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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that in claim 1, lines 5-6, the limitation “wherein no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor” is interpreted to mean that no optical filter elements of the dye-based optical filter are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Nakata et al. (US 2024/0194712) of record, Imoto et al. (US 2019/0319058) of record, Auer et al. (US 5,173,808) of record, and Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0057993) for claim 1; and Nakata et al. (US 2024/0194712) of record, Imoto et al. (US 2019/0319058) of record, Auer et al. (US 5,173,808) of record, Rowlands et al. (US 2020/0209448), and Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0057993) for claims 9 and 15.
After careful consideration, the examiner did not see an immediate path forward and does not have any suggestions for the applicant and thus did not see any benefit to holding an interview prior to the mailing of this action. The applicant’s representative is invited to schedule an interview if they have a proposed amendment they would like to discuss.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al. (US 2024/0194712) of record (hereafter Nakata), in view of Imoto et al. (US 2019/0319058) of record (hereafter Imoto), Auer et al. (US 5,173,808) of record (hereafter Auer), and Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0057993) (hereafter Hsieh).
Regarding claim 1, Nakata discloses an optical device (see at least the title, “imaging apparatus”), comprising: an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0083], where light receiving elements 121a and 121b are optical sensors); an optical filter including optical filter elements that are disposed on one or more first sensor elements of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0086]-[0087], where 123a and 123b are color filters); and a multi-bandpass optical filter disposed over the optical filter (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0082], where 102 is a multi-bandpass optical filter), configured to: pass a first spectral range of visible light; pass a second spectral range of visible light, wherein the second spectral range does not overlap with the first spectral range; pass a third spectral range of visible light, wherein the third spectral range does not overlap with the first spectral range and does not overlap with the second spectral range; and prevent passage of a fourth spectral range of near-infrared light (see at least Fig. 2, where the multi-bandpass filter includes multiple non-overlapping passbands in the visible spectrum and blocks near-infrared light such as in the range from about 870 nm to 1000 nm).
Nakata also discloses that a planarization layer is disposed between the color filters and the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0083], where 122 is a planarization film).
Nakata does not specifically disclose that the optical filter is a dye-based optical filter and disposed directly on the optical sensor.
However, Imoto teaches a solid state image sensor comprising an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0052], where semiconductor substrate 10 comprises a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements 11) and a dye-based optical filter disposed directly on the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0064]-[0066], where color filters 15 and 16 are directly on the semiconductor substrate 10, while color filter 14 includes lower flattening layer 12 between it and the semiconductor substrate 10, and where the color filters contain pigments or coloring agents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata to include the teachings of Imoto so that the optical filter is a dye-based optical filter and disposed directly on the optical sensor for the purpose of substituting one known color filter for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired wavelengths of light reaching the optical sensor and in order to provide a compact device where a flattening or planarization layer is only used where necessary (see at least Fig. 1 of Imoto).
Nakata as modified by Imoto does not specifically disclose that the multi-bandpass optical filter is an interference filter.
However, Auer teaches a multi-bandpass optical filter that is an interference filter (see at least Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter comprises alternating layers with varying thicknesses and refractive indices that together block wavelengths of light except for the desired narrow passbands, such a design is an interference filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto to include the teachings of Auer so that the multi-bandpass filter is an interference filter for the purpose of substituting one known multi-bandpass filter for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the ability to design the filter to have a desired number and wavelength of narrow spectral bands which are permitted to pass through (see at least Col. 2, lines 38-41 of Auer).
Nakata as modified by Imoto and Auer does not specifically disclose that no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor.
However, Hsieh teaches an optical device comprising an optical sensor (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012] and [0015], where 112 and 122 are light sensing layers) and an optical filter including optical filter elements that are disposed over one or more first sensor elements of the optical sensor, wherein no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012]-[0015], where visible light receiving portion 110 includes color filters 118a-c and infrared receiving portion 120 does not include any color filters 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto and Auer to include the teachings of Hsieh so that no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor for the purpose of providing an infrared receiving portion within the device (see at least paragraph [0015] of Hsieh).
Regarding claim 2, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nakata also discloses that the multi-bandpass filter has a plurality of transmission bands in the visible spectrum (see at least Fig. 2).
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh does not specifically disclose that the first spectral range is between 620 and 750 nanometers; the second spectral range is between 500 and 570 nanometers; the third spectral range is between 450 and 499 nanometers; and the fourth spectral range is between 751 and 1100 nanometers.
However, Auer also teaches that the first spectral range is between 600 and 610 nm, the second spectral range is between 510 and 520 nm, the third spectral range is between 440 and 450 nm, and the fourth spectral range is anything above 620 nm into the infrared (see at least Figs. 7-9 and Col. 6, lines 22-57) and that the number and wavelengths of the narrow spectral bands which are permitted to pass through the subject filter are selected in accordance with conditions of the environment in which the filter is used (see at least Col. 2, lines 38-41).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the first spectral range being between 620 and 750 nanometers; the second spectral range being between 500 and 570 nanometers; the third spectral range being between 450 and 499 nanometers; and the fourth spectral range being between 751 and 1100 nanometers include matching the conditions of the environment in which the filter is used, such as which wavelengths are best suited for a particular imaging application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh so that the first spectral range is between 620 and 750 nanometers; the second spectral range is between 500 and 570 nanometers; the third spectral range is between 450 and 499 nanometers; and the fourth spectral range is between 751 and 1100 nanometers for the purpose of matching the conditions of the environment in which the filter is used, such as which wavelengths are best suited for a particular imaging application.
Regarding claim 3, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nakata also discloses that respective angle shifts associated with the first spectral range, the second spectral range, and the third spectral range are less than or equal to a threshold shift amount for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees (an angle shift is inherent to the multi-bandpass filter and a threshold shift amount can be chosen such that the angle shift inherent to the filter is less than or equal to the threshold shift amount).
Regarding claim 6, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Auer also teaches that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter comprises a set of layers disposed on a surface of a substrate, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; and the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are disposed on the substrate in an alternating layer order (see at least Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter comprises alternating layers with varying refractive indices thus indicating at least a first and a second material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Auer so that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter comprises a set of layers disposed on a surface of a substrate, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; and the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are disposed on the substrate in an alternating layer order for the purpose of implementing an interference filter.
Regarding claim 8, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nakata also discloses that the dye-based optical filter is configured to: pass a fifth spectral range of visible light, a sixth spectral range of visible light, and a seventh spectral range of visible light and near-infrared light, wherein: the first spectral range overlaps with the fifth spectral range; the second spectral range overlaps with the sixth spectral range; the third spectral range overlaps with the seventh spectral range; and the fourth spectral range overlaps with the seventh spectral range (see at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nakata also discloses that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter is disposed on a first side of the dye-based optical filter (see at least Fig. 7).
Auer also teaches that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter includes a substrate (see at least Col. 3, lines 13-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Auer so that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter includes a substrate for the purpose of providing support and stability to the filter.
Imoto also teaches that a second side of the dye-based optical filter is disposed directly on the one or more first sensor elements of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0064]-[0066], where color filters 15 and 16 are directly on the semiconductor substrate 10, while color filter 14 includes lower flattening layer 12 between it and the semiconductor substrate 10, and where the color filters contain pigments or coloring agents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Imoto so that a second side of the dye-based optical filter is disposed directly on the one or more first sensor elements of the optical sensor for the purpose of providing a compact device where a flattening or planarization layer is only used where necessary (see at least Fig. 1 of Imoto).
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al. (US 2024/0194712) of record (hereafter Nakata), in view of Imoto et al. (US 2019/0319058) of record (hereafter Imoto), Auer et al. (US 5,173,808) of record (hereafter Auer), and Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0057993) (hereafter Hsieh) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Rowlands et al. (US 2020/0209448) of record (hereafter Rowlands).
Regarding claim 4, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh does not specifically disclose that the threshold shift amount is less than or equal to 15 nanometers.
However, Rowlands teaches an interference filter (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1a) wherein the center wavelength has an angle shift amount of less than 15 nm with a change in incidence angle from 0 to 30 degrees (see at least paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the teachings of Rowlands so that the threshold shift amount is less than or equal to 15 nanometers for the purpose of minimizing any change to the appearance of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter as the angle of incidence is changed.
Regarding claim 5, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh does not specifically disclose that an angle shift associated with each spectral range, of the first spectral range, the second spectral range, and the third spectral range, is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees.
However, Rowlands teaches an interference filter (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1a) wherein an angle shift associated with a spectral range is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees (see at least paragraph [0048], where the angle shift can be as low as 6 nm, which is less than 2% of any visible wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the teachings of Rowlands so that an angle shift associated with each spectral range, of the first spectral range, the second spectral range, and the third spectral range, is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees for the purpose of minimizing any change to the appearance of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter as the angle of incidence is changed.
Regarding claim 7, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Auer also teaches that the first subset of layers has a first refractive index with a first value; the second subset of layers have a second refractive index with a second value that is greater than the first value (see at least Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter comprises alternating layers with refractive indices of 1.35 and 2.35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Auer so that the first subset of layers has a first refractive index with a first value; the second subset of layers have a second refractive index with a second value that is greater than the first value for the purpose of implementing an interference filter.
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh does not specifically disclose that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter has an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of the second value.
However, Rowlands teaches that an interference optical filter having a higher effective refractive index will provide a lower angle shift (see at least paragraph [0023]).
The examiner notes that it is known in the art that the effective refractive index is a function of the refractive indices and thicknesses of the particular layers. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the effective refractive index by choosing materials with appropriate refractive indices and designing layers with appropriate thicknesses.
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter having an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of the second value include minimizing the angle shift of the filter (see at least paragraph [0023] of Rowlands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Hsieh to include the teachings of Rowlands so that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter has an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of the second value for the purpose of minimizing the angle shift of the filter (see at least paragraph [0023] of Rowlands).
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al. (US 2024/0194712) of record (hereafter Nakata), in view of Imoto et al. (US 2019/0319058) of record (hereafter Imoto), Auer et al. (US 5,173,808) of record (hereafter Auer), Rowlands et al. (US 2020/0209448) of record (hereafter Rowlands), and Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0057993) (hereafter Hsieh)
Regarding claims 9-11, Nakata discloses an optical device (see at least the title, “imaging apparatus”), comprising: an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0083], where light receiving elements 121a and 121b are optical sensors); an optical filter disposed on one or more first portions of an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0086]-[0087], where 123a and 123b are color filters); and a multi-bandpass optical filter disposed over the optical filter (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0082], where 102 is a multi-bandpass optical filter), configured to pass at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges of visible light (see at least Fig. 2, where the multi-bandpass filter includes multiple non-overlapping passbands in the visible spectrum) and prevent passage of another spectral range of near-infrared light (see at least Fig. 2, where the multi-bandpass filter blocks near-infrared light such as in the range from about 870 nm to 1000 nm).
Nakata also discloses that a planarization layer is disposed between the color filters and the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0083], where 122 is a planarization film).
Nakata does not specifically disclose that the optical filter is a dye-based optical filter and disposed directly on the optical sensor.
However, Imoto teaches a solid state image sensor comprising an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0052], where semiconductor substrate 10 comprises a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements 11) and a dye-based optical filter disposed directly on the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0064]-[0066], where color filters 15 and 16 are directly on the semiconductor substrate 10, while color filter 14 includes lower flattening layer 12 between it and the semiconductor substrate 10, and where the color filters contain pigments or coloring agents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata to include the teachings of Imoto so that the optical filter is a dye-based optical filter and disposed directly on the optical sensor for the purpose of substituting one known color filter for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired wavelengths of light reaching the optical sensor and in order to provide a compact device where a flattening or planarization layer is only used where necessary (see at least Fig. 1 of Imoto).
Nakata as modified by Imoto does not specifically disclose that the multi-bandpass optical filter is an interference filter.
However, Auer teaches an optical device, comprising: a multi-bandpass optical interference filter configured to pass at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges of visible light (see at least Figs. 7-9 and Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter passes three non-overlapping spectral ranges in the visible spectrum and comprises alternating layers with varying thicknesses and refractive indices that together block wavelengths of light except for the desired narrow passbands, such a design is an interference filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto to include the teachings of Auer so that the multi-bandpass filter is an interference filter for the purpose of substituting one known multi-bandpass filter for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the ability to design the filter to have a desired number and wavelength of narrow spectral bands which are permitted to pass through (see at least Col. 2, lines 38-41 of Auer).
Nakata as modified by Imoto and Auer does not specifically disclose that an angle shift associated with each spectral range, of the at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges, is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees.
However, Rowlands teaches an interference filter (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1a) wherein an angle shift associated with a spectral range is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees (see at least paragraph [0048], where the angle shift can be as low as 6 nm, which is less than 2% of any visible wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto and Auer to include the teachings of Rowlands so that an angle shift associated with each spectral range, of the at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges, is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees for the purpose of minimizing any change to the appearance of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter as the angle of incidence is changed.
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands does not specifically disclose that the dye-based optical filter is not disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor.
However, Hsieh teaches an optical device comprising an optical sensor (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012] and [0015], where 112 and 122 are light sensing layers) and an optical filter including optical filter elements that are disposed over one or more first portions of the optical sensor, wherein no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second portions of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012]-[0015], where visible light receiving portion 110 includes color filters 118a-c and infrared receiving portion 120 does not include any color filters 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands to include the teachings of Hsieh so that no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor for the purpose of providing an infrared receiving portion within the device (see at least paragraph [0015] of Hsieh).
Regarding claim 12, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh does not specifically disclose that an effective refractive index of the dye-based optical filter is greater than or equal to 1.65 and an effective refractive index of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter is greater than or equal to 2.65.
However, Rowlands also teaches that an interference optical filter having a higher effective refractive index will provide a lower angle shift (see at least paragraph [0023]).
The examiner notes that it is known in the art that the effective refractive index is a function of the refractive indices and thicknesses of the particular layers. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the effective refractive index by choosing materials with appropriate refractive indices and designing layers with appropriate thicknesses.
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of an effective refractive index of the dye-based optical filter is greater than or equal to 1.65 and an effective refractive index of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter is greater than or equal to 2.65 include obtaining the desired optical effects within the device such as minimizing the angle shift of the filter (see at least paragraph [0023] of Rowlands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Rowlands so that an effective refractive index of the dye-based optical filter is greater than or equal to 1.65 and an effective refractive index of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter is greater than or equal to 2.65 for the purpose of obtaining the desired optical effects within the device such as minimizing the angle shift of the filter (see at least paragraph [0023] of Rowlands).
Regarding claim 13¸ Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Nakata also discloses another multi-bandpass optical interference filter configured to pass another at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges of visible light (see at least Fig. 18 and paragraphs [0123]-[0126], where 102a and 102b are multi-bandpass optical filters), wherein: the optical filter is a first optical filter disposed over a first region of the optical sensor, a second optical filter is disposed over a second region of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0086]-[0087], where 123a and 123b are color filters disposed over first and second regions of the optical sensor), the multi-bandpass optical interference filter is disposed over the first optical filter, and the other multi-bandpass optical interference filter is disposed over the second optical filter (see at least Fig. 18 and paragraphs [0123]-[0126]).
Imoto also teaches first and second dye-based optical filters disposed directly on the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0064]-[0066], where color filters 15 and 16 are directly on the semiconductor substrate 10, while color filter 14 includes lower flattening layer 12 between it and the semiconductor substrate 10, and where the color filters contain pigments or coloring agents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Imoto so that the first and second optical filters are dye-based optical filters and disposed directly on the optical sensor for the purpose of providing color filters for separate colors such as red and blue.
Regarding claim 14¸ Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Auer also teaches that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter comprises a set of layers, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; and the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are arranged in an alternating layer order (see at least Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter comprises alternating layers with varying refractive indices thus indicating at least a first and a second material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, Rowlands, and Hsieh to include the further teachings of Auer so that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter comprises a set of layers disposed on a surface of a substrate, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; and the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are disposed on the substrate in an alternating layer order for the purpose of implementing an interference filter.
Regarding claims 15-16, Nakata discloses an optical device (see at least the title, “imaging apparatus”), comprising: an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0083], where light receiving elements 121a and 121b are optical sensors); an optical filter including optical filter elements that are configured to be disposed on one or more sensor element of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0086]-[0087], where 123a and 123b are color filters); and a multi-bandpass optical filter disposed over the optical filter (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0082], where 102 is a multi-bandpass optical filter), configured to pass at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges of visible light (see at least Fig. 2, where the multi-bandpass filter includes multiple non-overlapping passbands in the visible spectrum) and prevent passage of another spectral range of light (see at least Fig. 2, where the multi-bandpass filter blocks near-infrared light such as in the range from about 870 nm to 1000 nm).
Nakata also discloses that a planarization layer is disposed between the color filters and the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph [0083], where 122 is a planarization film).
Nakata does not specifically disclose that the optical filter is a dye-based optical filter and disposed directly on the optical sensor.
However, Imoto teaches a solid state image sensor comprising an optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0052], where semiconductor substrate 10 comprises a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements 11) and a dye-based optical filter disposed directly on the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0064]-[0066], where color filters 15 and 16 are directly on the semiconductor substrate 10, while color filter 14 includes lower flattening layer 12 between it and the semiconductor substrate 10, and where the color filters contain pigments or coloring agents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata to include the teachings of Imoto so that the optical filter is a dye-based optical filter and disposed directly on the optical sensor for the purpose of substituting one known color filter for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired wavelengths of light reaching the optical sensor and in order to provide a compact device where a flattening or planarization layer is only used where necessary (see at least Fig. 1 of Imoto).
