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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed 7 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 8, and 17 have been amended. Claims 18 and 19 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 18, and 19 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 4 recites the limitation, “wherein voids are disposed in the separation portion protection films.” It is unclear how voids are disposed in the separation portion protection films (150). As best understood by Examiner, voids (149) are disposed in the separation portion (140) (see [0035] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation, “separation protection film.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. As best understood by Examiner, this limitation is intended to be, “separation portion protection films.”
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 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0211288, hereinafter Yanagita ‘288) in view of Okawa (Japanese Kokai Publication 2017-011207, hereinafter Okawa ‘207), both of record.
With respect to claim 1, Yanagita ‘288 teaches (FIG. 19) an imaging element substantially as claimed, comprising:
a plurality of pixels (2) including photoelectric conversion units (40) that are formed on a semiconductor substrate (12) and perform photoelectric conversion of incident light ([0058-0061, 0162]);
separation portions (66) that are disposed at boundaries of the plurality of pixels (2) and separate the photoelectric conversion units (40) from each other, wherein the separation portions are disposed in opening portions (39) formed in the semiconductor substrate (12), and wherein the separation portions include a protection film (68) that extends between adjacent opening portions ([0058-0061, 0067, 0162]); and
light blocking films (25) that are disposed near the boundaries of the plurality of pixels (2) and block the incident light, wherein the light blocking films are disposed on a light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate (12), and wherein the light blocking films are in contact with a light incident surface side of the protection film (68) ([0058-0061, 0162]).
Thus, Yanagita ‘288 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of separation portion protection films that are disposed adjacent to the separation portions and protect the separation portions, wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed on the light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate and are in contact with the light incident surface side of the protection film.
However, Okawa ‘207 teaches (FIGs. 1-8) an imaging element comprising separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 below; note that sub-elements 21 and 22 of element 20 are made of the same material and are functional equivalents) that are disposed adjacent to separation portions (G) and protect the separation portions, wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed on a light incident surface side of a semiconductor substrate (15) and are in contact with a light incident surface side of a protection film (18) ([0013, 0022]) to prevent color mixing ([0001]). The combination of Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 would result in replacing the light blocking films (25) of Yanagita ‘288 with the combined light blocking films (see annotated FIG. 8 below) and separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 below) of Okawa ‘207.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the imaging element of Yanagita ‘288 further comprising separation portion protection films that are disposed adjacent to the separation portions and protect the separation portions, wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed on the light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate and are in contact with the light incident surface side of the protection film as taught by Okawa ‘207 to prevent color mixing.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Yanagita ‘288 teaches wherein the separation portions (66) include an insulating material (67) disposed in the opening portions (39) ([0165]).
With respect to claim 4, as best understood by Examiner, Yanagita ‘288 teaches wherein voids (58) are disposed in the separation portion protection films (66) (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim above) ([0154]).
With respect to claim 5, Yanagita ‘288 teaches further comprising color filters (27) that are disposed in the plurality of pixels (2) and transmit incident light having predetermined wavelengths among the incident lights ([0058]).
With respect to claim 6, Yanagita ‘288 teaches further comprising on-chip lenses (28) that are disposed in the plurality of pixels (2) and condense the incident light on the photoelectric conversion units ([0058]).
With respect to claims 7, 11, and 12, Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 teach the device as described in claims 1 and 10, but primary reference Yanagita ‘288 does not explicitly teach the additional limitations wherein the light blocking films are disposed at shifted positions in accordance with angles of incidence of the incident light; wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed near sides of the rectangular shapes; and wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed near corners of the rectangular shapes.
However, Okawa ‘207 teaches (FIGs. 1-8) an imaging element comprising light blocking films (see annotated FIG. 8 above; note that sub-elements 21 and 22 of element 20 are made of the same material and are functional equivalents) disposed at shifted positions in accordance with angles of incidence of incident light, wherein separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 above; note that sub-elements 21 and 22 of element 20 are made of the same material and are functional equivalents) are disposed near sides and corners of rectangular shapes of pixels (P1-P3) ([0013, 0022]) to prevent color mixing ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the imaging element of Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 wherein the light blocking films are disposed at shifted positions in accordance with angles of incidence of the incident light; wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed near sides of the rectangular shapes; and wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed near corners of the rectangular shapes as taught by Okawa ‘207 to prevent color mixing.
With respect to claims 8, 9, 18, and 19, Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 teach the device as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed adjacent to the light blocking films, and wherein each separation portion protection film is in contact with at least one side surface of a corresponding one of the light blocking films; wherein the light blocking films are disposed to overlap the separation portion protection films; wherein, in a cross section view taken through central portions of a plurality of pixels, each separation protection film extends across a light incident surface side of a corresponding one of the opening portions and has a width that is equal to or greater than a width of the corresponding one of the opening portions; and wherein, in a cross section view taken through central portions of a plurality of pixels, each separation protection film has a width that is greater than a width of light blocking films.
However, Okawa ‘207 teaches (FIG. 1-8) an imaging element wherein separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 above; note that sub-elements 21 and 22 of element 20 are made of the same material and are functional equivalents) are disposed adjacent to light blocking films (see annotated FIG. 8 above; note that sub-elements 21 and 22 of element 20 are made of the same material and are functional equivalents), and wherein each separation portion protection film is in contact with at least one side surface of a corresponding one of the light blocking films; wherein the light blocking films are disposed to overlap the separation portion protection films; and wherein, in a cross section view taken through central portions of a plurality of pixels, each separation protection film has a width that is greater than a width of light blocking films such that, in the cross section view taken through central portions of the plurality of pixels, each separation protection film extends across a light incident surface side of a corresponding one of opening portions (associated with the separation portions G) and has a width that is equal to or greater than a width of the corresponding one of the opening portions ([0013, 0022]) to prevent color mixing ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the imaging element of Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed adjacent to the light blocking films, and wherein each separation portion protection film is in contact with at least one side surface of a corresponding one of the light blocking films; wherein the light blocking films are disposed to overlap the separation portion protection films; wherein, in a cross section view taken through central portions of a plurality of pixels, each separation protection film extends across a light incident surface side of a corresponding one of the opening portions and has a width that is equal to or greater than a width of the corresponding one of the opening portions; and wherein, in a cross section view taken through central portions of a plurality of pixels, each separation protection film has a width that is greater than a width of light blocking films as taught by Okawa ‘207 to prevent color mixing.
With respect to claim 10, Yanagita ‘288 teaches (FIGs. 1 and 3) wherein the pixels (2) are formed in rectangular shapes in a plan view ([0049, 0057]).
With respect to claims 13-15, Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 teach the device as described in claim 1 above, but do not explicitly teach the additional limitations wherein the separation portion protection films are made of an insulating material; wherein the separation portion protection films are made of a silicon compound; and wherein the separation portion protection films are made of a resin.
However, Yanagita ‘288 teaches wherein separation portion protection films (68) may be made of a metal ([0173]), or alternatively may be made of one of an insulating material, a silicon compound, and a resin as art-recognized materials suitable for the intended use as a separation portion protection film ([0165]). Substituting art-recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, in this case metal separation portion protection films with insulating, silicon-based, or resin separation portion protection films, has been held to be obvious. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP 2144.06. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the separation portion protection films of Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 made an insulating material, a silicon compound, or a resin as taught by Yanagita ‘288 by using art-recognized equivalents known for the same purpose and because these are art-recognized materials suitable for the intended use as a separation portion protection film.
With respect to claim 16, Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 teach the device as described in claim 1 above, but primary reference Yanagita ‘288 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the separation portion protection films are made of a metal.
However, Okawa ‘207 teaches (FIGs. 1-8) separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 above) made of a metal ([0013, 0022]) to prevent color mixing ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the separation portion protection films of Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 made of a metal as taught by Okawa ‘207 to prevent color mixing.
With respect to claim 17, Yanagita ‘288 teaches (FIG. 19) an imaging device substantially as claimed, comprising:
a plurality of pixels (2) including photoelectric conversion units (40) that are formed on a semiconductor substrate (12) and perform photoelectric conversion of incident light ([0058-0061, 0162]);
separation portions (66) that are disposed at boundaries of the plurality of pixels (2) and separate the photoelectric conversion units (40) from each other, wherein the separation portions are disposed in opening portions (39) formed in the semiconductor substrate (12), and wherein the separation portions include a protection film (68) that extends between adjacent opening portions ([0058-0061, 0067, 0162]);
light blocking films (25) that are disposed near the boundaries of the plurality of pixels (2) and block the incident light, wherein the light blocking films are disposed on a light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate (12), and wherein the light blocking films are in contact with a light incident surface side of the protection film (68) ([0058-0061, 0162]); and
a processing circuit (204) that processes image signals generated on a basis of the photoelectric conversion ([0190]).
Thus, Yanagita ‘288 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of separation portion protection films that are disposed adjacent to the separation portions and protect the separation portions, wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed on the light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate and are in contact with the light incident surface side of the protection film.
However, Okawa ‘207 teaches (FIGs. 1-8) an imaging device comprising separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 above; note that sub-elements 21 and 22 of element 20 are made of the same material and are functional equivalents) that are disposed adjacent to separation portions (G) and protect the separation portions, wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed on a light incident surface side of a semiconductor substrate (15) and are in contact with a light incident surface side of a protection film (18) ([0013, 0022]) to prevent color mixing ([0001]). The combination of Yanagita ‘288 and Okawa ‘207 would result in replacing the light blocking films (25) of Yanagita ‘288 with the combined light blocking films (see annotated FIG. 8 above) and separation portion protection films (see annotated FIG. 8 above) of Okawa ‘207.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the imaging element of Yanagita ‘288 further comprising separation portion protection films that are disposed adjacent to the separation portions and protect the separation portions, wherein the separation portion protection films are disposed on the light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate and are in contact with the light incident surface side of the protection film as taught by Okawa ‘207 to prevent color mixing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights