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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “in a form of a WLCSP (Wafer Level Chip Size/Scale Package)” in the last two lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. The specification teaches in paragraphs [25, 162, 168, 0190] that WLCSP is a packaging method, but does not teach anything related to “a form of a WLCSP (Wafer Level Chip Size/Scale Package)”. Thus, the limitation lacks the full support of the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the bottom surface” in the second last line of the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to a bottom surface of the first portion or a bottom surface of the second portion mentioned in the 11th line of claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-12 and 17-20 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakashikiryo et al. (US 2017/0278889 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakashikiryo et al. teach a solid-state imaging apparatus (Figs. 1-4, [0001]) comprising: a plurality of photoelectric conversion sections (92; Fig. 4, [0058]); and a plurality of lenses (98; Fig. 4, [0061]) above the a plurality of photoelectric conversion sections (92), wherein the plurality of lenses (98) includes a groove (the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98), the groove (the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98) includes: a first portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 3) between two adjacent lenses (98s of 71-4 and 71-5; see Fig. 2; [0057]) of the plurality of lenses (98s); and a second portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 4) between four adjacent lenses (98s of 71-4, 71-5, 71-7 and 71-8; see Fig. 2; [0057]) of the plurality of lenses (98s), each of the first portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 3) and the second portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 4) includes a bottom surface (a lower surface), and the bottom surface (the lower surface of the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98) has a shape (see Figs. 3 and 4) that protrudes in a depth direction (downward direction in Figs. 3 and 4) of the solid-state imaging apparatus (see Figs. 1- 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a lower end of the second portion (the lower end of the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 4) is at a position lower than a lower end of the first portion (the lower end of the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a light blocking film (95; Fig. 4, [0059]) below the first portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 3) and the second portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each lens (98) of the plurality of lenses (98) includes a front surface (the top curved surfaces of 98), an upper end of the groove (topmost points of 98) includes a specific curvature (the curvature of 98 at the topmost points of 98) of one or more curvatures of the front surface (the top curved surfaces of 98), and the specific curvature (the curvature of 98 at the topmost points of 98) is closest to an apex of a corresponding lens (98) of the plurality of lenses (98).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the bottom surface (the lower surface of the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98) includes a vertical end surface (vertically extended end surface; see Figs. 3 and 4), and a shape of the vertical end surface (the vertically extended end surface of the lower surface of the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98) is symmetrical with respect to a center line of a vertical cross section of the groove (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a front surface of the groove (a portion of the upper surface of 98; the groove is the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98 and the groove extends from the topmost point of 98 to the bottommost point of the upper surface of 98; see Fig. 4) includes a point of a curvature (interpreted as the point having a finite value of the curvature) at a position lower than an upper end of the groove (the topmost point of 98) and higher than a lower end of the groove (the bottommost point of the recess of 98; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, for a slope angle of the front surface of the groove (a portion of the upper surface of 98), an angle (the slop angle at a point of the upper surface of 98 very close to the topmost point of 98, which is approximately zero degree) between the upper end of the groove (the topmost point of 98) and the point of the curvature (a point of the top curved surface of 98) is smaller than an angle (the slop angle at the vertical side surface, which is 90 degrees) between the point of the curvature (a point of the top curved surface of 98) and the lower end of the groove (the bottommost points of the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the slope angle of the front surface of the groove (a portion of the upper surface of 98) is smaller than 30 degrees (the slop angle very close to the topmost point of 98, which is approximately zero degree) between the upper end of the groove (the topmost point of 98) and the point of the curvature (a point of the top curved surface of 98 very close to the topmost point of 98; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the slope angle (the slope angel at the bottommost point of the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98, which is zero degree) of the front surface of the groove (a portion of the upper surface of 98) is smaller than 90 degrees between the point of the curvature (a point of the top curved surface of 98 very close to the vertical side surface) and the lower end of the groove (the topmost point of the vertical sidewall, which can be the topmost point of the lower end of the groove; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a plurality of color filters (97; Fig. 4, [0060]) between the plurality of photoelectric conversion sections (92) and the plurality of lenses (98), wherein a width of the second portion (the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 4) is one of equal to or larger than (larger than) a distance between the plurality of color filters (the distance is zero as the color filters are connected), and a height of the lower end of the second portion (the lower end of the recess of 98 between the left and the middle topmost points of 98 in Fig. 4) is higher than a height of an upper surface of each color filter (the height of the upper surface of 97 directly under the lower end of the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98) of the plurality of color filters (97).
Regarding Claim 17, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a first film (99; Fig. 4, [0065]) on an upper surface of the plurality of lenses (98); and a second film (100; Fig. 4, [0066]) in the groove (the recess of 98 between topmost points of 98), wherein the second film (100) has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the plurality of lenses (98; [0066]).
Regarding Claim 18, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the refractive index of the second film (100) is lower a refractive index of the first film (99; [0066]).
Regarding Claim 20, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the solid-state imaging apparatus (Fig. 4) is in a form of a WLCSP (Wafer Level Chip Size/Scale Package) (the image sensor is in a chip form, i.e. a form of a WLCSP; [0044]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashikiryo et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hoshi et al. (WO 2019093135 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Nakashikiryo et al. teach the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the second film (100).
Nakashikiryo et al. do not teach the second film includes a glass seal resin for provision of glass above the first film.
In the same field of endeavor of imagers, Hoshi et al. teach the second film (25; Fig. 2, [0021]) includes a glass seal resin (25; Fig. 2, [0021]) for provision of glass (26; Fig. 2, [0021]) above the first film (24, the first film attached to the lens 23; Fig. 2, [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Nakashikiryo et al. and Hoshi et al., and to further include the glass seal resin 25 and the glass 26 of Hoshi et al. on the top of the antireflection film 100 of Nakashikiryo et al. ([0064]), such that the claimed “second film” includes both the glass seal resin 25 on the top of the antireflection film 100 of Nakashikiryo et al., because the extra glass seal resin and the glass can protect the top surface of the device as taught by Hoshi et al. ([0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/25/2025, overcome the rejections to claims 4 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112. The rejections to claims 4 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sekine (US 20150109501 A1) teach a solid-state imaging apparatus having microlens and the grooves between the microlens.
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 HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 pm.
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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 3/9/2026