DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0091308) (“Xu”) in view of McNulty et al. (US 2002/0180351) (“McNulty”).
With regard to claim 1, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses a light diffuser 42, comprising: a main body 52; and a plurality of first fillers 54 dispersed in the main body, and a diameter of each of the first fillers 54 is in a range from 0.1 um to 1 um (“at least .1 microns”, par [0041]; “0.2-1.5 microns”, par [0043]).
Xu does not disclose that the first fillers comprise at least one of GaP, InP, and PbS.
However, McNulty discloses that the first fillers 28 comprise at least one of GaP, InP, and PbS (“lead sulfide”, claim 2 of McNulty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the filler of Xu with lead sulfide as taught in McNulty in order to scatter or reflect UV radiation. See par [0022] of McNulty.
With regard to claim 2, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses a refractive index (refractive index of niobium oxide, par [0040]) of the first fillers 54 is higher (niobium oxide has a higher refractive index (~2.34) then polymer (~1.49)) than a refractive index of the main body 52.
With regard to claim 3, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses a weight ratio of the first fillers 54 to a combination of the main body 52 and the first fillers 54 is in a range from 10% to 30% (“10-99%”, par [0043]).
With regard to claim 4, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses a plurality of second fillers 54P dispersed in the main body 52, wherein a refractive index (refractive index of “silicon oxide particles”, par [0045]) of the second fillers 54P is lower (silicon oxide has a lower refractive index then niobium oxide) than a refractive index (refractive index of niobium oxide, par [0040]) of the first fillers 54.
With regard to claim 6, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses that the second fillers 54P comprise SiO2 (“silicon oxide particles”, par [0045]).
With regard to claim 7, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses that a diameter of each of the second fillers 54P is in a range from 1 um to 10 um (“0.2-1.5 microns”, par [0045]).
With regard to claim 10, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses that there is no TiO2 located in the main body 52.
With regard to claim 11, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses and an image sensor package (“image sensors”, par [0020]), comprising: a semiconductor substrate 72 comprising a photoelectric conversion region (“photodiodes” par [0038]); and a light diffuser 42 over the semiconductor substrate 72 and configured to scatter incident light (“diffuser”, par [0046]) to the photoelectric conversion region (“photodiodes”, par ]0038]), the light diffuser 42 comprising: a main body 52; and a plurality of first fillers 54 dispersed in the main body 52, wherein the first fillers 54 comprise a diameter of each of the first fillers 54 is in a range from 0.1 um to 1 um (“at least .1 microns”, par [0041]; “0.2-1.5 microns”, par [0043]).
Xu does not disclose that the first fillers comprise at least one of GaP, InP, and PbS.
However, McNulty discloses that the first fillers 28 comprise at least one of GaP, InP, and PbS (“lead sulfide”, claim 2 of McNulty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the filler of Xu with lead sulfide as taught in McNulty in order to scatter or reflect UV radiation. See par [0022] of McNulty.
With regard to claim 14, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses a refractive index (refractive index of niobium oxide, par [0040]) of the first fillers 54 is higher (niobium oxide has a higher refractive index (~2.34) then polymer (~1.49)) than a refractive index of the main body 52.
Claims 5, 8-9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0091308) (“Xu”), McNulty et al. (US 2002/0180351) (“McNulty”), and Armstrong et al. (US 2021/0018660) (“Armstrong”).
With regard to claim 5, Xu and McNulty do not disclose that the refractive index of the second fillers is lower than a refractive index of the main body.
However, fig. 1 of Armstrong discloses that the refractive index (“silicon oxide”, par [0025]) of the second fillers (“particles”, par [0045]) is lower (silicon oxide has a refractive index (1.45) lower than that for polymethacrylate (1.49)) than a refractive index (“polymethacrylates”, par [0048]) of the main body (“polymer matrix”, par [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the silicon oxide particles of Xu in the polymethacrylate polymeric matrix as taught in Armstrong in order to increase the scattering angle of light, while minimally impacting the light transmittance and/or haze. See par [0002] of Armstrong
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Xu and McNulty do not disclose a weight ratio of the second fillers to a combination of the main body, the first fillers, and the second fillers is in a range from 20% to 50%.
However, fig. 1 of Armstrong discloses weight ratio of the second fillers (“particles”, par [0045]) to a combination of the main body (“polymer matrix”, par [0045]), the first fillers (“second particles”, par [0050]), and the second fillers (“particles”, par [0045]) is in a range from 20% to 50% (“40 wt %”, par [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the silicon oxide particles of -Xu incorporated into the polymer matrix at an amount of 40 wt % as taught in Armstrong in order to increase the scattering angle of light, while minimally impacting the light transmittance and/or haze. See par [0002] of Armstrong.
With regard to claim 9, Xu and McNulty do not disclose that the main body is a photoresist layer comprising epoxy or acrylic resin.
However, fig. 1 of Armstrong disclose that the main body (“polymer matrix”, par [0045]) is a photoresist layer (“UV curable acrylate”, par [0047]) comprising epoxy or acrylic resin (“polymethacrylates”, par [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the polymer layer of Xu with the polymethacrylates as taught in Armstrong in order to increase the scattering angle of light, while minimally impacting the light transmittance and/or haze. See par [0002] of Armstrong.
With regard to claim 15, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses a plurality of second fillers 54P dispersed in the main body 52, wherein a refractive index of the second fillers 54P is lower (refractive index of silicon oxide lower than refractive index of niobium oxide) than a refractive index of the first fillers 54.
Xu and MucNulty do not disclose that the refractive index of the second fillers is lower than the refractive index of the main body.
However, fig. 1 of Armstrong disclose that the refractive index (“silicon oxide”, par [0025]) of the second fillers (“particles”, par [0045]) is (silicon oxide has a refractive index (1.45) lower than that for polymethacrylate (1.49)) than the refractive index (“polymethacrylates”, par [0047]) of the main body (“polymer matrix”, par [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the polymer layer of Xu with the polymethacrylates as taught in Armstrong in order to increase the scattering angle of light, while minimally impacting the light transmittance and/or haze. See par [0002] of Armstrong.
With regard to claim 16, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses that the second fillers 54P comprise SiO2 (“silicon oxide particles”, par [0045]).
With regard to claim 17, figs. 1 and 5-6 of Xu discloses that a diameter of each of the second fillers 54P is in a range from 1 um to 10 um (“0.2-1.5 microns”, par [0045]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2022/0091308) (“Xu”), McNulty et al. (US 2002/0180351) (“McNulty”), and Kuo et al. (US 10,224,357) (“Kuo”).
With regard to claim 12, Xu and McNulty do not disclose a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure between the light diffuser and the semiconductor substrate.
However, fig. 1F of Kuo disclose a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure 115 between the light diffuser 125 and the semiconductor substrate 101.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the image sensor of Xu with the MIM structure as taught in Kuo in order to narrow the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the light transmitted to the photoelectric conversion region and as a result, the image sensor package can produce a high signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. See col. 5 ll. 1-5 of Kuo.
With regard to claim 13, Xu and McNulty do not disclose that the light diffuser is directly on the MIM structure.
However, fig. 1F of Kuo discloses that the light diffuser 125 is directly on the MIM structure 115.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the image sensor of Xu with the MIM structure as taught in Kuo in order to narrow the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the light transmitted to the photoelectric conversion region and as a result, the image sensor package can produce a high signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. See col. 5 ll. 1-5 of Kuo.
Conclusion
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 BENJAMIN T LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at 571 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN TZU-HUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights