 9, lines 19-26) and back-end structures (i.e. circuit model candidates, column 12, lines 33-47).), merging the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate (i.e. during the 3D pixel generation process 130 of figure 4, column 11, lines 42-50), and verifying whether the merged model candidate operates normally (i.e. during the simulation toolstep 170 of figure 1, column 9, lines 32-36, column 18, line 28 through column 19, line 37); and
merging the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate that are verified (i.e. during the 3D pixel generation process 130 of figure 4, column 11, lines 42-50) and selecting the merged pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate as a final design model of the image sensor to be designed (i.e. by using the simulation results (175) “for subsequent fabrication of an associated integrated circuit device”, column 8, lines 23-31).
Consider claim 16, and as applied to claim 12 above, Ayubi further teaches that the specification data comprises data on specifications of the image sensor to be designed, and wherein the specifications of the image sensor to be designed comprise at least one of a size of the image sensor to be designed (“In a presently preferred embodiment, the designer/user designates a selected 2D or 3D pixel model, inputs the size/pattern of the array (e.g., 2×2 or 3×1), and then selects a specific type of CFA (color-filter array) pattern, for example, based on a selected modular template from CFA filter pattern library 155, where the modular templates stored in library 155 include well-known sets of standard CFA filter patterns.” Column 13, line 66 through column 14, line 6.).
Consider claim 17, and as applied to claim 12 above, Ayubi further teaches that the pixel model candidate comprises at least one of a size of the at least one pixel in the driving unit pixel, information on a microlens, information on a color filter, and a color of the color filter (see “color filter layer 133-1” and “micro-lens structure 133-3”, column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 8, figure 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayubi-Moak et al. (US 10,528,684) in view of Huang et al. (CN 108647390). The portions of Huang et al. cited herein refer to the English translation provided by the Examiner.
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Ayubi does not explicitly teach that the circuit model candidate comprises an analog circuit model candidate and a digital circuit model candidate.
Huang et al. similarly teaches a method for designing a CMOS image sensing chip using a standard cell library design method (See the Abstract on the first page of the translation, and the eighth stanza on the eighth page of the translation.).
However, Huang et al. additionally teaches that the circuit model candidate comprises an analog circuit model candidate (“the pixel array of CMOS image sensing chip”, eighth stanza of eighth page of translation) and a digital circuit model candidate (“an analogue-to-digital conversion unit”, eighth stanza of eighth page of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the circuit model candidate taught by Ayubi comprise an analog circuit model candidate and a digital circuit model candidate as taught by Huang et al. for the benefit of improving stability and speed performance (Huang et al., last stanza of the eighth page of the translation).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Ayubi further teaches that the pixel model candidate and the circuit model candidate are selected for a driving unit pixel that corresponds to a minimum unit, that operates independently, and that comprises at least one pixel (i.e. for a “core single-pixel”, 119, figure 4).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 6 above, Ayubi further teaches that the pixel model candidate comprises at least one of a size of the at least one pixel in the driving unit pixel, information on a microlens, information on a color filter, and a color of the color filter (see “color filter layer 133-1” and “micro-lens structure 133-3”, column 11, line 62 through column 12, line 8, figure 5).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 6 above, Ayubi further teaches that the analog circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a disposition of a plurality of metal wirings (“metal lines 135-11”, column 12, lines 33-47, figure 5).
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 12 above, Ayubi does not explicitly teach that the circuit model candidate comprises an analog circuit model candidate and a digital circuit model candidate.
Huang et al. similarly teaches a method for designing a CMOS image sensing chip using a standard cell library design method (See the Abstract on the first page of the translation, and the eighth stanza on the eighth page of the translation.).
However, Huang et al. additionally teaches that the circuit model candidate comprises an analog circuit model candidate (“the pixel array of CMOS image sensing chip”, eighth stanza of eighth page of translation) and a digital circuit model candidate (“an analogue-to-digital conversion unit”, eighth stanza of eighth page of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the circuit model candidate taught by Ayubi comprise an analog circuit model candidate and a digital circuit model candidate as taught by Huang et al. for the benefit of improving stability and speed performance (Huang et al., last stanza of the eighth page of the translation).
Consider claim 14, and as applied to claim 13 above, Ayubi further teaches that the analog circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a disposition of a plurality of metal wirings (“metal lines 135-11”, column 12, lines 33-47, figure 5).
Prior Art
Consider claim 18, the closest prior art, Ayubi-Moak et al. (US 10,528,684) teaches:
A design method of an image sensor (see figures 1 and 4), comprising:
a first design step of selecting a driving unit pixel (core single-pixel 3D model, 119, figure 4) for each of pixel models (pixel configuration generator, 136, figure 4) and circuit models (back-end structure generator, 134, figure 4), using specification data (single-pixel layout file, 97, figure 1) and design models of each of a plurality of image sensors in a database (An image sensor design (85) includes a single pixel layout file (97, i.e. specification data) used to generate a core 3D model (119), column 8, lines 13-31, column 9, lines 10-13. Modified image sensor models (139, 149, 159) having different degrees of similarity are then determined in the prototyping toolstep 120, column 9, lines 14-31. Column 8, lines 54-62 states, “As set forth below, the use of these modular templates significantly reduces the time required to generate models for optical simulation by allowing a designer to easily generate different image sensor configurations (i.e., by way of exchanging an applied template with different template), thereby facilitating quick re-configuration of a pixel design and side-by-side comparison in the same simulation/project flow with very little effort.”), and generating a single row or a single column by repeatedly disposing a design of the driving unit pixel (see figures 8A and 8B, column 15, lines 11-40);
a second design step of generating a row layout or a column layout by merging and repeatedly disposing the pixel models and the circuit models for the single row or the single column (see figures 8A and 8B, column 15, lines 11-40);
a first verification step of verifying a structure of the row layout or the column layout (see figures 8A and 8B, column 15, lines 11-40);
a third design step of generating a pixel array (image sensor array design, 85, figure 2) and peripheral circuits (control circuitry design, 82, functional circuitry design, 84, figure 2) using the row layout or the column layout (see figure 2, column 9, lines 37-60).
However, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest the third design step reflecting a special pixel and a special circuit, and performing a special function into each of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits; a second verification step of verifying a performance of the special function of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected; and an overall verification step of merging the pixel array and the peripheral circuits in which the special pixel and the special circuit are reflected and verifying whether the merged circuit of the pixel array and the peripheral circuits operates normally, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 18.
Consider claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the digital circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a clock signal and a digital pattern for operating a single row or a single column in which the driving unit pixel is repeatedly disposed, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1, 4, 5 and 6.
Consider claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest verifying a layout of the pixel model candidate; verifying a layout of the analog circuit model candidate; and verifying at least one of whether a signal of the digital circuit model candidate is duplicated or whether the signal is disconnected, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1, 4, and 5.
Consider claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the digital circuit model candidate comprises at least one of a clock signal and a digital pattern for operating a single row or a single column in which the driving unit pixel is repeatedly disposed, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 12 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fiala et al. (“Framework for Image Sensor Design Parameter Optimization for Pupil Detection”) teaches a framework to simulate image sensor design parameters based on 2 different image sensor models with different pixel designs, resolutions and bit depths (see the “Introduction” section “I”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights