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 .
Detailed Action
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11 and 6.11.01 may be used.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
(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.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0096951) of record.
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 9 of Cheng discloses a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (404), having a light receiving surface and comprising a pixel unit region (106); and a plurality of light trapping grooves (408), the light trapping grooves arranged in a part of the base in a thickness direction in the pixel unit region and arranged on a side of the light receiving surface of the base, wherein a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical (semi-oval or semi-ellipse, as shown in FIG. 8. Mathematically, ellipse includes circle as a special case, therefore, Cheng teaches a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical). Moreover, the claimed shape was a matter of choice, as evidenced by FIGS. 6-8 of Cheng. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04. It has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)). In addition, pertinent art US. 2011/0222145 of record also teaches light trapping grooves can be various shapes such as pyramid, circular cone, prismatic column, curved surface, prism, cylinder, hemisphere, corner of a cube, and the like [0060].
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 9 of Cheng discloses a light-transmissive layer (902) filling the light trapping groove and covering the light receiving surface in the pixel unit region [0038].
Regarding Claim 5
FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses a maximum depth of the light trapping groove ranges from 150 nm to 600 nm [0035].
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses in a direction parallel to a surface of the base, a transverse opening size of the light trapping groove ranges from 150 nm to 600 nm [0035].
Regarding Claim 7
FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses a material of the base comprises silicon [0029].
Regarding Claim 20
FIG. 9 of Cheng discloses an electronic device, comprising: the photoelectric sensor according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
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.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, in view of Yokogawa (WO 2015190318) of record.
Regarding Claim 4
Cheng discloses Claim 1, wherein the base (404) comprises a photosensitive pixel region (106), and the photosensitive pixel region comprises a plurality of pixel unit regions distributed in a matrix.
Cheng is silent with respect to “the photoelectric sensor further comprises a light isolation structure arranged in the base between adjacent pixel unit regions”.
FIG. 10 of Yokogawa discloses a similar photoelectric sensor, wherein: the base comprises a photosensitive pixel region, and the photosensitive pixel region comprises a plurality of pixel unit regions distributed in a matrix (FIG. 11); and the photoelectric sensor further comprises a light isolation structure (14) arranged in the base between adjacent pixel unit regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cheng, as taught by Yokogawa. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cheng in the above manner for purpose of improving sensitivity of light absorption (ADVANTAGE of Yokogawa).
Pertinent Art
FIG. 17 of Yao (CN 110224038) discloses a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (200), having a light receiving surface and comprising a pixel unit region (X, FIG. 3); and a plurality of light trapping grooves (201), the light trapping grooves arranged in a part of the base in a thickness direction in the pixel unit region and arranged on a side of the light receiving surface of the base, wherein a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is arcuate. Pertinent art also includes US 20110222145, 20110146782 and WO 2012117931.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments with respect to Cheng have been considered but they are not persuasive. FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical (semi-oval or semi-ellipse. Mathematically, ellipse includes circle as a special case. Therefore, Cheng teaches a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical). Moreover, the claimed shape was a matter of choice, as evidenced by FIGS. 6-8 of Cheng. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04. It has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)). During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), see MPEP 2111 [R-5]. In addition, pertinent art US. 2011/0222145 also teaches light trapping grooves can be various shapes such as pyramid, circular cone, prismatic column, curved surface, prism, cylinder, hemisphere, corner of a cube, and the like [0060].
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 extension fee 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 SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. 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.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights