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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, line 8, new limitation “a plurality of lens elements comprising an organic material” is not described in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikichi Kunihiko [JP 2008270679] IDS in view of Lee [US 2005/0130071] IDS.
With respect to claim 1, as best understood, Hikichi Kunihiko (figs 2-3) disclose a solid-state imaging device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (10, pp [0021]) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (12, pp [0021]) two-dimensionally formed in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (figs. 1 and 2);
a plurality of color filters (41, pp [0024]) of respective colors formed on the semiconductor substrate such that the color filters are aligned with the respective photoelectric conversion elements; and
a plurality of lens elements (51, pp [0024]) formed on the color filters,
wherein each of the lens elements includes a transmission portion (flat region of the groove 53) and a microlens portion (51) protruding from the transmission portion and is aligned with the photoelectric conversion element,
wherein the microlens portion has a height greater than a height of the transmission portion, the transmission portion is a flat layer and is formed between the microlens portion and the color filter such that light from the microlens portion is transmitted toward the photoelectric conversion element, and the lens elements are formed such that the microlens portions have gaps between the microlens portions adjacent in the first direction, the second direction, and a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction at an angle of 450, and that the transmission portions are formed connected to each other with no gaps therebetween in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction, and wherein the plurality of lens elements is formed such that the rectangular shape of the microlens portion has a width W1 in the first direction and the second direction and a width W2 in the third direction such that the width W1 is smaller than the width W2.
Hikichi Kunihiko fails to disclose the microlens portion has a hemispherical shape in a cross section. However, Lee (fig. 5) discloses the microlens portion (210A, pp [0021]) has a height greater than a height of the transmission portion (the flat portion) and has a hemispherical shape in a cross section. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have the hemispherical shape as taught by Lee into the device of Hikichi Kunihiko in order to improve yields of image sensors with enhanced competitiveness. Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to has a hemispherical shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claims 2-7 and 11-20, Hikichi Kunihiko and Lee do not mention a gap range, the width range, an arc length range .et. as recited in claims 2-7 and 11-20.
However, the gap range the width range, an arc length range .et. would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hikichi and Lee do not teach or suggest lens elements comprising an organic material. Applicant argument is not persuasive because this limitation is not described in the specification. Moreover, the Wikipedia describes that:
Acrylic resin is not an organic material; it is a synthetic polymer derived from acrylic acid and related compounds. Acrylic resins are thermoplastic materials that can be made from natural or synthetic sources, but they are always man-made and do not belong to the organic category.
Transparent nitride is not classified as an organic material; it is a type of inorganic compound. Nitrides are chemical compounds that typically consist of nitrogen and one or more other elements, making them inorganic materials. They are known for their hardness, thermal stability, and chemical resistance, and are widely used in various applications, including hard coatings and semiconductor materials.
Transparent oxides are not classified as organic materials. They are typically composed of metal oxides, such as indium tin oxide (ITO), zinc oxide (ZnO), and tin oxide (SnO2), which are used in optoelectronic applications like OLEDs and solar cells. These materials are known for their ability to conduct electricity while remaining optically transparent, making them essential in various electronic devices.
Applicant argues that Hikichi and Lee fail to disclose or suggest that the plurality of lens elements is formed such that the rectangular shape of the microlens portion has a width W1 in the first direction and the second direction and a width W2 in the third direction such that the width W1 is smaller than the width W2. Applicant argument is not persuasive because Hikichi (fig. 2) clearly disclose the plurality of lens elements is formed such that the rectangular shape of the microlens portion has a width W1 in the first direction and the second direction and a width W2 in the third direction such that the width W1 is smaller than the width W2.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HOAI V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m-10:00p.m.
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, Drew Richards can be reached on 571-272-1736. 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.
/HOAI V PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892