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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 4 and 6 have been canceled; claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10 and 14-20 have been amended; and claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2007/0045685 A1, hereinafter “Yang”).
In regards to claim 18, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) a method, comprising:
receiving light at an image sensor having a plurality of pixels (“…the light incident on any single micro lens is directed to the photosensor centered directly under the micro lens…”, See, for example, Par [0037]);
for each pixel in the plurality of pixels (28+29), diffracting the received light onto a plurality of sub-pixels (28, 29),
wherein for each pixel (28+29) the received light is diffracted by a different set of transparent diffraction features (27);
for each pixel in the plurality of pixels (28+29), determining ratios of signal strength between pairs of sub-pixels (28, 29); and
determining a color of the received light at each pixel in the plurality of pixels from the determined ratios of signal strengths (See, for example, Pars [0037]- [0039]).
In regards to claim 19, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 10) that determining a color of the received light at each pixel includes identifying a color from a table of different ratios of signal strengths for pairs of sub-pixels (28, 29, in Fig. 1) (“…the total photo-energy-collection efficiency by the photosensors b1 and b2 as a function of wavelength. …”, See, for example, Par [0055], See also Pars [0037]-[0039]).
In regards to claim 20, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 10) determining, for each pixel, an intensity of the received light at each pixel by calculating a sum of the signal strengths from the sub-pixels (See, 28, 29, in Fig. 1; See Pars [0037]-[0039], and “…The energy splitting ratio is a function of the wavelength. Because the grating period is approaching the optical wavelength, the gratings act more like volume gratings rather than thin phase gratings … Rather than rejecting any photon, the sub-wavelength gratings direct the photons of different colors into the corresponding photosensors. …”, See, for example, Pars [0055] and [0056]).
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 1-3, 5, 9-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2007/0045685 A1, hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2007/00298533 A1, hereinafter “Yang’533”).
In regards to claim 1, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) an image sensor, comprising:
a sensor substrate (30);
a pixel (28+29) disposed in the sensor substrate,
wherein the pixel includes a plurality of sub-pixels (28, 29), and
wherein a wavelength sensitivity of each sub-pixel within the pixel is the same (See, for example, Par [0056]); and
a diffraction layer (24) disposed adjacent a light incident surface side of the sensor substrate (30),
wherein the diffraction layer (24) includes a set of transparent diffraction features (27).
Yang fails to explicitly teach that the set of diffraction features includes a central feature and a plurality of radially disposed linear features.
Yang while disclosing an image pixel array teaches 9See, for example, Fig. 1b) the set of diffraction features (diffraction gratings with period, P1) includes a central feature and a plurality of radially disposed linear features (diffraction gratings with period, P2) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang by Yang’533 because quantum efficiency of the imager device is improved by the provision of imager pixel array capable of efficiently and effectively separating and detecting spectral components of incident light.
In regards to claim 14, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) an imaging device, comprising:
an image sensor (20), including:
a sensor substrate (30);
a plurality of pixels (28, 29) formed in the sensor substrate (30),
wherein each pixel in the plurality of pixels includes a plurality of sub-pixels (28, 29), and
wherein, for a given pixel in the plurality of pixels (28, 29), a wavelength sensitivity of each of the sub-pixels is the same (See, for example, Par [0056]); and
a diffraction layer (24) disclosed adjacent a light incident surface side of the sensor substrate (30),
wherein the diffraction layer (24) includes a set of transparent diffraction features (27) for each pixel in the plurality of pixels (28+29).
Yang fails to explicitly teach that the plurality of pixels are arranged in a two-dimensional array, wherein a pattern of the set of diffraction features for a first pixel in the plurality of pixels is different than a pattern of the set of diffraction features for a second pixel in the plurality of pixels, and wherein the first pixel is nearer to a center of the array than the second pixel.
Yang’533 discloses (See, for example, annotated Fig. 1b included below) that the plurality of pixels (Pixel1, Pixel2) are arranged in a two-dimensional array, wherein a pattern of the set of diffraction features (diffraction gratings with period, P2) for a first pixel (Pixel1) in the plurality of pixels is different than a pattern of the set of diffraction features (diffraction gratings with period, P1) for a second pixel (Pixel2) in the plurality of pixels, and wherein the first pixel (Pixel1) is nearer to a center of the array than the second pixel (Pixel2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang by Yang’533 because quantum efficiency of the imager device is improved by the provision of imager pixel array capable of efficiently and effectively separating and detecting spectral components of incident light.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) that the set of diffraction features (27) is configured to focus incident light onto the pixel (See, for example, Par [0044]).
In regards to claim 3, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) the set of diffraction features (27) is formed in a layer of material (24) having a refractive index (1.46, See, for example, Par [0034]) that is lower than the refractive index (2.0, See, for example, Par [0034]) of the plurality of diffraction features (27).
In regards to claim 5, Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that at least some of the diffraction features are formed from a first material, and wherein others of the diffraction features are formed from a second material.
Yang’533 while disclosing imager pixel array teaches (See, for example, Fig. 1) at least some of the diffraction features are formed from a first material, and wherein others of the diffraction features are formed from a second material (“…In one example, the first and second materials can each have a refractive index of about 2 at a predetermined wavelength in the visible light range, such as red, green, or blue light.”, see, for example, Par [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang by Yang’533 because the quantum efficiency of the imager device is improved by the provision of imager pixel array capable of efficiently and effectively separating and detecting spectral components of incident light.
In regards to claim 9, Yang discloses that a plurality of pixels (28+29), each including a plurality of sub-pixels (28, 29), is disposed in the sensor substrate (30), and wherein the diffraction layer (24) includes a set of transparent diffraction features (27) for each pixel in the plurality of pixels (28+29).
Yang is silent about wherein the plurality of pixels are arranged in a two-dimensional array.
Yang’533 discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1e/1f) the plurality of pixels (102) are arranged in a two-dimensional array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang by Yang’533 because the quantum efficiency of the imager device is improved by the provision of imager pixel array capable of efficiently and effectively separating and detecting spectral components of incident light.
In regards to claim 10, Yang as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 9 except that a pattern of the set of diffraction features for a first pixel in the plurality of pixels is different than a pattern of the set of diffraction features for a second pixel in the plurality of pixels.
Yang’533, in another embodiment, as disclosed (See, for example, Fig. 4a) a pattern of the set of diffraction features (112a) for a first pixel in the plurality of pixels is different than a pattern of the set of diffraction features (112b) for a second pixel in the plurality of pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang by Yang’533 because the quantum efficiency of the imager device is improved by the provision of imager pixel array capable of efficiently and effectively separating and detecting spectral components of incident light.
In regards to claim 13, Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that a thickness of the diffraction layer is less than 500 nm.
Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919, f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 15, Yang discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) that an imaging lens (70), wherein light collected by the imaging lens (70) is incident on the image sensor (28+29), and wherein the transparent diffraction features (27) focus and diffract the incident light onto the sub-pixels (28, 29) of the respective pixels.
In regards to claim 16, Yang discloses all limitations of claim 14 above except that a processor (689), wherein the processor executes application programming, wherein the application programming determines a color of light incident on a selected pixel from ratios of a relative strength of a signal generated at each unique pair of sub-pixels of the selected pixel in response to the light incident on the selected pixel.
Yang’533 discloses (See, for example, Fig. 7) a processor, wherein the processor executes application programming, wherein the application programming determines a color of light incident on a selected pixel from ratios of a relative strength of a signal generated at each unique pair of sub-pixels of the selected pixel in response to the light incident on the selected pixel (See, for example, Par [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang by Yang’533 because the quantum efficiency of the imager device is improved by the provision of imager pixel array capable of efficiently and effectively separating and detecting spectral components of incident light.
In regards to claim 17, Yang as modified above discloses (See, for example, Figs. 7 and 8, Yang’533) data storage (794), wherein the data storage (794) stores ratios of signal strengths between each of the sub-pixels in the selected pixel for different wavelengths of incident light, and wherein different combinations of signal strength ratios identify different wavelengths of incident light (See, for example, Par [0076] and [0077]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, and 11-12 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new amendment in claim 1, 14 and 18 has been considered and are addressed in the rejection stated above.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893