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
Claim(s) 1-20 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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) 1-5, 11, 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi (US 2010/0085458 A1) in view of Takeda (US 2004/0090547 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Horiguchi discloses a method for operating an imaging device comprising:
collecting a first pixel signal that is generated by a first active pixel included in an active pixel array in response to incident light (Figure 3, EFFECTIVE PIXEL WINDOW REGION);
reading, from a memory, matching data indicating a first black region that corresponds to the first active pixel and is in an optical black pixel array that is designed to block incident light from entering pixels in the optical block pixel array (Figure 3, OB WINDOW REGION; Figure 6, 1602, 16021, 16022; Paragraphs 0116-0118);
collecting first dark signals that are generated by a plurality of first optical black pixels included in the first black region of the optical black pixel array (Figure 3, reading OB WINDOW REGION according to stored addresses; Figure 6; Paragraph 0128-01313).
However, Horiguchi does not explicitly disclose correcting the first pixel signal using the first dark signals.
Takeda discloses an image sensing method in which a plurality of read out optical black signals are averaged and subtracted from the image signal to obtain a corrected high-quality image (e.g. Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to correct the image using optical black signals readout in Horiguchi as taught by Takeda so that a corrected high-quality image may be formed.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Horiguchi discloses wherein the reading the matching data includes: determining positions of the plurality of first optical black pixels included in the first black region (Figures 3 and 6; determining start/end addresses of OB WINDOW REGION for readout).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Horiguchi discloses wherein: the first pixel signal is generated by converting the first pixel signal into a first digital signal and the first dark signals are generated by converting each of the first dark signals into a second digital signal (Figure 14; note read signals are converted to digital signals using A/D converters, see e.g. Paragraph 0079).[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Takeda discloses calculating a first average by averaging the second digital signals (Figure 3, 204).[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Takeda discloses subtracting the first average from the first digital signal (Figure 3, 205).[claims 11]
Regarding claims 11, Horiguchi discloses an imaging device comprising:
an image sensor (e.g. Figure 3) including:
a pixel array configured to generate a plurality of pixel signals in response to incident light (Figure 3); and
a memory configured to store matching data for correcting the pixel signals (Figure 6, 1602/16021/16022), wherein the pixel array includes:
an active pixel array including a plurality of active pixels configured to receive incident light to generate the plurality of pixel signals (Figure 3, effective pixels); and
an optical black pixel array including a plurality of optical black pixels configured to block incident light from being received by the optical black pixels to generate a plurality of dark signals indicating noise in the optical black pixels without being exposed to incident light (Figure 3, OB pixels), wherein the matching data indicates a plurality of black regions in the optical black pixel array respectively corresponding to the plurality of active pixels (Figure 3; OB WINDOW REGION corresponding to EFFECTIVE PIXEL WINDOW REGION).
However, Horiguchi does not explicitly disclose that the optical black pixels are used for correcting the plurality of pixel signals.
Takeda discloses an image sensing method in which a plurality of read out optical black signals are averaged and subtracted from the image signal to obtain a corrected high-quality image (e.g. Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to correct the image using optical black signals readout in Horiguchi as taught by Takeda so that a corrected high-quality image may be formed.[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2 above.[claim 14]
Regarding claim 14, since the OB pixels and effective pixels of Horiguchi are located on the same array, the pixels would have equal average dark noises since they are subject to the same thermal conditions.[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, Horiguchi discloses wherein the image sensor further includes: a readout circuit configured to convert each of the plurality of pixel signals and each of the plurality of dark signals into digital signals (Figure 14; readout circuit including 250, 270, 280).[claim 16]
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claims 4 and 5 above and note that Takeda discloses calculating and subtracting an average and further discloses correcting the pixel signal based on a result of the subtraction (e.g. Paragraph 0035). Horiguchi further discloses performing additional signal processing on an image output from the image sensor (e.g. Figure 15, Paragraphs 0241-0244) to generate an image for display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further correct the image having undergone subtraction so that the image may be made appropriate for display.
Claim(s) 6-10, 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi (US 2010/0085458 A1) in view of Takeda (US 2004/0090547 A1)in view of Bandera et al. (US 7,106,374 B1).[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, Horiguchi in view of Takeda does not teach collecting a second pixel signal that is generated by a second active pixel included in the active pixel array in response to the incident light;
reading the matching data indicating a second black region in the optical black pixel array corresponding to the second active pixel; and collecting second dark signals that are generated by a plurality of second optical black pixels included in the second black region of the optical black pixel array.
Bandera discloses an image sensor which sets a plurality of readout windows having different coordinates (e.g. Figures 6 and 7) to provide high-resolution and high-frame rate readout of multiple objects in a scene. Therefore, it would have been obvious to set multiple readout windows in the method of Horiguchi in view of Official Notice so that high-resolution/high-frame rate readout of multiple windows may be performed corresponding to multiple objects in the scene.
Note that following the teachings of Horiguchi in view of Takeda, it would similarly be obvious to set and store corresponding OB WINDOW REGIONS for each of the multiple set readout windows so that corresponding optical black pixels for each window may be read and used for reducing noise in the image data of each window.[claims 7-10]
Regarding claims 7-10, see the rejection of claims 2-5 above and note that the same arguments would apply for the second pixels/signals.[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 6 above.[claims 17 and 18]
Regarding claims 17 and 18, see the rejection of claim 6 above and note that it would be obvious to have multiple windows, including first, second and third windows.[claim 19]
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 6 above and note that Bandera discloses at least some of the windows may overlap (e.g. Figure 7), thus it would be obvious to have overlapping optical black regions for the overlapping windows as well when applying the teachings of Horiguchi.[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 6 above and note that the first and second windows may be spaced apart from each other (Bandera, Figure 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references show additional prior art systems for determining sections of an optical black pixel region to read:
Goel et al. US 2021/0157898 A1
Noda et al. US 2009/0180014 A1
Noda et al. US 2009/0109312 A1
Kitani US 2007/0146496 A1
Muramatsu et al. US 6,900,837 B2
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
Prosecution Insights