Nakata as modified by Imoto does not specifically disclose that the multi-bandpass optical filter is an interference filter, comprising: a set of layers disposed on a substrate, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are disposed on the substrate in an alternating layer order.
However, Auer teaches a multi-bandpass optical interference filter, comprising: a set of layers disposed on a substrate, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are disposed on the substrate in an alternating layer order (see at least Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter comprises alternating layers on a substrate with varying refractive indices thus indicating at least a first and a second material); and configured to pass at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges of light (see at least Figs. 7-9 and Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter passes three non-overlapping spectral ranges in the visible spectrum and comprises alternating layers with varying thicknesses and refractive indices that together block wavelengths of light except for the desired narrow passbands, such a design is an interference filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto to include the teachings of Auer so that the multi-bandpass optical filter is an interference filter, comprising: a set of layers disposed on a substrate, wherein: a first subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a first material; a second subset of layers, of the set of layers, includes a second material that is different than the first material; the first subset of layers and the second subset of layers are disposed on the substrate in an alternating layer order for the purpose of substituting one known multi-bandpass filter for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the ability to design the filter to have a desired number and wavelength of narrow spectral bands which are permitted to pass through (see at least Col. 2, lines 38-41 of Auer).
Nakata as modified by Imoto and Auer does not specifically disclose that an angle shift associated with each spectral range, of the at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges, is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees.
However, Rowlands teaches an interference filter (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1a) wherein an angle shift associated with a spectral range is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees (see at least paragraph [0048], where the angle shift can be as low as 6 nm, which is less than 2% of any visible wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto and Auer to include the teachings of Rowlands so that an angle shift associated with each spectral range, of the at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges, is less than or equal to 2.0% of a center wavelength of the spectral range for angles of incidence between 0 and 30 degrees for the purpose of minimizing any change to the appearance of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter as the angle of incidence is changed.
Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands does not specifically disclose that the dye-based optical filter is not disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor.
However, Hsieh teaches an optical device comprising an optical sensor (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012] and [0015], where 112 and 122 are light sensing layers) and an optical filter including optical filter elements that are disposed over one or more first sensor elements of the optical sensor, wherein no optical filter elements are disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012]-[0015], where visible light receiving portion 110 includes color filters 118a-c and infrared receiving portion 120 does not include any color filters 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands to include the teachings of Hsieh so that the dye-based optical filter is not disposed directly on one or more second sensor elements of the optical sensor for the purpose of providing an infrared receiving portion within the device (see at least paragraph [0015] of Hsieh).
Regarding claim 17, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Auer also teaches that the first subset of layers has a first refractive index with a first value; the second subset of layers have a second refractive index with a second value that is greater than the first value (see at least Col. 3, lines 8-16, Col. 4, lines 9-68, Col. 5, lines 1-68, and Col. 6, lines 1-13, where the multi-bandpass filter comprises alternating layers with refractive indices of 1.35 and 2.35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands to include the further teachings of Auer so that the first subset of layers has a first refractive index with a first value; the second subset of layers have a second refractive index with a second value that is greater than the first value for the purpose of implementing an interference filter.
Rowlands also teaches that an interference optical filter having a higher effective refractive index will provide a lower angle shift (see at least paragraph [0023]).
The examiner notes that it is known in the art that the effective refractive index is a function of the refractive indices and thicknesses of the particular layers. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the effective refractive index by choosing materials with appropriate refractive indices and designing layers with appropriate thicknesses.
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the multi-bandpass optical interference filter having an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of the second value include minimizing the angle shift of the filter (see at least paragraph [0023] of Rowlands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands to include the further teachings of Rowlands so that the multi-bandpass optical interference filter has an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of the second value for the purpose of minimizing the angle shift of the filter (see at least paragraph [0023] of Rowlands).
Regarding claim 18, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Auer also teaches that the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate (see at least Fig. 10 and Col. 6, lines 58-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands to include the further teachings of Auer so that the set of layers are disposed on a single surface of the substrate for the purpose of forming a single interference filter without a significant gap in the layers as would be present should the substrate be disposed amidst the set of layers.
Regarding claim 19, Nakata as modified by Imoto, Auer, and Rowlands discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Nakata also discloses that one or more spectral ranges of the at least three non-overlapping spectral ranges of light are spectral ranges of visible light (see at least Fig. 2, where the multi-bandpass filter includes multiple non-overlapping passbands in the visible spectrum).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872